I totally understand the writer’s situation, as I needed a knee surgery after an accident playing basketball, that would have cost my family nearly $20K if not for the health insurance I had through my employer. However, rather than simly assume these situations require us to implement universal health coverage or government provided insurance subsidies, I would very much like for folks to consider the following in no particular order:
- Nothing is free. Even if the government provides it, the tax payer is footing the bill.
- Unless there are other reforms (i.e. technology, reduced regulation, lawsuit limits, etc.) more people receiving healthcare coverage will raise the overall cost of healthcare.
- What role does society or government have in subsidizing lifestyle? In both mine and the writer’s situation, we were not hurt by some freak accident (like a piano falling from the sky). It was our lifestyle that caused our medical issue.
- If society should subsidize lifestyle, does that mean any lifestyle (smoking, drinking, sugary drinks, overeating, etc.) would be subsidized and would society have the ability to restrict said lifestyle?
- Is there a difference between what is a necessity and what is not? Back to my example, I could live my life, go to work, etc. without that knee surgery, so should society be asked to pay for it in any fashion?
- Does age play a factor? For example, would society pay for a heart transplant for an octagenarian?