Opinion: The debate over Obamacare is really about the ‘haves’ resenting the ‘have nots’

To the editor: David Lazarus’ experience trying to explain the practical value of health insurance to a person he encountered who expressed support for the latest GOP effort to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act illustrates a fundamental and ancient philosophical division. (“Republicans should gladly pay for my preexisting condition,” Sept. 26)

The privileged “haves” resent the “have nots” for intruding on the enjoyment of their good fortune. The fortunate view their privilege as an entitlement due their superior status, and they blame the unfortunate for creating their own plight because of laziness or irresponsibility.

It’s natural to magnify the importance of virtue as the prerequisite of privilege. It is then a short step to proclaim vice as the cause of poverty and illness.

Very few of us credit luck for creating our good circumstances. Perhaps this explains why paying to mitigate the misfortune of others is such bitter medicine.

“There but for fortune go you or I” is not a popular song.

Eric Foxman MD, West Hills

..

To the editor: Lazarus disparages the Republicans’ Obamacare repeal bill for allowing insurers to offer “less comprehensive plans,” as if that were a bad thing.

Consumers want choice. A young, healthy male may not need all the bells and whistles that come with Obamacare’s one-size-fits-all regulations, preferring instead a much cheaper “catastrophic” plan. This consumer will pay out of pocket for the nickel-dime stuff but is protected against major illness or accident.

Lazarus also perpetuates the myth that in order to prevent insurers from dropping insureds when they become sick, insurers must be required to accept those with preexisting conditions.

To illustrate the preposterousness of that notion, think of home insurance. Owners must buy their insurance while their homes are free from such “preexisting conditions” as being on fire while the paperwork is being filled out. That’s the very definition of shared-risk insurance.

Forcing insurers to accept preexisting conditions may be charity, but it’s not insurance.

John Schatz, Newport Coast

..

To the editor: Besides the risk-sharing aspect of why everyone should pay for healthcare, one should simply care that the person standing behind him in line or seated next to him at the theater does not carry a communicable disease. The well-being of a community depends upon the health of all individuals.

Also, it isn’t just about the chance that “bad things can happen to anybody.” A bad thing will happen to everybody — they’ll get old (if they’re fortunate).

Rick Melniker, Los Angeles

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook