zlacker

>>lawren+(OP)
lol... america should definitely get its healthcare game sorted...

>>ilrwbw+u5
Medicaid covers long term assisted care. But it requires you to spend down all your assets first, which is not unreasonable for end of life care. You can’t take them with you, and why should you get to save your assets to pass on to your kids while having taxpayers pay for your long term care?

>>rayine+V5
Assuming that care/medication is resonably priced, like in some countries in Europe, Asia, etc. I wouldnt mind my taxes creating a buffer for vulnerable people. One day it might be me or you. In the US, prices are being over inflated because of the insurance system, so yea unless that issue is solved first, nobody would want their taxes going to an overpriced/corrupt health care system.

When I was a student in the UK (not a UK national) I had access to capped prescription medicine at 10USD max price. Even though I rarely used it, it's a great relief knowing you won't go bankrupt if you have a health issue. When I cut my hand once, I was treated in a UK hospital for free, no questions asked. Whats wrong with that?

Again this could only work if things are priced fairly. A blood test should be free or super cheap (<$50) if there is a legitimate reason to do so (relatives with heart disease), etc.

>>dazhbo+68
> I wouldnt mind my taxes creating a buffer for vulnerable people.

I would rather my tax dollars go to vulnerable people than to creating a buffer for often relatively wealthy older people so they can preserve their estates. End of life care is a fundamentally different issue than care for other people. I don’t want medical issues to bankrupt someone who has productive life ahead of them. At the same time, if we pay for end of life care for people who often have hundreds of thousands of dollars to their name, that’s less tax dollars we can spend on other things.