 |
| Source: NY Times |
In Woodland Park, Colorado, at a campaign stop Rick Sanatorium policy The National Journal reported:
"A young boy asked the former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania what he would do to keep prescription drugs affordable. Another woman in the audience chimed in that she couldn't afford her $900-a-month prescription.
"Santorum compared the costs to buying an iPad. "People have no problem going out and buying an iPad for $900,” he said. “But paying $200 for a drug they have a problem with -- that keeps you alive. Why? Because you've been conditioned in thinking health care is something you should get and not have to pay for."
This conservative dogma ironically conflicts with the social, economic and moral philosophy of the majority of Americans. It is one thing to reduce benefits due to austerity measures, it is quite another thing to just eliminate them outright because of a conservative doctrine.
The path toward federalization will not be an easy one. There will be those who argue for elimination based on ideology, religion and cost. Workers' Compensation programs initially were met with such challenges, and those issues were surmounted.
Comparing the purchase of life-saving drugs to the purchase of an iPad, is just wrong. Those living in abject poverty don't buy iPads monthly. They need their prescription drugs to live. The companies that exposed workers to toxins, and then deny them workers' compensation benefits when they become ill, should not then pull the medical safety-net from under them. It is immoral to deny poverty-stricken ill workers medical care.
Selling the "option" of health and safety to American workers goes against the basic tenants of the century old system of workers' compensation. Healthcare, including, infections and diseases, impact all Americans. Much more creatively needs to be expressed rather just proposing cost shifting to those who obviously can't pay the cost.
Comparing the purchase of life-saving drugs to the purchase of an iPad, is just wrong. Those living in abject poverty don't buy iPads monthly. They need their prescription drugs to live. The companies that exposed workers to toxins, and then deny them workers' compensation benefits when they become ill, should not then pull the medical safety-net from under them. It is immoral to deny poverty-stricken ill workers medical care.
Selling the "option" of health and safety to American workers goes against the basic tenants of the century old system of workers' compensation. Healthcare, including, infections and diseases, impact all Americans. Much more creatively needs to be expressed rather just proposing cost shifting to those who obviously can't pay the cost.
See The New York Times report: Even Critics of Safety Net Increasingly Depend on It
"Dozens of benefits programs provided an average of $6,583 for each man, woman and child in the county in 2009, a 69 percent increase from 2000 after adjusting for inflation. In Chicago, and across the nation, the government now provides almost $1 in benefits for every $4 in other income."
