This story is unavailable.

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:

  1. Nothing is free. Even if the government provides it, the tax payer is footing the bill.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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?
  5. 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?
  6. Does age play a factor? For example, would society pay for a heart transplant for an octagenarian?
One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.