(John Rawson wrote:-) “Such as, shall we have a
totally (or almost) government funded health system as in the UK,
or one that is basically private, as I believe exists in the USA.
In other words, is Government going to fund this directly, or ensure that
consumers have the necessary power to purchase "health" as needed?
“I am sure a topic like
this could occupy as much time and space as this group covers, so I have no
intent of opening it up for discussion. But I could argue for either side
at length, using SC principles.”
(Joe replies:- ) I don’t really want to open the much
discussed (in Canada, anyways) public or
private ‘Health Care’ debate up here either, but I am curious to
know just ‘HOW’ you believe the ‘Government’ could “fund
this directly” and still ensure the type of timely healthcare that’s
appropriate for the needs of all patients is delivered? None of us want to see those who are ill, or
injured, or in decline through age, unable to receive the best medical
attention and needed care that’s ‘physically’ possible to
provide simply because they can’t ‘financially’ afford it.
But it seems to me there is a bit of the usual
‘hypnotism’ present when we operate under the ‘illusion’
that ‘Government’ funded healthcare is always going to be lower
cost or even ‘free’.
RE: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
