A hard conversation is what level of health care is a basic human right and what level is a luxury.
Like so many things at the fringes its pretty easy.
We should definitely pay to close the wound and stop the bleeding to death. We should not pay for an otherwise healthy woman to have bigger boobs. (I'm specifically excluding cosmetic reconstruction post cancer because....thread derail)
But when we get closer to the middle the lines get blurry. 90 year old has terminal cancer. Life can be extended maybe up to 2 years with aggressive expensive treatment.
Hail Mary cure attempt at otherwise terminal situation.
Then we get into all the grey area of lung cancer from smoking, alcohol induced liver issues, obesity caused litany of issues.
I'm not anchored in concrete against "universal healthcare" but I dont support it either.
Personally its not ebcause I dont think basic medical care isnt a basic human right, its more that I have zero faith any government ran entity can provide optimal care without making a huge(r?) mess of the situation.
And where I think the crux of that argument lands is:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips
Any health care plan has to deal with the fact that we aren't and shouldn't let people die because they made bad choices in their 30s and 40s. Seniors are going to be covered, and that coverage is going to eat up a lot of resources.
|
We agree that we shouldn't "let people die" but are their tiers of care/comfort based on their ability to pay? Or does everyone get the same care? And if so then why shopuld anyone be financially responsible at all regarding their health.