But the hypocritical and spineless part is taking more pizza then you paid for. Would you seriously argue anyone in the op’s scenario paid enough into the healthcare system to pay for an organ transplant?
Well, under this “I’ve got mine, screw the rest of humanity” ideal taking the pizza isn’t hypocritical. It’s all about selfishness.
Not at all. When people have a certain amount of money to put towards health insurance, and you have prevented them from making the choice they would otherwise prefer, then it is perfectly acceptable for them to take advantage if the system you have forced them to take part in.
Well if you strip away any pretense of higher principle, and reduce it to nothing but amoral greed then it is internally consistent, atleast.
I don’t think so. A lot of UHC opponents would be happy to pay for other kids, they just don’t want their current setup taken away from them in the process.
And in my opinion amoral greed is the only actual principle involved.
The “choice” they would have preferred is being left in the medical wilderness while their kid died without any choices?
Remember the OP’s scenario specified their kid was uninsurable for them, as without government intervention a very sick kid in need of an organ transplant would be.
I’m guessing most UHC opponents don’t accept that scenario & believe that they could have insured their children from the moment they were born.
Ahh the “it could never happen to me” belief. It’s happening to a lot right now. American unemployment is over 10%. BBC NEWS | Business | US jobless rate rises to over 10%
Many of those folks won’t be able to keep up their premiums, rendering their ailments and their kids a like “pre-existing”.
I don’t see the problem here. As others have said, if you’re forced to pay into a system (ie, paying taxes for medicare, etc.) then what’s the problem with taking back from that system if you have the need? It’s like libertarians accepting unemployment benefits if they get laid off. They may oppose that system, but it’s there and they paid into it, so why not get benefits from it?
I haven’t weighted in on this at all previously and I may regret doing so now but I just don’t get the opposition to UHC at all.
I’ll say up front that I am Canadian and that I am an avowed socialist. I can’t help but think that the one informed the other.
I grew up with UHC (medicare hereafter) and I can’t imagine not having it. Certainly there are abuses and there are most definitely problems but I’ll take medicare with all it’s warts over the gleaming visage of private for profit medicine everytime.
I am not a professional and I don’t make a tradesman’s wage. Mrs Zeke and I make enough money that I don’t qualify for any low income programs but not enough to get ahead. Staying afloat is rough at times.
My wife is currently pregnant and if we had to pay for each visit to the doctor and each test etc. We would be bankrupt. It would take years to recover. And if the kid got sick on top of all that… Jesus!
When I see the income tax deducted from my cheque (truth be told I seldom look) I don’t think “rotten government”. I think “I’m glad a doctor’s there if I need one.”
I’ve never noticed a lack of choice (though I guess I’ve never had one :eek:.) Anyone I’ve ever known has been able to get a referal to a specialist with no problem. As to hospitals, if my town had more than one I’d be able to visit any I chose. If I don’t like the options in my town - and my needs warranted it - I could relocate to another city and their hospitals would welcome me with open arms (pretty much).
Medical discoveries are regularly made in Canada: sometimes by research hospitals sometimes by universities. It isn’t as if we are riding the world’s coat-tails in R and D.
Sure I’m paying for someone else to see a doctor. They’re also paying for me to see one. I’m also paying for me to see one. I do get a return on my investment in that if I break my arm all I pay out of pocket is the cast fee ($30 or something) the doctor, nurse, xrays and all things other are covered for me. Same goes if I need a kidney.
As to whether or not healthcare is a right, I believe it is. If you don’t then more power to you. We’re neither of us likely to argue the other into submission.
I truly don’t understand the uproar.
Zeke
Not really. The fact that it is happening a lot right now does not negate the fact that the hypothetical family is forced to participate in a certain program. It was impossible for it ever to have happened to them. They had no other choice but to participate in the program, and it is not hypocritical for them to continue to participate in it.
The argument that I hear most commonly is that a public option for those who can’t afford it translates to socialized medicine because for-profit healthcare can not compete against free healthcare. Few employers would pay for private insurance if there is a free plan that available. This would make private healthcare obsolete.
There are plenty of people who are opposed of the idea of making healthcare accessible to all just on this basis.
There are also those who object to paying higher taxes to pay for other people’s healthcare. They don’t see themselves as potential beneficiaries. Only other people.
Okay, so let’s say with UCH you could opt out and use private health insurance instead. The one caveat is that once you opt-out, you can not opt back in. So none of your taxes go towards supporting the program, but you’re stuck with what you have. Meaning, if you lose your job and can not pay the premiums, tough titty for you and your kids.
Would you still decide to opt out?
Please see my question to Cheesic Sense.
Yes, I know you are. It’s blatantly obvious. It’s also obvious you haven’t properly considered the dangers, costs, and problems of doing it as its proponents seem to want, because you don’t seem to understand thenm. I don’t claim you would necessarily agree with me if you did; it’s simply clear that your sanguiness is based on a lack of introspection or understanding of my PoV.
I believe I already did. There are numerous alternatives, including non-government community support. I might even support a national emergency coverage, provided it was truly voluntary. Let it serve people, not rule over them, which UHC will. Or you can simply buy emergency coverage, which should be available relatively easily and cheaply if some of the arbitrary and mistaken rules.
Being against UHC doesn’t mean being against reform. In fact, I consider it the reverse, because I consider UHC the exact opposite of reform.
First, let’s assume this is true. Even if so, it has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Even if it is true, it doesn’t change the fact that none of those drugs would have been made available. Maybe the government did the first 90% of the work. But as these things usually go, private enterprise did the other 90%.
Second, keep in mind (leftists usually don’t) that I have no problem with research universities. They get some money from the feds and a lot more from private and state sources. None of that bothers me in the least.
Finaly, research scientists are not good at making useful products people can use. It’s because their entire training and what they are interested in, and goals the they have, are utterly divorced from creating a drug. Rather, they try to figure out how atomic structures interact. This doesn’t magically bring a useable drug into existence; that’s a feat which takes a different skillset, a lot of time, and a lot of money.
Probably opt out, but it would depend on what kind of care one would receive with UHC. I know a bunch of people who have lived in the UK, and they were all so dissatisfied with the quality of care that they paid for better heath insurance. I understand that may not be indicative of the system over there, and that it’s merely an anecdote.
That being said, if my child were truly sick, I’d want the very best I could get and would take the chance in order to get it. My wife’s 6-year-old godson is getting cutting edge cancer treatment (he’s 6, and has been sick for 3 and a half years) and has qualified for programs that simply aren’t available in other countries. That’s probably the only thing keeping him alive. I have no earthly idea how much of that is thanks to their insurance, so it could be irrelevant. I do know that it has provided them with a great deal of choices and has made their quality of life as good as can possibly be expected considering the circumstances.
The question you posed is essentially the system we have now, by the way.
This factoid (which I can’t even verify) is brought up repeatedly as if it’s supposed to be a path to enlightenment. It’s irrelevant that commercial usage is derived off of govt research.
So private bicycle shop guys (Wright Brothers) invent the airplane and therefore the entire USA military Air Force should pay lifetime royalties to their estate until the end of time?
So the govt puts up GPS satellites therefore Garmin’s profit should be re-distributed to the citizens? Ok, now think of every invention that was created by private individuals or corporations being used at govt offices such as the Pentagon. It is unfair that the Pentagon offices use lighting (Thomas Edison) and telephones (A. Graham Bell) therefore, what should we do about it to reimburse the private companies even further? These tit-for-tat scenarios of “if X didn’t happen, then Y couldn’t have happened” are ridiculous.
If they’re against it, what objection, other then greed without regard for morals, could justify them taking out more then they paid in?
Further lets say after the program pays for their kid’s organ transplant and they manage to lead a campaign to get the program removed. A month later a mother who’s kid faces same medical crises calls them, but like them she can’t afford the surgery, through her tears she asks why her kid should die after theirs lived from this program.
What could possible be said to this woman that’s not more evil then Hitler raping an orphaned kitten?
No it’s not. If your job doesn’t give you insurance and you don’t qualify for government-assistance, you’re either stuck with nothing or a plan with ridiculously high premiums. In the system we have now, you can also be denied insurance for pre-existing conditions like diabetes and asthma. This reality is nothing like the option I presented you with.
Thanks for answering the question, by the way. The odds that someone would lose their job and by association, their means to pay for healthcare seem higher than the odds that they or one of their loved one’s would need medical care requiring a quality of care so high that it’s unlikely to be found at a public hospital. Which do you think scarier to most people: the risk of having no care at all or the risk of having some care but not the absolute best of the bestest?