Neither are the freeloaders who fully expect the rest of us not to just subsidize, but to fully pay for their wellbeing.
Ah, the culture of life. It only counts when the life has financial resources.
Well, I’ll say yes. People should pay for their own healthcare. So long as everyone starts off on the same economic footing.
I’ve never undertood this extremely small viewpoint, fact is we are all avoiding responsability, the health care we have now is irrational, having universal health care means that even the deadbeats will pay for it, and in a world were jobs are being exported overseas, American workers need more reliable healthcare that does not depend on having a long stable job, a situation that it seems will be with us for a long time.
And if the “freeloader” is not employed or claining taxable income, they are paying for UHC how?
And just how do you propose to manage THAT? It’s been tried before, with the most unfortunate results. See North Korea, and starvation, for a current example. Is that what you want?
Well Yee Haw, let’s all do the backstroke down easy street. Why should any of us bust our ass to improve our lot in life?
No. I want you to stop pretending that good people never end up in dire economic situations and that they don’t deserve* basic * care when they do.
Do they deserve basic care at the expense of others?
They fully deserve it. They also fully deserve to pay for what they receive - even if it’s only a few dollars a month. As they get back on their feet, they can increase what they pay.
I have no problem with.
And if they can’t afford it? What then? What if some a parent can’t afford it and has a child? Should the child be deprived of the right to see a doctor if sick?
Just some sence: They pay every time they buy something…
The companies that made the food or the goods that “freeloader” did consume then passed the bill that they paid in taxes for his treatment. Of course, we also pay for it, but it is ovious that we pay more than we should, and that is because of the way the system is set irrationally now: the “freeloaders” seek help when is late (most expensive) and the ones that are insured are being gouged (see the medicare medicine debacle and the prohibition for the government to negociate for better prices).
That’s the problem with the anti-universal healthcare people. They may realize this fact, but they just don’t care. They’d rather pay more just to stick it to the “freeloaders” (I.E, people who don’t have money), just on general principles
Jeeze, take a weekend off, and the tread explodes.
Every state in the union offers FREE health insurance for children of lower income families, usually the requirements to qualify slide with family size. For example, here in Maryland, a family of four is eligible for free coverage for their children* ( and maternity for the mother too ) if they make less than $37,700-200% of the federal poverty line ( and maternity coverage alone if they make less than $47,125 ). In addition, they can get full coverage for the children for only $41/month if they make between $37,700 and $47,125 and for only $51/month from $47,125 up to $56,550. Similar programs exist, as I said, in every other state. Can we please skip the “won’t somebody please think of the children??” argument? In this case at least it is a complete red herring.
- Good coverage too. MCHP pays 100% of the kid’s medical costs for:
Doctor Visits (well and sick care)
Hospital Care
Lab Work and Tests
Dental Care
Vision Care
Immunizations (shots)
Prescription Medicines
Transportation to Medical Appointments
Mental Health Services
Substance Abuse Treatment
The maternity coverage is all of that plus:
Prenatal and Post-Partum Doctor Visits
Hospital Delivery Bill
Doctors Visits not relating to Pregnancy
After delivery, family planning services
Not too shabby
In addition, the MHIP program offers full coverage to any Marylander who is turned down or issued substandard coverage by private insurers because of health issues. The rates are quite competitive with private insurance. ( This type of program is not offered in every state )
Wanna know the biggest problem with these programs? Getting people to take advantage of them. Really folks, there is a lot of stuff out there available for just the folks on whose behalf you are arguing. Lots of people don’t use it as it is.
milroyj-The UN and the WHO consider basic healthcare (which BTW is not the same as illness treatment) a basic human right.
If a large percentage of a population in the world’s richest country are not getting adequate basic healthcare, I’d say they’re entitled to take a few points off.
If the US system worked so that everyone had access to healthcare, if 1/3 of bankruptcies in the USA weren’t caused by medical bills, then yes, the system you have might be considered to work adequately.
It’s a well known fact in Epidemiology that people from poorer socio-economic groups will have poorer health. A large percentage of people in those classes will be working poor who do NOT qualify for government aid. Someone has to pay for their healthcare, and it obviously can’t be them.
There are other faults with the system, such as the fact that the USA has a low proportion of its doctors in primary health care (family doctors, GPs etc), and it has been shown that the proportion of doctors in primary healthcare is inversly related to total healthcare spending. In other words, primary healthcare saves the system money.
As for infant mortality, the USA is sitting on 9.9 deaths per 1000 viable live births, which is higher than Denmark (8.8), France (7.5), UK (7.4) , Canada (7.3), Singapore (6.7), Ireland (6.2), Japan (6.0) and Sweden (5.7). This is infant mortality, which has less to do with birthing practice, and more to do with social factors and the ability of parents with sick children to access the system and for those children to receive good care.
I’m not pulling figures out of my ass BTW.
References:
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2001. The OECD 2001. OECD, Paris
World Health Organisation 2001: The World Health Report 2000-Health systems:improving performance. WHO, Geneva
Starfield B,1994 Is Primary Care Essential? Lancet, 344:1129-1133
Fry J, Horder JP 1994 Primary health care in an international context. Nuffield Provisional Hospitals Trust, London.
…or shut up and die quickly and quietly without disturbing the rest of us.
Honestly, what do you expect them to do?
There’s your problem. You’re using those two notoriously internationalist communistic organizations as your sources…
And yet, in every modern country that has tried it, it has worked.
And the US way doesn’t.
So, on top of “MINEMINEMINE” you’ve added “I’mnotlisteningI’mnotlistening.”
That’s awesome.
Har de har! We now have a right-wing corollary to Godwin’s Law. Congratulations jayjay, you’re on your way to internet immortality!
When the reporters ask you if the sarcasm caused any damage as it wooshed above your head, can you mention my name? 