First, saying that something that will save your life is a “luxury” demonstrates a laughable misunderstanding of vocabulary. If something is essential, it isn’t a luxury.
Second, just because I don’t have a right to something doesn’t mean it’s a luxury.
Third, keeping people healthy benefits more than just the ill person.
Of course, it could be that my marriage to a disabled person colors my worldview, in which case I’d appreciate the fine Dopers of GD setting me straight.
I agree with you jsgoddess, Crafter_Man’s position is just wrong. I might even go a bit further than you and claim that I do have a right to life-saving medication. Isn’t the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness a self-evident truth? In any case, if I do need such medication I’m not going to be listening to anyone tell me that it’s a luxury and that I should shut up and die.
Not to hijack your thread but your post raised a couple of questions for me. How much responsibility falls on you for the care of your disabled spouse? Did you know this when you got married or did it happen later?
How do you justify the position that CM, I, both of us, or Johnny Q. Public are obligated to pay for what you need/want?
It is not the business of government, read TAXPAYERS, to fund every giveaway scheme for those who will not work to achieve for themselves.
Nobody’s saying the government is required to do that. The issue at hand is what is our obligation as a society when a person HAS worked to do all that he/she can and is still short of the needed funds for things basic to life. Do you think the individual stricken with a potentially deadly ailment that is expensive to treat should just give up and die?
Spingears, whether or not people want to work has got NOTHING to do with the question. There are plenty of hard working honest honorable people who cannot afford much in the way of “luxurious” health care.
The question comes down to society priorities and politics. I think society should pick up the tab for my health care, at any and all levels, and for that of my family and friends too. At the same time, I don’t think society has any duty to pay for YOUR health care at any level. You can and should pay for it entirely yourself under the entirely unregulated free market, dog eat dog system. You, on the underhand and quite understandably, disagree with my position. Somewhere in between those two extremes is a political solution. People’s access to health care, like everything else under the sun, is subject to limits. The question is where those limits will be.
His condition existed before we met, but it became much worse a couple of years after we married when he became disabled. I don’t have much to do in the way of physical care of him. His activities are very restricted, but he can take care of himself. What he can’t do is any significant work. And his medical expenses are more than we can cover on my salary. Currently, we spend approximately $500/month in prescription medications.
See, this is what those like CM and others are not seeing. You’re working, doing the best you can, and your husband can’t add to the coffers, and despite your best efforts, they fall short. There ought to be a way, short of sitting on the street corner with a sad look and a tin cup, of society helping people out.
We are definitely being helped out by society. He collects SS disability and his doctors have worked with us to change meds so we aren’t still paying the $1000/month it was a while ago.
We are in much much better shape than a lot of families. I’m not complaining!
Sometimes I honestly think that the philosophy of health care in this country is Darwinian–let the strong survive.
I honestly don’t mean to offend anyone by this statement. It’s just the impression I have had after years of dealing with a son with disabilities. We are fortunate to have had health insurance that covers most of the costs involved with his care. Even so, we have had to shell out thousands of dollars for care that was not covered by health insurance, but which was medically necessary in terms of trying to make his life as close to “normal” as possible.
It’s beyond me why a country as wealthy as the US is can’t guarantee reliable health care to all citizens, regardless of income or employment status. No one should have to “cheat the system” to avoid going bankrupt to get the government to support citizens who can’t pay for necessary medical care. I realize that this might mean paying more in taxes, but the trade-off would be that 1) we wouldn’t have to pay for health insurance, and 2) the country as a whole would be healthier, and health costs would be reduced overall.
Did Crafter_Man just say that oxygen is a luxury? Oh great, now I have visions of megacorps doming all major metropolitan areas and charging people for the air they pipe in. If people asphyxiate it’s their own fault for being so weak. Real men don’t need oxygen.
The problem of adequate insurance coverage for medical issues becomes even more complex if you begin to include mental health.
I understand that we don’t want to pay to support everybody who says, “Gosh, I’m sad today, so I don’t think I should work any more.” But what tries to pass as insurance coverage for things like clinical depression, bipolar disorder and the like is a joke. Yeah, you can see a therapist and they’ll pay for it. For about 6 visits. Not well, yet? Too bad. You must just be weak and a malingerer. Snap out of it and get a job. Of course, if you can’t, and end up in the ER, well, that’s covered.
Note, this is not my situation, but it’s an opinion I’ve heard here and elsewhere.
Forgive me, but what you are all missing is the difference between a need which can be satisfied alone and one which must be satisfied by another. You can have a right to your life, because it does not require me to sustain you. You can have a right toyour freedom because it does not require me to sustain it. But if we live together we cannot both have both if you assert a right to my labor or the product thereof.
More simply, you can have a right to oxygen because it does not require anyone else to produce it. You cannot have a right to prescription medicine because it requires someone else to produce them. What right existed 100 years ago when the medication in question did not exist?
Did jsgoddess’s husband have the right to force all of the medical talent of the time to work until they discovered it? Surely, he would have needed it just as much. Does his right to it disapear when the expense to others rises to outrageous levels? Does his right to it suddenly exist when the expense falls below some magical level?
I’m a scientist involved in drug discovery. Everyone assumes that the fruits of my efforts should be free to everyone because they’re lifesaving. So, if I had decided to go into something useless, like making widgets, it’s all right if I want to make a profit. But, because I went into something that saves lives, well, then I should give it away for free.
I tell you what. If there’s no profits in drugs, there will be no one there to make them.
Believe me. I’m not driving a Ferrari. I made huge financial sacrifices to go into scientific research.
What the people who think that medical care is a luxury don’t understand is that people, who can’t afford the medicine, will go into the system anyway when they get so bad they must be hospitilized.