As a capitalist country, we all seem to be trained to shy away from anything that might be socialist. “Healthcare for everyone? That’s crazy talk!” We think certain people don’t deserve healthcare, because of any number of factors. We might think that poor people are lazy, so they should not have quality health care. Or maybe we think they deserve health care, we just shouldn’t have to foot the bill. It’s the “I want to follow in the footsteps of Jesus, but my shoes aren’t comfy” philosophy.
Healthcare for all
I am in support of universal healthcare, and I don’t even like doctors (as mentioned previously). I think we have a duty to our fellow man (which means fellow human, in case you are someone who focuses on trivialities) and that includes providing reasonable medical care. I think we also have a duty to ourselves to avoid being taken advantage of. That means we need to regulate the universal healthcare (so for those of you who are astronomers, I’m using “universal” based on the idea that the universe is finite but pretty “frickin’ huge”).
Well, almost all
I propose that the healthcare has a certain logic-limit. In other words, if you are the cause of your illness, universal healthcare does not take care of it. You can pay out of your own pocket, but we aren’t going to give you liposuction if you thought McDonalds was a good meal 21 times a week. If you decide that smoking a pack of cigarettes a day is your right, then it’s our right to deny you healthcare for the lung cancer you develop. Any medical condition that is the result of poor actions on your part or is a complication of a medical condition that was caused by poor actions on your part is not covered. That means if you have health problems because of a thyroid problem, but you eat nutritious food and exercise a reasonable amount, we will provide care. Care can also be done in percentages, such as if your actions/inaction made the problem worse but wasn’t entirely the cause.
It might be tough to always determine how much a person was to blame for his/her own medical condition(s), but we could err on the side of caution. Ultimately, not providing medical attention for self-inflicted problems will either cause those people to die from their own stupidity/laziness/etc. or cause them to change their actions. Social pressures could also produce a change in behavior.
“Man, what’s up with that paper clip and rubber band splint on your finger? Are you trying to be like McGuyver?”
“No, I was mad so I punched a concrete wall.”
“Oh, you’re an idiot. Glad I’m not paying for it.”
Now maybe I’m just using this as an excuse to give myself healthcare, because I just spent nearly $800 out of pocket on an eye exam, glasses, and a year’s supply of contacts (no health insurance is awesome!), but consider the current situation. We might very well have millions of people driving around with bad vision, because it costs too much to buy glasses. Isn’t it worth knowing that the driver who cut you off can at least see you flipping him/her off?
I like your idea. However, the realist in me replaces the “we” in “we could err on the side of caution” with “health care providers,” and I quickly realize what a big loophole erring on the side of caution can become.
“It says here you work with computers. No wonder your vision is bad. We aren’t gonna cover that.”
It’s a shame realism always ends up feeling so much like pessimism.
Haha, yeah, I agree. It’s tough to figure out a way to deal with any issue that isn’t entirely black and white. Perhaps we could have a panel of doctors modeled after the judiciary branch that would make the decisions, but that would increase costs.
In the future, we would have to deal with the question of altering genetics. “Oh, I see here that your parents opted not to give you perfect vision while you were a fetus, so we aren’t going to correct your vision.”
There’s a quote in Dead Poet’s Society in which Keating (Robin Williams) says to another teacher, “I never pegged you for a cynic,” and the teacher replies, “Not a cynic… a realist.”