Sonny Clark
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #101
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't recall using the term "basic health care". Is there such a thing as "basic health care"? Health care is whatever is required to make a patient as healthy as possible. Different people see doctors for different reasons. Different people are admitted to a hospital for different reasons. Lab tests are done for different reasons. X-Rays and MRI's are done for different reasons. Prescriptions are written for different patients for different reasons. So, what is "basic health care"? There are many reasons why someone gets treatment and follow-up attention. I don't believe that I've ever used the term "basic health care".FYI - The average person can NOT afford basic health care. I just had an MRI that cost over $4,000. My prescriptions would cost a lot of money each month without insurance covering 95% of the cost. Can you imagine what the expense it would be for a family of four just to have an annual check-up? Do you realize what lab work cost? Do you know what an average doctor visit cost? The average person is doing well just to pay mortgage ( rent ), food, transportation, utilities, clothing, and insurance on their home and auto. Most people do not have a nest egg to draw from. People aren't making the money they use to make. The cost of living has gone up. Employers are paying less benefits for employees. A lot of college kids have enormous student loan debt. Seniors have lost equity in their homes, and some have lost part of their pensions due to mismanagement of the funds by unions and cities. We are not a wealthy citizenry. We are not a self-supporting people, nor a self-supporting nation. Proper health care is an enormous cost. At some point, almost everyone needs some form of assistance. Again, common sense and simple logic.What's wrong with this option?:
My heart is failing which means it's time for me to die. Why has it become imperative that I be kept alive at all costs? Is it fair for me to burden my family with giant medical costs just so I can add a few more years of life which would likely be a low quality of life?
If that were the decision, we'd be more rational about it. But it's not. The decision is whether or not to it's fair to burden some faceless, socialized, health-care cost sharing scheme. Faced with that kind of decision, there's every incentive to go for broke.
There's a lot of sanity in the statement. It's factual and a truism. The help is coming from taxpayers, charities, trust funds, family members, and from debt forgiveness. Examples: Medicare, Medicaid, trust funds such as St. Jude's Children Hospital, and in some cases, debt forgiveness which turns into tax write-offs. Just common sense and simple logic.I understand what you're saying here. But, still, the problem is one of rising cost, and individuals need some form of assistance in order to get the necessary treatment they need when it comes to proper health care. Regardless of whether we have choices or not, regardless of whether those choices include government requirements, and regardless of insurance or lack of insurance, we still need help paying for proper health care. It's not a choice of paying or allowing others to subsidize it, we all need some form of help paying for health care.
Again, I have to ask you to check the sanity of such a statement. If we all need help, who's doing the "helping"?
No, there's not. If the average person can't afford basic health care, there's something seriously wrong. Something socializing costs isn't going to solve.
Again, I think we have to stop and think about the basic assumptions at work here. How are you defining 'basic health care'? I'd argue that, rather than picking some arbitrary minimum of health care, and then whining because everyone can't afford it, that it makes more sense to establish our idea of basic health care based on what most people can afford. Our expectations need to match reality, and currently, they don't.