jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (46 posts)

Is it fair that only the wealthy can afford proper health care

  1. moneyfairy profile image63
    moneyfairyposted 3 years ago

    It seems that unless you are upper middle class or wealthy you can't afford proper health care. It just doesn't seem fair. I am happy so far that I have been healthy, but just a simple cold or flu to get penecilin you have to pay a Dr. almost $200.00 just to get a prescription. I am very thankful for planned parenthood for all my female needs but If I ever needed major surgery I simply couldn't afford it. It just doesn't seem fair somehow. What are your thoughts on this subject?

    1. Zelkiiro profile image84
      Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      But this is America and America is special! We get to be the only industrialized nation with third-world healthcare!

      1. moneyfairy profile image63
        moneyfairyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        So very true. Sad but true.

  2. wilderness profile image95
    wildernessposted 3 years ago

    I think it's unfair that only the wealthy can afford a yacht.  Or a mansion with servants. 

    I also think it's unfair that the wealthy are being required to provide health care for strangers they don't even know.  Not being given an opportunity to give as they choose, mind you, but required under threat of jail to surrender their earnings to benefit a stranger across the country.

    We seem to have decided that we will demand ever more sharing of the wealth - forcing somebody else to pay for your health care is but the latest in an ever growing list.  Will we stop, or continue voting ourselves whatever we want at the expense of others until all incentive to earn is removed and we drop below third world status as a result?

    1. moneyfairy profile image63
      moneyfairyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Well our health care system is almost equal to third world right now. Unless you are wealthy or 100% healthy you will be left to die or die trying to pay all the exobanant medical bills. Some people have resorted to flying over to India for hip surgeries or knee surgeries as they can't afford state side prices. It's just very sad. There must be something that can be done for more reasonable health care. We have Dr.'s without borders etc... for foreigners but what about us that live here?

    2. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Hardly the same. I don't think anyone ever died from not being able to afford a yacht.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        There are to facets to my opinion of Obamacare

        1)  You believe that if you are dying (as opposed to, say, wanting a free cell phone) you have the right to take whatever you think it is you need by force.  I disagree - dying or not you do not have the right to steal from anyone else.  And yes, I would absolutely steal to feed my hungry child.  I would give up my ethics and morals and become a common thief.  I would also accept that I had done so and not rationalize it into being OK.

        2)  I do not believe that this country has enough money to maintain anything near it's current standard of living and provide the health care for everyone that they are expecting from the plan.  Without large change the result of Obamacare will be financial bankruptcy for the nation, a return to the depression days of the 30's.  Others disagree, and I fully recognize that it is only an opinion.

        1. Don W profile image83
          Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          No, I believe that it's right for wealthy people, who have themselves benefited (whether they believe it or not) from a society where people pay taxes, to contribute their fair share of taxes also, so that others may benefit in the same way. And I believe it is right for society to elect representatives to form a government charged with the responsibility of making collective decisions that benefit society. One such decision being where those taxes are spent.  And I believe that if  someone like yourself does not agree with where those taxes are being spent, they have the absolute right to say so, and try to convince as many other people as possible that they are right, and try to change how those taxes are spent.



          Nothing is perfect and nothing is set in stone. In five years time, depending on the figures, there is no reason President Clinton can't amend it, repeal it, or leave it as it is.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Except for a differing concept of "fair" I pretty much agree.  I believe that some charity is to the benefit of all, not just the recipient, and that taxes should be used for that purpose.  The biggest problem I have here is the quantity and use of that charity; when we begin buying luxuries, we've crossed any reasonable line.  And we most definitely have crossed that line; rather than forcing a few to cough up ever more, back off from some of our current give-away programs. 

            That's a part of the problem.  People are going to find out that their fine insurance they've been either forced to buy or, in rare cases, given free of charge, isn't worth the paper it's written on.  Co-pays and deductibles will still be beyond their reach and large medical emergencies will still bankrupt them.  They'll still have to stay home for simple things because they don't have the co-pay. 

            Whereupon they'll go to (shudder) Clinton and get the law changed so that strangers will be forced to give even more.  Better that this boondoggle just die a natural death now, before more people are hurt.

            1. Don W profile image83
              Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I wouldn't describe health care as a luxury.

      2. moneyfairy profile image63
        moneyfairyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you Don W: Health care is most certainly not a luxury.
        I loved your comment about the yacht,smile it has nothing what so ever to do with health care nor does a maid or a mansion??? I don't know where wilderness was going with that response???It doesn't even remotely have anything to do with the question at hand( basic health care for all not just the elite)
        Thank you for your opinions.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Wilderness is trying to make the point that you do not have the innate right to demand that others give up what they have to supply you with anything.  Not free food, not a free car or housing and not "free" medical care. 

          That you or anyone else has the ability (might makes right, you know) to do so at the business end of the IRS "gun" does not make it right.

          1. janesix profile image61
            janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            There is no innate right that you should take and keep more than more than you NEED.

            This is greed. this is unfair.

            This is wrong.

            Until you materialists GET THAT, you will never evolve spiritually, and this world will remain the shit hole it is.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Do you have a home?  Sorry - you don't need it as a tent will do the trick.  Sell it and give to the poor. 

              Do you have a car?  Sorry - a bicycle will work fine (and feet even better).  Better give the car away and improve your spirituality by becoming less materialistic.

              Do you have a computer?  Better sell it and give the money to the poor.

              You materialists really need to GET THAT - that you don't need all the "stuff" you have.  You will never develop spiritually until you get with the program.  It is pure greed and very unfair that you can have such things while others do not.

              Funny how you get to decide what is NEEDED by everyone else, isn't it?  It's also kind of funny how you can declare that because you think someone has more than you think they NEED, you have the ethical right to take it away from them.  Guess two wrongs always make a right?

              1. John Holden profile image59
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Right on Wilderness, and lets stop all those free loaders breathing the clean air paid for by the wealthy, stop them drinking water and . . .

                Of course having universal health care in the UK we can't put those scum bags in their place (a hole in the ground?).

                1. Zelkiiro profile image84
                  Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  And then you have places like Japan, where universal healthcare causes them to have the highest 65+ population in the world! Now they've got old people everywhere leeching their resources! Clearly universal healthcare is evil!

                  1. John Holden profile image59
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Scandalous!

                  2. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Careful there - are you sure that the longevity isn't due to drinking sake? Or eating whale meat?  Consuming sushii or simply large quantities of fish?  The home life of the elderly, happy living with kids rather than rotting in a rest home?  Maybe lifestyle prior to 65?  Using nuclear power instead of burning coal?

                    Now, if you could show that Japan's health care costs for the 65+ group is considerably higher than the US costs (per capita) I might believe that.  I doubt that you can, though - medicare is fairly expensive and it is still only a portion of what we spend health care for the 65+ group.

                    Not, of course, that that has anything to do with forcibly taking resources from the owner and giving them to someone else.

                2. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Well, I didn't expect you to agree.  Not when your whole attitude is to redistribute the wealth and earnings of everyone so that everybody gets the same thing.

                  I do notice, however, that your post had  nothing to do with taking those resources or even defining "need".  Just a nasty comment signifying that anyone believing in private ownership is evil.

                  1. John Holden profile image59
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Who said anything about redistributing wealth and earning so that everybody gets the same?
                    That certainly isn't the position in the UK where there is still a huge gap between richest and poorest, it's just that we all pay for our health care, rich and poor alike, but we pay according to ability. Amongst all the anti NHS arguments I've heard, I've never heard it argued that it is unfair because some pay more than others.

                    And where was the nasty comment "that anyone believing in private ownership is evil"?

  3. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    I fail to see the connection between life-saving antibiotics and a yacht.  All people should have taxpayer-funded access to basis healthcare like pre-natal, preventative and emergency care.  It is in the interested f the country to have a healthy workforce. 

    So yes, I should pay for the care of others who are in poverty, children or disabled (including our veterans).  What is the other option, saying: "so you got ahead injury in Afghanistan and can't work, sucks to be you."?  Your child was born with a hole in the heart and you don't have $500,000, guess she's gonna die"?

    1. moneyfairy profile image63
      moneyfairyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Exactly!!!Thank you psycheskinner for understanding what I am trying to point out, that is all I am asking for is basic health care for all not just the elite. But I guess the elite don't give a sh**. Just like you said above if someone needs a $500,000 surgery and can't afford it I guess they are not meant to live and it's their problem. I guess only the wealthy matter and the rest of us don't deserve to live according to wilderness's description above.

  4. moneyfairy profile image63
    moneyfairyposted 3 years ago

    Wow this post has gone off the deep end.....Wow..... I am not asking the rich to pay for the poor . I am just asking for more reasonable healthcare for all....Something we can all afford not just the rich. I wasn't asking anyone for hand outs just better healthcare for all not just the select few. Thank you for all your responses.... many varied diverse opinions. Thanks for sharing.... Didn't really get an answer to the question at hand but you all continue on .....I'm off this particular post.

 
working