Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Well, I'm way out of my depth here, but why let that stop me?  I can see your point perfectly about quandaries being moral when any action is going to hurt someone.  That makes sense.

But, when the arguments become that x cannot be done because it cuts into y's profit margin, then I'm not so sure.

For instance, I see our healthcare system as immoral and don't understand really where the quandary part comes in.  We can afford a national health plan.  People are dying.  It's somewhat of an emergency if you look at that fact and the rising infant mortality rate.

We can afford a national health plan.  It would benefit a majority of the people.  It would save taxpayer money since we already pay so much per capita by having a two tiered system.  It would benefit doctors who are drowning in paperwork and insurance.  It would benefit many businesses who are paying exhorbitant insurance rates.

A national health plan seems win-win to me.  Who would lose?  The HMOs, and Insurance companies.  I say fine, cut out the middlemen and let them find useful work.  I suppose the pharmacuetical companies would suffer a bit of profit loss as well.  Again, I don't see that as a bad thing.  I don't think medicine should be the road to wealth beyond imagining.  I think the current CEO salaries and stockholder profits are grotestque.  

So in this scenario, I don't see a quandary.  I see something that's simply the right, the moral, thing to do.  I see leaving the system as is to be immoral.  So, is there a downside I'm unaware of?

Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes

by Izzy (izzy at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Oct 12th, 2005 at 12:56:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Top Diaries

The gathering storm

by Frank Schnittger - Oct 29

US Senate Elections

by ATinNM - Oct 19

It's not over yet

by Frank Schnittger - Oct 19

Occasional Series