Health care

[moogle1]

Conversation with my brother on UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE. A rare political post.

me: What are people saying in Arizona?

B: It varies widely from person to person. Some people maintain that it's essential. A necessity. Others think it's a crock. Of course, people that already have health care are least likely to want it to change.

me: Do you

Comments

[aliasjack]

By all means, if you have more money you can buy better insurance and health care, but some minimum level shouldn't be such a stretch. Health care is expensive, and I hardly think people should have to die in some cases because they couldn't afford the treatment they needed.

[moogle1]

Right, and I think I agree, but what's the minimum? It's really hard to define! Where's the dividing line between a necessary operation and a quality-of-life operation? Maybe if I had a better background in medicine I'd feel qualified to make that distinction, but I don't think so. It's not an easy question, and certainly not easy to handle bureaucratically.

[rinku]

do you believe food stamps should exist? i.e. those without any food get food stamps so that they won't die of starvation in the streets. if so, then you have to necessarily believe the same of health care: some minimum health care so that they all don't just die of easily curable diseases in the streets. the two are related.

my main problem with most people who are anti- universal health care is that they accept most of what govt already does for people as good, but just see universal health care as bad. i.e. to be logically consistent, you have to either hold one of these two positions:

- public schools, food stamps, welfare, social security, public roads, the post office, medicare, student loans, and medicaid should not exist

- universal health care should exist

anything else and you're not being logically consistent

[moogle1]

See my reply to Uncommon; it's not that I don't think UHC should exist, it's that it's really hard to figure out where the line is drawn.

[shaede]

Fixing up your body is like taking your car to the auto shop. Your car doesn't have the right to function, it simply does or does not. The human body, though much more complex, is the same. If you want it fixed when it gets broken, you simply have to pay for that service. If you can't pay for it, then you simply don't get the service. It's not a right to life issue simply because you're not paying doctors to prevent them from coming to your house and killing you.

[moogle1]

I can see that viewpoint, but what about that last example? What if a drunk driver hits you? Surely then you're entitled to repairs; your car already is.

From there, it gets vague: what if someone infects you with his disease? What if a restaurant's food makes you ill?

Also, see Rinku's comments, which I think make good points.

[shaede]

If someone causes damages to you or your property, then the government should come in an enforce that they you pay damages. I know that if I was hurt in an accident caused by a drunk driver that I would do everything to displace my medical bills on to them. In fact, that's pretty common