Quote:
Originally Posted by Candy Kappa
Shane Patrick Boyle died in 22017 after he started a gofundme for paying for insulin.
And Alec Raeshawn Smith died same year after losing his insurance and started to rationing his insulin.
|
22017? What, was he a time traveler? Are
you?
J/K, I clearly know what you meant.
Anyway. Two examples of a bad outcome in a country of over 300
million people? Kinda like those odds, myself. Without writing another novel, these instances are SO rare and SO extreme that they hardly bear mentioning, and I'm pretty sure there were other factors in play as to why these individuals weren't taken care of, because again, I know plenty of people who have NOTHING and still get their meds and surgeries without any hassle, so something doesn't smell right. The sky simply isn't falling. Things can always be improved, and I've never denied that, certainly, but the whole "People in America are literally dropping dead in massive numbers because they can't afford healthcare" is a lie. If anything, a handful of people slip through the cracks - which is ALWAYS going to happen in ANY system - and it sucks for the people it happens to but is in no way indicative of how things are for the majority.
Some people die in car crashes BECAUSE they wore their seatbelt, and they might've lived if they'd gotten tossed through the windshield instead. Those are extreme cases, they don't mean that there's a problem with seatbelts altogether. It just means that sometimes Sh*t Happens.
I'm not gonna touch the back-and-forth arguing because I have better things to do, like pet my dog. All I'm gonna say, Redeemer, is that numbers tell a tale but not the whole story, statistics can be manipulated, and complicated issues don't have black-and-white, one-size-fits-all solutions. For one thing, if "only 8%" of Americans don't have health insurance, then that should technically mean we're doing pretty well altogether, no? Except I don't trust that "8%" number. 92% of Americans actually having health insurance seems astronomically high. But again, that's based on my own anecdotal information. Most people I know personally don't have any; either "Don't Need" or "Can't Afford" it. And that's their business. But right out of the gate, I'm casting a side-eye at that statistic because my personal experience says otherwise. I find it hard to believe that 8 out of every 10 Americans actually has anything past basic Medicaid. But that's me.
I'm a tough cat to go back-and-forth with, I admit, because while I acknowledge and respect so-called "factual" information, at the end of the day, I personally only call what I see, not what the paperwork says. I don't dismiss those things outright, mind you, I'll factor in any and all information, but I reserve the right at the end of the day to say, "Well, that's fine. What's on that paper simply has nothing to do with my own personal experience." And I allow for others to do the same. Because again, numbers only tell part of the story, and also, they can be completely made up sometimes.
What I do know for a fact is, once again, that nobody I know personally has ever been denied healthcare, medicine, etc., based on whether or not they had any money, even if they were literally dirt-poor. That's all I've been saying, and until I see differently, my position on the topic is not likely to change. Make of that what you will.
Your condolences regarding my father are duly noted. Just think, if he took better care of himself he might've lived to 95 like his Mom... or 105 like HER Mom... food for thought. Anyway, he dug his own hole, it is what it is. Thanks, though. Sorry to hear about yours, cancer is a bitch.
--------------
Something else I didn't really get into in the other posts, which a friend brought up to me recently, was freedom of choice, or lack thereof, in a government-controlled system. Remember when Obama said, "If you like your doctor/plan, you can keep it"? Wasn't true. A LOT of people I know got screwed over by that whole deal - mostly people who were making six figures or greater and already HAD good insurance, but they had to switch to something else and boy, were they not happy. They
claimed to me, many times, that their newer coverage was substandard and the doctors simply not as good, BUT they were not "allowed" to do things as they always had before. And I think that's just plain sh*tty. Again, call them liars if you want, I don't think that's the case. I think it's simply a case of, as with anything, "You get what you pay for" and people who have the means to spend more are going to get better service in general, and can't much ever be done about that. "Leveling the playing field" so that "everyone" has access to the same mediocre service doesn't sound so great, to me. For example, one of my clients needed surgery, her old insurance didn't cover it, or didn't cover enough of it, I forget the specifics, but anyway, so she switched to a different provider that better suited her needs and finally got her procedure done. That kind of flexibility is important, and it's something that would be lost in a universal healthcare system.
-----------------
Re: TommyT, I generally hold Canada in contempt but I would definitely not be adverse to hearing your perspective on the conversation anyway, since you offered it.
Seriously, I don't have any specific questions but by all means, chip in.