[QUOTE=Jetworks;4249623]I appreciate what you are saying, and like you for the most part, I really don't have any answers. I will say that in the above instance I disagree with you. If we are seeking to position ourselves as [I][B]X[/B][/I] society (wherein X is a civilized nation that holds itself up as a moral compass to be followed), part of that means the obligation to help those less fortunate than ourselves, especially in instances where such help is reasonable in its cost and definitive in its result. If someone can benefit from a procedure that will likely improve or better their life, heck even extend it, as a society I think most of us would say "make it so"; why should companies who profit from "what if" not share in that burden as well?
There are easy answers, but again, it all comes down to one person or another's version of 'NIMBY'.[/QUOTE]
I don't disagree.
The diffiuclty is in the details, as always. For example, what is "reasonable" cost, i.e. the tax rate required to fund such a system or better. Who qualifies? Who sets those qualifications? Etc, etc.
In the end though, for me, it comes down to "do I trust the Government" to be fair (again, goo luck defining that word too), competant, efficient and better (for me) than a private system. And knowing Govt, I have to answer a definitive "no". Experience with the U.K. system proves that out.
But I'm not poor, and I'm not a supporter of social welfarism. If I were, my view of whats good or not would be very different perhaps.