[cancer] Healthcare reform, and a question for my conservative friends

Sitting here in the chemo chair, reading the political news about HCR. It’s discouraging.

Republicans have provided blanket opposition to the healthcare reform effort from the get-go, with only the vaguest token proposals of their own, those being rhetorical roadblocks lacking in either detail or serious intent. Now, because of a single special election, Democrats have lost their nerve. The Senate is talking about taking the ban on pre-existing conditions limitations out of the bill. I’m not sure what the status is on lifetime coverage limitations.

To my conservative friends who believe the current system is “best in the world”, and to the Democrats in Washington who have lost their spines, why do you think limits on pre-existing condition and lifetime coverage are a good idea? What is appropriate about putting people like me in a box that says, “go bankrupt, then die”? How does the vaunted free market solve my issues?

Please, tell me why this ok. Tell me why this is the “best in the world”. Because when you oppose HCR without any decent alternatives, or when you chicken out on this process, you’re telling me that it’s too bad that I get to go broke, then croak.

Even if you honestly believe that market forces are the best way to dictate my fate, that it’s too bad I’m one of the eggs that gets broken in making the omelet of market-based healthcare, sheer self interest should suggest that you might be in my position someday. What will you do then?

So tell me, why is this ok?

4 thoughts on “[cancer] Healthcare reform, and a question for my conservative friends

  1. Well, it’s more like you’d go broke, then qualify for Medicaid. Which then, because your cancer (hopefully wouldn’t be still here, but lets say we’re battling it in the future, just for the sake of this example) wouldn’t have been treated as you dropped below the “I can afford it” line to the “broke enough for Medicaid” line and now would require the tax payers to cough up ten-times the amount to be spent (the so called “heroic efforts”) to save your life. Which hopefully would be successful, but statistics say no so much.

    All that instead of doing the simple decent thing of actually providing good health care to everybody and reducing our long term costs while increasing our quality of life measures. Like most first world (and most second and third world) nations do.

    But that would be too rational and argument.

  2. Aimee says:

    I’ve said this about a zillion times since this whole thing came up: Health care should not be a for-profit industry. No one should be making money off the suffering of others, especially when “making money” implies “not helping”.

  3. Rick York says:

    This whole “best in the world” health care system is a direct consequence of the right wing’s constant promotion of American “exceptionalism”. If it’s American, it must be the best. Most importantly, individual choice dominates the debate.

    And wasn’t it Ari Fleischer who said something to the effect of “we don’t deal with reality based policies here”? So, why should mere facts – such as WHO’s ranking of the US as 23rd in the world in infant mortality – get in the way. El Salvador, our nearest competitor for this distinguished ranking, is obviously a superior culture and economy. Right?

  4. Cora says:

    I’m not American and am frankly mystified why any developed country would put up with a system that’s broken and leaves a significant part of the population without health insurance.

    But apparently conservative politicians have brainwashed the population into believing that the broken US system is the best in the world and that the systems that do work, if not perfectly, are socialism and therefore evil.

Comments are closed.