I am starting to wonder if you actually read anything I write.
It seems that the moment I identified as a “conservative”, you shoved me into a mental box of your own creation, with all sorts of self-created fantasies about how I think and what I would propose. And all these thoughts of your seem to be driven by emotion, rather than reason.
Strong emotion, it’s been said, is the enemy of reason.
So, to repeat myself from my original post to you:
For the record, however, I support a universal system that works for everyone (yes, everyone!), AND incents a restructuring of our health care in such a way that services stop inflating at 2X core inflation, meaning a system that is not only functional, but sustainable on into the future.
I am not seeing what’s so hard about understanding that. *Obviously*, if you’ve read what I’ve written, you know that not only do I suppose universal care which would address the three very difficult issues you’ve experienced in your life, but would actually diverge from the GOP in that I would want to raise taxes to pay for it.
So, please, respond to what I’m saying, not what you THINK I’m saying. Both Switzerland and Singapore run universal systems which address everything you’ve raised *and* adhere to conservative principles, in that they address (the latter more than the former) cost control as well was deliver universal care.
You can do both.
However, let me address the three experiences you’ve had, because all three represent different matters:
- The doctor that treated you was an asshole. If you were on Medicaid, that shot was covered. He didn’t give you the medication because he wanted to put a few bucks in his own pocket. That was fraud. Nobody in the world, liberal or conservative, can implement a program which totally prevents assholes committing fraud. Sorry.
- The situation with your father addresses multiple societal and clinical questions. I could write a tome about how to correct those from a conservative POV as well. But, since I’m not sure you’re reading what I write, I’ll simply say here that under a universal system, your father’s diabetes (which today remains a huge financial problem for citizens covered by the ACA; the ACA really doesn’t cover diabetes very well) would have been treated, assuming he had presented himself for diagnosis and treatment when he became symptomatic.
- Clearly, you assume that your brother’s suicide was precipitated by the difficulties he found accessing the health care system. I personally can’t make that assumption on the information given; people commit suicide even when covered by the best universal care system in the world. Sweden, Finland, and Iceland all have worse suicide rates than the US, France is about the same, and war-torn, no-universal coverage Lebanon and Syria have rates far less than the US.
I imagine you don’t care about actual lives.
If I didn’t care about lives, I wouldn’t be suggesting a universal system. So, let’s push that shibboleth aside. Reality is what it is, not what you imagine it to be.
That’s why you’ve kept the focus on the money since the 1990s and before while all the thousands of people died like my father and my brother.
I used to think there was a bogeyman in the closet, too. But, then I grew up.