Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw
btw...just clicking on the SLATE article that Bryan posted...the title is "LET HIM DIE " in quotes but if you read the article...it's Wolf Blitzer who was moderating the debate who actually said "let him die", not any republican
seems like a pretty balanced article too  |
On reading the article I could see an
attempt at balance, but, to me, it was very heavily slanted toward the mandate as a solution to medical care for the uninsured who can afford it. The three options the article presented for someone who could afford it but was uninsured and critically or terminally ill are (1) the mandate, (2) current policy of care to be paid for by the rest of us, and (3) letting him die. For option 2, current policy, the article cites A study (only one study) that says the cost shift amounts to $1,100 per family. It omits another study that found that 80% was actually covered by charities and that the cost shifted to the rest of us was about $80 per family, so the article's assertion that charities could not substantially contribute to the cost is questionable. Option 3, let him die takes the responsibility of the uninsured out of the equation. In typical progressive thinking, society has to solve his problem, not the individual. But there is an option 4. Let the uninsured individual take responsibility for the cost of saving his life. Let him sell assets, take loans, do whatever it costs to pay for it, if saving his life is worth it to him, even if it would mean bakruptcy. This option would be an incentive for those who can afford it to buy insurance. The same would apply to any other expensive thing he thought worth buying. And yes, charities could help those who absolutely are not capable. And yes, various State programs could assist the truly needy. And yes, the Constitution would be spared the further destruction. And the principle of individual freedom from all-powerful government would be a little more preserved.