s/o POLL Do people who need health care DESERVE our help?

[sandellie4]

I've been reading the recent threads on universal (or socialized) health care, etc., and it seems that a great number of people here are of the opinion that they are being taken advantage of by irresponsible people who make their own bed (and who should therefore lie in it). I know people who take advantage of the system, too, but I think that that's going to be part of any system designed to assist people who have needs in our society. I also know people who need the system and struggle with others' notion that they somehow caused their own problems by being mentally ill, having their spouse die, or having a child with special needs. Yes, I do feel frustrated when I see and hear of cases of people "working" the system, but I feel that these aren't the majority. Would I like to see better controls? Sure. But I don't feel the anger that I seem to see when I view these types of threads on this board. I hate paying taxes, and I do feel gouged. But there is a lot of waste throughout all levels of government, and I'm not sure why the focus on programs designed, even if imperfectly, for people living in terror of starving or suffering a medical diagnosis that could end any security they've managed to work for. My family has never needed any of these programs, but maybe it's not about me, KWIM? I'm curious -- am I really one of a small minority on this board who is wondering?

[johnandtinagilbert]

No. I don't think people generally "deserve" anything. General kindness, discluded, but I don't think general kindness includes paying for others expenses.

 

Daily, I see people who are druggies, I'm talking parents with children who use prescription drugs, bought on the street, all the time. They end up with kidney stones and a whole mess of other things. They build up credit debt. Some drive fancy cars, they dress far better than me (the Queen of Wal-mart clothes) etc. They eat crap, at least whenever I see them, there is junk in their mouths and in the mouths of their children. NOPE. I don't think others should be obligated to pay for their health care.

 

On the other hand, I don't mind helping anyone who is willing to have some personal accountability to improve their lives. I consider this charitable and I do believe we should all be charitable, no matter where we sit financially.

 

I also don't think anyone should be forced to be charitable. It should always be a choice.

 

Many, many, many organizations operate without gov't funding and are established as charitable organizations. Volunteerism goes a long way too.

 

ETA: my problem with this bill is:

1. I don't see it as reforming the healthcare system at large (billing, insurance, costs, research expenses, general cost of treatment, correcting lifestyle habits to improve health)

 

2. I don't believe in more taxes or greater gov't

 

3. we simply cannot afford it -- it's bad economics

 

Present something that reforms the system completely, not just throws money at it, and that is within a sustainable budget for this country, without increasing fed. debt, and I'm all for it.

Edited July 19, 2009 by johnandtinagilbert
eta clarification on current issue

[Scuff]

Where's the "other"! :) None of those apply. Of course we should help people, but the government shouldn't be the one to do it. Nor should the government force other's to do it. People should have the freedom to do as they please with their own money, helping or not as they choose.

[Scuff]

You know, your bottom two choices make it sound like we're stingy if we're against this. I don't mind my hard earned money going to help people. I just want the freedom to do it myself and choose. Many conservatives are gracious, generous people. We just have a different idea of how to get there. Keep the government out of my purse, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to help

[Chris in VA]

I'm not sure how to vote. I can relate an experience, however. I considered joining one of those "this is not insurance" programs where people help others--the ones I've seen have been touted as Christian programs. In order to join the "club," you had to agree to a lifestyle clause.

Well, ok.

Count me out, then. We fully believe in that lifestyle, but we don't qualify.

Our major bills were caused by the poor choices of our son, for whom we are responsible.

 

So, where is the grace and the mercy in that system? They are saying, in effect, be responsible, live an upright life, control the things you can control via lifestyle choices, and we will take care of the other things that may happen that are not your "fault." Fine. What about helping people who don't have it all together, who make big mistakes, who sin?

 

"Sit in your own filth and rot. Serves you right. Not our problem."

That doesn't seem very kind.

 

Now, I do understand the need for consequences, for accountability, and the idea that people need to learn from those mistakes, which can be hard if someone rescues them continually. I get it, I really do--having drug/alcohol/sex addicts in my family has taught me an awful lot about that.

But this particular kind of group is so unmerciful, and has no idea of grace. Giving help with the hope that that help will encourage and permit another to get back on track seems to be a good thing. No chance for it there.

 

I guess I'm ok with some gov't insurance, because it seems to me the self-righteous, self-protective attitude of a few people who propose this kind of alternative won't help those of us who are broken.

[Heather in the Kootenays]

:grouphug:

 

And what about all those who made the poor choices of being born with juvenile diabetes, autism, cerebral palsy etc etc? or those who made the poor choice of being hit by a drunk driver, get cancer or any of the other things that can cause catastrophic medical costs. Or God forbid, develop an unattractive mental illness.

 

In our community we have a wonderful charitable organization which unfortunately only wants to help the "attractive" poor - not the schizophrenic.

[OrganicAnn]

I read a story once written by a policeman that had a wife that worked in the emergency room. It was about a man who was periodically homeless and alcoholic. When he was in a public paid for 'treatment' program he could actually function, work, rent a room. But before the program started and after the program was cut, the man couldn't deal with life and would become homeless. He had many trips to the emergency room for various issues with alcoholism, and being beaten by living homeless etc. Anyway, the writer (the policeman) roughly calculated the cost to the taxpayers of the emergency room trips. In the long run it would have saved so much more money to have provide a treatment program.

 

All this is to say that society often pays the cost whether or not we provide healthcare. It may actually cost less to provide some basic healthcare than to pay for emergency room care where the person doesn't have health insurance.

[Heather in the Kootenays]

Absolutely - even without any compassionate grounds, there are compelling economic reasons to make sure that everyone has access to healthcare.

[Nestof3]

Though I don't have a problem with people being helped, we know many people who are on state heath care who can afford it, but because they have so many children, they qualify.

 

One family built 4,000 sq foot house on 20 acres. They could have had less and afforded health care.

 

Another chose to live in a half-million dollar home (that is pricey where we live) and they receive state health care.

 

So I don't really trust the government to accurately assess who cannot afford health care. People can choose to have as many children as they want, but I don't think they should come to the taxpayers with their hands out as if they are entitled to the same things others get who put more planning into their lives. Kids cost money -- period.

 

My husband and I feel that we are responsible for the children we have, so we limit our family size, pay debt off quickly, are content with a small house and pay for various insurances like health and life.

Edited July 19, 2009 by nestof3

[5kidsforME]

Your poll will be skewed. Your bias is obvious with the poor choices you gave.

[Dirtroad]

I can't vote b/c the answers don't cover anything close to my opinion. I know the options are limitless &OP can only do so many.

 

I don't think people DESERVE help based upon their lives, illness or income. However, in my faith, it is important to help those who are under duress, hurt, or other sad situations. We are expected to love each other as God loved us (first) and to reach out to help those who need it.

 

That does not mean FORCED or coercive tactics of a government taking money from my income to give as THEY please. It is MY DUTY to disperse the help.... not to be robbed & it distributed without my approval or involvement.

 

We just left money for a family today (Dad has been out of work since November... they have 4 children under 8.... so hard). WE WANT TO HELP. This family lost a 10month old son (several years ago) due to complications from Downs Syndrome.... the medical bills were staggering.... people came forward (IN LOVE) and helped them. They didn't go to the gov't and beg for others to pay their way. The community reached out & helped.... shocking to many, I know.

[Snickerdoodle]

I can't vote b/c the answers don't cover anything close to my opinion. I know the options are limitless &OP can only do so many.

 

I don't think people DESERVE help based upon their lives, illness or income. However, in my faith, it is important to help those who are under duress, hurt, or other sad situations. We are expected to love each other as God loved us (first) and to reach out to help those who need it.

 

That does not mean FORCED or coercive tactics of a government taking money from my income to give as THEY please. It is MY DUTY to disperse the help.... not to be robbed & it distributed without my approval or involvement.

 

 

 

:iagree:

[johnandtinagilbert]

I can't vote b/c the answers don't cover anything close to my opinion. I know the options are limitless &OP can only do so many.

 

I don't think people DESERVE help based upon their lives, illness or income. However, in my faith, it is important to help those who are under duress, hurt, or other sad situations. We are expected to love each other as God loved us (first) and to reach out to help those who need it.

 

That does not mean FORCED or coercive tactics of a government taking money from my income to give as THEY please. It is MY DUTY to disperse the help.... not to be robbed & it distributed without my approval or involvement.

 

We just left money for a family today (Dad has been out of work since November... they have 4 children under 8.... so hard). WE WANT TO HELP. This family lost a 10month old son (several years ago) due to complications from Downs Syndrome.... the medical bills were staggering.... people came forward (IN LOVE) and helped them. They didn't go to the gov't and beg for others to pay their way. The community reached out & helped.... shocking to many, I know.

 

You're so right! When we had a fire and were homeless, our church body took an offering and collected over $2000 in one service! We had every single one of our needs met in the time after. We didn't need the gov't, we had the community, who offered in love, all they could and continued to have our backs when we needed them.

 

Anytime in my life, honestly, Any time, I have made a need known in a church community, it has been met. That's what the body of Christ does and they are often willing to do it for anyone, always hoping for growth and personal accountability along the way.

[JenneinCA]

Deserve is a loaded word.

 

I don't deserve to live in a house with running water or electricity. I don't deserve clean clothes or tasty food. I don't deserve three beautiful healthy children or a husband who loves me. I don't deserve any of this because it is not through my actions or inactions that this wonderful bounty has come to pass.

 

I am grateful that I have been allowed to enjoy these things. But I know that it is not within my ability to create them. I am just not that powerful.

 

I also didn't deserve having three miscarriages. Or having my husband's mother die two weeks after we found out there might be a problem. Or being told to relocate or be unemployed. Or anything else. I don't deserve these things either. No one does.

 

Deserve implies worthiness. I am not worthy of the good or the bad. I am merely the recipient of the events. It is not my worth that determines the events in my life. I am not any less worthy when bad things happen or any more worthy when the good ones do. I am because I am.

[Rosie_0801]

I voted for the first option because I think even the druggies ought to be able to get health care. I'm not saying I'd provide it (assuming I paid tax) with a joyous heart, or anything. It'd be given grudgingly, since they have made very poor choices, but it'd be given. I consider basic healthcare a human right. Idealistic, perhaps, but that's my view.

 

Rosie

[mazakaal]

I consider basic healthcare a human right.

 

The tough part is defining 'basic healthcare.' From what I understand, the socialized healthcare system here in the UK was begun so that all children would have basic healthcare, as in vaccinations, medicine, emergency room care, etc. It then grew to basic healthcare for all. Now people think that their in-vitro treatments and other non-life threatening medical issues should be covered by NHS. Where does it all end? There is a limit to how much money society has to spend on medical care. Who defines 'basic healthcare?' Who determines what procedures should be covered? I'm not saying I'm for or against socialized medicine. As I said in another thread, I've had a mostly positive experience with it. I'm just saying that it opens up a very big can of worms. And from what I've seen the US gov't isn't very good at sorting through sticky issues.

[newlifemom]

I couldn't vote either. I cannot put into the right words and don't have any models or graphs, but I believe it is up to the local church to take care of the community. As a member of the local church I help out those in my congregation and in the surrounding community. I don't think it is about being worthy or deserving, however I think local support would hopefully encourage the best use of the gifts. I don't think the government has the ability to oversee the giving of funds. I think the local community especially via the church would better utilize my funds to help those in need. Helping those in need whether or not they are of a particular faith shouldn't be an issue either.

 

Well, after 20 minutes, those are my rambling .02 :)

[phathui5]

We're those people "on the fringe." Dh was laid off a year ago from a good job where he made decent money. Since then, he's been trying to find a similar job while working for $8/hour. Eight dollars an hour does not support six people. Additionally, his job only lets him work 30-35 hours a week and won't provide insurance.

 

Right now, none of us have insurance or money to pay for healthcare, but I'm planning to apply for medical assistance.

[Rosie_0801]

The tough part is defining 'basic healthcare.' Who defines 'basic healthcare?' Who determines what procedures should be covered? .

 

A bunch of policy makers in Canberra, in our case. I'm not interested in being one, so I have to leave them to do their job, whether I agree or not.

 

Rosie

[Guest janainaz]

It's about mercy.

[Tutor]

I did not vote in the poll because I think that each person has some level of responsibility to care for the welfare of her neighbor, but I do not think that the government is the best agent through which that care is administered... it is too impersonal to be truly compassionate.

[Colleen in NS]

"Do people who need health care DESERVE our help?"

 

I think so. It's life we are talking about, and I think life is a gift to be cared for. Way more important than houses, cars, college education, savings accounts...

[Colleen in NS]

A bunch of policy makers in Canberra, in our case. I'm not interested in being one, so I have to leave them to do their job, whether I agree or not.

 

Rosie

 

Rose, you are cracking me up on these threads!!:lol:

[Rosie_0801]

I htink we need to remember that the richest in our communities are not necessarily the most virtuous. They may have worked hard, harder than I'm willing to, but plenty of them have also worked nastier than I'm willing to as well. I saw an interview once with a guy who said his reaction to a war breaking out is "Great!" I hope someone is taxing that guy *heavily* and spending it healthcare or something productive.

Then we can look from the other end. Sure, a person born addicted to drugs can choose to go to rehab, but how much of a choice is that? One of the silliest things I think I've ever been told is that I could achieve anything if I tried hard enough. Trying doesn't equal success, and I know there are times when I'm not capable of trying. Should we look at each other and think things like "Well, you chose to have kids knowing they will deprive you of sleep and mess up your house, so suck it up Lady! " Or should we make encouraging comments and go around with a plate of muffins and wash the dishes? I'm not saying our governments should send a plate of muffins to all new mothers, but if they did, I would consider it a better way to spend our taxes than a lot of what they do!

 

Rosie

[HSMom2One]

Healthcare is the one and ONLY category that I agree on when it comes to socialism. (Believe me, in all other issues I am very conservative.)

 

I feel that EVERY person in our nation should have the ability to receive comfort, care, healing, medicine and assistance for every health need. Anything else really seems criminal to me. (And don't even get me started on the whole issue of mental health...talk about criminal and inhumane!) With all of the wealth and abundance in this country, I cannot understand why so many people have to struggle to be healthy and stay that way.

 

Quality healthcare should be a basic right for all humans, no matter how rich or poor and whatever age.

 

My 2 cents FWIW. :)

 

Blessings,

Lucinda

[elizabeth]

Deserve is a loaded word.

 

I don't deserve to live in a house with running water or electricity. I don't deserve clean clothes or tasty food. I don't deserve three beautiful healthy children or a husband who loves me. I don't deserve any of this because it is not through my actions or inactions that this wonderful bounty has come to pass.

 

I am grateful that I have been allowed to enjoy these things. But I know that it is not within my ability to create them. I am just not that powerful.

 

I also didn't deserve having three miscarriages. Or having my husband's mother die two weeks after we found out there might be a problem. Or being told to relocate or be unemployed. Or anything else. I don't deserve these things either. No one does.

 

Deserve implies worthiness. I am not worthy of the good or the bad. I am merely the recipient of the events. It is not my worth that determines the events in my life. I am not any less worthy when bad things happen or any more worthy when the good ones do. I am because I am.

Beautifully stated. Thank you

[Murphy101]

Deserve is a loaded word.

 

I don't deserve to live in a house with running water or electricity. I don't deserve clean clothes or tasty food. I don't deserve three beautiful healthy children or a husband who loves me. I don't deserve any of this because it is not through my actions or inactions that this wonderful bounty has come to pass.

 

I am grateful that I have been allowed to enjoy these things. But I know that it is not within my ability to create them. I am just not that powerful.

 

I also didn't deserve having three miscarriages. Or having my husband's mother die two weeks after we found out there might be a problem. Or being told to relocate or be unemployed. Or anything else. I don't deserve these things either. No one does.

 

Deserve implies worthiness. I am not worthy of the good or the bad. I am merely the recipient of the events. It is not my worth that determines the events in my life. I am not any less worthy when bad things happen or any more worthy when the good ones do. I am because I am.

 

I agree.

I'm against this bill.

Strongly against it.

[Rosie_0801]

With all of the wealth and abundance in this country, I cannot understand why so many people have to struggle to be healthy and stay that way.

 

 

There is a lot of misinformation that confuses people so they can't figure out what the healthy choices are, and whether they are the best choice or merely better but still very ordinary. For example, my grandmother has had conflicting advice from six different dieticians, which has led us to think I might well be as good a source of info as any of them, despite my lack of qualification.

 

Then there's the people who know what healthy choices look like, but don't want to act on them because they don't like the taste or because they don't recognise health problems as being linked to their choices.

 

It sounds like a simple problem, but it really isn't. Remind me to educate my kids so they can wade through the guff out there and determine what is valid and what isn't...

 

Rosie

Edited July 20, 2009 by Rosie_0801

[sandellie4]

I voted for the first option because I think even the druggies ought to be able to get health care. I'm not saying I'd provide it (assuming I paid tax) with a joyous heart, or anything. It'd be given grudgingly, since they have made very poor choices, but it'd be given. I consider basic healthcare a human right. Idealistic, perhaps, but that's my view.

 

Rosie

 

Me, too. You said it much better than I did.

:)

Sandy

[Nestof3]

Healthcare is the one and ONLY category that I agree on when it comes to socialism. (Believe me, in all other issues I am very conservative.)

 

I feel that EVERY person in our nation should have the ability to receive comfort, care, healing, medicine and assistance for every health need. Anything else really seems criminal to me. (And don't even get me started on the whole issue of mental health...talk about criminal and inhumane!) With all of the wealth and abundance in this country, I cannot understand why so many people have to struggle to be healthy and stay that way.

 

Quality healthcare should be a basic right for all humans, no matter how rich or poor and whatever age.

 

My 2 cents FWIW. :)

 

Blessings,

Lucinda

 

Well, it does need to be said that some people choose to be unhealthy. I have relatives like this. They treat their bodies horribly, ignore their diabetic situation, end up with kidney failure and gangrene with chopped off toes. And, yes, he can afford medical treatments.

 

And, again, NO -- taxpayers should not be funding healthcare for people who choose to spend their money on half million dollar homes and 20 acres with their dream home. It is also time for people to pay first for their needs and with their remaining money their wants. People are not entitled to big houses, land, 10 kids or whatever.

[Nestof3]

I voted for the first option because I think even the druggies ought to be able to get health care. I'm not saying I'd provide it (assuming I paid tax) with a joyous heart, or anything. It'd be given grudgingly, since they have made very poor choices, but it'd be given. I consider basic healthcare a human right. Idealistic, perhaps, but that's my view.

 

Rosie

 

Yes, druggies should be able to get health care, and they can start by spending their drug money on their own medical needs. It's called personal responsibility, or does that not exist anymore?

[eternalknot]

Maybe they deserve it, maybe not.

 

Why does our society have such a strong, identifiable preference for conditionality in offering help?

[sandellie4]

It's about mercy.

 

Yes! Everyone deserves that.

 

Sandy

[Peela]

I voted for the first option because I think even the druggies ought to be able to get health care. I'm not saying I'd provide it (assuming I paid tax) with a joyous heart, or anything. It'd be given grudgingly, since they have made very poor choices, but it'd be given. I consider basic healthcare a human right. Idealistic, perhaps, but that's my view.

 

Rosie

 

:iagree:

And I wonder also if it really depends what you are used to. In the U.S. there is obviously change and upheaval in this regard- and people dont like change much, particularly if they perceive they are having to give something up.

But here in Australia where we have universal health care, I can't imagine taking away from the poor, sick, under priveleged and desperate in our society and leaving it to "generous people" to take care of them. That would be a huge step backwards in terms of human rights.

 

Education is a key to health care- not blaming someone for getting themselves into an unhealthy situation. Banning junk food advertising and food with trans fats. Taking away the monopoly and power of pharmaceutical companies so that real information that is unbiased can get through. No alcohol advertising at sports venues. There are so many things we could be doing....I wont blame the poor and ignorant people who get sucked into making bad decisions when there is so much bad information around anyway, and bad food is cheaper than healthy food.

[Jenny in Atl]

I did not vote in the poll because I think that each person has some level of responsibility to care for the welfare of her neighbor, but I do not think that the government is the best agent through which that care is administered... it is too impersonal to be truly compassionate.

 

Unfortunately no other agent/persons/group/company has been shown to be any better.

[Sheila in OK]

:iagree:

 

Yes, druggies should be able to get health care, and they can start by spending their drug money on their own medical needs. It's called personal responsibility, or does that not exist anymore?

[Denise in Florida]

I could not find a choice to matched my opinion so I didn't vote in the poll. Wow, I never considered how difficult it must be to create a poll with enough options. :001_smile:

 

Here goes (personal opinion ahead). Yes, we as human beings have a moral responsibility to watch out for each other, particularly those who can not watch out for themselves (I am thinking primarily of children, elderly and incompetent). This responsibility is a moral imperative on us, not a judgment of whether or not the recipient deserves our help.

 

In many cases this is also a religious command. My opinion is reinforced by my understanding of Christ but I do not think this is a view unique to Christians.

 

No, I do not believe that the Government is the best means to meet this responsibility, nor to I believe it is ethical for the Government to take resources from one individual by force and give them to another.

[Rosie_0801]

Yes, druggies should be able to get health care, and they can start by spending their drug money on their own medical needs. It's called personal responsibility, or does that not exist anymore?

 

You are being a bit too rational, I think. In theory, people ought to be sensible. Fact is, people are not always sensible. I ought to be used to that, but I am shocked every time, lol. In my opinion, a druggie is not capable of being responsible for him/herself so we need to provide some basics. Like I said before, they don't need to be provided joyously with a cherry on top, but they ought to be provided because that person is human and might one day grow up. Old people who neglected their diabetes for years and end up housebound deserve to be treated as well. It may be their own fault, but they are no longer able to be responsible for themselves so someone else has to/ ought to. If socialised medicine isn't the answer, what is? Who should fund healthcare for your chocolate nibbling, diabetic Nanna? Who should fund healthcare for Cousin Jamie the druggie? No one?

 

Rosie

[Kim in Appalachia]

well, no I don't think people deserve it, but I do think we should give it. I think there are good economic reasons, and that some sort of basic healthcare is good for the whole of society. When people sink under medical bills, or others go untreated for treatable illnesses there is a greater cost than just the medical bill.

 

At the same time, blanket social medical care is not the greatest idea for OUR CURRENT, "take no responsibility" culture. But it's not the easiest puzzle to solve, kwim?

[mommyrooch]

I can't vote b/c the answers don't cover anything close to my opinion. I know the options are limitless &OP can only do so many.

 

I don't think people DESERVE help based upon their lives, illness or income. However, in my faith, it is important to help those who are under duress, hurt, or other sad situations. We are expected to love each other as God loved us (first) and to reach out to help those who need it.

 

That does not mean FORCED or coercive tactics of a government taking money from my income to give as THEY please. It is MY DUTY to disperse the help.... not to be robbed & it distributed without my approval or involvement.

 

We just left money for a family today (Dad has been out of work since November... they have 4 children under 8.... so hard). WE WANT TO HELP. This family lost a 10month old son (several years ago) due to complications from Downs Syndrome.... the medical bills were staggering.... people came forward (IN LOVE) and helped them. They didn't go to the gov't and beg for others to pay their way. The community reached out & helped.... shocking to many, I know.

 

This scenario is fine and dandy and paints a really pretty, rose colored picture but not every family that is faced with hardships are as lucky.

 

Take my family for example. My husband and I lost our first son in 1997 due to medical negligance. We had insurance (BCBS) but still racked up thousands upon thousands of dollars in medical bills from our son being in NICU.

 

Then in 1999 we lost our home in the May 3rd tornado that hit central Oklahoma and wiped out thousands of homes.

 

As if all of this weren't enough of a strain financially and emotionally, we were hit yet again when our second son was diagnosed with Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia in 2002. He underwent a 3 year chemotherapy protocol which included but was not limited to, 13 hospitalizations, 21 spinal taps, thousands ff labs, 2 port surgeries, home health visits due to compromised immune system issues, drug costs etc. etc. etc. We had insurance during this time too (BCBS) but still was out of pocket over $20,000 in co-pays and deductibles by the time all the shouting was over. This $20,000 didn't even include any other health costs the rest of the family had during that three years or ANY of the premiums that were being pulled out of dh's check every two weeks.

 

We were hurting pretty bad from the loss of our first son and the loss of our home by the time our 2nd son was diagnosed with cancer. We were absolutely devastated financially with the cancer diagnosis.

 

During all of this WE WERE NOT SO LUCKY TO HAVE COMMUNITY HELP, or any help for that matter. We were active members of our church, had lived in our community for years, etc. etc. but not one person stepped up and said "Can we help you?" "Do you need anything?"

 

Heck, lets not even talk finances. I would have been thrilled if someone had just voluntered to help with our daughter. She was only 8 months old when my son was diagnosed and we were living out of a hospital.

 

I would have been elated if someone had voluntered to mow our lawn. Heck, I would have been overjoyed if ANYONE had offered ANYTHING! Let alone MONEY!

 

We were alone! We weren't the only ones either. Family after family that I met during our cancer journey were also left hanging high and dry with no help in sight.

 

In my experience, humans by nature are selfish beings. Especially here in America. Our society stresses that what we have is ours and it's not our problem to take care of others. We live in a "it's all about me" society.

 

Yes, there are good people. Those of you that give of your own accord, I commend you. Unfortunitely however, many people hold on very tightly to their wallets and their time. Our society does not stress helping others. Of the individuals that do help of their own accord there are overwhelming numbers of ones that don't.

 

That is why we are in this crisis. If we really lived in a fairytail world like the one Dirtroad painted then this would be a moot point. Everyone would just help everyone and there would be no need for government intervention.

 

This is not reality though. Everyone does NOT help everyone and there are MILLIONS that are falling through the cracks and there is NO ONE there to catch them! I'm happy for the ones that do get help but for every family that does there are countless numbers that don't.

 

This is why it is necessary for government to intervene. People will NOT willingly step up to the level that would be required to supply help to the millions that need it. Since our society WON'T do it at the level that is needed to solve the crisis then it MUST become a requirement.

 

Wow! I know I'm going to get it for that statement. I suspect I'll be thought of as a communist or socialist now. So be it.

 

I would rather we all live in a rose colored world where every human being was willing to sacrifice of themselves for others. Be it their time or money. Whatever the needs may be. Since we don't however, the fact still remains that people still need help so if it's not going to come willingly then it must become a requirement. Bottom line, one way or the other, people need to be helping people.

 

For what it's worth, my family has done EVERYTHING right as far as our choices. My husband has a double major. He graduated college by the age of 25 with a degree in computer science and a degree in math. He has been working since he graduated. Never ONCE has he been unemployed. At the time all of this was happening to our family he was making roughly between $50,000 and $70,000. He made WAY to much money to qualify for ANY help but he didn't make near enough to pay the thousand upon thousands of dollars in bills.

 

Our case and our situation is not uncommon. It is the hard working middle class (which accounts for the largest population) that falls through the cracks when they are unfortunite enough to be struck with a horrible disease like cancer or any other financially draining diagnosis. It is not the wealthy that suffers. They can just pay for whatever they need. Even the extremely poor are often times better off because at least they know that they can get some type of help. Families like ours that do everything right are the ones that need universal healthcare the most.

 

I would HAPPILY watch my taxes go up in order to provide much needed (and yes, DESERVED) healthcare to families like mine. Families that the only thing they are guilty of is being unlucky enough to have the c**p kicked out of them by life. And these are the majority of families that are most adveresly effected by our current healthcare system.

 

OK, I'll get off of my soap box now. I just wish that everyone WOULD step up and do the right thing by being willing to give of themselves for others. Unfortunately, we as a majority are not wired like that though so :hurray: to universal healthcare. :auto:

[Rhondabee]

Deserve is a loaded word.

 

I don't deserve to live in a house with running water or electricity. I don't deserve clean clothes or tasty food. I don't deserve three beautiful healthy children or a husband who loves me. I don't deserve any of this because it is not through my actions or inactions that this wonderful bounty has come to pass.

 

I am grateful that I have been allowed to enjoy these things. But I know that it is not within my ability to create them. I am just not that powerful.

 

I also didn't deserve having three miscarriages. Or having my husband's mother die two weeks after we found out there might be a problem. Or being told to relocate or be unemployed. Or anything else. I don't deserve these things either. No one does.

 

Deserve implies worthiness. I am not worthy of the good or the bad. I am merely the recipient of the events. It is not my worth that determines the events in my life. I am not any less worthy when bad things happen or any more worthy when the good ones do. I am because I am.

 

What a powerful statement! I wish I could give you rep, but I'll just have to say this gave me goosebumps - and was a wonderful last thought on a wonderful Sunday.

 

Thanks!

[Colleen in NS]

This scenario is fine and dandy and paints a really pretty, rose colored picture but not every family that is faced with hardships are as lucky.

 

Take my family for example. My husband and I lost our first son in 1997 due to medical negligance. We had insurance (BCBS) but still racked up thousands upon thousands of dollars in medical bills from our son being in NICU.

 

Then in 1999 we lost our home in the May 3rd tornado that hit central Oklahoma and wiped out thousands of homes.

 

As if all of this weren't enough of a strain financially and emotionally, we were hit yet again when our second son was diagnosed with Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia in 2002. He underwent a 3 year chemotherapy protocol which included but was not limited to, 13 hospitalizations, 21 spinal taps, thousands ff labs, 2 port surgeries, home health visits due to compromised immune system issues, drug costs etc. etc. etc. We had insurance during this time too (BCBS) but still was out of pocket over $20,000 in co-pays and deductibles by the time all the shouting was over. This $20,000 didn't even include any other health costs the rest of the family had during that three years or ANY of the premiums that were being pulled out of dh's check every two weeks.

 

We were hurting pretty bad from the loss of our first son and the loss of our home by the time our 2nd son was diagnosed with cancer. We were absolutely devastated financially with the cancer diagnosis.

 

During all of this WE WERE NOT SO LUCKY TO HAVE COMMUNITY HELP, or any help for that matter. We were active members of our church, had lived in our community for years, etc. etc. but not one person stepped up and said "Can we help you?" "Do you need anything?"

 

Heck, lets not even talk finances. I would have been thrilled if someone had just voluntered to help with our daughter. She was only 8 months old when my son was diagnosed and we were living out of a hospital.

 

I would have been elated if someone had voluntered to mow our lawn. Heck, I would have been overjoyed if ANYONE had offered ANYTHING! Let alone MONEY!

 

We were alone! We weren't the only ones either. Family after family that I met during our cancer journey were also left hanging high and dry with no help in sight.

 

In my experience, humans by nature are selfish beings. Especially here in America. Our society stresses that what we have is ours and it's not our problem to take care of others. We live in a "it's all about me" society.

 

Yes, there are good people. Those of you that give of your own accord, I commend you. Unfortunitely however, many people hold on very tightly to their wallets and their time. Our society does not stress helping others. Of the individuals that do help of their own accord there are overwhelming numbers of ones that don't.

 

That is why we are in this crisis. If we really lived in a fairytail world like the one Dirtroad painted then this would be a moot point. Everyone would just help everyone and there would be no need for government intervention.

 

This is not reality though. Everyone does NOT help everyone and there are MILLIONS that are falling through the cracks and there is NO ONE there to catch them! I'm happy for the ones that do get help but for every family that does there are countless numbers that don't.

 

This is why it is necessary for government to intervene. People will NOT willingly step up to the level that would be required to supply help to the millions that need it. Since our society WON'T do it at the level that is needed to solve the crisis then it MUST become a requirement.

 

Wow! I know I'm going to get it for that statement. I suspect I'll be thought of as a communist or socialist now. So be it.

 

I would rather we all live in a rose colored world where every human being was willing to sacrifice of themselves for others. Be it their time or money. Whatever the needs may be. Since we don't however, the fact still remains that people still need help so if it's not going to come willingly then it must become a requirement. Bottom line, one way or the other, people need to be helping people.

 

For what it's worth, my family has done EVERYTHING right as far as our choices. My husband has a double major. He graduated college by the age of 25 with a degree in computer science and a degree in math. He has been working since he graduated. Never ONCE has he been unemployed. At the time all of this was happening to our family he was making roughly between $50,000 and $70,000. He made WAY to much money to qualify for ANY help but he didn't make near enough to pay the thousand upon thousands of dollars in bills.

 

Our case and our situation is not uncommon. It is the hard working middle class (which accounts for the largest population) that falls through the cracks when they are unfortunite enough to be struck with a horrible disease like cancer or any other financially draining diagnosis. It is not the wealthy that suffers. They can just pay for whatever they need. Even the extremely poor are often times better off because at least they know that they can get some type of help. Families like ours that do everything right are the ones that need universal healthcare the most.

 

I would HAPPILY watch my taxes go up in order to provide much needed (and yes, DESERVED) healthcare to families like mine. Families that the only thing they are guilty of is being unlucky enough to have the c**p kicked out of them by life. And these are the majority of families that are most adveresly effected by our current healthcare system.

 

OK, I'll get off of my soap box now. I just wish that everyone WOULD step up and do the right thing by being willing to give of themselves for others. Unfortunately, we as a majority are not wired like that though so :hurray: to universal healthcare. :auto:

 

It's stories like yours, and my mother's (went to ER last year, asking about the cost of EVERY thing they did for her because she had no insurance or enough money), my friend's father ($40,000 for a relatively minor but emergency surgery - no insurance), my friend (who broke her ankle but did not get treatment because her husband's new job's insurance hadn't kicked in yet), another friend's $20,000 c-section that she had to pay 20% for and another acquaintance's open heart surgery of over $200,000 (which she had to pay 20% for) that make me want to sponsor you for immigration to Canada. The whole insurance/health care mess just makes life SO hard for so many people. :grouphug: to you for all you've been through.

[Luanne]

but I agree with the person who said you obviously wanted to push the results a certain way with the way you phrased the possible choices.

[elizam]

:grouphug:

 

And what about all those who made the poor choices of being born with juvenile diabetes, autism, cerebral palsy etc etc? or those who made the poor choice of being hit by a drunk driver, get cancer or any of the other things that can cause catastrophic medical costs. Or God forbid, develop an unattractive mental illness.

 

In our community we have a wonderful charitable organization which unfortunately only wants to help the "attractive" poor - not the schizophrenic.

 

That pretty much sums up what I think. It's sad.

[Janet in WA]

I couldn't vote because none of your statements described my thoughts or feelings on the issue.

[HSMom2One]

Maybe they deserve it, maybe not.

 

Why does our society have such a strong, identifiable preference for conditionality in offering help?

 

:iagree: :iagree: :iagree:

 

Well said, my friend!

 

Blessings,

Lucinda

[TCoppock]

I am completely against socialized medicine. We already provide basic healthcare. Our taxes pay for FREE clinics that provide basic healthcare including vaccinations. Emergency rooms are NOT ALLOWED to turn away true emergencies regardless of if a person is able to pay for it. We provide the poor and disabled with health insurance that allows them to have regular check-ups. Sorry but enough is enough! I am sick and tired of having to pay for others to live better than me. I work to provide for my family. My husband is unemployed due to illness. He is considered "partially" disabled and doesn't qualify for ANY government help. I pay for insurance through my work. I pay for the medication not covered by the insurance. We make sacrafices so the government can continue to increase my taxes to pay for others. NO! I know this probably sounds selfish but I am so sick of paying for others to have more than my family. The government has already made a mess with medicare/medicaid why would I want to expand government healthcare. I won't even get into the abuse of the system that I see at the hospital. Thank you very much I think we provide MORE than enough handouts already.

[TCoppock]

Well, it does need to be said that some people choose to be unhealthy. I have relatives like this. They treat their bodies horribly, ignore their diabetic situation, end up with kidney failure and gangrene with chopped off toes. And, yes, he can afford medical treatments.

 

And, again, NO -- taxpayers should not be funding healthcare for people who choose to spend their money on half million dollar homes and 20 acres with their dream home. It is also time for people to pay first for their needs and with their remaining money their wants. People are not entitled to big houses, land, 10 kids or whatever.

 

:iagree:I couldn't agree more. Look at Octomom! She was able to afford plastic surgery and IVF but was on welfare. Ummm... do we see a problem.

[Donna]

No. I don't think people generally "deserve" anything. General kindness, discluded, but I don't think general kindness includes paying for others expenses.

 

Daily, I see people who are druggies, I'm talking parents with children who use prescription drugs, bought on the street, all the time. They end up with kidney stones and a whole mess of other things. They build up credit debt. Some drive fancy cars, they dress far better than me (the Queen of Wal-mart clothes) etc. They eat crap, at least whenever I see them, there is junk in their mouths and in the mouths of their children. NOPE. I don't think others should be obligated to pay for their health care.

 

On the other hand, I don't mind helping anyone who is willing to have some personal accountability to improve their lives. I consider this charitable and I do believe we should all be charitable, no matter where we sit financially.

 

I also don't think anyone should be forced to be charitable. It should always be a choice.

 

Many, many, many organizations operate without gov't funding and are established as charitable organizations. Volunteerism goes a long way too.

 

ETA: my problem with this bill is:

1. I don't see it as reforming the healthcare system at large (billing, insurance, costs, research expenses, general cost of treatment, correcting lifestyle habits to improve health)

 

2. I don't believe in more taxes or greater gov't

 

3. we simply cannot afford it -- it's bad economics

 

Present something that reforms the system completely, not just throws money at it, and that is within a sustainable budget for this country, without increasing fed. debt, and I'm all for it.

 

:iagree: I have not seen many programs..actually can't name one that the government hasn't messed up and filled with overwhelming waste of our tax dollars. I do not think this bill/program will be any different.

[mrsrevmeg]

I voted "Somewhat". I do think it is good to have a safety net for people who need it, but on the other hand I do not like knowing that there are so many people milking the system. I live beside a church. You would not believe the people who knock on our door, repeatedly, asking for money rather than getting a job to take care of themselves. Please do not misunderstand me. I understand that there are times where circumstances happen that cannot helped. What I am referring to is the people who go from one agency to another, one church to another, sometimes giving the same story, sometimes it is a different story, and trying to get money for bills and groceries. We had a guy that came here several times and we helped him out. He came one day and said he needed money for cigarettes. Then he acted mad that I said I had no money! (btw, I was not lying. I really had no cash here) These are the people I have trouble giving to. I do think that there are certain groups we should take better care of-the elderly, the veterans, children whose parents who will not act responsibly. I just do not think that everyone deserves a piece of our family's income.