Quote:
Originally Posted by southward bound
The thinking here is so convoluted as to make it difficult to follow.
"heck owning any car is not a right.. but we all have a right to obtain a driver's license!"
Driving is not a right. It is a priviledge.
|
Yes.. driving is not a right.. but EVERYONE has a right to that privledge.. unless they abuse said right and have that privledge revoked. You can't just simply deny someone a driver's license without just cause or good reason.
Quote:
"health insurance is really the vehicle for someone to actually GET the healthcare without shifting the burden on to the rest of us? (like when they get a bill they can't pay.. etc.?) "
Making health insurance "affordable" for everyone shifts the burden from those can't pay as much to the rest of us who can. Besides, who should say that someone CAN afford to pay more. The Government? We're back to means testing, and that hasn't been defined yet here (to my knkowledge).
|
Herein lies the problem with the thinking of your side of the argument. What you don't get is that keeping insurance unaffordable.. and healthcare unaffordable you're already shifting that burden to the "rest" for those that can't afford it.. ONLY you are doing it in a far more damaging way.
For example.. let's make up a scenario where there is a family that can not afford health insurance and it's not offered at the job that the head of the family is working. Now, let's say that one of the family members becomes ill with cancer and ends up needing chemotherapy and any other treatments to beat the cancer. But remember, they have no insurance.
So now , they WILL get the treatment right? Because we've already determined that everyone gets treated..according to GD. So the treatment commences and the bill reaches into the 100's of thousands of dollars..
BUT.. there is no way that family can pay that bill. Even if both parents worked two jobs between them (and then what happens to the children? Do they get neglected as a result) Those doctors, that hospital .. those medicines are NOT paid for.
what do those business entities do.. they raise the price to make up the difference in those unpaid bills.. and to make up the cost of having to bill the people, send it to collections etc.
That family probably declares bankruptcy and that bill gets written off.. but not really.. the rest of us are paying for it in higher costs!
OR the other scenario is that they then apply for medicaid and MAY be approved because the sick spouse is not going to be working because of said illness.. then that's just another sick person using the system of medicaid..which for reasons we've mentioned before, is flailing.
NOw.. had that same family been on a plan where insurance was affordable.. sure.. they may be getting subsidized by the government to make up the difference ( in the scenario I mentioned) but then we wouldn't have to have the cost rising because of unpaid bills.. because the insurance would be there to pay that bill.. AND that family would have been contributing to that care in paying their premium.
Quote:
"If treatment is a right.. then we should all have the rigth to pay what we can afford for said treatment.. and in order to determine that shouldn't we as a society make up an acceptable amount (or percentage) that each person should be required to pay of their salary for said treatments that we all have the right to?"
See comments above. Who exactly is "we as a society" who will determine what each person should pay?
|
The same "we as a society" that sets the laws for punishment of murderers, drunk driving etc. ?? Our society.
How do we determine how much is affordable.. well the same way we determine what percentage of income a family should be spending on housing.. etc.
"I just want what I deserve and have the rigth too (treatment) like anyone else.. and want to pay what I can for it based on what I have available too pay"
Quote:
And that's the crux of it, isn't it. "I want what I deserve and have a right to, and I want to pay what I can...based on what I have available..."
We're back to the question of who determines what you have "available".
Do you have to give up private school for your kids?
|
If health insurance is mandatory.. and there is a set percentage of income that is determined to be a fair amount of income to pay.. say 10% of your income should be for that medical insurance.. then if you have enough money beyond that to pay for private school .. then you don't have to give it up. No one has a right to private school BUT. since schooling in this country is given to EVERYONE because education is considered a RIGHT of every person (just like treatment is a right) it is provided for through taxes WE ALL PAY.. Yeah.. some send kids to school and don't pay taxes.. but then some are already using the medical system and don't pay or recieving welfare and don't pay.
Quote:
Do you have to stop giving to your church/synagogue? does your family have to give up that second car? Does someone have to close a business that is barely making it, and get a job instead? Maybe you could work two jobs (as many people do)? Does a person have to buy store brands instead of name brands? How about the two TVs in the house? Perhaps you should give up cable and stick to a handful of local channels. We all can think of things to add to that list that could be eliminated to give you more "avalable" to pay for what you feel you have a right to. Some kids grow up in second hand clothes. Your kids might have to, so that someone else doesn't have to shoulder the extra cost of what you feel you are entitled to.
|
You're right.. but that is why insurance should be MANDATORY and a determined % of your income should be considered for paying said mandatory insurance. Whatever is left after that is at your own discretion. If you have money to buy that second car.. then by all means do so.
And this is a scenario NOT where someone is paying 10% of their salary and another is paying 10% of their salary. As I pointed out.. based on the 4 person family average cost of insurance of $12,000 the more you make the less of your salary that is going to take up. What something like that would do is prevent the insurance from taking up so much of someone's income that they then have not enough left to afford rent, or clothes or the basics...
Again.. health insurance eats up over 20% of an average income of $56K. AND with employers dropping and wanting to drop insurance there is no way a family making $56K can afford to lose over 20% of their income.. nor can they actually afford the care that is needed.
Quote:
You see, I feel I have a right to eat fresh produce, and certainly frozen over canned (because it's better for my health). The same applies to nutritional supplements, because it is said that a lot of foods are deficient in vitamins. But if I can't always afford the frozen foods, should someone else
pitch in to subsidize that? How about the over-the-counter medicines that people need? Do people have a "right" to those? Are those different from prescription drugs? Should others help pay for the antacids that somebody else needs, or the Zantac? Taking those may be a preventive measure.
|
Food can not compare to medicine. Reason.. food is not cost prohibitive. YES the types of food you eat are going to be determined by your income level. Those with high income levels tend to eat all organic food and eat at better restaurants. The rest of us buy the cheaper stuff. But the point is..unless you are among the "poor" you are eating. AND.. FOOD IS subsidized for the poor.. food stamps, WIC etc. Then there is the food pantries of charity..
But medicine is more complicated than food.. and certainly more cost prohibitive. We can put food in our bellies off the $1 menu for a dollar.
Quote:
Where, exactly do we draw the line? So much of this has already been discussed in the way of examples, that I agree with those who say that the debate is going in circles. Mostly, that is happening because the arguments are subjective and philosophical/ethical and not everyone agrees on that part. .
note: "you" is being used here in the generic sense.
|
The lines can easily be drawn in the healthcare debate.
1) We all seem to have agreed that treatment is rendered because getting treatment is a right that should not be denied anyone regardless of ability to pay. If we , as a society, felt otherwise, many would die on the streets and denied treatment.
We then need to say that everyone who can SHOULD have skin in the game then.. especially if everyone is going to have the ability to have that treatment.
2) Just as we say that a certain percentage of your income should be set for you housing, food etc.. so should healthcare.
If housing is not available that is within what 35% of someone's income can afford..they get subsidized housing (section 8) .. food.. they get food stamps..
People already recieving medicaid.. will still get medicaid.. but people currently without insurance will be paying something and getting subsidized the rest (and these people also pay income taxes too)... No one will be without insurance.. all bills will get paid.. etc.
Sounds good to me.