Quote:
Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
This type of sentiment makes for exceptionally bad policy. Why should an otherwise healthy diabetic receive free supplies at the expense of the tax base? Can we start buying groceries for everyone too? (wait a minute, that's already happening).
No one's being "murdered", and it's a complete disservice to the dialogue to frame it so strongly. Few people object to a safety net for the truly and permanently disabled. But why should otherwise healthy diabetics get a free pass? If a person is reasonably capable of supporting themselves, there should be no duty to directly subsidize their consumer requirements.
Also, I think it's somewhat insulting to diabetics to make a general implication that their condition impairs them so substantially that they cannot provide for their own medical needs.
|
Type 1 diabetic here, and I say type 1 for a reason. Almost all type 1's are diagnosed as a child, that's why it's generally called early onset diabetes. Keeping that in mind, you can see how hitting adulthood and right out the gate having an additional rent lease worth of monthly expenses subtracted from your income can be a bit of a burden. Yes, you're absolutely right we can take care of ourselves and I do...but I do it paycheck to paycheck. I work harder than most people, and because of it I just scoot by and survive. Yes I live comfortably, but mostly because I live humbly and don't care about expensive things. If I didn't have this disease I would be prospering and be living nice and cozy. I work harder to just break even. It's a struggle, but not one I generally complain about.
We now have things like children being able to be on their parents insurances until age 26 which help out DRAMATICALLY, and I mean FUCKING DRAMATICALLY. It still isn't enough though. This only accounts for families in the lower middle class and up, it doesn't account for families riding above the poverty line. Those kids just don't have a chance.