My $50 Infection

Did I mention that getting sick cost me $50? $15 co-pay and $35 for the drugs. Fortunately, this isn't a tight month for us, so it's not so much a matter of literally not being able to pay it, so much as it is a matter of how many other things I'd like to do with $50. Like buy groceries. (For 5 days). Or go out to dinner with my husband. (Twice!) Or to the movies. (4 times!) Or buy myself some new clothes (or some new-to-me clothes--like a whole new wardrobe from Goodwill!) Except for the first item, these are things we don't do all that frequently precisely because we "can't afford it." I feel like I should now add "getting sick" to that list. Fortunately, the last time I was on antibiotics was about 4 years ago and Josh hasn't needed them in the history of our marriage, so (by the grace of God) it's pretty much already on the list of things we do infrequently. (I take that back: we've spent a fortune on drugs for me to deal with post-partum mental health issues, which should count as illness, though try to find a healthcare plan that covers that kind of thing and you're outta luck!)

Yep, paying $50 out of pocket because I had the bad luck of contracting a urinary tract infection definitely made me miss Canada in general and Quebec in particular. Ah, socialism!

This is not to say that I have any sense of entitlement when it comes to healthcare.

I can see the point a fiscal conservative might make: why should tax payers cover the costs of your sickness? Not that it's particularly relevant in this case, but such a person might also add something about how such "entitlement programs" encourage unhealthy lifestyle choices, since no one has to pay a dime when their chain-smoking gives them cancer, etc., etc. (You know, because people in Canada are so much sicker than Americans, the obesity epidemic so much worse. I'm being sarcastic, 'case you can't tell.) But no: I don't feel as though I'm owed government subsidized healthcare, and if I lived in Nigeria, I'd see the sense in doing without it. But I live in the richest country in the world. (Right? I think that's still right...) I live in a country that can afford to send all its children to school for free. (Since when is schooling more vital to human life than treating a potentially deadly bacteria?) I live in a country that can afford to invade other countries, for goodness sake, and uses my tax dollars to do so!


And herein lies what I see as the Conservative Contradiction:


Whereas it is considered "intrusive" when a government uses tax dollars to pay for the necessary medical treatment of its citizens, it is often considered necessary for the government to intrude into the affairs of other countries--other countries! not even their own citizens--in order to ensure that the human rights of that country's citizens are being safeguarded.

I mean, when I see a bumper sticker that says "Get US out of Iraq," ten to one says it's not on a Republican's car!  (Of course, for the most part the countries deemed worthy of invasion or "aid" are almost always countries that pose a perceived threat to the US, rather than countries like, say, Rwanda.) It seems like a classic case of wanting to have your cake and eat your neighbour's too: the government better stay out of my backyard, but they sure as heck better be spying on the "Ruskies" or the Iraqis or somebody to make sure we're safe! (As safe as we can be with over 50 million uninsured citizens who, when facing serious illness, have little way of finding the means to pay for it.)


I say charity starts at home. Of course we have an international obligation as the rich country that we are to attempt to spread social justice throughout the world. But while our own citizens remain in the position of being financially penalized for illness--or, God forbid, refused life-saving treatment for lack of funds--how dare we consider ourselves the "civilized" ones?