Get your own damn health care

Ghoulish Delight · 02-02-2005, 10:13 AM

Yes, bankruptcy is the best tool for the situation it's meant to resolve. However, to say, "It's okay, there's always bankruptcy" is hardly a solution.

As is often the case, I'm a moderate on this issue. I don't want to see full national health care, a-la Hillary Clinton. But I think that the current programs are horribly inadequate.

I know there are people that won't take the necessary responsibility, but oh well. I do not want to live in an unhealthy nation. Helping to provide for the nation's health is in my best interest. As you well know, and agree, it would be unconscionable to have a system where people are turned away in emergency situations because they can't pay. But without some level of coverage beyond simple catastrophic coverage available to everyone, the likelihood of more people needing to take advantage of things like AHCCCS increases, and the likelihood of people having to default on payments through bankruptcy increases, and therefore in the long run will cost more than if the catastrophic medical events are prevented in the first place.

scaeagles · 02-02-2005, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

I do not want to live in an unhealthy nation. Helping to provide for the nation's health is in my best interest.

To what extreme does this go to, though? I realize you are not saying such a thing, and I am simply playing devil's advocate, but why not completely ban tobacco? Or food with a certain fat content? Or transfatty acids? Or any number of things that make us unhealthy.

So many ailments are completely avoidable. Should the government ensure that circumstances that can contribute to those situations are eliminated? No. I do not believe, then, that I should be held in anyway responsible, nor should the government be held responsible, for choices made that lead to health problems.

There are, of course, situations which are not a matter of choice. I am much more sympathetic to those, as i am sure everyone is.

I have an acquiantance who had a child with some health problems and the benefits at his job were not adequate. So he took a second full time job at - gasp - Walmart. Did it strictly for the health program he was able to get. This was 18 months or so ago, and I am not sure of the status of things.

Tough times suck. Big time. But I believe that there are outs that people do not consider because they are not easy enough. For every one of those, there are others who have no alternative but to have government assistance, and I am all for it.

02-02-2005, 10:13 AM	#1
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	Yes, bankruptcy is the best tool for the situation it's meant to resolve. However, to say, "It's okay, there's always bankruptcy" is hardly a solution. As is often the case, I'm a moderate on this issue. I don't want to see full national health care, a-la Hillary Clinton. But I think that the current programs are horribly inadequate. I know there are people that won't take the necessary responsibility, but oh well. I do not want to live in an unhealthy nation. Helping to provide for the nation's health is in my best interest. As you well know, and agree, it would be unconscionable to have a system where people are turned away in emergency situations because they can't pay. But without some level of coverage beyond simple catastrophic coverage available to everyone, the likelihood of more people needing to take advantage of things like AHCCCS increases, and the likelihood of people having to default on payments through bankruptcy increases, and therefore in the long run will cost more than if the catastrophic medical events are prevented in the first place. __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes