In the end, subsidized health care is not an economic issue. When we say that government has an obligation to provide all citizens with affordable medical insurance, a moral decision has been made. That does not mean that in the future such a decision will not lead to practical benefits, where the return is not in just doing what is right. I will get into that part of the equation in a future post, but for now I will stay on topic.
In the debate over Universal Health Care in the U.S, much of the rhetoric ignores the bottom line. Opponents are using objections that they wish us to believe are valid and on target, but they are nothing more than a smokescreen. They choose to criticize how the program is to be funded and administered, all the while avoiding answering the most important question; IS PROVIDING AFFORDABLE SUBSIDIZED MEDICAL INSURANCE TO AMERICANS UNABLE TO ACQUIRE IT, THROUGH PRIVATE SOURCES, A MORAL OBLIGATION THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS TO ALL OF ITS' CITIZENS?
The above question is often not satisfactorily answered by the critics of subsidized health care, who choose to attack the mechanics of the new law. However, the criticisms are often based on misleading, false or incomplete data. This strategy is a deliberate attempt to shift the debate away from the purpose of the program and focus it on issues that are easy to manipulate. Many times this is done by using assumptions and conclusions that are not based in reality.
( Look for part 4 in a future post.).