>>>>>>All those liberals want is to have health care for everyone.
>>>>>
>>>>>Everyone has health care. You pay for yours, I pay for mine.
>>>>
>>>>And those who can't pay do what? Especially the children.
>>>
>>>I don't understand why Republicans are so scared of universal health care. The health system remains the same, but you just have a single insurer (the government) which picks up the tab for only a tiny minority of the poorest of the poor. Everyone gets a better deal since their is no big slice of profit taken out of the pie. The insurer can also negotiate huge national purchases of drugs as a discount.
>>
>>Profits lead to research & development, which leads to new technological advancements and discovery, which leads to cures. The profit motive has expidited the medical advancements that we've seen in the past few decades. In short, profits are good.
>>
>>Fundamentally, I am for less government power and more individual power.
>
>I would agree with you except that not all people really are created equal. I am one of those bleeding hearts who feel that the civility of a society is measured by how it treats its weakest members. Some people are smarter than others, some are more talented etc. Not everyone can make their way in a dog-eat-dog society as well as others can, if at all. If it's not the government's job to look after those people, then whose?

If you are referring to victims of a terrible tragedy then I agree that they should be helped. I feel it should be more locally oriented. There are many organizations dedicated to helping the less fortunate.

As for those who can't hack the 'dog-eat-dog' society. I feel zero sympathy. Make better choices in life. The world is full of 'challenged' individuals, be they mental, physical or sociological, who have had great success in their life. It is not luck, it is a matter of will and desire. If you can't hack it then maybe natural selection should run it's course.

>One thing about the profit motive, it also is what creates orphan diseases. The pharmaceutical companies don't want to do research in areas that won't return large profits, so if the government doesn't get involved, then who? Even then, it's just more money for pharma. The government has to pay them to do the research into those orphan diseases. When the government stops funding them, more people die.

I'm not following you. Huge advancements are made in major diseases but because the smaller ones don't get the attention it is the pharma's fault? Why? Aren't there charitable organizations that contribute and universities still doing research? Pharma doesn't create the problem, nature does.