St. Jude's Children's Hospital

[NotHardUp1]

I was reading this article:

https://www.propublica.org/article/...hile-many-of-its-families-drain-their-savings

The main thing attacked was the hospital's refusal to pay mortgages, rent, loss of wages, or car payments for families with a child with cancer at St. Jude's. Never mind that the charity pays for all medical treatment not covered by insurance, including deductibles and copays when the family does have insurance.

The charity payed for only one paren to stay in residence at the hospital, which seemed reasonable to me.

What am I missing here? The charity never said it would save families from having financial challenges. It explicitly states treatments are free and it's true.

Am I the only one who finds Pro Publica's perspective to be malevolent and idealistic? What charity claims to be a panacea for the poor?

 

[bendted]

What am I missing here?

Entitlement mentality. We live in a culture or era if you will, that everything should be free and that no matter what is given it's never enough.

 

[NotHardUp1]

How could ANY charity afford to pay the mortgages and rent of patients' families? The four-year reserve that they criticize so harshly would be gone overnight if the charity extended coverage to that degree, and the more that is covered, the more people will avail themselves of the benefit. That is certainly the pattern we see on governmental benefits.

 

[rareboy]

Okay. Not getting it.

What is wrong with people?

Except the lack of social safety nets?

 

[NotHardUp1]

I'm not clear which nets are missing in relation to the onset of catastrophic illness.

Pro Publica's stance is that a family should be able to drop everything, and go in mass to the hospital and stay there ad infinitum until their child recovers or dies. It never has been that way in the long march of human history. The 99% have never had the luxury of just leaving work for months and months and expecting to maintain the status quo without income.

And today, with families having two income earners, and with mortgages and car payments, even families with a six-month savings reserve wouldn't be able to keep pace, as cancer is never through in six months.

So, at least one parent must keep working, or the extended family must support, which may mean losing the house and car if payments cannot be kept up. That's a safety net, extended familiy. But people want to have it all. That's not realistic. Individuals and families suffer devastating crises, and some rebound, and others crumble. We help family members, neighbors, co-workers, and fellow congregants. And the government helps when it reaches poverty. But you can't expect to have it all unless you're rich. No society does.