An view point on the push for universal healthcare…for Coronavirus only.

Uncategorized 1 Minute

Paid sick leave, stay at home with sick child, reimburse hospitals for uninsured virus sufferers…stuff other countries do and we are now looking at.

“You can look at it as socialized medicine,” Representative Ted Yoho, a Republican from Florida, told HuffPost. “But in the face of an outbreak, a pandemic, what’s your options?”

“Everyone’s a socialist in a pandemic.”

“The virus has laid bare our greatest vulnerability: We’ve got the world’s biggest economy and the world’s strongest military, but it turns out we might have built the entire edifice upon layers and layers of unaccounted-for risk, because we forgot to assign a value to the true measure of a nation’s success — the well-being of its population.“

How this pans out is yet to be determined. The column was just pointing out an obvious issue.

Not that it will make any difference, but for well over a decade I have said that in my opinion, a well educated and healthy workforce is critical to a robust, capitalist economy.

Just sayin’.

Published by lenrothman

Published

19 thoughts on “An view point on the push for universal healthcare…for Coronavirus only.”

        1. I don’t put much stock in the talking head’s opinions. I look at the data reflecting the breakdowns of voting blocks and issues of concern to them.

          I would agree with you about HRC (I’m assuming that wasn’t a snark about a certain current candidate’s cognitive functions?).

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

        2. The last time it was one of the most qualified AND hated women on the planet. The turnout form the primaries thus far says otherwise. The big deal will be getting Bernie’ supporters to back Biden in the general.

          Like

          Reply

          1. I actually support all of Joe’s policies, but I just find him personally off-putting and I’ve heard many of his supporters are rude. He needs to disavow this behavior to my satisfaction before I can consider voting for him, which I really do want to do. I am bringing up these concerns not at all in bad faith. Party unity and whatnot.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Supporters are rude? You mean Bernie’s are saints?

            Here’s a little something I remember from a few years ago. I had some family members in town for my Navy retirement. One was a Penn State alum, who unfortunately lives just outside of Columbus (You go where the work is). He was at the Oceanfront with a Penn State t-shirt on and some “buckeye” started talking shit and giving him a hard time. He was kind of shocked as he was in Virginia Beach. What he told me was that he has never had a problem like that with Michigan fans. But they can be just as rude to OSU fans.

            See what I mean?

            Like

          4. The bottom line is to unify behind whoever the candidate is and we the people, properly remove Mr. trump form office. Even though I tend to lean towards what Bill Maher has been saying for a couple of years now. He won’t leave. He’ll call the election rigged and fake news and have to be forcibly removed.

            Like

          5. And I didn’t say that Biden’s supporters weren’t rude. Nor am I saying that all of Bernie’s are. But to base your choice on the supporters is a bit short-sighted, in my view.

            I was all in for Klobuchar. Biden was my second choice all along.

            Like

          7. And I’m not talking about you guys. It’s the people who pretend their policies are basically the same, just that only one has “problematic” supporters. This was Warren’s play, and they’re starting to do it with Biden too.

            Liked by 1 person

  2. “ we forgot to assign a value to the true measure of a nation’s success“

    “We” the people didn’t forget, “They” the greedy short-slighted people reaping profits to line their already overflowing pockets that chose to ignore the need to develop resources to keep the gold laying goose alive.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  3. RE: “we forgot to assign a value to the true measure of a nation’s success — the well-being of its population.”

    What does this even mean? Let’s pretend that we are reminded to do so and assign the value now. How can it be done?

    What, exactly, should we measure? (Perhaps there’s an answer in the definition of the term well-being.) Which brings us to the next issue: Once we know what to measure, what kind of system of national monitoring and surveillance do we need, and who shall manage it and who shall do its work? The next question after that: How much will it cost, and what must we give up to have our system of monitoring and surveillance of the well-being of the population?

    The source for this post is just another example of a patently silly NYT article.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Hardly patently silly. You are taking is use of the word “value” and assuming he is looking for metrics.

      All that stuff you don’t need to measure. It is the point of affordable, accessible universal healthcare and, in my opinion, I would add the same for education.

      Affordable housing and a broad middle class with better wages would add to that.

      It is not an article. It is an opinion regarding the current efforts to socialize the pandemic response, but no other healthcare. He is pointing out both the irony and the silliness of that in the long term.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      2. RE: “It is the point of affordable, accessible universal healthcare and, in my opinion, I would add the same for education.”

        Private health insurance and public education were both supposed to provide affordable, accessible universal benefits. Both have failed miserably. And for the same reason: Because they are based on financing models that attempt to socialize real costs in ways that prevent individuals from acting in their own interests.

        RE: “It is not an article. It is an opinion…”

        Since you have made this point in the past, I just want to mention that an opinion piece is a type of article. Also, opinions can be wrong or fallacious for the all the same reasons that straight reporting can be.

        Still, you may have hit on the key silliness of the article: Pretending that the federal response to the pandemic is a form of socializing anything. The backhanded logic seems to be that a pandemic is a natural, good reason for Socialism.

        Like

        Reply

Leave a reply to Jimmie Cancel reply