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.
That's the American way. We're a very cruel country.
That is not the American way. That may have been the way through the rise of the Gilded Age, at which time America formed a new social contract where the rich can get richer provided that they ensure a safety net is provided for those left behind. It was a deal beneficial to both parties, as it gave the poor a modicum of security while reducing the likelihood of social unrest and political upheaval because of an ever-increasing Gini Coefficient. The Country has since agreed that we are not going to deny service and let people just die in the street.
The problem is that we are moving towards no longer honoring the latter part of the deal. Tying health care to employment, although politically expedient at the time, has not helped. It is economically inefficient, discourages free market changes in employment, and makes health care inaccessible to a large number of people who ultimately heap their medical expenses of the taxpayer.
We are at a crossroads. We can deny access to emergent healthcare and start letting people die in the streets again or we can provide some level of preventative care to everyone at the taxpayers' expense. Continuing to provide more expensive emergent care and related costs at the taxpayers' expense makes zero sense.
Some employers choose to tier employee premiums based on income. High earning employees pay higher shared premiums than lower wage employees.
And some higher earning employees pay nothing towards their premiums as reward for their higher status.
I worked for a company that did that. Once you hit a certain pay level the company covered 100% of your employer-sponsored health insurance.
They also paid for a very nice life insurance policy and lots of other things.
Inequities abound everywhere.
This situation is so sad and it is horrible that this couple believes it to be the only solution.
I am reminded of the number of older couples who often make a similar decision so that they can afford long-term care for a spouse.
What a great system we have.
Sounds like the earned income tax credit (EITC). Couples with children do no get married so the woman can collect benefits white the baby daddy works and supports them.
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are saying. Did you read the article? Two people with no kids fell in love and got married. One of their kids is very, very, very sick and needs 24/7 care. They do not have the money nor the resources to get the care that kid needs. They are considering divorce - although they love each other - because the mother would qualify for medicaid if she were divorced.
My point is that this is an abnormal situation here, in this country. In any other developed country, Canada, Europe, Australia etc this kid would be taken care of by the state. Not here. It is nobody's fault this kid was born like this. I'm asking the conservatives on this forum: what do you think? I don't care Obama or not Obama care. What do you think as a human being, as a religious person who goes to church and supposedly care about all children, not only fetuses. What do you think? Is this right to let two loving parents and a healthy kid in financial ruin because they can't possibly pay for this kid care? Would you let the sick kid die?
And to the person who said that in Canada health care is paid from everyone taxes, yes, including the rich. The rich pay their fair share of taxes over there so these kind of situation are covered. It is free to the beneficiary.
So can you please enlighten me and enumerate what rights do I have as a citizen? Besides the right to bear arms, which I'm not interested in thank you.
I also tend to think that illegal immigrants are healthy. They come here to work, either in the fields in agriculture or in constructions. I know a guy, an illegal immigrant who works 7 days per week, fixing up peoples homes, doing gardening, landscaping etc and he is healthier than many people I know. Young and strong. I know another lady, illegal immigrant who, for years cleaned people's homes. When she got sick or needed to see a dentist she went to the doctors whose houses she cleaned and they treated her because she was a very nice woman. She went back to her country the week after the 2016 elections.
So I honestly don't see how these people can be a burden on our hospitals. Insurances - the way they are right now - are a burden on our lives. It is ridiculous how much one pill of tylenol costs if they gave it to you in the hospital vs if you buy it at the pharmacy. Why?
Last edited by XRiteMA98; 07-19-2018 at 01:40 PM..
Hi. I didn't know where to post this. After careful consideration, I though here, because this is however an important political issue.
What happened to this people in the article is wrong. Nobody should have to divorce to cover kids medical bills. Heath care is a right and the government should be covering it.
Remember it is NOT FREE!!!! In Canada and other countries it is paid for by payroll taxes.
European countries have a 20%-25% VAT tax, too, on top of income and payroll taxes. We could fund national health care in the US if we implemented a 25% VAT tax on all consumer goods. Would the US population agree to implementing that?
So can you please enlighten me and enumerate what rights do I have as a citizen? Besides the right to bear arms, which I'm not interested in thank you.
I also tend to think that illegal immigrants are healthy. They come here to work, either in the fields in agriculture or in constructions. I know a guy, an illegal immigrant who works 7 days per week, fixing up peoples homes, doing gardening, landscaping etc and he is healthier than many people I know. Young and strong. I know another lady, illegal immigrant who, for years cleaned people's homes. When she got sick or needed to see a dentist she went to the doctors whose houses she cleaned and they treated her because she was a very nice woman. She went back to her country the week after the 2016 elections.
So I honestly don't see how these people can be a burden on our hospitals. Insurances - the way they are right now - are a burden on our lives. It is ridiculous how much one pill of tylenol costs if they gave it to you in the hospital vs if you buy it at the pharmacy. Why?
This is such a sad and heartbreaking case, and the parents have my most sincere sympathy.
What I am going to say might sound cruel -- and in the opinion of many, it IS cruel. However, the OP asked, and so I am going to answer.
This is a bit personal, as I have had to make a decision to "let someone die" TWICE in my own life. It was definitely not an easy decision, but I looked at it from the standpoint of what would be better for the person -- to live in misery or in a persistent vegetative state or to die. Now, I realize that the little girl is, apparently, happy -- but she will not always be a little girl.
I firmly believe that if someone is not going to live what most people would consider to be a good and productive life, then it would be better if that person had never been born -- but if s/he IS born, then I don't think that any attempts should be made to keep them alive. If they can't survive except by tremendously expensive and unnatural means, then I think they should be allowed to die naturally and as humanely as possible. I want to emphasize that I am not talking about murder, but to just not interfere in order to prolong such a life in SOME cases. I do understand that with many diseases, severity of symptoms vary -- and that is true in the disease with which the little girl is afflicted, according to the link below -- and so I want to emphasize that before a decision is made to let someone die naturally, that it should be agreed that this would be the right course by some kind of review committee.
So, to repeat and to emphasize, I am NOT saying that she should be put to death (!!), but that if there comes a time where she would need to kept alive by artificial means, then I think it would be better if she were just allowed to die.
Last edited by katharsis; 07-19-2018 at 02:25 PM..
I think many people on this thread (and others like it) overlook the fact that if EVERYONE paid for their own insurance (without discounts!), then the premiums of everyone who pays "full price" would be lower. But, of course, due to the fact that there are millions of adults in this country who don't even earn enough to pay for their own food and shelter means that saying that they should pay for their own insurance and medical care is just ridiculous until everyone can earn enough to pay for all their basic necessities.
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.
