If lack of health care/treatment is going to interfere with their basic needs, and the ability to maintain those basic needs (and so, interfere with their ability of self-care, and to gain and/or maintain employment would be included as well), would be the "needs", which actually cover a lot if you think about it, fortunately or unfortunately.
But if those people are not helped, what happens to them? Wouldn't we rather they be able to gain/maintain employment, so we aren't funding all their needs constantly, instead of putting them in various social safety nets (disability, institutions, etc), or having them die when it may have been preventable? And even if they are already on disability, maintaining their current level of health is important. If they are more-or-less independent currently, but with out health care their health will deteriorate to where they are disabled to the point of needing around-the-clock care, that, to my understanding, is usually in most cases going to cost more than their health care.
Edited for clarity.
Edited by sierraleone, 22 September 2009 - 06:47 PM.