Matt Davies by Matt Davies

Matt Davies

Comments (3) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, about 3 years ago

    Medicare DOES also need “refinement”, but not destruction. Just as “Obamacare” needs some fixes, but those won’t come from the “dittohead wing” of the Republican circle jerk (it doesn’t seem to even BE a “party” any more!).

  2. BrassOrchid

    BrassOrchid GoComics PRO Member said, about 3 years ago

    It used to be an open road, before the social entitlement system eroded it, though. The high costs of care and the unfair restrictions imposed on customers by private insurers may all be attributed to destructive economic pressures applied by government programs that require private persons to pay the way for them, not only by taxation, but also by increases to their private insurance premiums. Private insurance must cut costs where possible to remain competitive in their rates, leaving people uninsured for such reasons as pre-existing conditions, but only because the Customer won’t pay for it, and will seek out a cheaper policy. The fault is in the customer’s choice entirely, and especially where the customer chooses the illusion of something for nothing or does not recognize when a deal is too good to be true and acts upon such misinformation when voting. If social medicine as it exists today were to pay full costs, the system would still be working just fine, but the reality of the cost would then be the fault of government and not private insurance at election time. The government could easily have set up a system of publicly funded hospitals instead, or paid full fare for social program patients, and thus accepted the fiscal responsibility rather than burdening the health care providers and destroying the insurance industry for the sole purpose of hiding the real cost it imposed on the public by promising them something for nothing.

  3. BrassOrchid

    BrassOrchid GoComics PRO Member said, about 3 years ago

    I can see what you mean.
    It should not be controlled by corporate interests and done for the name of profit alone.
    But we could have easily set up National Health Care as a system of clinics, doctors and hospitals that offer free care, entirely supported by tax dollars without any of this corporate cronyism that funnels money to “friends of the administration” (across many administrations) by way of a national health program.
    We might have expanded on the VA and set up major hospitals with satellite clinics in every major city, with a system of education whereby we fund the education of medical personnel on the agreement that they then work for the National Health system for a period of 10 years upon graduation. Our health care system might provide the finest doctors from the poorest circumstances then.
    But nobody lobbies for the people unless those people have an ongoing interest and can afford to present plans and projects in the proper manner to be considered for adoption and implementation under the law.
    Such a system would have put the commercial health care concerns out of business fairly rapidly, or at least allowed them to take only paying customers and scale their services to their actual customer base.

  4. Refresh Comments.