2012-07-25, 08:03 AM
Flonne Wrote:I don't know about him, but I already stated that people physically unable to work should be given some leeway.
A black and white viewpoint where something is either totally for or totally against sounds more like it's from "the dark ages" than anything else, by the way...
What about single parents on minimum wage with multiple children who get sick?
What about a single man working who gets a non debilitating injury, or one that wouldn't be debilitating with the proper care, but can't afford to have the required surgery on what they make? What about the college kid on a scholarship who just got hit by a drunk driver and has no income and now requires extensive physical therapy and operations just to resume normal life? There are hundreds if not thousands of easily named scenarios.
Your "physically unable" criteria is more black and white than just giving everyone equal benefits and protections.
This "It's my money everyone else can fend for themselves" mentality is plain ignorance and fear of losing something without tangible reward, especially when coupled with blame. People don't choose to need medical attention. They get sick. They get hurt. Things happen beyond your control. Ensuring everyone is equally covered and that the cost of it is spread evenly benefits everyone except people so damn wealthy they can afford their own hospitals and never need to worry about the cost of anything, and even they could benefit from savings if our medical system wasn't designed to be a financial suck-hole that no one will address.
Everyone "deserves" to be healthy.
It's not having what you want - It's wanting what you've got.