missing text image: sites/all/themes/obs_2007/img/reply.gif
Cranky Independent (not verified) says:
(I don't know about unionized public employees but I do know that non-unionized public employees and retirees are paying more and more for less and less.)
So is the city. And you have to ask why.
It may be the escalating share of national income spent on health care is worth it. But we can't be sure, because it isn't our choice. Money is seized, and turned over to the health care industry, and we are then able to take as much as we want for "free." Others pay taxes and get nothing.
If the same government money was spent on basic health care for all -- say the health care that was available five years ago -- and people and chartiies made up their own mind about the rest, you'd have equity and cost control.
But people would have to give up direct and indirect (tax breaks) government funding for luxury/ineffective/cutting edge care.
(I don't know about unionized public employees but I do know that non-unionized public employees and retirees are paying more and more for less and less.)
So is the city. And you have to ask why.
It may be the escalating share of national income spent on health care is worth it. But we can't be sure, because it isn't our choice. Money is seized, and turned over to the health care industry, and we are then able to take as much as we want for "free." Others pay taxes and get nothing.
If the same government money was spent on basic health care for all -- say the health care that was available five years ago -- and people and chartiies made up their own mind about the rest, you'd have equity and cost control.
But people would have to give up direct and indirect (tax breaks) government funding for luxury/ineffective/cutting edge care.