As the other side of that honest discussion (and a proponent to move that discussion out of where it lingers for way too long) :) I'd like to remind that my arguments are not for "why we shouldn't switch to universal care" but for "why the switch to universal care will hurt many people".
But your example is still an example of someone who fell out of the category of people who can't afford the health insurance they want. He _was_ working for FB but isn't any more. One one hand, this example is aligned with my self-reasoning when decided to myself that universal healthcare might be the lesser evil. On the other hand, it creates more problems than it answers. The two key structural components of the problem here are: (a) we are talking about unusually high-cost care (out of state treatments etc) not covered by most insurances. That is, most regular insurances won't cover it. Which means, likely, that universal insurance might not cover it either. (b) the person we're discussing (I with him the best and feel terrible about this third person discussion, but playing devils' advocate is a hard job) cannot afford those payments because (or at least partially because) he choses to maintain his residence in the area that off limits to people with way-lower-than-FB-employee pay range.
Basically, to an external observer X., who could be almost everyone in this country, you are painting a picture of someone who until recently could afford living in this fancy place and having this fancy health plan, which X. is likely to never be able to afford anyway. And then through unfortunate illness, that somebody lost the income... but still continues to live in this fancy place and wants to be able to afford this fancy care... I don't see how such rhetoric is going to sway anyone the right way. Hell, as someone who's been a poor scientist until quite recently and never able to afford mortgage payments in a municipality with good schools for my kids (even now I can only afford rent payments, but not mortgage, in a place with relatively mediocre schools), I don't see anything constructive in this example.
Reminding again, that on a personal level I fully sympathize with the situation: last year I was laid off and unemployed for a few months and had to buy insurance for a family of four directly, so trust me, I know the prices for good insurance. On the other hand, remaining able to pay for a good health plan is one of the reasons why I can't commit to mortgage payments or higher rents, so yes, I can't _fully_ relate with someone who is able to and decides to continue to pay off a house in South Bay or Peninsula. Long story short, it's not a good example for your cause and might be actually a counterexample from some points of view.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2019-05-23 12:32 am (UTC)But your example is still an example of someone who fell out of the category of people who can't afford the health insurance they want. He _was_ working for FB but isn't any more. One one hand, this example is aligned with my self-reasoning when decided to myself that universal healthcare might be the lesser evil. On the other hand, it creates more problems than it answers. The two key structural components of the problem here are:
(a) we are talking about unusually high-cost care (out of state treatments etc) not covered by most insurances. That is, most regular insurances won't cover it. Which means, likely, that universal insurance might not cover it either.
(b) the person we're discussing (I with him the best and feel terrible about this third person discussion, but playing devils' advocate is a hard job) cannot afford those payments because (or at least partially because) he choses to maintain his residence in the area that off limits to people with way-lower-than-FB-employee pay range.
Basically, to an external observer X., who could be almost everyone in this country, you are painting a picture of someone who until recently could afford living in this fancy place and having this fancy health plan, which X. is likely to never be able to afford anyway. And then through unfortunate illness, that somebody lost the income... but still continues to live in this fancy place and wants to be able to afford this fancy care... I don't see how such rhetoric is going to sway anyone the right way. Hell, as someone who's been a poor scientist until quite recently and never able to afford mortgage payments in a municipality with good schools for my kids (even now I can only afford rent payments, but not mortgage, in a place with relatively mediocre schools), I don't see anything constructive in this example.
Reminding again, that on a personal level I fully sympathize with the situation: last year I was laid off and unemployed for a few months and had to buy insurance for a family of four directly, so trust me, I know the prices for good insurance. On the other hand, remaining able to pay for a good health plan is one of the reasons why I can't commit to mortgage payments or higher rents, so yes, I can't _fully_ relate with someone who is able to and decides to continue to pay off a house in South Bay or Peninsula.
Long story short, it's not a good example for your cause and might be actually a counterexample from some points of view.