OK, now we see what’s really going on. Trump says he will protect preexisting conditions, but when push comes to shove, preexisting conditions is a “difficult issue to work out”. …
Essentially what this comes down to is an admission that “we can’t provide health insurance for everyone with pre-existing conditions”. Yet most other developed nations managed to do just that. Yes, they have higher taxes, or they have an individual mandate, and that’s how they do it. And I know that higher taxes is a deal-breaker for conservatives. So let’s drop the pretense that Trump is somehow going to protect people with preexisting conditions and allow them to get health care regardless of anything. Trump has no intention of doing it, and you have just helped confirm that.
Yeah, no. This is you jumping to unfair conclusions.
Perhaps I can give an example that might show what I meant by “unfairly burdening” someone.
Children who were born with severe mental and physical handicaps in the 1950s and earlier were seen to be “unfair burdens” to families, which is why the state in various jurisdictions opened hospice types of institutions to assist those families.
A more “enlightened” subsequent generation saw those institutions as inhumane and actively sought to close them. What happened? Individuals with severe handicaps were repatriated into society, for a time - back into schools and into families until it became clear that such individuals were indeed a burden to families. So respite services began to appear to provide relief.
Today, however, the medical profession routinely advocates the abortion - the getting rid of the burden entirely.
Now what you see as the “caring” gesturing of Democrats in terms of “pre-existing conditions” I see as a ploy to pander to a minority with legitimate concerns.
However, over the long term, focusing more and more power and resources in the hands of the state will NOT go well for those with pre-existing conditions. State-run health care will reach a point where such conditions will be deemed “too expensive” to continue supporting and paying for from an increasingly limited budget and coverage will be dropped.
That is why countries like the Netherlands, Belgium, the UK and Canada are pushing euthanasia to deal with individuals with conditions that the state considers “too burdensome.”
I would be very careful into which basket you place all of your eggs, especially when the group that holds that basket are not completely up front with how it will deal with the exponential costs of sustaining their unicorn promises.
A one size fits all solution might become very constraining in short order.
And a group that so easily endorses the killing of human beings to solve a dilemna will not stop that “easy solution” when other voiceless individuals become deemed “unduly burdensome.”
