Who should pay?

Tweety, BSN, RN · Oct 6, 2004

I agree with Fergus. Using Canadian and European models everyone should be for healthcare through taxes. With equal access and equal treatment for all citazens.

NeuroICURN · Oct 6, 2004

I agree that this is a VERY touchy subject and I don't think there will ever be a completely right answer.

As for the "canadian's" method...I know that would NEVER work here! Insurance companies and doctors would NEVER stand for it.

Keep the replies coming. I'll check out the other threat that someone mentioned too...thanks!

chris_at_lucas_RN, RN · Oct 6, 2004

On the one hand, you don't want to see people in need have to do without.

On the other hand, people who get something for nothing generally don't respect it (or the people who do pay for it), and have no problem wasting it.

I have a personal agenda here, I guess. I used to have a lot of sympathy here, but after nearly four years of observation, and lack of movement toward any kind of independence, I just try not to think about it too much.

We have a small portion of our little family with one member of the household in a wheelchair/bed and the other ostensibly unable to work in order to take care of the first one. There is no diagnosed illness, but after four plus years of little or no physical activity, there is of course muscle wasting and loss of use. There was a minor accident four or so years ago, a generous disability policy which was exhausted over a period of two years, and since the accident lots of refusal to do things like PT or OT, or to go to the doc for fevers and weakness allegedly so extreme that the wheelchair bound individual is unable to even get himself to the toilet (even with help).

There is a focus on medications and the use of herbals and (what I tend to think of as wacko) OTC's like herbal-life and some other local stuff which is very expensive and which is of dubious worth, even for healthy, fit, able people, but which is soooo attractive to the get rich quick mentality of multilevel marketing organizations.

Did I mention these two are able to get their act together (including the bedridden one getting up on a walker!) when there is a chance they might be included in a family activity where they wouldn't be able to attend unless there is more mobility? (Oh, yes.)

Income is confined to social security and siphoning off the elderly parent's savings. This is euphemistically referred to as "a loan against the inheritance." Right. There is enough money, but it is as though the concept of nursing off the public teat has come home to roost. (There is always money for junk food, fast food and a local, rather expensive, "container" retail store.)

I honestly believe that if these two weren't being supported by the government and our old softie elderly parent, they would be better off, physically and emotionally.

Which leads me to my thoughts that government-sponsored help, for many, means cultivating an attitude of dependence, resentment and demandingness. Not good for them, not good for their neighborhoods and communities, not good for society as a whole.

Personally, I'd like to see everyone on the public dole (in whatever form) be required to do certain things--have a case manager, for example, who would make an assessment and a care plan, and maybe say, you will do PT and/or OT. You will get out of bed daily and bathe daily. You will take yourself to the toilet and you will wipe your own tushie. In short, you will do the minimal things expected of people taking as much responsibility for themselves, or you stand to lose some of your cash payments, etc.

But this is not PC, not at all.

I just don't think we do anybody any favors by cultivating dependency. Some people think that legislators who support these sorts of programs are just buying electoral support.

Too complicated and emotional an issue for me!