What I was trying to say is that the high risks and monetary input weed out those who are just in it to make a quick buck. The fact that there are those that apply and are turned down is a GOOD thing. There are plenty that WANT do be doctors, even if it weren't for the compensation. But if someone has to crack my chest open, I want him to be not adequate, but the best. To get the best, the mediocre have to be weeded out.
My argument was that I feel we would be better if doctors who are in it for the money were supplanted by people who were genuinely enthusiastic about practicing medicine. Your argument is that it's already weeding out the money-grubbers and that that's good, but, somehow, that weeding them out twice would be detrimental. I don't know how that makes sense.
All we're talking about is shifting the money around. They money still has to come from someone. That someone is still me. This time it's in the form of higher taxes, not higher medical bills.
We are not merely shifting money around. We are providing preventative care that people currently do not have. It's a cliché, but an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. However, even if I didn't think it cost less, I still think it is positive to provide basic healthcare for everybody, both from a humanitarian basis, as well as a national infrastructure basis: a healthy population is more productive than a sick one, on average, if not necessarily on an individual level, and even for those lazy sods who will never do anything, I'd rather they be healthy to avoid them getting the rest of us sick.
Only now, a normally paying customer will have no greater access to coverage (think transplants) than the non-payers.
First, organ donation is not based on ability to pay. For one thing, it is illegal to pay for donated organs, so they're free anyway. (This is actually not entirely true, as the wealthy have the ability to fly to a distant hospital at a moment's notice, so they can put themselves on multiple waiting lists.)
Second, I think it is reprehensible that you think the wealthy should have a greater right to live.
Previous Topic
Index
