For a start, I would think a basic level of support would include decent healthcare for his feverish kid that didn't bankrupt the parents.
I don't see why the poverty line or the world median income should determine whether that level of support should be granted or withheld.
Did his kid choose to get a fever? Did he somehow cause his kid to get a fever by choosing the life of a journalist or choosing to live in some expensive American city?
> Did he somehow cause his kid to get a fever by choosing the life of a journalist or choosing to live in some expensive American city
No, but he chose to live the life of a journalist in an expensive American city. In doing so, he chose to sometimes be hit by negative shocks that might bankrupt him, like a child's fever or a fender-bender or an apartment fire without rental insurance.
Should the guy be able to choose that path in life? Sure. But I feel we fail the uprising generation when we say to not worry about rainy days, to be anything you want to be without the worry about financial stability.
Financial stability, for the record, isn't about employment stability, but in having enough reserve to weather life's issues. If I go out drinking with my buddies and spend $60 on a bar tab, that's $60 less of my income that I could put away for a rainy day. Add that up weekly over a year, and you quickly find a substantial rainy day fund. He and his friends could certainly find a less expensive hobby, like poker night, LAN parties, Frisbee golf, or what have you.
Is it his fault his kid is sick? Absolutely not. Is it his fault he isn't seeking to structure his life in a way to weather small shocks (like a kid having a high fever)? At least partially. Let's not deny him the right of his own responsibility here.
That's well and good, but is it his fault that the government, hospitals, doctors, manufacturers, and insurance providers actively collude to keep costs high? To keep costs rising? And then to mandate payment for services (read: insurance) that basically only serve to make a bunch of investors richer? And actively legislate and regulate to death anybody trying to fix the system or implement an alternative?
What evidence do you have that this guy is irresponsible, akin to blowing $60 on a bar tab instead of saving for rainy days? It's easy to argue against straw men.
The only evidence of irresponsibility presented in the article is the fact he chose and continues to pursue a low paying career with the full knowledge of the costs involved.
My example of a bar tab wasn't an argument on him, but rather an identification of a common behavior of men in big cities that one could, by way of illustration, trim to help establish financial security.
"Did his kid choose to get a fever? Did he somehow cause his kid to get a fever by choosing the life of a journalist or choosing to live in some expensive American city?"
He certainly chose to not be able to afford getting decent healthcare for his kids fever.
Don't get me wrong I think the system is fucked up and we should do things to fix it. But you know what, the world and the way evolution works is pretty fucked up as well. Open any history book and it is obvious. If people choose to live an idealistic lifestyle and pretend the world is something that it obviously is not, then there are probably going to be consequences.
Stop this. The cost of healthcare is a few dollar co-pay. If you're poor you get Medicaid. If you're older, you get Medicare.
So, what exactly is your point? That if you're not poor or old, and you are too lazy or cheap to buy insurance, we should feel sorry you having to pay $100 to have your child taken care of? What an amazing sense of entitlement you have.
I don't see why the poverty line or the world median income should determine whether that level of support should be granted or withheld.
Did his kid choose to get a fever? Did he somehow cause his kid to get a fever by choosing the life of a journalist or choosing to live in some expensive American city?