|Could the reason why we don't get universal health care be to help keep the U.S. population down?
Ours are like the Times in which Dickens wrote:
"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."
As it stands now, the United States of America has 5-percent of the world's people, yet uses about 25-percent of the world's resources. For instance, fossil fuels.
If we had a population 10-percent, we might use about 50-percent or whatever the calculus of what there is, is. Who knows the exact numbers? I do know we're as a culture right at the top of the consumer pyramid. For certain long-range thinkers in the bowels of government and academia, useless eaters represent a problem. One scientist, Eric R. Pianka, was applauded for suggesting how great it would be for humanity if a nice Ebola virus would wipe out about 90-percent of the population.
So, our elected representatives work to maintain a ruthless, for-profit health care system in which those who can afford it receive the best and most modern medical care in the world and those who can't afford it, well, are more likely to die off. Look at the growing disparity in life expectancy for the rich and the poor, now about five years as best estimated.
Too bad, so sad. But, hey! How's that for successful economic Darwinism? Survival of the capitalist fittest and "Adios!" to the loser class.