4 ms·

> It's so sad that the country where Richard lived, worked and paid taxes for about 30 years can't provide for him. I'm not sure why your first instinct is to

by wtbob 13y ago

> It's so sad that the country where Richard lived, worked and paid taxes for about 30 years can't provide for him. I'm not sure why your first instinct is to think that he should rely on his country rather than on his family and friends.

jtreminio 13y ago
Because he paid taxes to his government, not his friends.
- hueving 13y ago
  Not to be rude, but that doesn't obligate the government to provide that particular service. Just because I pay taxes doesn't obligate the government to provide me a house. Why is that the case for health care?
  - adventured 13y ago
    To answer your question seriously and without any implied political bent, the reason is: healthcare in the first world has become considered a right or entitlement. It's really no more complex than that.
    - hueving 13y ago
      >To answer your question seriously and without any implied political bent, the reason is: healthcare in the first world has become considered a right or entitlement. That's the thing though. It has only become a right or entitlement in the places that provide it. I'd wager people would feel the exact same way if their government provided housing when compared to countries that don't provide housing.
      - adventured 13y ago
        It's a purely subjective priority issue, is what I was saying. All things that are entitlements only become such because they're first provided, naturally (can't have an entitlement without it first existing). I suppose your implication is meant to be that if it weren't provided, it could have never become an entitlement - that's true, but it wouldn't prevent the population from looking across the border or oceans and yearning for the entitlements others have in first world nations. No doubt entitlement priorities vary based on the development level of the country, the culture, and so on ad infinitum. There is hardly a social safety net in China for example, the population is heavily expected to handle its own savings. Most likely their population will gradually demand more entitlements, looking to copy what others have done. There are obviously all sorts of arguments that focus on bankruptcy, high costs, the burden of being without a job, and so on when it comes to healthcare - that sound far more reasonable than other entitlement arguments (eg should everyone be given a free yacht). America of course does provide free and or heavily subsidized housing (not free house ownership mind you), in every state in the union in fact (along with federal programs). Mostly it's a matter of what you qualify for, and where (varying based on what's available in your location, and what your income is, etc). I don't think all entitlements are created equal in terms of demand or import; the population of a country is going to regard some as far more important than others.
  - eloisant 13y ago
    Well, it's in the best interest of society as a whole to keep people in good health. For many reasons but in particular public health, because if people don't get vaccines or don't cure infectious diseases it can spread and potentially affect everyone. This is why in France we have universal healthcare, that goes beyond legal residents but also benefits illegals (with AME, Aide Médicale d'État).
- wtbob 13y ago
  You (and the downvoters) don't get it: my surprise is that bestham's first reaction was not human sympathy for someone suffering; his first reaction wasn't to try to help; his first reaction was to score a cheap political shot. That's awfully sad, albeit not as sad as the fact that it was successful.
  - jtreminio 13y ago
    You're right, I don't get it. We're not politicians, we're developers. He's pointing out the fact that he's paid taxes for $x years and in the moment he needs the most help, his government is not here to provide for him. He's not saying Obama or Bush or Clinton or Bush or $foo, he's saying the government.
  - bestham 13y ago
    My first reaction was to provide some help for him, I did and boy am I sorry for him and everyone in his predicament. While doing that I could also identify an underlying problem in the way he has to beg for help and how unfair a system like this is to everyone that is suffering from similar diseases, terminal or not. If Richard and his family would not have to care about the money, this thread could be about nothing else beside him and his achievements.
benched 13y ago
Some people don't have family. Friends are good at help that's very limited in time, extent, and especially cost.
scarmig 13y ago
Couple points: 1) Larger risk pools are better. Let's say you have your ten closest family members and friends, and they're willing to spend an arbitrary amount to save your life. Despite that, a diagnosis like brain cancer or a severe heart attack with complications is likely to bankrupt all of them. Make it hundreds of millions of people, and the bumps are smoothed out to oblivion. 2) Lots of people are embedded in communities that have fewer resources available than other communities. You're damning them to die--or, in this case, die in a significantly less dignified way without proper palliative treatment--just because their friends and family happen to be poorer. 3) What about the people who don't have many family members or friends? Do we just want to condemn them to suffer, merely because they thrive with only a few friends instead of many? Private insurance helps with these problems. Some people, however, aren't willing, knowledgeable, or rich enough to purchase health insurance. Even if you hold them in contempt and think that they deserve to die because of their lack of insurance, as a society we don't like that. So we can either (a) provide everyone with public health insurance/care or (b) require everyone to purchase insurance. Some countries go with (a), some with (b), most a mixture of the two. It's best that whatever country we're in, we look at the countries that have had the best results in health outcomes and copy them as best we can in new local contexts.
zethraeus 13y ago
A point i think is important that hasn't been explicitly raised in any other reply to you is that a a societal reliance on friends and family as the measure of last resort is significantly less egalitarian than nation state support could be. Does that make sense?

by wtbob 13y ago

jtreminio 13y ago

Because he paid taxes to his government, not his friends.

hueving 13y ago
Not to be rude, but that doesn't obligate the government to provide that particular service. Just because I pay taxes doesn't obligate the government to provide me a house. Why is that the case for health care?
- adventured 13y ago
  To answer your question seriously and without any implied political bent, the reason is: healthcare in the first world has become considered a right or entitlement. It's really no more complex than that.
  - hueving 13y ago
    >To answer your question seriously and without any implied political bent, the reason is: healthcare in the first world has become considered a right or entitlement. That's the thing though. It has only become a right or entitlement in the places that provide it. I'd wager people would feel the exact same way if their government provided housing when compared to countries that don't provide housing.
    - adventured 13y ago
      It's a purely subjective priority issue, is what I was saying. All things that are entitlements only become such because they're first provided, naturally (can't have an entitlement without it first existing). I suppose your implication is meant to be that if it weren't provided, it could have never become an entitlement - that's true, but it wouldn't prevent the population from looking across the border or oceans and yearning for the entitlements others have in first world nations. No doubt entitlement priorities vary based on the development level of the country, the culture, and so on ad infinitum. There is hardly a social safety net in China for example, the population is heavily expected to handle its own savings. Most likely their population will gradually demand more entitlements, looking to copy what others have done. There are obviously all sorts of arguments that focus on bankruptcy, high costs, the burden of being without a job, and so on when it comes to healthcare - that sound far more reasonable than other entitlement arguments (eg should everyone be given a free yacht). America of course does provide free and or heavily subsidized housing (not free house ownership mind you), in every state in the union in fact (along with federal programs). Mostly it's a matter of what you qualify for, and where (varying based on what's available in your location, and what your income is, etc). I don't think all entitlements are created equal in terms of demand or import; the population of a country is going to regard some as far more important than others.
- eloisant 13y ago
  Well, it's in the best interest of society as a whole to keep people in good health. For many reasons but in particular public health, because if people don't get vaccines or don't cure infectious diseases it can spread and potentially affect everyone. This is why in France we have universal healthcare, that goes beyond legal residents but also benefits illegals (with AME, Aide Médicale d'État).
wtbob 13y ago
You (and the downvoters) don't get it: my surprise is that bestham's first reaction was not human sympathy for someone suffering; his first reaction wasn't to try to help; his first reaction was to score a cheap political shot. That's awfully sad, albeit not as sad as the fact that it was successful.
- jtreminio 13y ago
  You're right, I don't get it. We're not politicians, we're developers. He's pointing out the fact that he's paid taxes for $x years and in the moment he needs the most help, his government is not here to provide for him. He's not saying Obama or Bush or Clinton or Bush or $foo, he's saying the government.
- bestham 13y ago
  My first reaction was to provide some help for him, I did and boy am I sorry for him and everyone in his predicament. While doing that I could also identify an underlying problem in the way he has to beg for help and how unfair a system like this is to everyone that is suffering from similar diseases, terminal or not. If Richard and his family would not have to care about the money, this thread could be about nothing else beside him and his achievements.

benched 13y ago

Some people don't have family. Friends are good at help that's very limited in time, extent, and especially cost.

scarmig 13y ago

Couple points: 1) Larger risk pools are better. Let's say you have your ten closest family members and friends, and they're willing to spend an arbitrary amount to save your life. Despite that, a diagnosis like brain cancer or a severe heart attack with complications is likely to bankrupt all of them. Make it hundreds of millions of people, and the bumps are smoothed out to oblivion. 2) Lots of people are embedded in communities that have fewer resources available than other communities. You're damning them to die--or, in this case, die in a significantly less dignified way without proper palliative treatment--just because their friends and family happen to be poorer. 3) What about the people who don't have many family members or friends? Do we just want to condemn them to suffer, merely because they thrive with only a few friends instead of many? Private insurance helps with these problems. Some people, however, aren't willing, knowledgeable, or rich enough to purchase health insurance. Even if you hold them in contempt and think that they deserve to die because of their lack of insurance, as a society we don't like that. So we can either (a) provide everyone with public health insurance/care or (b) require everyone to purchase insurance. Some countries go with (a), some with (b), most a mixture of the two. It's best that whatever country we're in, we look at the countries that have had the best results in health outcomes and copy them as best we can in new local contexts.

zethraeus 13y ago

A point i think is important that hasn't been explicitly raised in any other reply to you is that a a societal reliance on friends and family as the measure of last resort is significantly less egalitarian than nation state support could be. Does that make sense?