I than paying for diabetes medicine for people that can't put down a donut (example - Mr. Frank).
And if we can save some money on cutting down wasteful spending - rather than spending it on something else, how about just take less from the pot?
That's a bit over generalized, and very harsh. What about one such as myself? Because I'm underemployed and not yet in the Navy, I'm uninsured. I simply can't afford a plan for 6 months after food, business expenditures, helping with my sister's education, etc etc etc. I work as often as I can in self-employment, I wasn't uninsured until I graduated, and I'll be covered again when I commission. Either way, It's hard to say I'm not doing my level best to pull myself up by my own boot straps, and I'm definitely not taking more than I contribute to society.
I take good care of myself, running often, eating correctly, taking vitamins regularly, etc etc. However in the last few days a blister I had became infected and caused me to need expensive broad spectrum antibiotics. I wasn't mistreating myself, I just had bad luck. Every athelete gets blisters, usually they fade away. This one turned my thigh red and streaky. For many, that bad luck would mean that the only options are expensive bills, and the debt that would accompany. I myself don't even have a credit card that would let me put a sufficient balance on it for all the costs involved. Thanks to recent events, people making cash money right out of college aren't trusted with much credit, and my limits, even though I never carried a balance, got slashed. I couldn't have indebted myself to pay even if I wanted to.
Seeing as majority of the working uninsured are 20-30, do we really want people just starting their financial lives in earnest to have to overcome a bankruptcy or high interest loans because they had bad luck? Can't we accept that there's something wrong with a system wherein highly educated individuals in the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world can't guarantee themselves affordable health care in the face of bad luck?
I completey understand your desire to see negligent people punished for their indolence, and I think most every country in the world has a policy to account for it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...coholic-22-died-refused-liver-transplant.html . Ignoring the sob story, I think the doctors made the right call, and I can fully get behind denying treatment to people who abuse themselves.
I think there are plenty of places the gov't can cut spending to provide for at least a safety net of some sort. It may not be a neccesity like defensive spending, but ensuring the health of the workforce is definately more worthwhile then some entitlements that have outgrown their purview. For example, Social Security at it's inception was for people who outlived their life expectancy by a year or more (life expectancy in 1930's was about 63, 64). Now it's an entitlement for on average 10-15 years. I'm sure you can think of many downright wasteful expenses that any alert taxpayer would agree to getting rid of from the Federal Budget.
PS, Thankfully, I have a friend whose parents were able to prescribe for free and get me a much needed discount at the pharmacy. I'm recovering very rapidly now.
