4 ms·

Because many of us believe that universal health care is a human right. In a state which claims to be democratic and progressive it becomes the responsibility o

Because many of us believe that universal health care is a human right. In a state which claims to be democratic and progressive it becomes the responsibility of the state.

sp332 14y ago
Why? You might as well say that food is a human right, but feeding the population is not the responsibility of the state.
- astrodust 14y ago
  Maybe not your state, but many places have policies that reflect that people believe it is.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - sp332 14y ago
    Outside of prisons, people generally spend their own money at privately-owned grocery stores and restaurants. We don't use a "universal food access" system paid for by tax dollars and negotiated by the government.
    - DanBC 14y ago
      You don't have any system of food-vouchers or welfare stamps?
      - Mz 14y ago
        The U.S. has foodstamps, WIC,* and other programs to help feed the poor. * Women, Infant, Children. It is a supplemental nutrition program.
      - sp332 14y ago
        As Mz mentioned, we have quite a few, at various levels of government. None of them are mandated, automatic, universal, or even slightly like the proposed "universal health care" programs.
        astrodust 14y ago
        You seem opposed to universal health care in principle. I suspect your opinion will change radically when you are faced with a life-threatening condition that requires medical attention. The probability you will have one of these increases steadily with age and will eventually reach 100%. There is no escaping it. Maybe it'll be like the person who wrote the article where they get in a wreck and end up dying not because they weren't responsible or lacked insurance or expected a hand-out, but because it was more convenient for the insurance companies to ignore him until he just went away. Sometimes shit happens, and when it does a functioning, civilized society will help you through the worst of it so that you can either recover and be a productive citizen once again, or at the very least live with a measure of dignity. It doesn't benefit anyone to constantly lose productive workers, family members, fathers and mothers, scientists, researchers, artists or even those in less glamorous positions to what could've been treated in the early stages at marginal cost.
        sp332 14y ago
        because it was more convenient for the insurance companies to ignore him until he just went away. Why can't we just fix this part? Why do we have to throw out everything and start over? get in a wreck and end up dying not because they weren't responsible or lacked insurance or expected a hand-out Is it less of a tragedy then? Does dying with a different kind of disease make you feel better about it? Edit: I'm not against it in principle. I think it looks fine on paper. I'm against it because it leads to massive conflicts of interest and corruption. I don't think it's a solution to our current problems.
        Mz 14y ago
        I don't think it can be fixed. Insurance operates like Las Vegas, but minus the benefit of entertainment value. They have really smart math people (actuarials) help design things and the payments have to cover the costs of running the business plus the occasional large pay out. When the payouts get too big, they find excuses to deny more. That is how they make their money. They are not designed to take care of people. I really do not think they can be. Example: My medical diagnosis is an automatic disqualifier for many of the policies my former employer sold. Working at the company did not change that. Why? Because there is no gamble involved. It is all down side. Someone like me is guaranteed to have high healthcare expenses. There is no hope of making money off me. So they don't bother to offer coverage.

Because many of us believe that universal health care is a human right. In a state which claims to be democratic and progressive it becomes the responsibility of the state.

sp332 14y ago

Why? You might as well say that food is a human right, but feeding the population is not the responsibility of the state.

astrodust 14y ago
Maybe not your state, but many places have policies that reflect that people believe it is.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- sp332 14y ago
  Outside of prisons, people generally spend their own money at privately-owned grocery stores and restaurants. We don't use a "universal food access" system paid for by tax dollars and negotiated by the government.
  - DanBC 14y ago
    You don't have any system of food-vouchers or welfare stamps?
    - Mz 14y ago
      The U.S. has foodstamps, WIC,* and other programs to help feed the poor. * Women, Infant, Children. It is a supplemental nutrition program.
    - sp332 14y ago
      As Mz mentioned, we have quite a few, at various levels of government. None of them are mandated, automatic, universal, or even slightly like the proposed "universal health care" programs.
      - astrodust 14y ago
        You seem opposed to universal health care in principle. I suspect your opinion will change radically when you are faced with a life-threatening condition that requires medical attention. The probability you will have one of these increases steadily with age and will eventually reach 100%. There is no escaping it. Maybe it'll be like the person who wrote the article where they get in a wreck and end up dying not because they weren't responsible or lacked insurance or expected a hand-out, but because it was more convenient for the insurance companies to ignore him until he just went away. Sometimes shit happens, and when it does a functioning, civilized society will help you through the worst of it so that you can either recover and be a productive citizen once again, or at the very least live with a measure of dignity. It doesn't benefit anyone to constantly lose productive workers, family members, fathers and mothers, scientists, researchers, artists or even those in less glamorous positions to what could've been treated in the early stages at marginal cost.
        sp332 14y ago
        because it was more convenient for the insurance companies to ignore him until he just went away. Why can't we just fix this part? Why do we have to throw out everything and start over? get in a wreck and end up dying not because they weren't responsible or lacked insurance or expected a hand-out Is it less of a tragedy then? Does dying with a different kind of disease make you feel better about it? Edit: I'm not against it in principle. I think it looks fine on paper. I'm against it because it leads to massive conflicts of interest and corruption. I don't think it's a solution to our current problems.
        Mz 14y ago
        I don't think it can be fixed. Insurance operates like Las Vegas, but minus the benefit of entertainment value. They have really smart math people (actuarials) help design things and the payments have to cover the costs of running the business plus the occasional large pay out. When the payouts get too big, they find excuses to deny more. That is how they make their money. They are not designed to take care of people. I really do not think they can be. Example: My medical diagnosis is an automatic disqualifier for many of the policies my former employer sold. Working at the company did not change that. Why? Because there is no gamble involved. It is all down side. Someone like me is guaranteed to have high healthcare expenses. There is no hope of making money off me. So they don't bother to offer coverage.