Nonsense. One contributes to quality of life. The other means life or death to people
Well, life/death is a rather important quality of life issue, isn't it? A biggie, ya think? Maybe people should put that $3700 toward their health care FIRST, instead of the HDTV and cable? And let's add up those other luxuries (bigger house, newer car, dining out, etc.) and see how much people can contribute to their own survival BEFORE just reaching into the pockets of others. We ARE talking life-and-death here, so how about individuals prioritize that before marginal/tangential quality-of-life luxuries.
And most of the time health care costs aren't a life/death binary choice, they're a shade-of-gray. Much of the cost goes to "let's rule out X" (and that largely to cover the doctor's butt, not yours), treatments to smooth out what would naturally heal anyway (you know it's the flu, no $200 doctor visit needed), and treating self-destructive behavior (your cigs and daily Cokes are your choice, not mine).
So let's get back to what the actual issue is: the chronically and/or desperately ill who really truly can't afford it and didn't bring it on themselves. Yes they warrant sympathy, and yes they are a tiny fraction of the citizenry of this nation. Arguably there is a gap, which does NOT require taking over the entire health care infrastructure which is working fine for most people, including those under Medicare, Medicaid, and walk-in ER types (who aren't going to do anything else anyway, even if free).
(And for something popped up after the above was written)No-one seems to want to address the problem of those who have large medical needs they cannot afford
We do. Problem from our angle is the pro-universal-free-care people keep spinning the few facing unaffordable needs into "the whole system is broken everybody is screwed let's socialize everything", which just derails the whole thing as the opposition rightfully sees it as theft.
Most people have the opportunity to get medical insurance - pricy, yes, but within their budget if only they would prioritize accordingly. Those who can and choose not to, well, at some point it you have to face the consequences of your own decisions. Get insured, stay insured, work hard, most conditions & illnesses will be covered. That takes care of the vast majority of individuals.
Next is the shade-of-gray scenarios. Certain treatments are desirable but not vital, so hard choices should be made - WITHOUT resorting to compelling others to pay it.
As noted above, that leaves a rather small percentage of people who truly need care and truly can't afford it. Much of that is already covered by Medicaid, Medicare, and ER - so there is really only a very small percentage that warrant charitable/taxpayer attention, like yourself. Given that gap in the system, let's see the real numbers on what closing that gap would cost - and NOT the $1T or so needed to cover everyone who currently is covered.
If we could limit the discussion to the actually needy, the discussion could progress to a viable solution.
Thing is, it keeps coming back to some form of me paying for the health costs of a cig-smoking chip-munching couch potato enjoying 40+ hours a week of an HDTV and cable TV service that frankly _I_ can't afford.
Drop the "universal" part of the argument. Most are doing fine with the system as-is.
Drop the "free" part of the argument. It's not free, it's freaking expensive.
Then we'll talk.
I'll never cover those costs though.
But you CAN contribute significantly to it. Just because you can't pay the whole bill now doesn't mean you hand the whole bill over to Joe Taxpayer, AND tack on the bills from people who CAN cover their costs. My bill was really high too - but I can manage to earn & contribute $10/day to it for life; no reason to stick Manedwolf with it.
