In truth, this represents additional inequality by putting the cost burdens of caring for those who don't manage themselves on those who do.
This implies that, any time someone is sick, it could have been prevented if they had "managed themselves" better.
As if a woman who gets raped and ends up with AIDS, or a grandfather who develops crippling arthritis, or a child born with diabetes, are all somehow to blame for not being in perfect health.
One measure of a society is how well it takes care of its neediest members. I want some of the money I earn to be used to help other people. And, in turn, if I develop breast cancer (which isn't idle speculation; there's a history of it in my family) and can't afford chemo, I would rather not just be allowed to die.
Sorry - I was speaking mainly in the case of obesity and cigarette smoking. (We were going over that in class so it was on my mind.) I wasn't discussing the diseases you brought up
( ... )
Obesity can have many causes - genetics, for example, or side effects of necessary medication. So you're left hanging on the rather dodgy premise that people who smoke Deserve To Die Of Lung Cancer.
Even then, you can hardly argue that a system that takes money from everyone and spends it on health care for everyone is somehow "taking money from the poor and spending it on the rich." Government officials pay taxes like everyone else (okay, some don't, but they're breaking the law), and it isn't only government employees that get sick.
I like the idea of giving my money to a program that is owned by me, and answerable to me.
I'm arguing that everyone is responsible for paying their own bills be they healthy or unhealthy. If I'm injured, it's my responsibility to cover the bill, be it by having insurance or paying it out of pocket to the provider. I have no right to infringe on another person and make them pay it for me
( ... )
Just don't argue it by suggesting that anyone who gets sick has only themself to blame.
Government programs come about because taxpayers have voted the people who make them into office. If you don't like the way the government is handling this, you vote somebody else into office. If I give my money to Charity X and it goes badly, I'm out of luck.
Look, I'm all in favor of efficiency, and government bureaucracies are notoriously inefficient. But I'm also in favor of a society that (for example) guarantees that every child gets vaccinated against measles. And I'm not convinced that a totally privatized, market-driven system can pull that off. (Is there any historical situation where it has?)
I wasn't arguing that you only have yourself to blame. It's an accurate statement that people care for their bodies in varying levels and that this level of care can increase or decrease susceptibility. The freedom to behave as you wish for maintaining your own health is something I support. However, it should be accompanied by the responsibility of having to pay for the care you need
( ... )
This implies that, any time someone is sick, it could have been prevented if they had "managed themselves" better.
As if a woman who gets raped and ends up with AIDS, or a grandfather who develops crippling arthritis, or a child born with diabetes, are all somehow to blame for not being in perfect health.
One measure of a society is how well it takes care of its neediest members. I want some of the money I earn to be used to help other people. And, in turn, if I develop breast cancer (which isn't idle speculation; there's a history of it in my family) and can't afford chemo, I would rather not just be allowed to die.
Reply
Reply
Even then, you can hardly argue that a system that takes money from everyone and spends it on health care for everyone is somehow "taking money from the poor and spending it on the rich." Government officials pay taxes like everyone else (okay, some don't, but they're breaking the law), and it isn't only government employees that get sick.
I like the idea of giving my money to a program that is owned by me, and answerable to me.
Reply
Reply
Government programs come about because taxpayers have voted the people who make them into office. If you don't like the way the government is handling this, you vote somebody else into office. If I give my money to Charity X and it goes badly, I'm out of luck.
Look, I'm all in favor of efficiency, and government bureaucracies are notoriously inefficient. But I'm also in favor of a society that (for example) guarantees that every child gets vaccinated against measles. And I'm not convinced that a totally privatized, market-driven system can pull that off. (Is there any historical situation where it has?)
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment