I honestly believe we are entitled to NOTHING! We can buy and have that which we can afford to pay for. Among other things, I'm schooled as a biologist... part of which is a study of "population dynamics"... where the weak, old, infirm, unfortunate are the first to suffer predation... as they are the "easy kills" for predators. Cruel as that sounds, it's the way of nature... the way to strengthen the overall health the the surviving population. In a sense, "the rich should survive if they are able and willing to pay for the care while the poor should be allowed to die if they cannot afford the cost of care". If the girl's family can afford the procedure, they should be allowed to buy it. If not, sorry.... she's not "entitled" to it at the expense of others.
I disagree with any form of national healthcare, or national charity, on the basis that the federal govt has NO authority in the Constitution to operate these things. regulate, yes, provide, no. Yes they also have the power to tax, but according to Jefferson and Madison, the ability to tax is limited to the listed powers of Congress, not any arbitrary thing "for the public good". That is built in cost protection for the taxpayers. A national system which is planned and/or managed poorly WILL turn into a man made national disaster, whereas if a State were to do the same, the damage is limited to the State. I think because Congress has the ability to regulate interstate commerce, they could simply pass a law that any ins company providing coverage interstate, HAS to provide coverage for anyone willing to pay. People with preexisting conditions will still have higher premiums, but they ARE more risky and that's just the way it is. I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with that. Also, I think I posted an article here in P&R way back, about how Blue Cross/blue Shield was the first ins company to get in bed with the govt and really fuck up the health insurance industry.. i'll look for it later. But the point was, that ins was once protection for what you couldn't afford in case of an emergency. It wasn't designed to be an umbrella for your every medical cost. This makes sense, doesn't it? When you have a cold or your child has a cold and you go to the family physician why should insurance have anything to do with that transaction? Pay out of pocket and buy a catastrophic type policy that caps your costs should you develop cancer or get hit by a fucking car. 'Comprehensive' health insurance is a total waste of money for some people, probably most people, so why should they be forced to buy something they don't need?
Using your logic then anyone who can take your shit from you and gets away with it also should be ok. Be careful what you wish for scat, it would be a totally different world than the life without worry you now live.
Who said "entitled"? You keep using that word. I'm not saying anyone is entitled to anything, either. What I'm saying is that if we want to call ourselves an evolved society, the human part of us should want to have some sort of safety net for those who are truly in need of help. Careful consideration must be given to make sure we are ensuring only those who are desperate get that attention. If you can walk down the street and look a child who is starving in the eyes and say "sorry kid, you're not entitled to eat", then you win the contest of "harsh bastard". Also, if you are religious in any matter at all, I hope you have a good time explaining that to whatever higher power you believe in.
"Entitled"... people think they should get/have something just because they want it, need it, are Americans, are simply IN this country (legally or not) or others have it and they don't. "Some sort of safety net".... If my grandpa were running this country, social support would be "3-squares and a cot"... and if you want better than that, provide it for yourself. "Needing help" isn't enough. Many people can claim to need help on several levels. I say, "help" should be basic sustenance, only. If you want/need better than that, then provide for yourself.
All I'm talking about in a safety net is essentially three-squares and a cot. I'm not saying they should get phones, and stuff like that. I'm saying people should not be dying of starvation in a country as great as this. Why is that so hard to accept?
I'm not arguing your principle. But "not starving in a country as great as this" is not the same as providing a lung transplant procedure "at the expense of others" (what, $100K-$300K?) for a marginal candidate.
Unfortunately, the "safety net" in America is a decent-enough life style subsidized to the point that the recipients are "comfortable" as parasites... should NOT be the case.
No, it's not the same. But when we cannot help a 5(?) year old girl who will die without assistance simply because we don't want to help her because the math doesn't add up, then that is saying a lot about what we are (or in this case, are not) as a race.