17 of 23

Yes

Write now Article Tools

Yes, but let's be clear ... We fund the government through our taxes, so the real question is, "Should everybody pay for everybody's medical care?" And I still say yes.

Of course there are humanitarian reasons for doing so. We are or ought to be a "community" and, as Christ (the last word for many conservative thinkers) is said to have taught, we our brothers' keepers. (Find me a quote in the Bible that says something like "Christ said, 'Leave those afflicted to fend for themselves lest their care stain your tax burden.'")

Interestingly, the same people who would say "no" to this debate question now would give it a resounding "yes" should they, in the future, find themselves with an illness they cannot afford to treat properly. Too bad so many people lack simple foresight and compassion on this topic.

Sometimes the community comes through. I live in a town that recently held extremely successful, grass-roots fund-raisers for two different people who found themselves seriously ill without adequate coverage. Which was great. But we can't all depend, nor should we, on neighborly generosity. I also don't think your degree of public assistance or private hardship should be determined by how many friends you have. Do you?

For all you hard-hearted types who would say "not my problem", I have a more practical rationale for everybody-funded health coverage. And that is: It ultimately costs you more in taxes to neglect people than to help them. Hospitals lose millions every year treating un- and under-insured people. Un- and under-insured people often can't afford routine care, so they often wait until they are seriously ill to seek medical attention. "I don't care", you say? Well, shame on you. Nevertheless, let me illustrate one fictitious yet plausible scenario ...

Patient X has a nagging abdominal ache, but lacks health insurance so puts off seeing the internist her clinic doctor recommends. Eventually though, she does go and, after a battery of tests she will never pay for, she discovers she has a progressive, probably terminal illness. Worse yet, she finds that it is probably much worse now than it was when she first noticed her symptoms.

Now, since those of you who are opposed to everybody-funded health care probably don't care about this woman, I'll shift my focus to likely financial implications going forward:

1: She pays little or none of her health-care expenses, and either gets it for free or neglects her health further.
2: She can't

• 1
• 2
• next page >>

Add your voice

Know something about Should government pay for all medical care??
We want to hear your view. Write now!