Yesterday, a meme spread around Facebook like wildfire. People changed their statuses to the following:
No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day.
Do you agree?
I would have to agree, although it brings up a very valid point, how much should we pay to prolong life.
I am not cold hearted but I think it raises some very interesting moral questions. New technologies are being developed that are extremely effective at prolonging life, but are very costly. What is one day worth? How about a week? Is there some kind of law of diminishing return, for example are childrens lives worth more than say octogenarian’s? How about the life of a genius in comparison to that of a mentally challenged individual? Who should get the right to make that assessment?
Initial costs may be substantial but as the technologies become better utilized and efficiencies are built in those processes could become something very economical. How do we evaluate the marginal cost of the investment?
there are standards now in the US–namely, your own: YOU get to choose when you don’t want treatment; in lieu of that, YOUR FAMILY gets to choose. so why would that be any different with new technology/drugs/procedures? it’s already being done, e.g., there was a time when organ transplantation did not exsist; now, you can opt to go thru it or not. in the future, you may be able to decide to get a Darth Vader respirator implanted to replace your ailing lungs; if you decide not to, you may die…it’s up to you.
LOL.
I posted this on my account and it started quite a long discussion about Obama’s health care plan. I Happen to agree with this statement, and I agree with Ken Oswald that it should be up to the individual if they should go through a procedure or not.
Lack of health care is the third leading cause of death amongst those 55-64. A very conservative estimate of the number of Americans that die every year from not having health care is 22,000. I’m not quite sure why anyone sees this as appropriate.
djinn- Reference, please?
My sources show it as Chronic Lower Resperitory Disease. (National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 50, No. 15, September 16, 2002.) And has been for some time. (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_14.pdf)
Perhaps you’re convoluting the unwillingness of those in that age group to seek medical attention with inability to receive health care. Or perhaps you’re just willing to believe anything you’re told that sounds like it supports your views. “SHOW ME THE DATA!!”
I’ve never chipped in here but I’ll throw one in the mix.
I’m 53 and have not had any insurance for 25 years. My wife had insurance at her job but it was $1000 deductible per year…we can’t afford that when we make less than $20,000 between us. We may as well not have insurance as to have that kind of deductible.
I know that there are things you should get checked out when you get over 40…I’m experiencing some rather severe symptoms that I won’t get into, but I simply can’t afford it…so….eventually….these issues may indeed prove to be fatal as I have let them go for so many years.
My story is repeated everyday among the working poor in our nation but the media won’t touch it.
Advice?
we make less than $20,000 between us. At 10k a year each, that is $5.00 an hour. You are working sub-minimum wage jobs?
Well, no. I make around $9.00 and she stays home raising our 4-yr-ol gdaughter. She brings in a little from ebay-related stuff.
Anyway, my point is that there are many that are dying because they can’t afford health care. There are cancers that are ignored, prescriptions that are never picked up, toothaches treated with 10-12 ibuprofen per day, etc. that are never discussed in the media.
I don’t pretend to have the answer nor do I claim that more fortunate folks should pay for others’ care….I’m just saying that it’s really misrepresented in the media.
That statement is too broad for me to agree with.
TStevens,
Are you suggesting there are some circumstances in which persons should die because they cannot afford health care?
The statement is made in absolute terms, so conversely are you suggesting that anyone who may die that also cannot afford healthcare should live? I would feel comfortable with maybe 99%, but would be wary of a blanket statement that says all. I have a hard time with such broad stances, but that may be more of a weakness in my character.
I am sure you want examples but I can’t think of one on the top of my head right now that doesn’t seem flippant (like a pedophillic serial killer dying of cancer prior to committing their crimes). But another sad fact of life I have come to accept is just because I am not smart enough to think of it doesn’t necessarily mean it doesn’t exist.
I am not suggesting anything. I asked a question; I didn’t make a claim.
Then yes.
“No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick.” Yes, I agree with it in broad sense.