Anyone else believe in universal coverage for kids?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sanctamaria17
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sanctamaria17

Guest
I believe that universal health care should be available at least for all children in the US. Here’s why:
  1. I believe health care has no place in the free market. It’s not supposed to be a privilege for the rich. That’s wrong.
  2. Kids have no say. If they are sick and their parents can’t afford it, they won’t take them to the doctor! (my mother knows a lot of women in that situation)
  3. It’s more pro-life. Not only should we make sure babies have a chance to be born, we should help take care of them after birth. One huge expense is the medical aspect (with all the shots and doctor’s visits babies need).
  4. Poor families are hit especially hard when their children get sick. They resort to taking them to the emergency room and end up having to pay astronomical fees.
  5. No child should be refused a medical treatment simply because their parents can’t afford it. That’s sick and wrong.
Everyone talks about where tax dollars are going. Shouldn’t they go to worthwhile causes, like an investment in our country’s future (which is our children)? Europe makes it work and they have more people than we do. Not only that, but abortions are actually more rare in Europe than the US, with stricter laws. Maybe it’s due to a better access to health care?
 
I think it is a mistake to couch health care in terms of “rights.” Modern technological health care is NOT a right.

Instead, I think it is better to take the position that our society is wealthy enough to extend the “PRIVILEDGE” of basic health care to all children, regardless of ability to pay.

We need to watch out for the entitlement attitude. People simply do not value what they don’t have to pay for. It’s human nature (probably from the fallen part). Making it both ‘free’ and calling it a ‘right’ is IMO likely to worsen the problem.

Instead, I think we probably ought to come up with a way to cover preventative and routine care for the poor (and not just kids) that requires them to participate in the cost SOMEHOW in order to both retain their dignity and their sense of the value of the health care.

I’m NOT so sure that society owes everyone “free” advanced health care (transplants, chemo, patented drugs, etc)

I don’t have much hope that our political climate is compatible with such subtleties.
 
If the technology exists, then it should be used to save dying people’s lives. Whether they can pay for it should have nothing to do with it. You go to the emergency room and you’re dying - do they save your life or ask whether you can pay?

They should definitely be worrying about saving your life.
 
manualman said:
I think it is a mistake to couch health care in terms of “rights.” Modern technological health care is NOT a right.

Instead, I think it is better to take the position that our society is wealthy enough to extend the “PRIVILEDGE” of basic health care to all children, regardless of ability to pay.

We need to watch out for the entitlement attitude. People simply do not value what they don’t have to pay for. It’s human nature (probably from the fallen part). Making it both ‘free’ and calling it a ‘right’ is IMO likely to worsen the problem.

Instead, I think we probably ought to come up with a way to cover preventative and routine care for the poor (and not just kids) that requires them to participate in the cost SOMEHOW in order to both retain their dignity and their sense of the value of the health care.

I’m NOT so sure that society owes everyone “free” advanced health care (transplants, chemo, patented drugs, etc)

I don’t have much hope that our political climate is compatible with such subtleties.
Click to expand...
So what is wrong with providing access to adcanced health care to the poor if it will improve their quality of life and increase their lifespan? I believe it should be provided on utilitarian concerns.

Why do you object with providing advanced health care in OECD countries? I guess it is societies way of saying that the poor in their country do not have the same value as the wealthy.
 
manualman said:
I think it is a mistake to couch health care in terms of “rights.” Modern technological health care is NOT a right.

Instead, I think it is better to take the position that our society is wealthy enough to extend the “PRIVILEDGE” of basic health care to all children, regardless of ability to pay.

We need to watch out for the entitlement attitude. People simply do not value what they don’t have to pay for. It’s human nature (probably from the fallen part). Making it both ‘free’ and calling it a ‘right’ is IMO likely to worsen the problem.

Instead, I think we probably ought to come up with a way to cover preventative and routine care for the poor (and not just kids) that requires them to participate in the cost SOMEHOW in order to both retain their dignity and their sense of the value of the health care.

I’m NOT so sure that society owes everyone “free” advanced health care (transplants, chemo, patented drugs, etc)

I don’t have much hope that our political climate is compatible with such subtleties.
Click to expand...
You and I are in 100% agreement. 👍

When it comes to advanced health care, there are lots of charitable options out there - especially for kids (St. Judes, Shriners, etc.). Everyone else can get inexpensive coverage with a high deductible and save enough to cover the deductible. That is the prudent way to take care of your family.
 
HannahLisa said:
If the technology exists, then it should be used to save dying people’s lives. Whether they can pay for it should have nothing to do with it. You go to the emergency room and you’re dying - do they save your life or ask whether you can pay?

They should definitely be worrying about saving your life.
Click to expand...
They save your life (or try to at least :o )…it’s the law.
 
Just want to clear this up:

No one in the United States is ever refused necessary medical treatment. No matter how dirt poor you are, if you walk into an emergency room with a broken arm, they have to treat you. If you go to a state or county teaching hospital and have little or no income, you will likely be treated for free (which means that others will be absorbing the cost), or else have your bill adjusted. The hitch is that if your case is a non-emergency, you might have to wait a while, or be seen by a student doctor with an overseeing teaching physician.

Socializing healthcare – even for children – would result in one great mother of an HMO. No, thank you. :nope:
 
Hate to see this cast as a classwarfare, ‘poor v. rich’ kind of thing.

The system in the US is ‘played’ everyday: those on public assistence get excellent healthcare for essentially nothing. Those who strive to better themselves and give their families a decent life-- the working poor, if you will-- get nothing.

Any sort of health care package should be based on the ability of the family to pay. Instead, it seems to be an all or nothing situation.
 
OK, then you have issues like people who DO have health insurance, yet they can’t get life saving treatments approved for whatever reason. Like people who have to pay six figures for bone marrow transplants. Or having to choose between groceries and medications. Or w/e.

Seriously, for a normal checkup? That’s why people use emergency rooms. Because they can’t afford a regular doctor. And free clinics get swamped easily and run out of resources.

We are having a healthcare crisis in this country and the ones paying for it most are the kids. I find it disgusting that they have no say and are more vulnerable, yet health care is a privilege? Why don’t we make school a privilege too?
 
in what manner do proponents advocate funding this universal health care coverage for children?

if it means, what most proponents advocate, a government run health care system–look at the disaster that is the VA system. If it means a medicare type arrangement–look at the abuses and failures, low payments to doctors and resulting lack of care in many areas that has resulted.

If you want it you have to come up with a workable system. Raising taxes and mandating it won’t help, will only reduce availability of services to the very people you want to help.
 
manualman said:
I think it is a mistake to couch health care in terms of “rights.” Modern technological health care is NOT a right.

Instead, I think it is better to take the position that our society is wealthy enough to extend the “PRIVILEDGE” of basic health care to all children, regardless of ability to pay.

We need to watch out for the entitlement attitude. People simply do not value what they don’t have to pay for. It’s human nature (probably from the fallen part). Making it both ‘free’ and calling it a ‘right’ is IMO likely to worsen the problem.

Instead, I think we probably ought to come up with a way to cover preventative and routine care for the poor (and not just kids) that requires them to participate in the cost SOMEHOW in order to both retain their dignity and their sense of the value of the health care.

I’m NOT so sure that society owes everyone “free” advanced health care (transplants, chemo, patented drugs, etc)

I don’t have much hope that our political climate is compatible with such subtleties.
Click to expand...
What a very selfish attitude.
 
surf(name removed by moderator)ure said:
Just want to clear this up:

No one in the United States is ever refused necessary medical treatment. No matter how dirt poor you are, if you walk into an emergency room with a broken arm, they have to treat you. If you go to a state or county teaching hospital and have little or no income, you will likely be treated for free (which means that others will be absorbing the cost), or else have your bill adjusted. The hitch is that if your case is a non-emergency, you might have to wait a while, or be seen by a student doctor with an overseeing teaching physician.

Socializing healthcare – even for children – would result in one great mother of an HMO. No, thank you. :nope:
Click to expand...
Socialised health care seems to work OK in most other countries.
 
They can get EMERGENCY treatment but not preventative measures or normal checkups.

And kids have no say! NONE. If their parents can’t afford to take them to the doctor, THEY WON’T! Then, it’s only when the kid has a severe sickness and has to go to the emergency room when they could have had normal checkups.

People talk about private charities, but the problem is private charities get swamped and overwhelmed.

I do think health care is a right, not a luxury. Why shouldn’t a child of the working poor (and therefore unqualified to receive public assistance) have the same chance at preventative treatment as a child of a big CEO?

Seriously, no one is complaining about kids having equal rights to an education (now the type of education may differ). Why is health care any different?
 
sanctamaria17 said:
They can get EMERGENCY treatment but not preventative measures or normal checkups.

And kids have no say! NONE. If their parents can’t afford to take them to the doctor, THEY WON’T! Then, it’s only when the kid has a severe sickness and has to go to the emergency room when they could have had normal checkups.

People talk about private charities, but the problem is private charities get swamped and overwhelmed.

I do think health care is a right, not a luxury. Why shouldn’t a child of the working poor (and therefore unqualified to receive public assistance) have the same chance at preventative treatment as a child of a big CEO?

Seriously, no one is complaining about kids having equal rights to an education (now the type of education may differ). Why is health care any different?
Click to expand...
1) How are we going to pay for it, and make it manageable?? Proponents need a solution, not a simple request.
  1. No country that uses successful socialized medicine doe sso on the scale of the US ~ 300,000,000 people. So the comparison is not accurate, at all.
  2. Using public education is a detriment to your cause. By and large, public education in the US is a bloated, poorly run, waste of tax payer money that fronts as an education system, but acts as a molding factory for anti-religious, progressive belief systems. If anything, that supports that case for not socializing healthcare.
 
So, should we just say kids can’t be educated because the system is flawed? Or do we fix the system?

Taxes. They pay for education, libraries, and police/fire protection, why not health too? Hey, it’s one less expense if you’re not paying for health insurance, why not just have the same amount come out of taxes? Or have a better tax system where the poor get tax cuts, not the rich.

Just because something wasn’t done on a grand scale before doesn’t mean it can’t be done. It apparently works in France, England, Canada, Italy, etc.

And I am talking about children here:) Not everyone. Kids. Who don’t have a say. If we needed to start it on the grand scale, why don’t we see if this could work? Then we see if it can work for everyone else? The government does not spend a lot of money on poor children at all, more money gets spent on poor adults. Why can’t we at least take one concern away from poor families, the health of their children?
 
surf(name removed by moderator)ure said:
Just want to clear this up:

No one in the United States is ever refused necessary medical treatment. No matter how dirt poor you are, if you walk into an emergency room with a broken arm, they have to treat you.
Click to expand...
That’s assuming they can find a doctor to treat you. My ‘lifestyle’ offended all of the doctors in the ER I was at a few years, and I sat around bleeding for about an hour after being pulled back, until a nurse started screaming and yelling and a doctor sucked it up, and helped me. Thankfully I turned out OK, and the delay didn’t cause any harm, but don’t try to say it doesn’t happen.

I’ve cost taxpayers and hospitals almost a million dollars, because I am refused preventive care. If I had had about 25,000 of preventive care, I would be fine, however, instead I had to rely on the ER and rack up almost 1million in bills.

How is this logical. Is this logical for KIDS? It’s not a child’s fault if the parents squander the money on cars and too large houses and don’t get health insurance. How is this the kid’s fault?
 
Or if parents are poor and can’t afford it?

It would cost tax payers less money if people were able to get preventative care instead of waiting till their illness was drastic.

And if they’re poor, emergency bills can DEVASTATE a family’s income. If you live on minimum wage (which HASN’T CHANGED), that could mean you’re not even making it at that point.
 
rlg94086 said:
You and I are in 100% agreement. 👍

When it comes to advanced health care, there are lots of charitable options out there - especially for kids (St. Judes, Shriners, etc.). Everyone else can get inexpensive coverage with a high deductible and save enough to cover the deductible. That is the prudent way to take care of your family.
Click to expand...
Define the term “lots.” Is there a St. Jude’s, Shriners, etc. charitable hospital in every major city? What about those folks in rural areas? How are poor people who rely on public transportation supposed to get to these charitable options?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top