Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
These single cases against a generally effective system of insurance is interesting. It's a purely emotional argument, which is fine. Emotion is part of being human. For better or worse, that's how we evolved, and I won't fault anyone for finding this compelling. I've yet to meet anyone who is 100% rational 100% of the time.
But there is a moral question to be had here.
Let's say, factions in medical advances, the life support could keep him alive for 15 years before he'd finally succumb to his illness. In that time, he will be alive. He will be unable to see, speak, hear, or think anything, nor able to consume solid foods or breath without assistance, but he will be alive. In the span of 15 years, due to his illness, he will be deprived of going school, making childhood friends, learning to play sports, going to church with family, reading good books, watching fun movies, his first kiss, his first car. He will never personally love and will never truly know his parents. Now, this is all true regardless of if the life support is turned off in 15 years or in 2 hours.
With this in mind, ask yourself honestly, which option is more cruel?
I sympathize with grieving parents. I cannot even imagine what it would be like to a parent to contemplate something like turning off your child's life support. It is tragic, when a human is lost. It is also tragic when a human's suffering is needlessly prolonged.
Is this what single payer would get us ? Courts ordering life support machine turned off ?
What do you think would happen when he reached the lifetime cap decided by an insurance company?
Exactly with private insurance that kid would have been already dead. Some of his previous procedures would have been denied and would have died.
Now it's just the parents thinking that a brain dead kid is better than no kid and can't make the decision to switch it off.
And then according to the personal responsibility guys, that kid should have been aborted as soon as they knew the condition or left to die as the parents don't have enough for even a week of hospitalization.
I don't care what you call it. It's far better than to pay an absurd amount to an insurance company every month, sometimes as much as your house payment or more and then have to go to a doctor of their choice and they approve of and has a 3 week waiting list to get in and see. If you're lucky enough to see a doctor and don't get sicker and die first, you have to pay a huge deductible and co-pay.
How did our health care system turn into this horrible mess?
Get socialized medicine and you too can be ordered to die by the courts.
So what is the difference of dying because of an insurance company? At least the courts have more checks and balances and you are allowed to present your case and be considered by a judge/s.
For those of us that have worked all our lives and paid into it...no. For those that have never paid into it and utilize it..sure.
It is for you too. Medicare is a social relief plan administered centrally for all. Although you paid into it, most who paid in are subsidized. Most enrollees receive 1/3 -1/2 more in benefits than what they put in. And that there in a nut shell is why Medicare works so well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
