Do people 'deserve' universal health care?

[wmrs2]

Ok all I wanted to know was when you said los of reedom whether you mean freedom to chooice you doctor ect ect or lost of civil librities

your post to me was very ambiguous when toy said "Loss Of Freedoms," tha could mean any number of tyings from loosing you ability to choose your docotor, hosptial pharamacy and be at theirmercy or your cilvil libertires
ifi was in refernce to loss of choosing your own docotor, ect yes you would if was in reference to loosing your civil liberties, that would have nothngi to do with it the as i ssaid the term used "LOss of Freedo as posted was a very geberal term

Pardon me for this please but your typing is so bad that I am having difficult reading what you are asking but nevertheless, I will try to answer you. As I said I think the answer lies in a discussion of socialism vs. capitalism. You say you are not a socialist, as you keep telling me,therefore, you should appreciate my comments. The more the government takes over the control of health care, the less freedom you will have in making decisions. For example, this morning, the news media announced that Obama was going to resend the decision that protected doctors who refused to provide services to people seeking abortions. Heretofore, if the doctor considered it immoral to perform an abortion, he could refuse to do so. From hereafter, if he refuses to do so, the doctor could lose his right to practice medicine and also lose any Federal funds in payment for any services he provides. It has been a part of established law that a mother can have an abortion but, if a doctor for religious reasons, did not want to provide this service, he could refuse. Now, that is about to change.The right of the doctor to chose is stripped from him. This is one example of where socialism tends to limit the freedom of the individual to make moral decisions. I am sure you can think of others.

In thinking about what you said last night about health care, it came to me that the problems associated with health care may not lie so much in the system of health care we have, but in the individual's management of his personal economy. As you explained your health coverage to me, it seemed that you have a pretty good health plan. I think this is true of the majority of Americans. Your health coverage is very similar to mine.

Of course, I have no way of knowing if you are wealthy or poor but let's say that you are dirt poor. Let's speculate that you had no respect for the value of an education when you were young. Let's say that you gambled and hit the bars regularly and never really tried to hold a well paying job.(I assume none of these things are true of you,ok.) The problem with your health care benefits would not be with your health care system but rather with how you managed your life history. Too many people chose to enter the economy at a level that pleases them at the moment, show no motivation to improve their economic position, and in later life want others to pay their way. It is about that grasshopper thing. This illustrates the weaknesses of socialism and the strong point of capitalism. I prefer capitalism rather than communism and socialism the same as you do.

You say that you do not favor the nationalization of the factors of productions and neither do I. If we apply this same principle to health care, it is obvious why we must be against universal health care as some people predispose it. Yet, I recognize that health care needs to be improved for children and the disabled but I don't see the value of letting grasshoppers mess up the works which socialism will do.

My point in stating that America has the world's greatest health care was not to argue that fact as being too true but that the good health system we have was built under a capitalistic system. I think that we can improve the health system in a more democratic way by sticking with our democratic principles. This, I assume this is the reason you are not a socialist yourself.