Why is it more wrong or immoral than all the other things we’re already forced to pay for?
It’s not.
If you mean why is okay for the government to pay for roads, schools and fire fighting but not for health care, the answer is that things that government does for public convenience or assistance generally are considered fine; things that intrude upon or dictate how we live our lives and/or what we may or may not have are bad.
What does that mean, exactly? By not feeding a starving African, you are “profiting” (keeping your money) off their misery.
How does using your taxes to pay for health care for the poor intrude upon your life more than using your taxes to put out a fire at someone else’s house?
I’m not a sociopath, so I would have to disagree.
Having a healthier citizenry benefits all of us.
People are more productive and happier when they don’t have to worry about ailments they’re too broke to get treated.
Kids who are healthy do better in school, grow up to get good jobs, and serve as productive members of society.
When people don’t have to worry about how expensive it is to go to the doctor, they’ll go get that weird lump checked out before it’s too late.
People who die early, or drop out of the workplace because of treatable illnesses, represent a loss of productivity. How is that possibly good for our society?
Right now, it makes more sense for someone who is chronically ill to allow themselves to become destitute so they can qualify for Medicaid and disability. With health care reform, that person can keep working and contributing to society and be the Hard Working American conservatives love to talk about.
If a parent gets laid off and can’t afford the exorbitant COBRA premiums, and their children needs asthma/diabetes/sickle-cell/ADHD/leukemia treatments, what the hell is that parent going to do? How does it benefit society to have that family suffer like that? However, I can see the benefit to society in helping that family. The parent can look for work without worrying themselves to death (and potentially driving other people nuts) and his kid can continue going to school (rather than being sick at home) so that he can grow up and be a smart and productive adult.
Interdependence, man. No one in this society is an island on to him/herself.
This.
The European model of the nanny state is totally unappealing. I don’t want my ipod volume to be at a “healthy” level for my ears, what if I plug it into external speakers? I don’t want to be “protected” by someone else. That is essentially telling the world that I am unfit to care for myself. And if you - on the whole, not in a temporary situation - are unable to care and provide for yourself, then what is your purpose in life? What do you contribute to society, and moreover, how can you live with the fact that others support you?
Like Starving Artist said, life isn’t fair. Any system that seeks to create equality through unnatural means is robbing the productive.
Tort reform and catastrophic health care coverage for all must be addressed first before any real close to universal coverage can be implemented at a reduced cost. You’ll never have a doctor who orders fewer tests unless his back is covered when he gets sued.
Also, what ivylass said about old people getting knee replacements, or expensive drugs that will only keep them alive a bit longer. If we don’t ration care to some extent, we will sink our economy.
In what sense would universal health care not be public assistance? It would be providing an important service to the public.
*Then the public school system must really bother you then, because it already does far more to intrude upon and dictate how American citizens live their lives than universal health care would. Universal health care isn’t going to control what we do with a large portion of our day M-F for 12 or 13 years.
Wait – your insurance company actually changed the prescription? Or just said it would only cover Simvastatin? That’s so fucked up. (Now though, I have a craving for fruit juice, though)
My mother recently was charged $60 for what Blue Cross called a “surgical procedure.” Said “surgical procedure?” She had her ears cleaned – using water and a syringe. :rolleyes:
Disagree.
Those who can pay are already paying for those who can’t. Per capita, people in the US are paying twice as much as they are in the UK and Canada. The US system is being raped by insurance and pharmaceutical companies.
And a great many people in the U.S. are seeing doctors and getting treatments in a timely fashion without having to wait months for exams and treatment…treatment that is very likely more expensive and intense because the ailment has gotten worse during the wait.
The same arguments were offered in Canada and the UK (with the added bonus of a doctors’ strike in the UK), and turned out to be groundless.
It’s fairly common for health insurers to approve reimbursement only for a generic drug if one is commonly available. In those cases, the prescribing physician is required to write “medically necessary” on the prescription for the branded version to be covered.
You might be interested to note what Dr. Anne Doig, the incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association, has to say about Canada’s system:
“…this country’s health-care system is sick and doctors need to develop a plan to cure it.”
“We all agree that the system is imploding…things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize.”
“We’re all running flat out, we’re all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands.”
“(Canadians) have to understand that the system that we have right now - if it keeps on going without change - is not sustainable.”
“They have to look at the evidence that’s being presented and will be presented at (the meeting) and realize what Canada’s doctors are trying to tell you, that you can get better care than what you’re getting…”
You might be interested to read my response in the “Glad the Republicans are running Congress” thread, where you already posted that.
No, I just mean that healthcare should not be a for profit system at all. When people are in duress and ill, it’s abhorrent to me that anyone should gain profit from another’s illness.
I disagree with the statement in the OP.
Then what do you propose would incentivize people to go through the torture of medical training and work hard doing all they can for their patients? And what incentive would companies have to develop the machinery, equipment and medications that have made such great strides in treating and/or curing so many of the illnesses that are treatable or curable today and which weren’t even twenty years ago?
Profit is the very reason that people who have good health care (a majority of the country’s population, btw) have it. It’s also the reason that such great strides have been made in treating heart disease, cancer and many other diseases that were killing people right and left just a couple decades ago.
Why do companies design and build fire trucks? After all, firefighting is a not-for-profit system.
Thoroughly disagree.