3 ms·
Because it's a slippery slope. You can always argue that a blind person is able to work in some way (callcenter, software dev, etc), and/or you can argue the sa
by stingraycharles 9y ago
Because it's a slippery slope. You can always argue that a blind person is able to work in some way (callcenter, software dev, etc), and/or you can argue the same for other diseases. Where do you draw the line ?
That argument aside, I am of the opinion that all healthcare should (eventually) be free so that arguments like these become moot.
- kungito 9y agoThis opinion comes around often and what bothers me a bit is this "free" in free healthcare. There is no such thing. Eventually the money for the people and things has to come from somewhere. The conversation is often about how do some EU countries have free healthcare and US doesn't. The answer is higher taxes, longer waiting lists, lower quality, no support for extreme cases and low accountability. "Free healthcare" countries often cannot afford these modern cutting edge treatments so people often end up leaving for US to pay for the treatment themselves. If US didn't have such a brutal healthcare system then who would do the research since the "free healthcare" countries cannot afford it?
- albertgoeswoof 9y agoHealthcare is essential. Either you pay for the healthcare through taxes, or society does in some other way. The some other way that the US has implemented is to put layers bureaucracy of insurance and artificial "market choices" on top of the care, which removes all inefficiencies and inflates the cost dramatically. Of course the alternative is to leave people with health conditions out on the street and just ignore them, which does seem to be a common occurrence in the US
- bmmayer1 9y agoHow does healthcare becoming free (i.e. government funded) make the question of cost and benefit moot? If anything it becomes more of an issue because now such decisions are being made by political appointees and bureaucrats.
- chefkoch 9y agoInstead of insurance companies?
- whiddershins 9y agoI used to think all healthcare should be free. One observation changed my belief: “The demand for healthcare is effectively infinite.” There really is no limit to a person’s healthcare needs. It’s a moving target. The only way to make all healthcare free would be to start by defining exactly what is and isn’t healthcare. That’s exactly what is upsetting about the concept of government provided services. At some point someone will have to say “enough.” Who would decide that, and how?
- albertgoeswoof 9y agoElected officials with the support of experts, just like in every democracy
- wozmirek 9y agoSure thing, I think the current soft limit is set by your doctor, who will e.g. postpone your non-essential (e.g. cosmetic) treatment. Blindness is just that - blindness. I see no slippery slope here. Currently experienced three health systems: Polish, US and German; first is woefully underfunded and public, second is ultra-private, third is a properly funded public system. In Poland, I used both public and private, using private whenever I could (think dentist, blood test etc.); in US I never went to the doctor because I had to pay extra; in Germany I feel comfortable and happy with the fact that I get public healthcare for my taxes. Actually planning a string of visits to the dentist ;)