My kids are real life examples demonstrating that huge investment, while good for the individuals, does not reduce the cost or burden of them to society later in their life. And that very concept could risk society’s willingness to pay for any disabled person’s full care under universal healthcare.
No, it is from unfortunate personal experience. Special needs families get the short end of the stick in a lot of ways - ours included. Feel free to IM me about it if you want specific anecdotes. After killing myself to get my kids what they need (navigating insurance denials, waiting lists for specialists, underfunded and confusing government programs, lack of childcare, hitting out of pocket maximums year after year, and taking jobs that leave me exhausted and with little family time to pay for it all), I have a huge defense mechanism for anything that sounds like it can quickly and easily solve this kind of situation - because I’ve been repeatedly shown it is a pipe dream. It doesn’t mean UHC isn’t a noble cause or the right way to go. But the reality is that it probably won’t be much of a qualitative change for families like ours. And it is hard to hear that our experiences and fears are not valid.
I hear where you’re coming from. I can’t even begin to imagine how tired you are after all these hardships. The fact that you’re still writing civil replies to the other person is commendable.
I would like to respectfully say that universal healthcare would have eliminated the need to navigate insurance denials and out of pocket maximums. If we add a more robust social safety net to the equation, you may also not have to worry about childcare and having to stretch yourself thin with work… Would eliminating these battles really not have brought qualitative changes (for the better) for your family?
EDIT: I responded in a way that was not helpful below and I’ve fixed it now…
I would tear off my right arm to have a robust enough safety net to take care of my kids adequately (and thanks to UHC in that situation, I would live thru it!).
This may come across as naïve, but I also wonder if the excision of all those “essential” layers of needless bureaucracy, might not free up some resources at a societal level to allow a more complete or holistic physical and mental health care system to emerge. After all we need to figure out something for the eye watering numbers of people who are employed directly or indirectly by the Insurance industries to do with their new found free time.
Hell, couple UHS with large scale tax reform and we might find that there are advantages at all levels of society to providing for people whatever their needs might be.
But then maybe I am a pathetic utopist who just needs to realise that Capitalism is simply the perfect structure for us all to live under.
You’re the one making a lot of assumptions based on what was originally a shower thought. It’s a nice thought but it’s completely and utterly incorrect in reality.
My kids are real life examples demonstrating that huge investment, while good for the individuals, does not reduce the cost or burden of them to society later in their life.
This isn’t an assumption, it’s a data point that contradicts your hypothetical theory.
The fundamental flaw in your thinking is your assumption that treating mental illness and disabilities will result in the person becoming a productive member of society. This is occasionally true, but much more commonly, the treatment serves to alleviate the more severe symptoms of the condition, without actually curing or fixing the condition.
Healthcare is primarily about minimizing the damage and suffering caused by various physical and mental ailments. It can’t magically transform people into something they’re not.
Thats irrelevant. Your children will still receive care no matter what.
My kids are real life examples demonstrating that huge investment, while good for the individuals, does not reduce the cost or burden of them to society later in their life. And that very concept could risk society’s willingness to pay for any disabled person’s full care under universal healthcare.
You are making lots of false assumptions and I will assume it’s intentional.
No, it is from unfortunate personal experience. Special needs families get the short end of the stick in a lot of ways - ours included. Feel free to IM me about it if you want specific anecdotes. After killing myself to get my kids what they need (navigating insurance denials, waiting lists for specialists, underfunded and confusing government programs, lack of childcare, hitting out of pocket maximums year after year, and taking jobs that leave me exhausted and with little family time to pay for it all), I have a huge defense mechanism for anything that sounds like it can quickly and easily solve this kind of situation - because I’ve been repeatedly shown it is a pipe dream. It doesn’t mean UHC isn’t a noble cause or the right way to go. But the reality is that it probably won’t be much of a qualitative change for families like ours. And it is hard to hear that our experiences and fears are not valid.
I hear where you’re coming from. I can’t even begin to imagine how tired you are after all these hardships. The fact that you’re still writing civil replies to the other person is commendable.
I would like to respectfully say that universal healthcare would have eliminated the need to navigate insurance denials and out of pocket maximums. If we add a more robust social safety net to the equation, you may also not have to worry about childcare and having to stretch yourself thin with work… Would eliminating these battles really not have brought qualitative changes (for the better) for your family?
Thanks for saying that. 🙂
EDIT: I responded in a way that was not helpful below and I’ve fixed it now…
I would tear off my right arm to have a robust enough safety net to take care of my kids adequately (and thanks to UHC in that situation, I would live thru it!).
This may come across as naïve, but I also wonder if the excision of all those “essential” layers of needless bureaucracy, might not free up some resources at a societal level to allow a more complete or holistic physical and mental health care system to emerge. After all we need to figure out something for the eye watering numbers of people who are employed directly or indirectly by the Insurance industries to do with their new found free time.
Hell, couple UHS with large scale tax reform and we might find that there are advantages at all levels of society to providing for people whatever their needs might be.
But then maybe I am a pathetic utopist who just needs to realise that Capitalism is simply the perfect structure for us all to live under.
You’re the one making a lot of assumptions based on what was originally a shower thought. It’s a nice thought but it’s completely and utterly incorrect in reality.
This isn’t an assumption, it’s a data point that contradicts your hypothetical theory.
The fundamental flaw in your thinking is your assumption that treating mental illness and disabilities will result in the person becoming a productive member of society. This is occasionally true, but much more commonly, the treatment serves to alleviate the more severe symptoms of the condition, without actually curing or fixing the condition.
Healthcare is primarily about minimizing the damage and suffering caused by various physical and mental ailments. It can’t magically transform people into something they’re not.
How would a universal healthcare system exclude people?
I’m talking about net benefits. Obviously not everyone can be made whole but sorry for not explaining that in a showerthought.