What is it about health care that makes people feel entitled to it? (1 Viewer)

The Mongoose

Porkers?
Joined
Jan 8, 2003
Messages
12,446
Reaction score
9,824
Offline
Help me out here. To me, having the government involved in health care is as random as having the government provide free lawn service, or free shoes, or free shrimp poboys on Fridays during lent.

I don't know why the idea of socialized medicine rings true with so many people. What is inherent about the nature of health care that makes people feel entitled to it?

I think its most analogous to education, but I can't think of the rationale for having free education either.

What am I missing?
 

APSaintsFan

All-Pro
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
1,212
Reaction score
248
Location
North Carolina
Offline
I think healthcare from the government should be limited.
Just like education where we are limited to how much free education we get then we should get at least limited health care at the very least from the government and not just the federal government but state and local governments. Also, and not just free flu shots and all of our regular shots for measles, mumps and the sort.
 

saintfan-n-alex

Super Forum Fanatic
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
9,852
Reaction score
3,378
Offline
i think it comes form the idea of humans watching other humans being sick and not helping because they cant pay. - now there is health care and health insurance, i can see providing health care and having people repay the costs over time and possibly with community service credit - health insurance would be good but not everyone gets sick, and with health insurance you can be disqualified from previous conditions, smoking etc.

Obama's intent to help lessen health care expense with preventative medicine is good, but does that include the stopping of smoking, over-eating which can lead to diabetes etc?

not sure what he is meaning by that

i do know that ive spent more on health insurance than health care in my life.

i can see education up to the HS level, and possible more assistance for jr college - those wanting a 4 yr degree would have plenty of time to save for the remaining college in a 4 yr school along with loans and any scholarships\grants they can earn.
 

LSSpam

Practice Squad
Joined
Jun 2, 2002
Messages
28,419
Reaction score
8,141
Age
39
Location
Oxford, MS
Offline
I think its most analogous to education, but I can't think of the rationale for having free education either.

It's in a nation-states best interest to have a healthy, educated populace. This is something nations discovered way, way back in the 19th century. It's an old concept, and a proven one.
 

Det. Brees

E tan e epi tas
Joined
Jul 21, 2002
Messages
8,204
Reaction score
3,567
Age
51
Offline
i think it comes form the idea of humans watching other humans being sick and not helping because they cant pay. - now there is health care and health insurance, i can see providing health care and having people repay the costs over time and possibly with community service credit - health insurance would be good but not everyone gets sick, and with health insurance you can be disqualified from previous conditions, smoking etc.

Obama's intent to help lessen health care expense with preventative medicine is good, but does that include the stopping of smoking, over-eating which can lead to diabetes etc?

not sure what he is meaning by that

i do know that ive spent more on health insurance than health care in my life.

i can see education up to the HS level, and possible more assistance for jr college - those wanting a 4 yr degree would have plenty of time to save for the remaining college in a 4 yr school along with loans and any scholarships\grants they can earn.

i actually think the gub ment should get out of the education bus.
 

DavidM

Admin Emeritus
Administrator
VIP Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 1999
Messages
46,081
Reaction score
20,927
Online
Lawn service, tennis shoes, and shrimp boys are all significantly more financially attainable.

Healthcare is rapidly becoming so costly that more and more Americans are struggling to afford it. My boss, for example, self-employed, pays over $900 a month to provide health insurance for his family -- cost, in part, related to previous health conditions of a family member.

Years ago the argument could be made that the people suffering were the ones who weren't being proactive and responsible in meeting their own basic needs. Now it's becoming an issue that is affecting more and more in the middle class, many of whom are doing all the things we're *supposed* to do to take care of ourselves.

And be one in the unfortunate luck-of-the-draw who is diagnosed with a major illness or traumatic injury and risk financial ruin and/or becoming uninsurable.

I'm not sure what the best approach is, but doing nothing seems decidely the wrong course.
 

DMaestro

Sucker Puncher
Joined
Jul 9, 2001
Messages
5,633
Reaction score
1,105
Offline
What am I missing?


That's what I'm trying to figure out about your post.

I'm not a "Kumbaya" kind of guy, but I believe that life, health, freedom, and education are the hallmarks of an enlightened society.

If you want to be purely pragmatic/cynical, society benefits far more when its people are healthy and educated. Unless you don't mind watching kids die from asthma or seeing Americans work nothing but grunt jobs while foreigners call shots from the top.
 

blackadder

...from a chicken, bugwit
VIP Contributor
Joined
Nov 8, 2003
Messages
30,539
Reaction score
23,457
Offline
Help me out here. To me, having the government involved in health care is as random as having the government provide free lawn service, or free shoes, or free shrimp poboys on Fridays during lent.

I don't know why the idea of socialized medicine rings true with so many people. What is inherent about the nature of health care that makes people feel entitled to it?

I think its most analogous to education, but I can't think of the rationale for having free education either.

What am I missing?

We should all just roll over and die when we get sick. Better to cull the heard that way.

Democratically elected governments in theory are supposed to reflect the "will of the people." Many people around the world have decided through their government, which is them, paid for by them, to pool resources to provide health care.

It's avalue judgement. Some societies believe it to be "fair" or to be moral, since no one in their right mind chooses to be sick and good health is basic to being able to work, earn a living and contribute to society. You can look at it as maintaining human captial if you like.

In the US, it's a growing viewpoint and as such it is injected into the political debate.

It's not much different than the decision to pay farmers not to grow food, to give subsidies to steel mills, whatever. This is not a free market.

Everything is relative.
 

LSSpam

Practice Squad
Joined
Jun 2, 2002
Messages
28,419
Reaction score
8,141
Age
39
Location
Oxford, MS
Offline
It's in a nation-states best interest to have a healthy, educated populace. This is something nations discovered way, way back in the 19th century. It's an old concept, and a proven one.

By the way, this isn't to say there isn't a point of so-called "diminishing returns", where the expense of further improving education/health care results in a diminishing return on the investment for said nation-state. So there is a debate to be had about where that point is and whether we should proceed past it.

But the overall philosophical point about whether a modern nation-state even should make provisions for it's populations health and education is, frankly, beyond argument at this point. That's been resolved. You're intentionally relegating yourself to third-world status if you make no effort to provide education and for the health of your population. It's not about being "nice" to the population, it's now on par with other basic functions of government like providing infrastructure for commerce.
 

TPS

Guest
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
36,028
Reaction score
56
Age
57
Location
da boyah
Offline
>>It's in a nation-states best interest to have a healthy, educated populace. This is something nations discovered way, way back in the 19th century. It's an old concept, and a proven one.

Exactly

>>i do know that ive spent more on health insurance than health care in my life.

Agreed.

>>i actually think the gub ment should get out of the education bus.

Do you feel like they failed you? :shrug:

>>It's in a nation-states best interest to have a healthy, educated populace. This is something nations discovered way, way back in the 19th century. It's an old concept, and a proven one.

No kidding. It really is that simple. This isn't a nation of Anarchists ( :mad: ) each living apart from one another. The healtheir the populace is, the more productive they can be for the free market and for society at large. People that say, "Well it's not in the Constitution", okay fine. But do you think the Consitution was written to prevent future and keep us stuck in 1789 for all times? No. So it's really a silly belief system IMHO to use that as a defense. People do it and some even demand that Supreme Court Justices rule by it but then want to pervert it for things like the defense of marriage act. I really don't understand the hate sometimes.

:shrug:

TPS
 
Last edited:

Breesway

All-Pro
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
200
Location
Baton Rouge
Offline
Obama's intent to help lessen health care expense with preventative medicine is good, but does that include the stopping of smoking, over-eating which can lead to diabetes etc?

not sure what he is meaning by that

I'm not sure either. And I'm really not sure what he meant when he said in the first debate vs. Hillary that his national health care plan could possibly include visits to dietitians.

I don't know about y'all, but as an American tax payer, I would have a huge problem paying for anyone to go to a dietitian.
 

rob021275

Guest
Joined
Nov 20, 2004
Messages
2,661
Reaction score
439
Location
Marrero, LA (What the fellas be yellin')
Offline
Mankind has a desire to prolong life, especially each individual's own life.

The problem isn't that people are against health care for their fellow man. It's that no one wants to pay for something for someone else that they can barely afford himself/herself. It is a direct function of how the costs involved (and the risks involved for the practitioners) have grown to the point that most people cannot afford it.

That's where some people look to the government to champion their cause and where others cringe at the thought of such a solution.

I'll admit that I'm on the fence about this. There is a big difference between negligence and the reality that doctors can't save everybody. There is also a big difference between a $5 bottle of Tylenol and a $20 Tylenol pill.

On the other hand, I don't want to be in a waiting room with people who, through their own negligence, have contracted things that no normal human being should have in the 21st century. So it's the chicken/egg argument all over again.
 

APSaintsFan

All-Pro
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
1,212
Reaction score
248
Location
North Carolina
Offline
The one thing that I cannot understand is how the government can allow a person through no fault of their own get real sick to the point of losing everything they have. That to me is where the government should be able to come in and say we will take care of this.
No way should anybody lose everything because they got really sick. JMO
AP
 

Saint by the Bay

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Sep 2, 1999
Messages
32,055
Reaction score
18,461
Age
48
Location
Houston
Online
Lawn service, tennis shoes, and shrimp boys are all significantly more financially attainable.

Healthcare is rapidly becoming so costly that more and more Americans are struggling to afford it. My boss, for example, self-employed, pays over $900 a month to provide health insurance for his family -- cost, in part, related to previous health conditions of a family member.

I pay $1200 and that's just for my family, my employer pays for me. I'd like to start my own company, I have a great idea, however the health care costs for my son who had a stroke on anything other than my group plan at work is prohibitive. I haven't even actually found anyone that would cover the stroke related expenses outside of a group plan.
 

LSSpam

Practice Squad
Joined
Jun 2, 2002
Messages
28,419
Reaction score
8,141
Age
39
Location
Oxford, MS
Offline
Healthcare is rapidly becoming so costly that more and more Americans are struggling to afford it. My boss, for example, self-employed, pays over $900 a month to provide health insurance for his family -- cost, in part, related to previous health conditions of a family member.

Exactly. This is a key problem America is facing today. From a government perspective, it's less about "humanity" or "love" or anything about that. It's simple economics. Too much of the vital Middle Classes income is now tied up into one extremely narrow part of the market, health care/insurance.

Costs have clearly spiraled out of control, too much money is being focused into one segment of the market, it's not conducive to the overall health of the economy. Something has to give. Costs have to go down, expenses have to go down, something, some way.

The exact way we go about this is, admittedly, wildly up for debate. But something has to give. We can't keep sinking this high of a percentage of the Middle Classes income into this one area.

The same would be true if there were spiraling home costs, spiraling food costs, etc. Yet somehow government action in those areas doesn't offend sensibilities. But mention "universal health care" and people fly off the handle.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

 

New Orleans Saints Twitter Feed

 

Headlines

Top Bottom