The Second Coming of the Great Political Thread

[The Ozzman]

Eh?

There are some wealthy people who don't have health care, either, was my point.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Ah, yes. Well yeah, there are.

 

[skeptik]

If by "don't know or are too lazy/retarded" you mean "can't afford" then yes.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

No, they usually can. It's called Medicaid and is specifically geared to provide medical aid to those who couldn't otherwise afford it. Lots of people do not take advantage of it because you have to sign some papers or something...

 

[skeptik]

You obviously just learned about Medicaid and are not familiar with how it works in practice. Since, you know, you live near Boston, where maybe five people are poor.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Indeed.

 

[cookiecutter]

There is actually a significant portion of people who make too much money for medicaid, but cannot afford health insurance.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Seems like it's those kind of policies that need to be fixed.

 

[skeptik]

Seems like everything needs to be fixed.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Ain't that the truth...

Anyway, I'm fine with letting a socialist policy be attempted if it somehow does. It'd be, at the very least, something interesting to see (if it works, if it blows up in supporters' faces, or whatever may occur). But it won't happen...we should focus on fixing the current system somehow.

 

[Pessimism]

No, they usually can. It's called Medicaid and is specifically geared to provide medical aid to those who couldn't otherwise afford it. Lots of people do not take advantage of it because you have to sign some papers or something...

Medicaid fucking sucks the ass; not only is there an age restriction, but the services provided are completely fucking lacking in all areas. At least it covered my ex's prescriptions... after three whole fuckups anyway.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

There's a difference between being poor and homeless/unemployed. There are plenty of hardworking people who make just enough to keep them alive and that's all.

Okay, so I would probably be in support of a 'universal' health care system if there were a few conditions to it, such as:

- you have a full-time job
- your health care costs aren't outrageously higher than the norm

That means no bums get health care, and you still have to pay for your kids since the number you have is pretty much up to you.

What do all the liberals here say to that idea? Not that the Democratic party would actually have the intelligence to do it that way, but we can still debate its merits/flaws amongst ourselves.

 

[cookiecutter]

Those conditions sound reasonable for welfare, but I think health care is too basic a right to deny from anyone. Are we going to just let people get sicker and sicker because they don't have job?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Medical treatment costs money. If you're not doing what you can to support the funding for it, I don't think you can reasonably claim any right to it.

 

[cookiecutter]

I think that's a little inhumane to be perfectly honest

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I think I can make a pretty good case for health care not being a basic human right, but I'll wait until I'm back from work before typing up that post.

 

[The Ozzman]

Health care definitely isn't a right

 

[ThisIsACoolName]

Life is a right. Health care is essential to maintain life. I can't imagine how people come to the conclusion that only people with money deserve decent health care.

 

[cookiecutter]

Well said.

 

[MasterOLightning]

Okay, so I would probably be in support of a 'universal' health care system if there were a few conditions to it, such as:

- you have a full-time job
- your health care costs aren't outrageously higher than the norm

That means no bums get health care, and you still have to pay for your kids since the number you have is pretty much up to you.

What do all the liberals here say to that idea? Not that the Democratic party would actually have the intelligence to do it that way, but we can still debate its merits/flaws amongst ourselves.

You'd run into a ton of problems if full-time work was the criteria. For one, there are always people who are transitionally unemployed, which is a natural occurrence that no one should be punished for. Then there are those who have lost work due to outsourcing or layoffs, and also can't really be considered deadbeats either. Then you've got housewives who either work part-time or not at all. College students and grad students are in a gray area as well. Then you've got retirees. How are you going to distinguish between people who have actually retired, and those 40-60 year olds who lost a job and stopped looking.

I would also say that people with high medical costs should be the first ones to get federal aid. There are some conditions that no person can reasonably be expected to pay for. The average person does not incur excessive expense for most of their life. If someone has to pay for their care, it should be those with very low costs.