I don't believe universal health care is a viable long term solution. However, this is a man who put 20 years of work and taxes into the system and never got to use what he put in.
Alternatively, someone who has never had a job in his life and who doesn't mind living off the system enjoys the full benefits that this man paid for. Health care, food, and housing.
It's quite viable in my country, The Netherlands. Sure we pay high taxes, but we aren't left on the street like dogs when life fucks us over. There are other disadvantages to our system of course, like the parasitic behavior you described.
The Netherlands also didn't have the HUGE healthcare cartel to contend with when their system was implemented. In the US, insurance has allowed healthcare providers to charge enormous fees because they knew it would be covered. US healthcare is among the most expensive in the world, and it's not because of superior quality. Now that many people would like to change this, it's almost too late.
To clarify: I didn't mean to say that I have a strong ethical preference for universal health care. [0] What I wanted to say, is that for some things, e.g. emergency care, most societies will have rules to require universality. And if we go from there, paying for prevention often comes cheaper than waiting for the emergencies.
[0] I might have one, but it's doesn't matter for the argument. I'm also in favour of independent `death panels', that apply cost-benefit analysis to decide where to spend finite resources of society-provided universal health care.
Personally I think that universal health care is undesirable for ethical reasons. How are we supposed to evolve if we don't let our species' least capable members get weeded out by natural selection?
There's nothing "ethical" about allowing folks who can't pay for their own health care to get it at someone else's expense.
Personally I think that universal health care is undesirable for ethical reasons. How are we supposed to evolve if we don't let our species' least capable members get weeded out by natural selection?
I'm a big Nietzsche fan, but that my friend, is fucking disgusting.
You're equating the value of a person with their ability to game our society's system of making money. By your logic, we should be rushing to ensure that lottery winners in trailer parks are provided the best medical care while starving PhD students are left to die.
Natural selection is has done great things for life on our planet but it doesn't apply here.
If an individual has otherwise flourished in a society to the point where they can afford to have other members of a society provide them those services, then they are (despite medical appearances) apparently fairly well adapted.
The issues arise when they are not using their money to give themselves these advantages. (Perhaps it is inherited money, or perhaps it is provided by the society itself).
Believe it or not, we actually spend more government money on healthcare than most countries where universal care is offered [1]. And still have all these uninsured.
That's without even including the absurd amounts of private money. Just the government layouts, which don't cover close to everyone. Let that sink in.
Disclaimer: I believe the "healthcare system" in America is flawed and should be changed.
However, this is a man who put 20 years of work and taxes into the system and never got to use what he put in.
Let's think about this for a minute. When you say "put 20 years of work ... into the system" what do you mean? Was he not adequately compensated for the work he did? Is free healthcare in perpetuity assumed to be part of compensation for work that you do? Should it be?
As far as taxes, the article says he "looked into filing for disability. He applied for early Social Security." but only qualified for food stamps. I find that portion of the article to be either misleading or not complete - it doesn't say whether he actually applied for disability, or say anything about applying for the food stamps. The earliest you're eligible to receive SS benefits is age 62, so I'm not sure why (or how) a 59 year old would apply for early benefits.
Regardless, the "system" is indeed broken. However, I don't think the path to fixing it includes emotion-filled appeals about how many years of work someone has "put into the system".
If tax is for anything it ought to be to help the less fortune in society. Once you start discriminating on who is the most deserving of basic medical society you have to start questioning the society you live in.
The state funding some basic form of healthcare for all is civilizing, and has other benefits. Healthcare is not an incentive to do well: it does not work as an incentive at all. Those who want better healthcare pay for it even in countries where there is a basic provision.
It's perfectly possible for state healthcare provision to co-exist with private healthcare providers too.
I think the big reason universal health care isn't viable in the US is because of the system we already have in place. Big insurance and high-cost health care are firmly entrenched, and it would take an act of god to change this without upsetting the entire economic apple cart. I'm not really sure what the answer is at this point, but I agree with you when you say it's not a viable long term solution.
Firstly, you're addressing a different question than everyone else (even though I agree it's the right question), because you're talking about political viability whereas most people get stuck arguing about economic viability.
Second, there are a whole bunch of pieces to the system that keeps this in place. Relationships between lobbyists and government. Campaign financing regulations. Gerrymandering. SCOTUS interpretation of the commerce clause. If you started fixing a few pieces like those ... one at a time over decades ... you could change a lot of things.
Universal, socialized healthcare is here now, in the US. It exists fully and completely.
The middle class ignores free clinics and medicare facilities unless they become destitute or desperate.
The infrastructure is here, now. This overt dissonance will end eventually, and the US will catch up to the standard quality of life other first world nations enjoy. I hope it happens in my lifetime.
Are you talking about Medicare or Medicaid (ie, single-payer insurance) or Veteran's Administration (ie, government-run healthcare)?
Both are fiscally solid for decades, and yet are under attack by those who would profit from their demise.
Not only are we not getting closer to universal health care (or even insurance) but recent news indicates there is majority political support (note: not the majority of public) for some form of medicare/medicaid reduction.
Alternatively, someone who has never had a job in his life and who doesn't mind living off the system enjoys the full benefits that this man paid for. Health care, food, and housing.
That is also not viable.