In response to MattyScornD's comment:
In response to skeeter20's comment:
I can't even begin to tell you how far off the mark you are. That's why your post is so strange. Just your use of the word "cutthroat" tells me where you are at on this. You are unwilling to discuss alternatives, because you are ideologically locked to government solutions only. Government somehow will magically make this all work, and nothing else is even worth listening to. Nice, and completely legless stance.
Small business needs to provide health care, or shutter their doors? Talk about "cutthroat".
Face it. you aren't interested in solutions, you are only interested in government control.
That's because you are unable to even find the mark, much less find my place on it.
You seem dreadfully unaware of the existence of ethics in either business or commerce in general. Hence my terms of "cutthroat" to your view that people should be on their own re: basic health care coverage.
This has nothing to do with your nebulous idea of "govt control" and everything to do with how our society functions in an age where people have the false choice of either going bankrupt and losing their house vs. receiving critical or even lifesaving health care services.
Face it. You want to put profits above people.
Profits above people? Nonsequitor. Profits end up in the hands of people. They are called stockholders. They include your grannie and gramps, and it is where oyur pension funds are likely invested.
Why a prift motive? Because profits drive behavior the market desires, causing people to be well served. So, actually, I think it would be better stated:
"profits make healthy people"
Apparently your view is that this is a bad dynamic, and therfore, everything in healthcare must be put in government control. Are you going to deny that?