My health care reform test.
Technically, I have health insurance. It's provided by my employer. It's also basically useless. Because of the way it's structured, they basically won't pay a dime until I have incurred $3,000 in medical expenses. And they don't cover prescriptions at all. It's meant to cover catastrophic injuries, ie. if something really really bad happens, in theory they will pay for most of it. Or a lot of it.
Of course, that $3k would break me. If I wasn't in a position where $3k would break me, I'd be able to afford the monthly premiums to get better insurance. And I can guarantee you that any illness or injury that cost more than $3k is going to come with some pretty important RX, which I also could not afford.
So I am sitting back and looking at this health care "debate" and I have one question for all the politicians and their plans. This is my simple test for any health care reforms. When all is said and done, will I be able to walk into the doctor's office when I am sick and walk out with a prescription for antibiotics? Will the entire thing (including the meds) cost me $25 or less? Because at my current income, that's about the cost threshold for whether I can go or not.
Isn't it worth it for every American citizen to chip in a bit to make sure the strangers they rub shoulders with everyday don't become a disease vector? Isn't it worth paying a bit to make sure people get physical ailments treated before they become a chronic disability and they become a drag on our system anyways?
Is this even possible in a system of private insurers? I'm not saying it isn't, but if it is, would somebody tell me how?
I think a major part of the problem here is that there is a huge (mostly white conservative) part of the population who sees income as a marker of social worth. That people who make more money deserve more wealth, status, and comfort. Just look at the language we use--people earn money as if whatever effort they put forth justifies a moral entitlement to large sums of cash. People make money, as if they are some sort of master artisan crafting perfect paychecks through their inherent awesomeness.
Well guess what? I spend my workdays giving unconditional support to developmentally disabled teenagers, some of whom have been lifted out of terrible and traumatic situations. It's a job that few people are both willing and qualified to do. By their moral standards, I should be making bank, but I'm not. Because in the end, income is about power and class, which is also often about race. It's about the power to not care about other people. It's about the power to look at a poor person who has been coughing their lungs out for two weeks and ignore the fact that in other developed countries, they wouldn't have to.
That's my ultimate test then, and I would like to hear it asked repeatedly of the people making the policies. Will anyone off the street be able to walk in and be seen for a cold? Will the system work to keep our population healthy by treating every individual within the population?
Of course, that $3k would break me. If I wasn't in a position where $3k would break me, I'd be able to afford the monthly premiums to get better insurance. And I can guarantee you that any illness or injury that cost more than $3k is going to come with some pretty important RX, which I also could not afford.
So I am sitting back and looking at this health care "debate" and I have one question for all the politicians and their plans. This is my simple test for any health care reforms. When all is said and done, will I be able to walk into the doctor's office when I am sick and walk out with a prescription for antibiotics? Will the entire thing (including the meds) cost me $25 or less? Because at my current income, that's about the cost threshold for whether I can go or not.
Isn't it worth it for every American citizen to chip in a bit to make sure the strangers they rub shoulders with everyday don't become a disease vector? Isn't it worth paying a bit to make sure people get physical ailments treated before they become a chronic disability and they become a drag on our system anyways?
Is this even possible in a system of private insurers? I'm not saying it isn't, but if it is, would somebody tell me how?
I think a major part of the problem here is that there is a huge (mostly white conservative) part of the population who sees income as a marker of social worth. That people who make more money deserve more wealth, status, and comfort. Just look at the language we use--people earn money as if whatever effort they put forth justifies a moral entitlement to large sums of cash. People make money, as if they are some sort of master artisan crafting perfect paychecks through their inherent awesomeness.
Well guess what? I spend my workdays giving unconditional support to developmentally disabled teenagers, some of whom have been lifted out of terrible and traumatic situations. It's a job that few people are both willing and qualified to do. By their moral standards, I should be making bank, but I'm not. Because in the end, income is about power and class, which is also often about race. It's about the power to not care about other people. It's about the power to look at a poor person who has been coughing their lungs out for two weeks and ignore the fact that in other developed countries, they wouldn't have to.
That's my ultimate test then, and I would like to hear it asked repeatedly of the people making the policies. Will anyone off the street be able to walk in and be seen for a cold? Will the system work to keep our population healthy by treating every individual within the population?