Why U.S. health care policy is especially egalitarian. ⇒
8 June 2009, early morning
Can someone explain this to me, because it seems like a very stupid argument. (The first two people to comment seem to agree.)
This is a post from my link log: If you click the title of this post you will be taken the web page I am discussing.
Wouldn’t a super rich older person still have way more (and better) years ahead of them than a super poor young person with no health care working three jobs?
Maybe I didn’t understand the post, but it seemed really poorly thought out.
It seemed to be arguing that the real “poor” are the elderly, not the young, because they have the least years left. And that in the US, the health care of the elderly are often covered by Medicare. Therefore, US healthcare is egalitarian.
Well yes, it is egalitarian if you arbitrarily redefine the words “poor”, “rich”, and “egalitarian”.
by m on June 8 2009, 11:17 am #
That’s my take on it too. And the best part is when he shows up in the comments to call the people calling him out dumb asses. (Telling people they aren’t arguing at a ‘high level’ when his post is so poorly thought is enjoyable.)
by ramanan on June 8 2009, 11:29 am #
I thought “egalitarian” means all are equal.
In other words, once you take into consideration things like age, wealth, time to expiry, earning potential, favourite number, etc., egalitarianism goes out the window…
I mean, how can someone even argue that a government program is egalitarian when there are limiting criteria for participation?
by rishi on June 8 2009, 12:29 pm #