Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If a health care system that puts profits over people is "IMMORAL" then what about the people who live their lives with complete disregard for the effects of their lifestyle choices on the remainder of society? There is nearly absolute silence on this, especially from those who think health care is a right.
If health care is a right, then before I pay one penny for YOUR health care you had better ask me if you can drink that alcohol beverage, put sugar in your coffee and you had better get up at dawn getting some exercise too. Personally, none of that is my business but when you start claiming a right for which other people are going to pay, then expect a lot more regulation to enter into your life.
"IMMORAL" is the fact that everyone has to pay for the lifestyle choices of drug addicts (they chose that life, rarely was it forced), people that stuff their faces and then claim obesity isn't their fault and so on.
Lifestyle choices account for much of the high costs of health care. What is broke is the ability to hold individuals responsible for their personal choices. The typical excuse is always "we're here no so lets move forward". Right, gloss over the real problems and just impose a solution that everyone has to pay for.
As for taxing the rich, that seems to be the typical answer to every problem. News flash, there aren't enough rich people to bilk so that all the idiots can make poor choices as long as they want with no consequences.
Me thinks you are not well-versed in the concepts behind alcoholism. Had the opportunity to study it for almost 10 years. Tell me about endophenotypes. If you ever went into full-blown withdrawal, with the risk of a GM seizure, you would never 'choose that life'. It is extremely unpleasant.
I would make the definition of "IMMORAL" as forcing citizens to pay for the support of others, for any reason. Life isn't fair, it can be cruel, and things are what they are. If a person has a BMI of 60, they aren't likely to be long for this world; as with the alcoholic, the morbidly obese are not 'entitled' to get a free ride from the rest of us. My condolences for those who are born with or contract a terminal disease. But life is like playing blackjack... sometimes you get dealt a bad hand. I would hate to be the recipient of such, but no one owes me anything, nor would I expect it.
It gets very tiresome when the conversation devolves to "liberal" v "conservative" blethering. Yawn.
I'm going to add Birth Control and Prenatal Care to my original list. Those should have been # 1 and # 2, can't believe I forgot about these.
But then, my list is what I really think are NEEDS for a healthy society. Probably nothing I originally listed is an actual RIGHT.
It's been interesting to think about the premise that some work from: We all have the RIGHT to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." How is "life" defined? Years in a hospital on a ventilator? And how is "happiness" defined? It sure makes me happy to eat potato chips, in spite of my high blood pressure.
I think I must be the only person who thinks via lists, because it is really driving me completely buggy that hardly anyone has been actually listing specific health care procedures that they think are a RIGHT.
To ask the question "is healthcare a right" is either mental laziness or deceit. I'll tell you why.
Think it through practically. If we say "healthcare is my right", then how do I exercise my right? If I want healthcare, how do I get it? What do I get? And who pays for it?
Secondly, your question has been answered for seniors, disabled individuals, and low-earning people. Their healthcare is provided as of right, as defined (services and co-pays) by Medicare and Medicaid. And in certain States children 18 years or younger get theirs too.
So your question really applies to able-bodied adults who earn more than Medicaid.
Obviously there is a treatment for everything, there is a doctor for everything. If I can afford it, I can exercise my right everywhere, can't I? So your question is useless and esoteric, because I can have any healthcare I need, If I can pay for it.
Nobody can stop you, not I, not the Government for you to have any healthcare your heart desires. But it really, really boils down to -- who pays, and how you pay it, doesn't it?
If you say "What I really mean is that I go to the doctor and don't pay for it", again, you need to be honest and really express your opinion as to -- who pays for your visit or treatment, and how?
I would make the definition of "IMMORAL" as forcing citizens to pay for the support of others, for any reason. Life isn't fair, it can be cruel, and things are what they are. If a person has a BMI of 60, they aren't likely to be long for this world; as with the alcoholic, the morbidly obese are not 'entitled' to get a free ride from the rest of us. My condolences for those who are born with or contract a terminal disease. But life is like playing blackjack... sometimes you get dealt a bad hand. I would hate to be the recipient of such, but no one owes me anything, nor would I expect it.
It was clear that commenter's post was about able-bodied adults, not the disabled, kids, or seniors. You're grasping at the straws, it sounds.
Socialism has really nothing to do with PD, FD or public schools. For my generation, and my friends, overthrowing Socialism wasn't juvenile. It was done by force. Students hung Dear-Leader Ceausescu, who sent tanks to crush them, and killing many, including my High-school buddy.
They indoctrinated my generation with Marxism-Leninism since 10 years old. I am talking about Historical Materialism, Dialiectics, Class Struggle, Proletariat's Dictatorship, Base and Superstructure, etc. etc. These were core-curriculum since 5th grade. By 16-year old I had read Das Kapital cover-to-cover.
What you say and how you think sound awfully familiar to those commissars we hated in our youth. Nothing juvenile about that. That's a hard, cruel, but real life, that I had the fortune and misfortune to live.
And why is it you're here? All the hard work of overthrowing the regime and you wind up in the USA. Is Romania not better now? There must have been some draw, some overwhelming reason that drew you here. Now you're convinced that the gov't will unleash UHC and we'll go total commie overnight. If UHC becomes a reality, where will you go? I'm not trying to be facetious, I just don't understand how people go so far to one side or the other. This Country was based on Compromise. If you look back at the arguments leading to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, you'll notice they weren't born of a single thought. The actions and results weren't smooth and flawless, they were crude and sometimes clumsy. The thing that pulled it off was the commitment to the whole, the collective that became this nation. Ben Franklin ,the very model for moderates said it best: We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.
That's delusional thinking. Surely we have a different system of Government, and the reason we do is because the choices we made long ago.
But if we make the same choices as other countries did, why would we expect different results? Incremental changes through decades transform a country the same way as a one-time revolutionary event. History is pretty consistent.
As I told you earlier, if you think like a socialist, if you act like a socialist, you are a socialist. Why deny who you are?
We are veering off our Constitutional framework. Our Govt was never intended to be the answer to all ills. It was intended to be limited and with specific and enumerated powers.
To talk about "healthcare is a right", it really means we now want the Federal Govt to do it, which was never the intent.
I've had a multitude of college courses that dealt with American constitutional law. What is your background?
There's more to the constitution than the intent of the Founding Fathers. Sure, that's a decent starting point and I often begin there myself. However, the American constitution has been shaped by over 200 years of history that goes beyond 1789. The original constitution legitimized slavery. The original constitution did not allow for women to vote. In fact, many states prohibited white men who were not property owners from casting a ballot as well. The original constitution did not allow the people to vote directly to elect U.S. Senators.
In our country, its the courts and most particularly the U.S. Supreme Court that have the job of interpreting the constitution. I can go all the way back to a case called McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819 and show you where the courts rejected the concept that constitutional powers are only "enumerated powers" as you put it. Enumerated powers don't work very well in a country that has grown the way the USA has. If the courts had not opted for a more expansive definition of constitutional powers, the constitution would not have lasted for 220 years.
People who say the "ACA is unconstitutional" are mistaken. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is a constitutional use of Congress's power to tax. Above all, the constitution neither endorses or rejects any economic theory. You will search it in vain to find either the word "capitalism" or "socialism". I believe the Founding Fathers deliberately kept it vague for a reason. They wanted a document with broad language that would give the courts and others some room for interpretation. If they hadn't wanted this, there are many sections of the constitution that could have been written far more specifically.
Rather than getting defensive, you might simply admit that perhaps others have more knowledge of the constitution and constitutional processes than you do. The best arguments against the ACA have nothing to do with the constitution or vague references to "socialism". The best arguments simply have to do with the cost of the ACA and potential effects on the quality of care. Those are the arguments that most people are listening too. Yours are simply a dead end.
I believe that it is every citizens right to have total access to all health care available - from the get go.
"Get go" as in - birth.
I believe this because I believe citizen "tax" dollars spent in any way to support or further advances in medical science entitles citizens to any and all benefits... Up to and including services from all employees in the field that conduct business using the information gained from such advances.
I believe this because I believe medical advances also would not be possible without the field use of data obtained from its citizens .( Read up on HeLa Cells. The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks )
Surgical procedures are as beneficial to medical science as they are to the "patient". Hence the old saying " the operation was a success but the patient died" .
Further, every citizen who reports side effects of a pharmaceutical has donated to medical sciences , it s advancements in drug therapy and ultimately the creation of jobs in the medical field.
Every citizen who walks off the street looking for help into a Dr office or Hospital without a dime in their pocket contributes to advancements in the medical field.
We are ALL already un-caged lab rats to the medical profession and our tax dollars already fund the medical field.
Enough.
Hand over what has already been paid for ten times over.
What I find absolutely shameful as a nation is that this conversation isn't even necessary in most other nations. Their governments and their citizens have already decided that health care is, in fact, a right. Only in America does money come first, only in America are the citizens more worried about the financial consequences of a major illness than they are about the illness itself.
Only in America does socioeconomic class determine your worthiness for having the ability to be cured or treated for diseases and other ailments. The irony is how loudly we proclaim ourselves a "Christian" nation while simultaneously denying mercy and medicine to the poor. Strange how ALL of the secular nations have universal health care while in America supposed "Christians" sit around on forums discussing who lives and who dies just so the wealthy can afford a slightly better car or a slightly bigger house. And let's face it - that IS what it comes down to.
The World Health Organization ranks our health care system at 37th in the world - dead last among industrialized nations and puts us more in line with "developing" nations. America should be ashamed at such an abysmal ranking, and it all stems from the extremely poor accessibility of health care here.
Instead, we rely on a business model - insurance - that makes it's money by NOT providing you with the services you pay for. All of the other civilized nations have figured out how insane that is - especially considering our very lives WILL one day depend on it.
And why should there be an age cut-off for health care? Do we now want to dispose of our elderly because, as non-producers, they aren't worth saving? That sounds like the ideology of an ant colony rather than sentient human beings. My grandfather lived to be 92, at 85 he repainted his house all by himself; at age 89 he helped put a new roof on his church. Should we have instead cut him off at age 70 and told him, "Sorry, buddy, but now that you've retired and aren't making someone else money, you aren't worth healing."
It's unfortunate that many Americans think health care is just another luxury item like a fur coat or diamond ring - that anyone could even make a case that health care is only something we "want" rather than something we need is pitiable in and of itself. It takes a lot of propaganda and self-delusion to get to that point.
This debate is a privilege for the healthy and wealthy - most people who oppose universal health care already have more than most. But if you're poor or, worse, disabled, this is not some academic message board debate. No, it is quite literally a discussion about our very survival.
To ask the question "is healthcare a right" is either mental laziness or deceit. I'll tell you why.
Think it through practically. If we say "healthcare is my right", then how do I exercise my right? If I want healthcare, how do I get it? What do I get? And who pays for it?
Secondly, your question has been answered for seniors, disabled individuals, and low-earning people. Their healthcare is provided as of right, as defined (services and co-pays) by Medicare and Medicaid. And in certain States children 18 years or younger get theirs too.
So your question really applies to able-bodied adults who earn more than Medicaid.
Obviously there is a treatment for everything, there is a doctor for everything. If I can afford it, I can exercise my right everywhere, can't I? So your question is useless and esoteric, because I can have any healthcare I need, If I can pay for it.
Nobody can stop you, not I, not the Government for you to have any healthcare your heart desires. But it really, really boils down to -- who pays, and how you pay it, doesn't it?
If you say "What I really mean is that I go to the doctor and don't pay for it", again, you need to be honest and really express your opinion as to -- who pays for your visit or treatment, and how?
It is actually very difficult to qualify for Medicaid... you have to make less than $11,000 a year. Not many people make that little amount of money. There are people who earn $30,000 to $35,000 but still can't afford health insurance. What about them? What if their premiums per month would be $500 or $600? It's difficult to afford that on that type of salary when there are so many other living expenses you have to pay for.
I believe in individual rights and individual rights are the smallest minority on this earth. If you cannot protect these rights then what is the point?
Health care is NOT a right. Health is a lifestyle chosen by the individual. Those who choose poor lifestyles and need more care than others must pay the penalty. yes, some of us choose healthy lifestyles and still get the short end of the stick.
How would anyone create this "health care right" without violating individual rights? Once you socialize bad decisions you will end up violating the individual rights of others. Taxes in itself is a violation of individual rights. I disagree with using force to force people to do things they do not want to do. I don't agree with our tax system and definitely not our money system. We don't even "OWN' our property, the government/states do because if you don't pay your taxes, they can take your house, or wait, it was their house that you were renting.
Important thing
Free markets, those not seen anywhere in the world today, require free market money. Since our interest rates and money are centrally controled, and are used in paying taxes, and used in trade (50% of every transaction) we do not have a free market. Free markets depends on a free floating interest rate and the highest quality of money to send proper signals to the market.
Now why is this important?
Because the system we have today is socialism/communism and this is what creates poverty. Free markets are the best form of distribution of wealth. How is this so?
Free markets reward those with profits, profits are what tell a person or company that their product is well liked in the marketplace. It also sends signals to others that when margins get large, others will enter and supply goes up reducing prices. Anything government touches, prices have gone way up.
What about those wealthy a-holes? Well, how about we talk about wealth. Wealth in a true free market capitalistic society rewards those you bring a product or service (including healthcare) to the market that people want/need/desire.
To become wealthy, one must bring more utility to the market than one extracts from the market.HENCE, in a free market socity, those who are the wealthiest are also the most generous because they extract less utility out of the market than they put into it.
Today, or under Socialism or Communism the above statement is not true because we have people stealing from the system continually through compaign contributions, contract awards, scholarships, government backed loans, the way our money system is designed and the list goes on.
This ends up with large dislocations in the market that would otherwise not exist. And with interest rates being controlled, whole sectors of the economy get larger under conditions that wouldn't exist under a free market system. With the control of money, those who print, are the rulers of the world. Governments who get to spend the money first benefit from this, and all the rest who live with the inflation of it, transfer their wealth to government and banks. The others who benefit are the owners of the banking system. They create the money from a blank check book and steal the wealth that is created in that society.
If you want to stop the richer from getting richer in an unjust way, and to have the poor/middle class be wealthier, healthier and happier, you need to take the money issuance away from the issuers. This is why we had a revolution back in the day from England. Because we were slaves to the money that was issued at interest and the society had to pay it back which was impossible, because more interest + principal exists than principal money. This is why the founding fathers wrote in the constitution that only gold and silver bullion be used as money.
"Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take away from them the power to create money and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money." (Said to be from an informal talk at the University of Texas in the 1920s, but as yet unverified.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
