Indeed. I can certainly appreciate that we may not all agree on the exact best methods to finance certain initiatives like health care subsidy- where or how additional funds for a budget can be appropriated, or which programs should be given lower priority. I can understand some discussion of HOW to best do such a thing to avoid exploitation, profiteering, corruption, unforeseen harms- but I can’t fathom beyond some brutalist notion of cold self determinism how one can outright oppose the concept.
Guys stop downvoting him, he's on the way of becoming self-aware lol
Edit: I was commenting on a spiteful new user, that is now gone, together with all his comments.
Universal healthcare is simply health insurance whose premiums are paid by a portion of our taxes. There's no deductible or co-pay and you can't be turned down for pre-existing conditions or any other reason. It's no more "socialism" than paying taxes for universal police protection, universal fire prevention, universal road system, etc.
I'm waiting for someone to come in here and say that because I have schizophrenia and epilepsy, which are both conditions I could have done nothing to prevent, that I should just be homeless and unmedicated because I don't deserve medicaid.
In this day in age people who would not have made it far beyond birth if that survive and live pretty well. The “lottery of fate” can be mitigated through technology and society- and these truly are aims of a democratic and compassionate society based in equality. Brilliant minds like Steven Hawking and others who never would have gotten the chance to make incredible contributions to society if not for these advances. It wasn’t more than a hundred years ago that people shat in pots and holes, that syphilis was a death sentence.
We pay for public schools even if we don’t have kids or our kids go to private school. We pay for libraries and community colleges and parks and all manner of things we may never use. I don’t know anyone who’s ever called a fire department- but there isn’t just some abstract moral reason for it- all these things wether you use them or not benefit YOU.
They may not do so directly- but when your neighbor starts a fire and it burns down your property too- even if you put it out there’s still damage. If you live out where you have no close neighbors? If 5 urban blocks without fire breaks go up from a space heater- you’re insurance will go up amongst other things. When you’re 50 and things are falling apart and you can’t find a good doctor because we raised a generation of numptys? That’ll suck. When that kid who could be something sees they have no shot of ever getting an education and doing anything and decides to turn to crime or is forced by necessity- That’ll effect you too.
So even if one doesn’t believe that it’s the responsibility of a compassionate society, if one doesn’t believe that a country touting itself as a world leader should... be more than just slums and mansions, even if one doesn’t believe in equal opportunity and using society as a tool to give EVERYONE and equal chance regardless of their birth- just remember that time and time again it’s been shown that programs to elevate people from poverty pay dividends and well implemented ones cost less than doing nothing.
But- @nicengleman- if I wanted to play devils advocate I would bring up, on the subject of “disadvantage by birthright” that it is not limited to health. A child who inherits is generally at great advantage. A child randomly through no doing is even born to middle class parents who an pay their education or leave them assets like a home. Even our very Genes can give us advantage. Some people aren’t going to be supermodels or pro athletes no matter what they do. So there is a certain imbalance which we cannot conceivably eliminate. Just as a child born with nothing- or even a deficit- such as a child born addicted to drugs etc- could “work their way out” so too could we argue that the person with an expensive condition would be motivated to find a way to earn enough money to get by.
If we can expect a child who’s parents not only do not raise them in a manner that would cultivate success- but perhaps even in ways that hinder success- and who has socioeconomic factors stacked against them to do so- we could expect the same of a child born with illness. We aren’t really responsible for who are parents are are we? We can as easily argue parents of a disabled child have the job to make sure the child is financially provided for in care or imparted to know growing up they must excel.
(I don’t personally believe this- just for the statement you made in playing devils advocate. I believe there will be certain things we cannot change about the “luck of the draw” in birth- but I firstly believe that just like those born with medical issues a modern society has the responsibility to help “even the playing field” for children born to less than ideal socioeconomic circumstances or parents who don’t provide the advantages others do. I also feel inheritance and generational wealth should be abolished but that’s a slight divergence.)
Schizophrenia requires treatment, there is no "working through it." You can get better and then do better but a person with no prior advantage that develops schizophrenia is at the whims of the world around themselves. I take a myriad of medications, one of which is $60 a pill, which I take twice a day. Most schizophrenics spend at least part of their lives homeless, and the ones that don't spend an average of 7 years of their life hospitalized. I've never been hospitalized for more than two weeks, usually only for 5 days at a time, and rarely, which is the closest someone comes to being stronger than their problem. Yes, you can eventually become successful and have great insurance that pays for most of your meds while you pay $1000 or more a month in co-pays, but if you don't start off wealthy enough to afford all that, you're fucked without medicaid.
Mind you that medicaid makes sure to get those pill prices reduced. Regular insurance pays the full price, which goes to further say that if government insurance can get medicine prices reduced, they are simply charging more for people that can afford it.
Oh- don’t get me wrong. I’m not disagreeing or making light of your own or anyone else’s condition. I have my own very expensive health issues I was born with. But devils advocate- one doesn’t “power through” most mental conditions- but isn’t it a parents responsibility to get their child’s condition under control, and bridge the child’s transition to adulthood- whereupon a child aware of the expense their condition carries would have worked hard to ensure they- as an adult- are in a position where they can earn enough to provide for their own care? Thusly for the minor the parent would maintain their health and build them a foundation to allow the adult child to them continue that maintenance? How would that differ say- from a child who grew up in a home where they were emotionally abused and as such are developmentally stunted and carry trauma which prevents them from being able to function in society without care?
they're both right
firefighting is a gigantic public expense, yet only a tiny minority of people actually need it, and they're almost always unresponsible or trashy
t. firefighter
Irresponsible is the word you’re looking for. And I doubt the only people who need fire and ambulance services are “trashy” or irresponsible. That doesn’t make any sense.
Indeed. The entire town of Paradise California or Napa California were simply trashy and irresponsible when poor maintenance by utilities providers caused massive fires. Of course I’m sure if those New Yorkers had been more responsible we wouldn’t have had to spend big money on all their fire fighters at ground zero. When a hurricane or other disaster hits and causes fires- when that refinery blew up in Philadelphia or the gas lines exploded in San Bruno- we can argue that these were all preventable- but realistically not so much- realistically when there is fire for whatever reason- fire fighters protect not just the person who maybe used a bottle rocket in their wood shed- but their neighbors and millions or billions of dollars in damage that responsible people could suffer because an irresponsible one strayed a fire. So one way or another fire services protect the public and not just the initial origin point of the fire.
Yes and no. They fueled it more. But my point was sarcasm. Things happen- sometimes something breaks, other times a lightening strike, and yeah- sometimes a fire starts from a single careless cigarette butt or doing something truly foolish. But that’s the thing- however a fire starts, once it starts and if not stopped immediately it spreads. We cant say that without irresponsibility or a certain type of people we wouldn’t need fire responders. We cant even say that we “waste money” having them fight the fires of those doing truly ill advised and foreseeable dangerous things because once a fire is going the circumstances and it’s environment feed it- and it can and likely will cause harm and cost money to those not even involved.
Edit: I was commenting on a spiteful new user, that is now gone, together with all his comments.
firefighting is a gigantic public expense, yet only a tiny minority of people actually need it, and they're almost always unresponsible or trashy
t. firefighter