Last points before I'm outta here too...
I think the resistance by some conservatives to address this issue is the fear that a "universal healthcare system" will not achieve what is promised, but will result in a bloated, inefficient bureaucracy which in effect nationalizes a somewhat private industry, limits everyone's choices to a minimum amount of care, and does little if anything to police abuses (see: illegal immigration). Not to say that's what would inevitably result, but it might.
Plus, there is the "slippery slope" argument that, well, if we're guaranteed a right to "the pursuit of happiness", could that mean for example that taxpayers should finance an aspiring model/ actor's liposuction, facelift, or stomach reduction surgery? Could not some lawyer argue that to deny this is to deny not only a better lifestyle, but potential employment? I know that's not what you guys are arguing for, but what seems preposterous at first might not seem so in a decade.
I think I've made it clear I don't want poor people to die. Maybe preventive care, even at taxpayer expense, would be cheaper than the current system. If conservatives could be convinced of that, I doubt there'd be much argument from that quarter.
Sorry I misquoted Marx. As I said, it's been a long time...
IJ, the reason I've stayed away from your healthcare thread is that it's not the debate I was interested in the first place, but I guess I'm probably as guilty as any in allowing the drift to continue. However, I'll take a look at the thread out of curiosity... and to see if Rower has had to shut it down yet
I gotta go now and check the news about Opportunity...