R/E/P > R/E/P Saloon

Health care - the need for reformation (was Roger Nichols)

(1/13) > >>

mazoaudio:
jrmintz wrote on Thu, 20 January 2011 11:38
I don't think it's overtly political to say that all Americans ought to have access to health care resembling that which our congressional representatives, of all parties and ideologies, and in a rare display of unity, have given themselves. It's also not political to say that it's unconscionable that the family of a person who has had a career like Roger Nichols, or any family for that matter, should have to impoverish itself to keep a family member alive. It's a moral issue out of which some people have created a political one.

I donated as well.


+1

Denouncing the reasonable critic of the effects of certain policies as "political" is one of the ways the unjust policies are perpetuated.  (i.e. Arizona shootings)

The  ways folks try to rationalize this class war is a joke.  I have donated to Roger, who is obviously a cool guy and someone who has furthered the science of recording.
It's just says really sad things about our country when people who have been pushed down from the middle class are called upon to help fix situations like this

jimmyjazz:
I think it's really sad that a disease as common as cancer can decimate the finances of a family which should, by distant observation, be financially sound.  If true, what it means is that only the top few percent can afford anything but the most ordinary "life-saving" efforts, and that is sad.

I am very glad I carry a cancer policy on my family.  Moreover, I'm glad I can afford it.  My father died a couple of years ago from cancer, but the incurred costs were largely carried by insurance and Medicare.  His cancer was uncureable, though -- aggressive brain tumor at age 87 -- so I doubt our experience is all that relevant.  If we had tried to fight it for a few years, I'm sure we would have been in the same boat, and that is mortifying.

Sorry for the continued thread-jack, but I'm with William on this one.

YZ:
A productive member of society and an expert at his profession, open to share his experiences with his fellows.

While not a multimillionaire, a well-paid individual and I doubt that anyone with a clear mind will say that he did not work for every penny of it and did not do it honestly.

Goes broke and takes his family's savings with him to treat a disease.

Something's wrong.

He's not lazy, he is not destitute of friends and relationships at 'high places'.

Over the years I've been a member here at PSW, I've seen a few calls for help like the OP; this is a crying shame, good people and good hardworking professionals not being able to pay for their treatment.

Have they not saved enough? Did they all burn all their income in futile stuff? How much of a person's income should be set aside for the possibility of a costly illness? And what if that income is not that high and one has to choose between feeding and clothing the kids and saving for the possibility of such an illness?

Extreme Mixing:
Yes, I too feel that what is happening to Roger is wrong.  This is exactly the reason that we need a required participation system of national health insurance.  Even a 20 year old can get cancer, or find himself in a terrible car accident and need treatment.  Since all share that risk, all should pay into a health care program.

Someone mentioned Social Security.  Not a day goes by without some politician mentioning that SS will be broke before many of get any of our benefits.  But at the same time we pay public employees 70-90% of their highest pay rate, and GIVE them free medical care for life.  We let them negotiate their own deal!  There is no way that most of us "working stiffs" will let Social Security go down, and continue to pay taxes to support teachers, and DMV retirees who didn't even pay into their plan.  So even if the system keeps working, I'll get like 22K per year while a DMV worker will get 60K per year and free health care for life.  That's not fair in my book.

I truly wish Roger the best.

Steve

YZ:
Yes.

Mods, I know I'm veering off-topic here, but...

Why should politicians have access - paid by taxpayers - to a health system unattainable to the common man? Isn't this a Democracy? Aren't we in a Capitalist society? Why elected individuals have more rights - and for life - than the people who voted for them? Why would any politician work for the good of all if he has already gotten such a good deal for himself and his family? Why should a citizen in the boondocks with no health care of any sort be paying for a senator's lavish benefits?

/rant off/

I hope Roger recovers - in all aspects.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version