Does it seem odd that someone would want to make a profit off of the sick and dying? To me it does and yet health care is a $2 trillion industry in the U.S., totaling more than 15 percent of the gross domestic product.
More than $7,000 is spent on each man, woman and child in the U.S. on heath care and this is expected to increase. And of course, there are a lot of people making a lot of money from this, doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, drug companies, etc.
So if someone stood to make lots of money from sick people, wouldn't it be beneficial if more people were sick?
To me it seems that health care should be a non-profit industry. It's no different than helping the homeless. A homeless person is maybe down on his or her luck, in a bad situation, so people volunteer time and donate things to help the homeless.
But of course you don't see people trying to capitalize on their situation because there is no money to be made from a homeless person.
Yet in health care, a person can be in the same situation, down his or her luck, maybe lacking adequate funds to secure good health. But there are lots of people jumping in line to take advantage of this situation.
If you're in the hospital business for profit, you're probably also going to be less concerned about people who may impact your bottom line, people who can't foot the bill. You may also have to cut corners to maximize profits.
One good example of this abuse is AIDS drugs. In India, AIDS drugs are more expensive than in Africa. People are wealthier in India so of course they can pay more. Yet the drugs in this case are the same.
Another example is bird flu in Indonesia. The Indonesian government was reluctant to give samples of their HN51 virus to the World Health Organization, fearing that they would be cut of profits made by drug companies that might develop a vaccination.
But then does everyone really deserve health care even if you can't pay for it? You could say that health care is a basic need, much like food and shelter. In a lot of cases, you can't live without adequate health care.
But some people argue that health care is non-essential and therefor why should we take money from the rich to give to the poor.
The United Nations takes a more humane approach, naming health care as a universal right of the people in their Universal Declaration of Human Rights, provided that the government can afford to provide his right.
If there's a chance someone could die because you withhold a service or good, is it really ethical to charge that person for that good or service?
Just think if there was no profit to be made from working, we all would have the same salary. No one would want to go to college and make the same as a guy who works at Burger King. There would be no envy, no Jealousy and no hateful feelings towards people who have more than you................Wait a minute,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, that idea has already been taken. Ya it's called socialism.
ReplyDeleteSocialism, general term for the political and economic theory that advocates a system of collective or government ownership and management of the means of production and distribution of goods.
Profit is not a dirty word. Do you work for free? I don't think I would worry about the people from these other countries too much, we have enough trouble brewing here at home. The depletion of our energy resources is going to make you wish health care costs were your only problem. Clean drinking water will be a bigger priority than a third world health care system. Getting and keeping a good paying job is what I am going to be worried about.
I guess I should go to med school A?
Communism as a theory of government and social reform may be said, in a limited sense, to have begun with the ancient Greek idea of the Golden Age, a concept of a world of communal bliss and harmony without the institution of private property. Plato, in his Republic, outlined a society with communal holding of property; his concept of a hierarchical social system including slavery has by some been called "aristocratic communism."
ReplyDeleteI agree with capitalism and making profit but my point is this. Where do you draw the line? If we run out of air, and have to use bottled air, does the government start providing the air or do the rich people buy all the air while the poor die?
ReplyDelete