So the other day I was sitting at lunch with my co-workers and they were talking about stuff I am really not well versed in: politics. One of the things that someone said (I am paraphrasing here) was that they were unsure about whether or not a healthcare plan by the government in which everyone has coverage is a bad thing (some people would think that this statement makes no sense, but follow me). The jist of what he was saying was that he believes in helping people and wants people to be healthy so maybe it would be a good thing if the government ensured that everyone had health care.
Here is where the “off the cuff” portion of my post title comes from, my response to his comment just popped into my head so I said it. It had nothing to do with the cost of such a type of plan and how that would affect my taxes or anything else that would seem obvious, my comment was something along the following lines: “If we had a system in which everyone had healthcare which was paid by the tax dollars of people who don’t necessarily want to help pay for the healthcare of others then does that really help us as a society? I mean sure, the people getting healthcare benefit but the hearts of the people are still unchanged. We need to change the minds and hearts of the people rather than rip the money from their tightly gripped hands.”
So my question is with respect to the long term. Is it better to force change onto an unwilling people so that a portion of society will benefit or is it better to wait for those people to want to make the change themselves? Both seem to have draw backs and benefits. My only hope would be that people can think about this from a perspective that is outside of yourself.
