If Reform Fails

[Biggie]

Without healthcare, particularly chronically ill, they die. Maybe not immediately, but they die way before their time if they otherwise had care. With no healthcare, you take away the right of life.

You seem to be saying that health care is a right under the right to life provision of the founding documents. I do not think you have defended that, though. The founders did not guarantee perpetual life. Nor did they guarantee that the government grants life. But that the government will not take life needlessly without due process.

While I too think a moral obligation accrues in some cases to save life, that is not the same as saying a right to health care exists. So I do not quite think the point that health care is a right is proven here.

 

[pathia]

You seem to be saying that health care is a right under the right to life provision of the founding documents. I do not think you have defended that, though. The founders did not guarantee perpetual life. Nor did they guarantee that the government grants life. But that the government will not take life needlessly without due process.

While I too think a moral obligation accrues in some cases to save life, that is not the same as saying a right to health care exists. So I do not quite think the point that health care is a right is proven here.

I never claimed to be well though out or logical. I live in chronic, untreatable pain, no pain killers do anything at all, so I cannot just ‘take a pill’ and make it goa way. It is not conducive to deep thoughts, except thoughts about pain.

 

[Biggie]

I never claimed to be well though out or logical. I live in chronic, untreatable pain, no pain killers do anything at all, so I cannot just ‘take a pill’ and make it goa way. It is not conducive to deep thoughts, except thoughts about pain.

Point taken. God bless you.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

There is only a relatively small number of people who have conditions as serious as Pathia’s.

There is no reason why a special fund cannot be established for Pathia’s medical expenses.

There is also no reason to turn the whole system upside down because a small number of people are not getting proper treatment.

If our Congress can write a 3000 page bill that will cover 300 million people on a one size fits all, then they can write up a bill allowing charitable funds to be set up for people with truly difficult medical situations.

 

[po18guy]

It appears, from the comment-less posts of the OP, that he/she will accept the government-sanctioned death of neo-Holy Innocents so that others who are chosen to live may rest in the assurance that they have “health care”.

If death of the guilty for a greater purpose (death penalty for justice/societal protection) is evil, please explain how the death of innocents for a greater purpose (abortion as part of "universal health care’) is not also evil?

Look at it this way: Would you allow the sale of bottled water which is guaranteed to kill a small percentage of those who drink it? Or, would you demand that the supply be cleaned up?

 

[mikev]

Does need create a right? For example, we need food. Do we have a right to it? We need housing. Do we have a right to it? We need to be educated. Do we have a right to it? We need companionship. Do we have a right to it?

Or does the state create a right? If yes, then the state also has the ability to take the right away or modify it. Is that what you mean?

Or does God endow our nature with rights, as the founding documents maintain? Therefore they are inalienable (cannot be taken away), and relate to our natural condition as alive, free and creative beings? If so, a right has nothing to do with our needs.

That which is a right must be given me by the state. Therefore I must be given food? I must be given a house? I must be given an education, an associate, health care?

The opposite of right is not privilege, therefore if health care is not a right, it does not necessarily follow that it is a privilege. It follows that it is a commodity, like food, housing, etc…

We are indeed morally obligated when others “can’t” get the necessities of life. I don’t think we should just turn a blind eye to those in “need”. Yeah, even companionship; like caring for our elders, maybe even visiting them once in a while. By the way, we are the state.

You do have choices with the food you eat, your housing, education. These will reflect our incomes and preferences. This is NOT the same as health care; if you need it, you need it, period. If you need a bypass operation, a less expensive Tonsillectomy just won’t do. It isn’t immoral to eat steak while your neighbor eats rice, both provide nourishment. It is immoral to eat steak or rice when you know your neighbor is starving, and do nothing to help them.

I agree, our “secular” founding documents define some God given rights, “Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness”. How do you pursue happiness, or life for that matter, without basic health care? Just don’t get a serious illness/injury/etc.

I know the “general welfare” clauses in our constitution are often misused; but if it has any meaning whatsoever, “basic” health care is it. At least that would be an honorable interpretation.

No, “basic” health care should be a human right, not a privilege, not a commodity we can do with or without. It should NEVER have been tied to an employer. There is not a single one of us that is worth more than the another.

 

[stevegravy]

No, “basic” health care should be a human right, not a privilege, not a commodity we can do with or without. It should NEVER have been tied to an employer. There is not a single one of us that is worth more than the another.

The for Pete sake explain how the world or make it easier how did the people in this country survive when there wasn’t health insurance? Like the period of 1776 up through 1950’s there was no wide spread health insurance. Were they supermen or just special people? And remember they had all those evil habits like smoking, eating non lean meat, less vegetables and fruits and the world was a whole lot polluted back then.

Finally it may be narcisstic but as far as I am concerned I am worth a whole lot more to me then you are worth to me. I don’t wish you or anyone ill; I invest in me and my family first.

 

[Biggie]

We are indeed morally obligated when others “can’t” get the necessities of life. I don’t think we should just turn a blind eye to those in “need”. Yeah, even companionship; like caring for our elders, maybe even visiting them once in a while. By the way, we are the state.

You do have choices with the food you eat, your housing, education. These will reflect our incomes and preferences. This is NOT the same as health care; if you need it, you need it, period. If you need a bypass operation, a less expensive Tonsillectomy just won’t do. It isn’t immoral to eat steak while your neighbor eats rice, both provide nourishment. It is immoral to eat steak or rice when you know your neighbor is starving, and do nothing to help them.

I agree, our “secular” founding documents define some God given rights, “Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness”. How do you pursue happiness, or life for that matter, without basic health care? Just don’t get a serious illness/injury/etc.

I know the “general welfare” clauses in our constitution are often misused; but if it has any meaning whatsoever, “basic” health care is it. At least that would be an honorable interpretation.

No, “basic” health care should be a human right, not a privilege, not a commodity we can do with or without. It should NEVER have been tied to an employer. There is not a single one of us that is worth more than the another.

I just don’t see an answer here to my question and so I am still wondering how you think a right is created. You apparently think by need, but then have presented an analysis that defies reason - that health care is a greater need than food. Therein lies the problem with defining rights as you have.

Perhaps you would more prefer the former Communist Soviet Union’s concept of rights as follows:

the rights to work, rest and leisure, health protection, care in old age and sickness, housing, education, and cultural benefits

But I wonder, do you see the problem with defining rights in this way based on the outcome of individuals in the Soviet Union ?

 

[Ridgerunner]

And of course, very few illegal immigrants can afford insurance-

And it’s yet to be demonstrated that more people will be able to be treated- just because everyone is insured doesn’t mean that there’s more health care to go around.

I’m not sure I would readily agree with your first statement. I have known a lot of illegals. Most of them work in regular occupations and have health insurance available to them. Not many take it because:

1. Many, many, many of them are just here raising capital to reinvest where they came from. Those kind never pay for anything other than the bare necessities here. Many of them are getting capital to buy farms or stores or something in the home country, especially the young men, virtually all of whom are doing that.
2. Healthcare is a LOT cheaper where most of them come from. If they get sick, they go there, (which they do for all kinds of other reasons anyway) unless they have no choice at all. Health insurance here won’t do them any good in, say, Oaxaca. In some countries, healthcare is provided by the government for free. Not very good, perhaps, but free. Besides, they can (and do) buy all kinds of prescription meds in their home countries over the counter and bring them here. Yes, that’s self-treating and they shouldn’t do it, but you can’t convince them of that. Finally, a lot of them simply don’t believe in American medicine. Many think it’s better where they came from.

 

[mikev]

The for Pete sake explain how the world or make it easier how did the people in this country survive when there wasn’t health insurance? Like the period of 1776 up through 1950’s there was no wide spread health insurance. Were they supermen or just special people? And remember they had all those evil habits like smoking, eating non lean meat, less vegetables and fruits and the world was a whole lot polluted back then.

Finally it may be narcisstic but as far as I am concerned I am worth a whole lot more to me then you are worth to me. I don’t wish you or anyone ill; I invest in me and my family first.

Well, in the good ole days, people lived a lot shorter lives. Medical treatment, such as it was, was not as ridiculously expensive as today. I assume you’re aware of that and are just being sarcastic.

Thanks for acknowledging the reason for the lack of health insurance for every citizen is that people don’t care about others; “I got mine, too bad for you!”. Wow, well at least you’re honest. It’s easy to not see others “needs” when you don’t care to look.

 

[mikev]

I just don’t see an answer here to my question and so I am still wondering how you think a right is created. You apparently think by need, but then have presented an analysis that defies reason - that health care is a greater need than food. Therein lies the problem with defining rights as you have.

Perhaps you would more prefer the former Communist Soviet Union’s concept of rights as follows:

But I wonder, do you see the problem with defining rights in this way based on the outcome of individuals in the Soviet Union ?

Oh please, give me a break! Does it really matter, are you just trying to cloud the issue? Do you need air? Do you have a right to breathe it? What in the world does the former Soviet Union have to do with providing US citizens basic health care? That’s just ridiculous!

If you are truly sick, you NEED treatment! Not everyone can afford to pay for medical care, or health insurance, and are not yet in poverty. How hard is that to understand?

Twisting and contorting a simple thing to make it seem complex isn’t helpful. Try to see things from the other side!

 

[Biggie]

Oh please, give me a break! Does it really matter, are you just trying to cloud the issue? Do you need air? Do you have a right to breathe it? What in the world does the former Soviet Union have to do with providing US citizens basic health care? That’s just ridiculous!

If you are truly sick, you NEED treatment! Not everyone can afford to pay for medical care, or health insurance, and are not yet in poverty. How hard is that to understand?

Twisting and contorting a simple thing to make it seem complex isn’t helpful. Try to see things from the other side!

I am not trying to cloud the issue, but you are not grasping it. In your struggle, you have characterized thinking as twisting and contorting. You want to simplify, i.e. to avoid thinking.

If you are sick, you need treatment. Ok. Not everyone can afford to pay for medical care. Granted. Ok. Therefore it should be given to you? Of course. That was much simpler than I thought it would be after all.