Why, in the public debate over the creation of a national public health care system, aren't we listing all the pros and cons? My reasons for being in favor of the public option are similar to the reasons I am for limiting private land use. Sure, my neighbor is free to use his land as he sees fit--unless he wants to store nuclear waste on it for a profit, because all the surrounding land will be affected by it, including mine. Similarly, if my uninsured neighbor has a deadly communicable but treatable disease, chances are that I, along with the rest of the community, will contract the disease as well. Man-made laws of private ownership are powerless to overrule the laws of nature, some of which are apparently socialist. Aside from the obvious benefit of protecting public health, there are other compelling reasons for creating an all-inclusive public health care system. Paradoxically, by obeying the socialist laws of nature, the Darwinian theory of natural selection, which capitalism is fond of appropriating for its own purposes, would be allowed to actually operate without interference. This would result in the extinction of the unfittest, namely, asshole bosses.
Just think of it. Without the power to use the threat of death by bankruptcy and lack of health care, bosses would be forced to treat their employees like human beings in order to retain them. Not only that, but all morally repugnant jobs which people hate but continue to work at only because of health care benefits would also disappear. We'd see a rapid decline in the numbers of collections agents, payday lender employees, telemarketers, and insurance salespeople for sure. I've never met anyone who said "When I was a child, I always dreamed of growing up to be a collections agent." Have you?
Another never-discussed benefit of a public health care system would be that it would greatly reduce the corporate welfare rolls. For example, if health care were public, then the government subsidized corn growers responsible for putting high fructose corn syrup into every possible product, which is partially responsible for the rampant epidemic of diabetes, would no longer be subsidized. If the government were paying for health care, it would no longer be in its best interests to subsidize things that jeopardize people's health. Tobacco companies? Forget about it.
The domino effect would be in effect. Without ever-growing numbers of diabetics forced into life-long dependence on corrupt pharmaceutical companies for insulin, these companies would lose profits, and therefore, lobbying power, thereby reducing drug prices overall. (They would probably lose employees as well. ) Without government subsidies for tobacco, the government could recoup its loss of cigarette tax revenues through a reduction in costly treatments for emphysema, lung cancer, and other smoking-related illnesses.
Just saying.