You're trying to show that some degree of inefficacy in one part of society indicates that society in general is not well-functioning, and then that correcting said inefficacy is necessary to have a well-functiong society in general.We do not have a well-functioning society in this regard
Your logic fails; it is no different than saying because your car radio doesn't work, your car doesnt run well, and then, in order for your car to run well, you must fix the radio. You might not like the fact your radio doesnt work, and you'd certainly LIKE to fix it, but it doesnt mean the car isnt running well.
Necessity is a strong word. Your use of it does not meet its deninition.
Do I really need to? Where do you suppose our society would be if there were not basic education? I mean, other than non-existant.You never explained the necessity of education in creating a well-functioning society.
And dont forget -- the term I used was "our society".
There must be a reason, Although, I just cant seem to put my finger on it...
"Over seven years, the federal program for the elderly and disabled paid at least about $77 million — and possibly as much as $92 million — to purported medical equipment suppliers who used Medicare ID numbers of deceased physicians, says a report out Wednesday by congressional investigators" (The Swine Line)."The government will spend about $430 billion this year on Medicare, which provides health coverage to 44 million elderly and disabled people. The sheer size of the program, with more than 1.2 billion claims filed each year, not only makes it ripe for fraud but for mistakes. The Office of Management and Budget estimates that payment errors total about $10.8 billion a year" (Associated Press).
"The government paid more than $47 billion in questionable Medicare claims including medical treatment showing little relation to a patient's condition, wasting taxpayer dollars at a rate nearly three times the previous year" (Associated Press).
"Medicare and Medicaid, which cover elderly and low-income patients respectively, eat up a growing portion of the federal budget. Investigations by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) point to as much as $60 billion a year in fraud, waste and overpayments between the two programs. And Coburn is likely underestimating the problem" (OBM Watch).
Wasteful Health Spending:
$60 billion (fraud, waste, overpayments) + $100 billion (modest 15 percent cost reduction) + $15 billion (closing the 12 percent loophole) + $10 billion (unnecessary Medicare administrative and drug costs)
Total $185 billion
Running Tab: $352.5 billion +$185 billion = $537.5 billion
(Government Accountability Office).
"Medicare - I see (and pay) Dead People". Dave Williams. The Swine Line. July 9, 2008.
"Medicare Auditing Zealotry Wanted". Alexa Moutevelis. Associated Press. March 3, 2008.
<http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=cagwmedia.wordpress.com&url=http %3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Fhealth%2Fstory%2F_a%2Faudi ts-sting-hospitals-physicians%2F20080301073809990001>
"Almost $50B in 'questionable' Medicare". Associated Press. November 14, 2009.
Other Sources: Source list: OMB Watch, Tax Payers for Common Sense, Citizens Against Government Waste, Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, Government Accountability Office
It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
"Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911
A better analogy would be if the transmission was slipping. You can still go forward, but not as efficiently as you could if the transmission was fixed.
Given that, you would be hard pressed to define what could be considered "critical" and what isn't just based on initial appearance. Tests and reporting are required, as well as observation. This all requires money.
People should not be able to opt out under those grounds, and frankly to assume they could is just arrogant. I think the health care legislation has its flaws, but if it's going to go into practice, then it should encompass everyone. People wanting to opt out mostly don't have medical experience and are doing it from a libertarian perspective; meanwhile they have no way of knowing what medical issues face them down the road.
If you get critically injured, you will WANT care, regardless of what your position was beforehand. People without insurance now still get treated in such circumstances, but they can't pay their bills. This creates a burden on the entire system. That burden can only be plugged with mandated health care.
I see it as a three step process, and I didn't mention the third step:
1) state does not support compulsory healthcare - medicare and medicaid remain federal programs for recipients in that state.
2) state initially has compulsory healthcare - federal health funds for medicare and medicaid go to the state.
3) after a period of time (5 years?) for a compulsory healthcare state - taxes drop at the federal level and increase at the state level to pay for the replacement program to medicare and medicaid. Federal money stops.
You might argue that things might be 'better' if something were in place, but, as I suggested before, something that would make things better is a luxury, not a 'necessity'.