I just heard the most aggravating NPR story: apparently now under Massachusetts Commonwealth care, adults under no disability who earn up to three times the poverty level can get lots and lots of healthcare. They featured the story of a 'starving artist' who got an eye exam, glasses, and a hysterectomy for a grand total of five dollars.
Does this strike anyone else grossly inappropriate? On the one hand, I'm in favor of single payer healthcare, but on the other, I think this borders on disgusting. This woman was asked to pay basically nothing in order to receive a ton of healthcare (I'm guessing between 10 and 25K worth.)
How about $25 a month? How about she pays for 10% of the cost of all this over like five years? If she chooses to work as an artist making only $15,000 a year instead of as a store clerk making $22,000, that's fine, and it's OK with me if we want to make sure that she should receive a certain minimum amount of medical care.
But my question is how much more should the rest of us have to work in order for her to get that care? I just think that until we have a single payer system, it's really inappropriate not to introduce some reciprocity here.
Gov't: "Hey y'all! Lawyer, cop, and hardware store guy! I need you each to work one percent more so we can pay for an operation for that poor chick."
Chorus of people: "That's cool with us. We would want help if we needed it, too. How much does she need us to help pay for? 75%? 85%?"
Gov't: "Nope. All of it."
Who's with me on this one?
No comments:
Post a Comment