There are two causes for our concern over healthcare: one immediate, the other secondary. It is this secondary reason that encourages the first, exacerbating it, and creating the various calamities and strife currently being witnessed in the legislature (You Lie! et al.)
The first, of course, is [B]monetary[/B]. If someone can make a living off of it, they will squeeze every dime out of it no matter the true cost in quality of life for one's fellow man. Blood diamonds, war for oil, and Carson Daly's existence on TV are proof of that. So really, the healthcare industry is no worse than a dozen others I might mention--such as my own vocations and avocations (truck driving, movie making, general art).
Yet this is all contained within that first singular concept, the love of money. The second different, albeit related, cause is [B]our own selfish desire toward stasis[/B].
We wish to maintain things just as they are--look at the numerous plastic surgeries concocted for beauty's sake, the ridiculous amount of money poured into keeping our possessions "like new." It is this same urge that makes us want to keep people alive indefinitely, even given finite resources. It is this thinking that makes us want to "overcome" natural defects and provide "normal" lives for victims of once-fatal circumstances.
This desire is entirely natural but, given the extent to which we've taken it, unsustainable. Just because the elderly are alive doesn't mean they're happy. It is really where the two causes sketched here collide that the trouble really blossoms: the desire for pertual constancy meets the love of money and creates industries around keeping as many people alive as possible, as long as possible.
This of course also feeds the desire for wealth further by creating more consumers to keep the wealth flowing into the coffers of the already wealthy. That is how we have arrived at this "financial crisis"-- by the idiotic belief in wealth that never existed, hundreds think they've lost something that they could never have, and so cling to the remainders of what they have (or believe to have). This is, however, a digression.
I will state, finally, that I consider all other arguments are moot in this analysis. Anything subsidiary to the argument laid out herein (Obamacare, social healthcare, open market system) is irrelevant to [I]this[/I] (and admittedly, [I]only[/I] [B]this[/B] discussion), as they are subservient to the causes outlined (social healthcare is instigated by a desire for either more consumers or pertuating stasis; otherwise is motivated by greed). Though I would like to hear arguments regarding this last statement... is that how and where the motivation lies?
Is this argument sound?
If so, wouldn't the health care crisis, as it is dubbed, really be a problem of attachment to money and stasis, imagined as it is in one's own eyes?
I concede the floor.