Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv
There are some people who truly need a car for work, but in my opinion, the vast majority WANT a car. Because it's faster, more convenient, and less plebeian than riding a bus.
I would maintain that for almost anyone whose work does not require him or her to drive a personal vehicle, they have CHOSEN the convenience of a car instead of choosing health insurance. Or, if you prefer, some have chosen cableTV/broadband for $90 a month instead of health insurance. Or, they've chosen to spend their time surfing the internet instead of working 4 hours a week at $7 an hour, which would net them the same $90. And yes, some people choose to have children they really can't afford. I'm not talking about children with health problems--I'm talking about people with minimum wage jobs and no plans for an education who decide to have kids, and then, once again, expect everyone else to pay for their choice.
I would further maintain that most supporters of government health insurance are just the same old group of people who want "everyone else" to pay their expenses. Except for politicians, who are happy to stir up class envy if it will get them re-elected.
If having health insurance were a condition of using an X-Box, we'd see a dramatic drop in the number of uninsured, without a new government program.
|
While not the MOST elitist thing I've ever seen posted here, this comes pretty close.
First, lets talk about the bus versus a car.
In order to get into downtown LA from the 'burbs it takes 4.5 hours, and 3 transfers. (Thats 9 hours in transit, BTW.)
Live near your work, you say.
No. (I hate crime.)
For most americans a car is directly related to your ability to find a good job. If you think i'm kidding, try being late to your job 3 times a week because the buses don't run as predicted. (ALL temp agencies ask if you have RELIABLE PERSONAL transportation. No car, no job.)
Second, some of us don't work 4 hours @ $7 because we have kids that need our time and attention.
I am middle-class, and cannot afford unsubsidised health care.
Consider also that the uninsured rate for any proceedure is often twice the rate hospitals charge insurance companies. So the people that are least likely to be able to afford it are charged higher prices. How fair is that? (Not that anyone said life was supposed to be fair, but still...)
"The irony of the situation is that if I weren't paying for the insurance, and if I weren't working - or even if I were working minimum wage - my son's care would be fully covered on the public's dime. Not only that, but he would be getting a higher level of care than he is currently receiving under the private plan. (I'm hearing that less-severe cases routinely receive 15 - 16 hours of nursing a day, compared with the 8 hours a day that he currently receives.)"-ScottKuma
I was in exactly the same spot when my son got diagnosed with craniosinostosis. I had to get denied Healthy Families, (Middle class-ish sub'd ins.) then apply for medical. (They would cover the proceedure but were going to charge us more than if we just paid it all out of pocket!) So we then had to take all of our paperwork and re-apply to healthy families. (approved!)
"those not enjoying the same access to opportunity"-roachboy
This is the reason i called marvin elitist. It is also why i think Us2 is a little deluded. He talks about hard work, and merit, but (as far as i can tell) does not recognize the fact that it is his birth, quality of education, his whiteness, his gender, and his general health, (IE, His Socio-Economic Status) that has made it possible for him to have something to hand down.
Also, being in favor of taxes does not mean that i trust the government to spend my money more responsibly than I myself would. I simply trust the government to spend your money more responsibly than you would.