> and... we'll just give a big 'fuck you' to everyone else who gets sick at some point, and can't go back to work, or has skills that get passed by in the marke

> and... we'll just give a big 'fuck you' to everyone else who gets sick at some point, and can't go back to work, or has skills that get passed by in the marketplace. Capitalism doesn't care if you get sick. It only cares if you have time/skill to trade. That's the cold hard reality. In this country, capitalism trumps just about everything else. It has its advantages and disadvantages for sure. By the way, I'm not saying all of this is morally "right" - it's just the way it's always been, capitalism/business comes first in the USA. I agree that society needs people to be doing low-end crappy work, but maybe if there were fewer low-skilled laborers in the job market, there would be more competition for their services (i.e. the employers would have to offer better benefits.) I'm all for universal-healthcare and frankly my family would be a primary beneficiary. As far as safety nets go, how far do we go? If I got sick, I wouldn't expect you (and everyone else collectively) to pay my mortgage, grocery bills, etc. for potentially years on end. Where do we draw the line? How do we prevent people from gaming the system? I know people in Europe who have been "sick" for years.