|
|
|
|
|
|
by candiodari
2996 days ago
|
|
|
And she is defending that effectively tax money should pay for medical treatment. ANY medical treatment, with the only limitation that it prolongs life. It is already the case that millions people lost ~20% of their disposable income because of insurance increases. In many cases it is lower a LOT of people who would normally be comfortably above the poverty line back down to the poverty line (those are the people losing the most in the individual mandate and subsidy system). And we all know that anything less than 2x the poverty line definitely feels like poverty and already cannot be escaped through savings and/or good financial sense. So there is a choice to be made. A choice between the cost of the individual mandate and coverage on families and the fact that we want everyone to be "saved" from health problems. This is further complicated by the fact that anyone saved from a health problem increases healthcare demands both linearly (very few health treatment really fixes things, so future demands on healthcare by the same patient will on average be higher), and exponential (a LOT of health problems are inheritable), because people demand the genetics of their kids be "respected" even when known problems exist. Afterwards, of course, it is unfair to blame the kids or the parents, even in entirely predictable problem cases. And then you have 5 kid families, where the parents were warned long before anything happened, which all have severe genetic problems resulting in brain defects. 2 cannot survive a single day without medical care and only 1 will ever live independently. But 3 would like to marry and have kids themselves (I don't blame the kids, however the parents should have known better, also we need to figure out the very sane policy of 100% refund of fertility treatments for couples without fertility problems for this reason) ... At what point is it not reasonable anymore ? |
|
|