Health Is A Human Right

Health care makes for productive workers and society

Education makes for productive workers and society

I guess if we follow Waynster's example, we should do away with public education too. Why stop there, we don't "need" police or firemen or military protecting us either. I didn't ask for them, they should all quit because I don't need them. They cost tax payers money, and not every one takes advantage of their services, so good bye firemen, police, military, educators... we'll schedule an appointment when our insurance forms are filled out and let us see you.

I haven't been able to go to the doctor for 1 years because I don't have any health insurance and don't qualify for state health coverage because of my unemployment.   I also have a family history of breast cancer and heart attacks at my current age. 

I could die as others in my family have and it's nice to know that people are fine with that, because they don't want to make minimum health care a right. 

Actually my brother doesn't believe in minimum health care and I asked him if he was ok if I died from something preventable if I could have gotten health care.  He hung up on me.  Guess he is ok with it.

Maybe they will be fine when their family members die because of a lack of minimum health care as the financial crises continues to spread.  Within the next year the unemployment is expected to grow to at least 10%.  This means that 1 in 10 working people that you know will have their health risked because they can't get minimum health care.   

I need a car to get to work. Therefore the taxpayers should buy me a car. I need food to live, therefore the taxpayers should buy my food. Same damn thing. I have no right to your life or any part of it and you have no right to mine.

What are rights/ liberties etc are philosophical constructs that society agree upon. The only enalieable right your are gaurenteed when you are born is death. The rest are a consesus of what people in a society agree should be just.

The author was arguing that health should be one of those things we agree is a right. I happen to agree this should be a goal of a civilization

No, it's not simply on what we agree on. We once agreed that it was ok to enslave others based on their skin color.

 In order to be a right it cannot obligate others for it's exercise, except not to interfere. That's called slavery. You go ahead and advocate for slavery if you want to, I prefer liberty. 

I agree with 4real on this.

The question is what type of place do you want to live in? We can ignore the sick, injured and dying, but is that what we want around our homes?

Get ready for it, it's gonna stink.

It's funny how people assume that if someone doesn't advocate using our fellow men as sacrificial animals they also must want everyone to ignore the sick, dying, etc.

This is a strawman argument and it doesn't work on me.

It is illegal for me to hold a gun on you and force you to give me money to help the poor, but is perfectly fine to vote for a politician who will do it for me.

I don't see an alternative suggestion. How about it?

You don't have to pay your taxes. No one is holding a gun on you for that. You don't have to have an income live off the land. You don't have to own property. Live in the forest.

JCAtom

Now, there is a dissenting opinion!

It is more than an opinion: it differentiates between inalienable rights of individuals protected by the Bill of Rights, which is only a set of "don't"s, and "welfare rights" which are "do"s and as far as I know not acknowledged by the Constitution. Personally I find the double meaning of the word "rights" as a source of confusion, and one that socialists are more than happy to exploit to further their political agendas. "Welfare opportunities" would be a more appropriate term to preserve the critical distinction.

If we agree with the author's premise that health is a human right, then within the framework of the Bill of Rights the government must also not deprive its citizens of their right to be healthy. Few would argue with that. But to interpret this as a justification of government-provided health care is as nonsensical as interpreting the First Amendment as justification for the government telling people what to speak.

See the quote above for the likely effect of an actual free market. ( I would add tort reform to that. I understand that doctors are streaming in to Texas since they passed tort reform)

Every single other good or service is brought to market at the lowest cost by free market capitalism. I wonder why people think that healthcare is the lone exception.

Man of Knowledge

You don't have to pay your taxes. No one is holding a gun on you for that.

Al Capone agreed with you. We all know what happened to him.

Free market prices are controlled by supply and demand. If demand is high and supply low the price will always be high. Everyone needs health care and there is a limited supply, so how does that help those who have no money. Answer: You ignore them. Please refer to #2.9?

Al Capone got into trouble because he had a lot of income and property. If he had neither I assure you the government would have had no interest in prosecuting him for tax evasion.

Waynester

I wonder why people think that healthcare is the lone exception.

Another oddity about healthcare: its insurance. In other areas, people buy insurance to lay off risk of an unexpected event, such as the loss of a house or a lawsuit arising from an automobile accident. Major medical insurance is a parallel in the healthcare field and is therefore suitable business for the insurance industry. However employers' health plans go way beyond that, "insuring" routine trips to physicians for checkups and other minor care. If we did away with that low-level insurance, the profits that the insurance companies were turning could be restored to employers, employees, and physicians. And physicians' overhead in processing all that bull@!$%# paperwork would drop dramatically.

If there is a "right to property", just as there is a "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" then I want my property and I want it now!

Maybe I can sell it to get health care.

Your essayist, Waynester, is just the type of capitalist that has ruined the world economy with endless diatribes on how the free market will take care of everything if it can operate freely with no regulations.  Well it won't, it hasn't, and it never will.  

If you are given the opportunity to take or steal whatever you want, and you know there will be no punishment or retribution, the only people who will not take it all are the martyrs and the saints.  We all know what happens to the martyrs and the saints, I guess that will leave just the true Americans like you. 

I agree with Waynester.  Health care is not a right.

Waynester,

You are correct. I had a discussion with a friend who is an RN in July about the effects tort reform has had on Texas healthcare. Texas is a very appealing destination for doctors because of the low cost of living and tort reform. Our Memorial-Hermann healthcare system is growing rapidly and hiring people left and right for a variety of medical, mechanical, and administrative positions. I think tort reform in general is a good idea. Glad you made that point.

Healthcare is no more a right than a car, food, a house, and a PHD.

I could agree that health care was a right as long as part of that right was the responsibility to stay healthy, keep your weight down, no smoking or drinking, no health endangering acts, (chasing wild members of opposite sex and the disease that goes with that).  We would of course make sure everyone had heat in winter and enough food to stay healthy.  I like this idea who will pay for me, where do I sign up.

If health is not a right, how can life be a right? 

The two are perpetually intertwined.  If you do not have health, you have disease, which ends in death. 

The whole idea of health insurance was started as a way for teachers to pay for extra ordinary health care events in advance.  They paid the hospital a fee and if they needed to go to the hospital, they would not be billed.  The plans were non-profit, and were run by the health care facilities.  During WWII they became a work benefit, and health care insurance remained a not-for-profit business until Nixon let Kaiser become a for-profit health business, and created HMOs.

Since the purpose of a business is to make a profit, the best way to make money in health care insurance is to eliminate the care portion whenever possible.  Private health insurance, whether it comes from your employment, or is purchased on your own, is so successful at eliminating the care part of health care, that acute care facillities get over 80% of their revenue from the government, as Medicare and Medicaid.  If the socialist health care programs that already exist in America are eliminated, (because health care is NOT A RIGHT), most of the hospitals in America, both for-profit and non-profit, would go out of business (almost immediately).      

It strikes me as strange, that those who don't think health care is a right seldom advocate eliminating Medicare and Medicaid.  Offering health care insurance to the elderly as a right is more expensive than offering it to any other age group.  The cheapest age group to insure would be children, followed by young adults.    

Of course healthcare is not a right. Neither is living. Go back to my post #2.9. How do you want to live? All the free market advocates still refuse to respond to the question. What do you do about people who cannot afford health care? If you want to ignore them then go for it. Stop whining about having to be held up by the government. Don't participate. That is the way the free market works. If you don't want to pay the price don't buy. That applies to government as well as any other product or service.

Houston may be a great place for doctors to work but no one is giving away healthcare there. It still costs a bundle for any treatment whatsoever.

Lets say we had a completely free market. Pretty soon there would only be one or two providers since they will be so big they can drive all the competition out of business. Then they can charge whatever they like. That's why there are anti-trust laws. Oh, you need a government for that.

Trying to find Work

Your essayist, Waynester, is just the type of capitalist that has ruined the world economy with endless diatribes on how the free market will take care of everything if it can operate freely with no regulations.  Well it won't, it hasn't, and it never will. 

Capitalism is the worst system except for all the rest.

"a type of capitalist" is like "a type of car" or "a type of glassware" or "a type of clothing". 

A small subset of a larger group.  

I have no right to your life or any part of it and you have no right to mine.

Impossible, and undesireable!  If we breathe the same air, we share a part of our lives.  We all carry disease-causing germs, and unless we intend upon sealing ourselves in an airtight chamber there's going to be some overlap!

Waynester:

We debated this very topic in a bioethics course that I took back in the summer. As one of the few RNs in that class, I was the lone dissenter who said that health care is not a right. Some of my classmates attempted to claim that the Constitution provides for a right to health care. They were wrong.

...If I have such a right, some other person or group has the involuntary, unchosen obligation to provide it. I stress the word "involuntary." A right is an entitlement. If I have a right to medical care, then I am entitled to the time, the effort, the ability, the wealth, of whoever is going to be forced to provide that care. In other words, I own a piece of the taxpayers who subsidize me. I own a piece of the doctors who tend to me. The notion of a right to medical care goes far beyond any notion of charity. A doctor who waives his bill because I am indigent is offering a free gift; he retains his autonomy, and I owe him gratitude. But if I have a right to care, then he is merely giving me my due, and I owe him nothing. If others are forced to serve me in the name of my right to care, then they are being used regardless of their will as a means to my welfare. I am stressing this point because many people do not appreciate that the very concept of welfare rights, including the right to health care, is incompatible with the view of individuals as ends in themselves.

And still, people don't understand the difference between rights as defined by the Bill of Rights and welfare rights, even when that one paragraph so clearly illustrates the difference. That others do not understand the difference is very obvious in this thread. I have no doubt that the incoming administration will continue to further our path to becoming a 100% welfare state. No need for anyone to worry about having to stand on one's own two feet, the government will provide for all. Oddly enough, there was a time when depending on the government dole was a personal embarrassment; instead, it's now become some badge of honor to live off of the backs of others - the taxpayers who pay into the welfare system and don't even use it.

I've been without health insurance. I know how it feels. I know how it feels to not be able to pay huge medical bills - so I've contributed to the problem even as I am still paying on some of those bills from years past when I had no insurance. Still, I never viewed health care as an inalienable right. I still don't. I'm responsible for my own health care. I know the advocates of a nationalized one-payer system will scream to high heaven that the government should provide equal access to care and coverage for all, yet I really doubt that we, as a society, are ready for that.

Nationalized medicine involves the rationing of care. No one likes to think about that little tidbit. Even Clinton's 1992 health care bomb involved the rationing of health care, but that was left out of discussions for fear that it would scare the general public. When millions of people have to be covered, the government decides what is basic care and what is extravagance and should be paid for by the individual. While care won't be denied, you will get only the basics - not the hugely expensive, often-times borderline experimental, news-making procedures that we, as a society of "I'm entitled!!" persons have come to expect. So, if the basics means that a cancer patient gets chemo and radiation and not a bone marrow transplant (because that's way too expensive), to whom will the cancer patient complain? There's no insurance company to castigate to the media about how cold and uncaring the company is. There's only the government, the very government that is supposed to be the nanny to us all and provide everything and anything we want or need, because hey...we're entitled, right? How 'bout that plastic surgery or liposuction? Nope, not going to be covered. Sex change operation? Pay for it yourself if you want it, 'cause the government isn't going to. Such things are frivolous expenses and if we're going to nationalize the welfare right to health care, we can't afford to pay for your 16-year-old's new breasts, sorry.

For those of you who say that nationalizing the health care plan does not equal rationing, I invite you to read the following:

“Oregonians made the right choice by rejecting a single-payer system,” said Twila Brase, president of Citizens’ Council on Health Care, a Minnesota-based policy organization. “The approval of a government health care system for all citizens would have signaled the beginning of health care rationing to all citizens. Rationing is implicit in any government health care system. One need only look at Medicare, America’s single-payer system for senior citizens,” she warned.

Source: http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results.html?articleid=10802

would have signaled the beginning of health care rationing to all citizens

Bad news, but health care is rationed to all citizens now. You just choose to ignore that it is an unelected body (the insurance industry) doing the rationing.

Healthcare isn't a right because I shouldn't have to PAY for your lifestyle. My taxes would PAY for a right to healthcare. And I would have to pay for your multiple sex partners, your smoking, your drinking, your eating habits, your lack of exercise and so on and so forth. Unless you gave up those freedoms, I don't see why I should have to pay for your health management that keeps you going should you indulge too heavily. I am trying to keep myself healthy and my healthcare premium is a great incentive for living healthy. I think if we all had to pay for our healthcare, we'd be making much better health decisions.

Actually both private insurance and the government are doing the rationing, but private insurance is doing a much better job at it. 

Healthcare rationing is just another expression that means denial of claim or denial of care. 

Private insurance does it so well, that the government is responsible for 80% of acute care reimbursements.  

I think that based on those figures I would be a lot happier with the government rationing my health care than a for-profit insurance company.

would have signaled the beginning of health care rationing to all citizens

Bad news, but health care is rationed to all citizens now. You just choose to ignore that it is an unelected body (the insurance industry) doing the rationing.

If that's in response to me, no, I fully understand - unlike many - what private insurance entails. That's why I pay higher premiums for higher coverage. I have one very expensive chronic illness that prohibits me from going with any form of basic coverage because basic won't cover my prescriptions. I am an RN. I'm very very familiar with private insurance companies - both as a nurse and a consumer of their products. I think that whole system needs an overhaul, by the way.

When people think of national health care, they envision free or cheap top-of-the-line coverage - sort of like what they don't have now. Many will argue until they're blue in the face that nationalizing the health care system does not mean rationing care. I've been in those debates in various nursing courses for my degree program, my bioethics course, and even seeds here on the 'Vine. People tend to want to think of a nationalized system as the utopia of all health care - a place where everyone gets the same great, expensive coverage for everything from a stubbed toe to plastic surgery to procedures still considered experimental ('cause they are!). When they are hit with the cold hard truth, those of us who are supplying that truth are called a host of names or told that we're "scaring people" and ~le gasp~ lying! about a nationalized plan. Why we're all just bad Republicans!

Take off the blinders, folks - that nationalized plan you think looks so good won't be looking so hot the first time you're told that your desired treatment isn't the one that the government will pay for.

Young Hot and Smart

People with helathy lifestyles still get sick and injured. If you want to dictate how people live then that is another issue. Maybe we should dictate diet and calorie intake. Maybe you shouldn't be allowed to own a motorcycle.

Your fine with the insurance premium until you actually need it then get that letter in the mail. "Your claim has been denied."

Man of Knowledge:

I think we're already heading down that path. I've listened to people on various news/talk programs who (yes, they are left-wingers) feel that the government should tell us what to eat and how much we can eat. Oh, and let's not forget the carbon credits bit, and the discussions of placing carbon footprint trackers into houses and apartment buildings, or the past discussions of wanting to do away with drive-through everything because of the CO2 filling the air while we sit in line at some pathetically slow drive-through place. So yeah...why not tack on the whole dietary regulation plan and the carbon credits plan (after all, if farting cows can be taxed, why can't we for buying the burgers?) to the nationalized health care plan? I'm sure that'll go over real well.

I'm also quite sure that YHAS realizes people get sick and injured, just as I realize that fact of life and don't really need it pointed out in a supercillious manner. As I've said before: Abuse of the health care system by those who choose to abuse it has also contributed to the skyrocketing costs, and I don't care to pay for the abusers who feel that they're entitled to a "vacation" once a month in my ICU, where they feel I'm nothing more than an "overpaid maid supposed to fetch my food for me when I want it". I don't get "verbal abuse" pay, and I surely am no one's maid. Hospitals are not hotels. If someone wants to come in once a month with their diabetes out of control, their kidney failure out of control, or their blood pressure out of control " 'cause I ain't payin' for it, so who cares?" then I should not have to pay for their health care coverage under a national plan. They already don't give a damn about themselves...why should I be forced to pay for their continued abuse of the health care system?

Sounds to me like there is already a problem with abuse of the system. So let's hear your suggestion for improvement? Or do you think things are just fine the way they are? What do you do about the 45 million uninsured?

I think abuse of the system is only a small fraction of what drives up cost. I think insurance companies who only have to deal with employers who are able to pass the price incrreases on in the price of their products drives up cost much more. Do you actually think there is price competition in the healthcare market?

Maybe we shouldn't fund the military because  the pentagon wastes billions of dollars a year. Maybe we shouldn't fund National Parks because people throw trash in them. The question once again is what kind of country do you want to live in?

And I believe most studies show healthcare in countries with a national system is better than here. We are way down the list in terms of quality of service. Of course if you're wealthy that is a different matter.

That's why I pay higher premiums for higher coverage.

So care is in fact rationed: the poor can suffer, while the wealthy get care. There may not be a better system, but let's not cover our eyes and pretend that since we are on the winning side of the rationing system it doesn't exist.

So care is in fact rationed: the poor can suffer, while the wealthy get care. There may not be a better system, but let's not cover our eyes and pretend that since we are on the winning side of the rationing system it doesn't exist.

Never did, and I'll thank you to not put words into my mouth or twist my words to suit your own purpose. I pay for higher coverage because I have to have it - bottom line. Nothing more, nothing less. Perhaps you don't bother to read full comments, only extracting what suits your "argument". I work in the health care field. I know first hand about all kinds of abuses of the system - by patients, by MDs, by ancillary services, and by insurance companies. I don't pretend anything, but I do know that if I wish to have the services I need for my illness, then I'll be paying for it.

And no, I'm not "wealthy", sorry. I'm an RN. I don't get paid enough to be considered "wealthy". I'm doing good to remain in the middle class, thank you very much. I put up with the rationing of my employer's health care plan because I need the coverage.

Health care should be something you approve of Waynester, it makes us a better, stronger nation! It is in our best interests to provide it to all our citizens, so we can continue to be world leaders in all things, including death battles.

*sarcasm*

In order to be a right it cannot obligate others for it's exercise, except not to interfere

Sorta like gay marriage, eh?

Healthy people do get sick. However the likelihood of them getting very expensive to treat diseases like:
Heart Disease
Diabetes
Lung Cancer

Is much lower. Why is it that obesity is a problem more for the very poor than any other income bracket? Why is it there are more smokers among the very poor?

My hypothesis is they either get free health care from the gov't or they eventually crash and burn and end up in the ER. I also hypthesize that if they had to pay a monthly premium, they'd be more cautious. Thus costs would be lowered at least a little for the general population. I could be wrong, but I'd like to test my theory.

I'm not sure the poor are more obese and smoke more do you have a supporting reference?

Perhaps there are other variables at work such as poor diet and lack of transportation.

How would a poor person pay a monthly premium? The definition of poor is no money.

Maybe we shouldn't fund the military because  the pentagon wastes billions of dollars a year. Maybe we shouldn't fund National Parks because people throw trash in them. The question once again is what kind of country do you want to live in?

That's a ridiculous argument, but hey - have at it.

I have long since believed that the current insurance system needs to be completely gutted and overhauled - not by insurance companies, but by those who work within health care itself. Physicians, nurses, and I'd include patients and family members since they're on the receiving end of such care. But of course, that will never happen, because then being a private insurance company won't ensure big bucks for their own employees and CEO's. Any insurance company who looks for ways to drop patients from their rolls because they cost too much money should be stripped of their ability to do business. Oh, and yes, that does happen - the dropping from the rolls. A lady in California won a multi-million dollar law suit against a company that gave bonuses to their employees who found ways to drop folks like her - a recurrent cancer patient needing chemotherapy - from their rolls in order to save money.

For far too long, this country has been based upon a medical model of health insurance, instead of a preventative model. To me, that is the basic underlying problem. My favorite nationalized program is actually Australia's program, ironically called Medicare, which promotes preventative health care and encourages a healthier lifestyle, instead of waiting to use benefits when one is sick with what will turn out to be a chronic and costly illness. Alas, even that program is going broke, and Australia is encouraging people to purchase private insurance if they can afford it, and use Medicare only as a backup.

Health insurance used to be affordable. Insurance companies should not be able to cherry pick those that they wish to cover and those they do not. Their height/weight charts are completely unrealistic, going so far as to consider anyone 10 pounds over their height/weight limit "obese"...when that is far from the case. Insurance carriers don't have to cover an "obese" patient, citing the chance of diabetes, cancer, and heart disease - all which will force the insurance company to pay out if that person actually gets sick. Insurance companies should not be able to decide that anyone with a diagnosis of anxiety or depression can't get individual coverage because they'll have to pay for a lifetime of prescription medical coverage, and God forbid, mental health care! Those limitations are completely unacceptable, and physicians know it. No MD should have to sit on the phone for hours a day fighting insurance companies for the benefits their patients pay to receive, yet it happens in just about every MDs office on any given day. If hospitals can be not-for-profit, then yeah, so can insurance companies. No bonuses for your employees who deny the most claims a month. No big salaries for those who pass never-ending rules denying claims to even relatively helathy folks. Your shareholders are your privately-insured members, your MDs who accept your health insurance payments, and the employers who can afford your premiums to offer them to their employees...and are proud to do so.

Right now, insurance companies are accountable to no one save their shareholders, who are only interested in profit margins. They're certainly not accountable to those of us who pay through the nose for their plans. The only people who should be denying claims are RNs or MDs - not Johnny off the street who gets to go down a list or algorithm on his PC to decide what gets paid for and what doesn't. That is not, nor has it ever been, acceptable - yet for far too long, we've allowed insurance companies to get away with these practices. We - the health care industry and the general public - that's who allowed these practices to continue without raising a very loud fuss until it was much too late. Managed care? That's a joke I won't even get into.

I feel that your numbers are inflated, since it's a rather well known fact that at least 20 million uninsured folks are illegal aliens, and I surely will not pay for their health care coverage under any sort of plan. Sorry. Not doing it, although what has been proposed during the campaign season from Obama has been to cover everyone, regardless of citizenship status. I'm not at all for my tax dollars paying any more than I have to with regards to the health care of illegal aliens. They don't have any legals rights in this country...and that's the cold, hard fact.

For those who are legal American citizens, I believe that if the insurance companies are forced to return to the days when they actually did some good, when employers could actually afford to offer their services to their employees, when MDs had more say in treatment plans than the insurance companies were able to dictate, then we would be able to insure more Americans once again. I do not believe that the government can do that, and you can toss up your studies about nationalized health care all you wish, but I do not believe that this country - as a whole, not just the population subset here on NewsVine - is ready for what the government will want to pass off as national health insurance.

We have two nationalized plans right now, yet no one seems to acknowledge them: Medicare and Medicaid. In my opinion, the government handles neither very well. Do you really think that the government will suddenly become health care experts and adequately manage our current national health care plans better just because we have a new President? Dream on if you believe that. Seniors complain about the poor coverage and the confusing prescription plans of Medicare. Most of our poor right now make too much to qualify for Medicaid! Everyone wants to moan and groan about the private insurance companies while turning a blind eye to the fact that our own government - through MANY Presidents - has never been able to adequately manage Medicare and Medicaid - yet now we expect that they can give us a good national health care plan?? In what century will we see that? I've yet to see it in my lifetime, and I doubt that I will.

Too many Americans feel entitled to things - and that's evident on this very seed. The fact is that this country wasn't set up on a nanny-state foundation, but we are headed that way. Like it or not, ALL health care is rationed to an extent, but if we go national, it will be severely rationed. Why don't you take a look at the Medicaid program and see exactly what's covered? Why don't you examine what it takes to qualify for Medicaid? And why don't you start counting how many MDs will bolt out of this country if we go national with health care because they're already hemorrhaging money with Medicare and Medicaid patients. MDs almost cannot afford to stay in business if they don't have a top-heavy load of patients with private, higher-reimbursing health insurance. After all, Canadian MDs left to come to the US, where they actually get paid a decent salary for their services. Imagine their surprise when they figured out that Medicare and Medicaid paid less or the same as what they made in Canada? *I'd have to bet on less, actually*

Our national plans do not, right this very moment, work. They're an absolute failure - even as some will argue that Medicare isn't all that bad. We have allowed our private insurance companies far too much leeway in determining what will and will not be covered, who will or won't be covered, and what treatments MDs can or cannot perform if they expect to get reimbursed. That should never have occurred - yet it has, and it's time to start from scratch with regards to private insurance companies who have put their profit margins well ahead of their customers.

One last thing: I think the sheer amount of drugs we have in this country is another reason why health care has become so expensive. Do we really need 12 different anti-cholesterol medications? Do we really need 40 calcium-channel blockers? Do we have to have 100 different beta-blockers? (Numbers exaggerated to make the point). Every pharmaceutical company makes the same classes of drugs for the same diagnoses. Want to limit health care costs? Start by reducing the number of medications in the same classes made by different companies to treat the same illnesses. 

And now, I have to go pick up my two inhalers, my one nasal steroid inhaler, and my Singulair from the Pharmacy so that I can keep my asthma under tight control and not end up in the ER once/month with status asthmaticus because I just didn't feel like managing my illness since I "ain't payin' for it".

All of the arguments in this string boil down to those who believe that we are our brother's keeper (socialism) vs the myth of a free capitalist society. Since any government is created by a group which wants to define, by advise and consent how it should operate (socialism), we are all socialists.

It's the degree of socialism that is in dispute.

Most of us who support universal medical care do so because of our concerns that a growing number of us can no longer afford it. Our system is structured now so only the independently wealthy or no pre-conditioned healthy health-plan employed can afford it.

Those against universal health care are no doubt well-positioned enough economically to vote in favor of their wallets - or cling to the illusion of a 'free economy' - the one which has recently collapsed due to increased de-regulation (less socialism). I politely call these people "Social Darwinists".

the essay quoted in #2 assumes that health care ought to be provided like it is now.

the mistake is that health care ought to be and always will be expensive.

simply put, we cant argue against the right of access to health care by demanding that its existing institutions are inherently valid and static. those institutions were created within a society that, from the outset, denied that access to health care was a valid right.

the development of the health care industry has been profoundly immoral and corrupt, within the premise that access to health care should be a right to those in a free society. we've been avoiding this discussion for far too long, all the while allowing the industry to become a monster. but the moral argument exists independent of the faux free-market complexities that might affect that argument's practical implications.

the interview on NPR addressed the fact that the health care system will not change until we get over this roadblock, until we accept that access to health care ought to be a right in our society. these roadblocks are predictable and, to a point, understandable. but what we need to do is talk about the same thing. responding to the moral argument with a logically flawed comment is an example of not talking about the same thing. objections to the moral argument must come, if they are to come, in the same context. we cant respond to, "it's wrong to kill," by saying, "since we have guns, people will sometimes be killed."

the least we can do is respect the issue itself, and the people affected, enough to have a fully rational conversation about it, instead of clouding it with policy, partisan and commercial biases, much less with comments that entirely miss the point.

I believe that if the insurance companies are forced to return to the days when they actually did some good, when employers could actually afford to offer their services to their employees, when MDs had more say in treatment plans than the insurance companies were able to dictate, then we would be able to insure more Americans once again.

If you are talking about for-profit insurance companies, when "they actually did some good" never happened.  The inability of MDs to have complete say in their treatment plans has very little to do with private insurance companies and everything to do with the US government and CMS. 

All these discussions about EMTALA, what is that?  It is the government regulating health care.  We already have rationing, and claim denial in our perfect health care world, and it is being set up and run by the government. 

Denying middle-aged American citizens care because they do not follow a healthy lifestyle, or they can not afford good enough health care insurance, or we just don't like them, while providing health care treatment to the elderly, the poor, and illegals at government expense seems totally absurd to me.   

cyrano-759306

All of the arguments in this string boil down to those who believe that we are our brother's keeper (socialism)

Gaaaah! NO! Individuals are their brothers' keepers, not the government. If people in the private sector fail to care for each other, we're doomed and there's not a damned thing the government can do to make things better.

vs the myth of a free capitalist society.

Myth? It's capitalism that has sustained our nation for over two hundred years. Has it been exploited? Certainly. But it survives and works best when the f'n government polices it but doesn't tamper with it.

the essay quoted in #2 assumes that health care ought to be provided like it is now.

Actually healthcare insurance should be more like auto insurance. Lots of competition across state lines with the individual paying. That's when you get the lowest cost. Not when the payor isn't the reciever and when there is a lot of Government interference. Mandated coverages cost people a lot of money. Why do I have to pay for maternity coverage for instance? Or mental health and alcohol drug abuse coverage? If I want to take that risk I should be allowed to do so. I don't have to buy collision and comprehensive coverage for my cars (that are paid for) if I don't want to.

I believe that if the insurance companies are forced to return to the days when they actually did some good, when employers could actually afford to offer their services to their employees, when MDs had more say in treatment plans than the insurance companies were able to dictate, then we would be able to insure more Americans once again.

If you are talking about for-profit insurance companies, when "they actually did some good" never happened.  The inability of MDs to have complete say in their treatment plans has very little to do with private insurance companies and everything to do with the US government and CMS. 

All these discussions about EMTALA, what is that?  It is the government regulating health care.  We already have rationing, and claim denial in our perfect health care world, and it is being set up and run by the government. 

Denying middle-aged American citizens care because they do not follow a healthy lifestyle, or they can not afford good enough health care insurance, or we just don't like them, while providing health care treatment to the elderly, the poor, and illegals at government expense seems totally absurd to me. 

You have just proven to me that you are a) ignorant on the subject at hand, and b) just like to argue from emotion and not fact. Your statement about EMTALA is so far off of the mark that I will refrain from trying to further educate you because doing so is a waste of my time. EMTALA was written to protect patients and prevent them being dumped out of "nice" ERs in private hospitals into the county hospital's ER just because they didn't have insurance. You chose to diss EMTALA because you have not a clue about what it is, how it came about, or why hospitals have to adhere to it. Further on down this thread, you hollered about how patients are turned away from your local ER and "forced" to go to one 20 miles away. EMTALA doesn't allow patients to be turned away from ANY emergency room, yet you refuse to believe that, and this post shows how you'd rather argue from the weak point of emotion rather than fact.

Enjoy your holidays.

Actually healthcare insurance should be more like auto insurance. Lots of competition across state lines with the individual paying. That's when you get the lowest cost. Not when the payor isn't the reciever and when there is a lot of Government interference. Mandated coverages cost people a lot of money. Why do I have to pay for maternity coverage for instance? Or mental health and alcohol drug abuse coverage? If I want to take that risk I should be allowed to do so. I don't have to buy collision and comprehensive coverage for my cars (that are paid for) if I don't want to.

why should our health and well-being have anything to do with any kind of insurance company in the first place? both auto and health insurance companies are a recent kind of business, relatively speaking. certainly much more recent than either automobiles or especially health care.

again, talking about the moral issue of whether or not health care is a human right needs to be separate from talking about its corporate implications.

The purpose of liberty rights is to protect individual autonomy. They leave individuals responsible for their own lives, for meeting their own needs. But they provide us with the social conditions we need to carry out that responsibility: the freedom to act on the basis of our own judgment, in pursuit of our own ends; and the right to use and dispose of the material resources we have acquired by our efforts. These rights reflect the assumption that individuals are ends in themselves, who may not be used against their will for social purposes.

I love that.  It summarizes the conservative point of view to a tee.  Smaller government, more individiual liberty. 

I agree Waynester, we should buy our own, whereever the rates are best for us and only buy the services we need. I don't need maternity care either. Been there, done that. Twice. Merry Christmas!!!

Waynester: I like a good debate.  So let's start the discussion by addressing fallacies in the arguments made in your quoted material.

And the right to property is the right to act freely in the effort to acquire wealth, the right to buy and sell and keep the fruits of one's labor.

No one has the right to act entirely free in an effort to acquire wealth.  Bernie Ebbers, formerly of Worldcom thought that way, laws governing conduct have him in prison.

The long-term direction of public policy is not set by electoral politics, or by horse-trading in Congress, or by this or that court case. In the long term, at a basic level, public policy is set by ideas—ideas about things are just and worthy, what rights and obligations we have as individuals. The idea that people have a right to health care is inimical to our genuine liberties.

The argument above is contradictory.  Public policy comes from ideas that are debated in Congress or in court cases.  Furthermore, stating that public policy is set by ideas-ideas about things are just and worthy and then to follow that argument with the inimical to our genuine liberties argument is baseless and contradictory of the earlier argument that public policiy is set by ideas.

The policies that flow from that idea are harmful to the interests of doctors and patients alike. To fight against those policies, we have to attack their root.

The argument above is baseless, defenseless, and contradictory of the statement that public policy comes from ideas.  The bias in this argument is also evident of having a stake in the status quo and being devoid of serious objective analysis.  The bias is further exposed in the beginning of the second sentence, to fight against.  This wording highlights that the apparent well reasoned argument put forth by the essayist is nothing more than propaganda in support of bet already made.

But market forces would tend to ensure that patients have more choices than they do now

The market forces argument makes an assumption of an ideal marketplace that would produce the so called additional choices.  However, as we are all now fully aware of the inherent flaws in free markets and in free market theory, the problem in the argument is that reaching the ideal is impossible.  Regulation might produce a situation that may be more ideal than a un-regulated market, but the situation would still not reach the level of being completely ideal.

Now, I'm a bit tired and some of the arguments put forth by the essayist and yourself do hold water, but intermixed with the above flawwed arguments they are rendered wanting.

I'll await your rebuttal.  In the meantime, I will begin tearing apart the remainder of the essay with more attention to detail.  This exercise was spur of the moment and not done with much distraction during our Christmas gathering.  I look forward to a more agressive debate.  Take care.

 rickace:

Waynester

I wonder why people think that healthcare is the lone exception. 

Another oddity about healthcare: its insurance. In other areas, people buy insurance to lay off risk of an unexpected event, such as the loss of a house or a lawsuit arising from an automobile accident. Major medical insurance is a parallel in the healthcare field and is therefore suitable business for the insurance industry. However employers' health plans go way beyond that, "insuring" routine trips to physicians for checkups and other minor care. If we did away with that low-level insurance, the profits that the insurance companies were turning could be restored to employers, employees, and physicians. And physicians' overhead in processing all that bull@!$%# paperwork would drop dramatically.

I like your thinking and the arguments you have made out here.  Here is some more ammunition for your dueling pistol.  Which industries have most of the money?  Yes, Insurance and Health Care.  Do you know they invest in one another?  Can you spell conflict of interest.  Taking money in premiums and denying coverage for a treatment or reducing the amount of reimbursement because of inflated cost of treatment when you own an interest in the healthcare facility should be a life in prison sentence, but they have a lot of political clout. 

Some so called smart person out here says doctors are flocking to Texas because of tort reform.  Do you know that some of the biggest investors in malpractice insurance carriers are doctors?  Do you think you can control your competing doctors by raising their premiums?  The tort reform argument is a ruse.  Medicine in large measure controls the malpractice insurance business.

Last but not least, do you know that Doctors can have hidden interests in medical supply companies doing business with the very institutions they work for.  Do you think they can influence their institution to buy from their preferred firm.  Do you think they can with that influence enable that firm to be able to charge above market prices for the supplies?  I have clients whose ownership include silent partners who are doctors. 

The explosion in health care cost is directly related to the above manipulation I cite above.  A universal system will correct these systemic problems with the proper checks and balances.

Keep up the great work rickace.  Take care and Merry Christmas.

rickace

cyrano-759306

All of the arguments in this string boil down to those who believe that we are our brother's keeper (socialism)

Gaaaah! NO! Individuals are their brothers' keepers, not the government. If people in the private sector fail to care for each other, we're doomed and there's not a damned thing the government can do to make things better.

vs the myth of a free capitalist society.

Myth? It's capitalism that has sustained our nation for over two hundred years. Has it been exploited? Certainly. But it survives and works best when the f'n government polices it but doesn't tamper with it.

Glass-Stegal made things better until the Clinton Administration repealed it.  That's just one example of something the Government did after the Roaring Twenties and the resulting Great Depression that made things better.

During the 200 year period you claim that capitalism has sustained our nation, wasn't it capitalism that nearly brought our country to an end, which was the goal of many elites of that time and of today.  And wasn't it Social(ism) Security that helped to pull us out of the fire and has helped to sustain us for almost the last 100 years?  Rickace, there was a program on PBS about Roosevelt and it was stated that many of the elite of that day preferred the U.S. not be a democracy.  The very capital(ism)(ists) you state has sustained the country could be behind this attempt to destroy our country.  As you know, multinational corporations and their management really have no allegiance to countries only to profit and power and its continual enhancement.

Cyrano dear friend, rickace is a formidable debater and I found him trying to jump on you like a duck on a june bug and I thought I'd chime in help out.  I hope you don't mind.

tgolferman

During the 200 year period you claim that capitalism has sustained our nation

tg - That reply was to cyrano. For you it would be Americans who embraced capitalism sustained our nation.

And wasn't it Social(ism) Security that helped to pull us out of the fire and has helped to sustain us for almost the last 100 years?

Social Security pays to retirees. Some of them pitch in as the workforce, but pre-retirement men and women shoulder the workload.

And there was no fire in evidence. My father and many others like him made it through the Great Depression simply by tightening their belts.

Cyrano dear friend, rickace is a formidable debater

Thank you sir, no one has ever spoken these words and they were welcome to read this morning.

Merry Christmas to you and your family.

rick

tgolfermano and rickace:

I'm now pondering even more on the subject of how our wiring  (personality types, global vs., linear concrete thinking?) pre-determines how we view these issues.

I am as entrenched in my beliefs that without community life is without meaning - as rickace is entrenched in his belief that unfettered freedom for the individual without obligation to community trumps all else.

Thanks to both of you! And Merry Christmas! I hope both of you had a very fine day!

cyrano-759306

rickace is entrenched in his belief that unfettered freedom for the individual without obligation to community trumps all else.

How rude of you. I am presently unemployed but I still volunteer my time and donate my money to charity. Over the past two years I've saved a large food-rescue organization tens of thousands of dollars in consulting fees by volunteering my professional services.

Unfortunately this isn't the first time some Viner concocted bull@!$%# about me and posted it as though it were fact.

Welcome to my ignore list.

Well spoken. My sentiments exactly.

rickace, I feel a need to defend cyrano.  If you look at your comments you give no hint of the charitable work that you have done and continue to do on this seed / article.  Yet, his analysis of your comments and their position on the spectrum of thought on the subject has some merit.  Therefore, I don't believe he has made as big a breach of etiquite as you feel.  Remember we are all out here debating an issue in an attempt to improve a system that affects us all.  Some of us here are willing to see and acknowledge well reasoned logical and factual arguments, while others out here have a hidden agenda and are all to willing to ignore valid argument.  I am not saying you are one of those people.  But, I feel cyrano to be a person out here on the vine to be a person who is willing to engage in serious educated debate for the purpose of bringing improvement to whatever topic he feels competent to discuss.  He may not have been perfect in his approach on this particular attempt, but his heart is in the right place, and nobody is perfect.  Think about it.  Take care and happy new year.

rickace, I'm a little out of sequence.  I'd like to respectfully rebutt your rebuttal below:

Social Security pays to retirees. Some of them pitch in as the workforce, but pre-retirement men and women shoulder the workload.

And there was no fire in evidence. My father and many others like him made it through the Great Depression simply by tightening their belts.

Obviously SS pays to retirees.  Social Security (Socialistic) did not exist before the Great Depression.  Although, initially it was a deduction from paychecks, eventually it provided a small but reliable retirement income that did not exist previously for millions of Americans.  Obviously, those working and contributing are carrying those who came before them.  To deny the fact that SS changed our society for the better, while not perfect, is to be willing to ignore historical fact.  Those that were too old to work shortly after SS was implemented and got a SS check in retirement would have income that helped the economy isn't that correct?  If they had nothing in retirement they certainly would be worse off and the burden of carrying them much greater, wouldn't you agree?

And there was no fire in evidence?  What does that mean?  The pulling out of the fire statement is an analogy.  Are you arguing the Great Depression, which I referred to SS as helping to pull us out of the fire, did not happen?  Everyone, other than the elites that were responsible for the excesses of the "roaring twenties" and the "Great Depression, were all tightening their respective belts to some degree.

Now is where the rubber meets the road.  You have been met with rebuttal that will either expose you as a person interested in scholarly debate and compromise with a goal of systemic improvement for all or you will be exposed for something other than that.  The choice is yours.  I'm hoping for the former.  Take care and happy new year.

tgolferman

Yet, his analysis of your comments and their position on the spectrum of thought on the subject has some merit.

Really now? My comment from #2.41:

Individuals are their brothers' keepers, not the government. If people in the private sector fail to care for each other, we're doomed and there's not a damned thing the government can do to make things better.

His analysis:

rickace is entrenched in his belief that unfettered freedom for the individual without obligation to community trumps all else.

SS is the world's largest ponzi scheme, but unlike Madoff's, it's not only legal but required by law.

Yes. Somehow, when congress does anything illegal, it stops being illegal (in that instance).

The CEO's of any businesses run like the federal government runs things would be spending time in prison.

If there is a "right to property", just as there is a "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" then I want my property and I want it now!

All you have to do is earn it. It is amazing to me that someone would use the term"if we have a right to property". Of course we do ( the pusuit of happiness is just a fancy way of saying right to property). What you don't or shouldn't have is a right to someone else's property, or time (i.e., a small portion of their life, a finite quantity)

jpark

Just name one company that handles the budget and number of employees that the federal government does. There is not a company 1/1000th the size of the federal government. The government is very efficient and highly professional. It's not perfect but it is way better than any corporation out there. And you and every other voter is responsible for making it what it is.

Waynester

You think you own property. The government is just letting you use it. Try not paying your taxes and see who owns your property.

rickace,

Individuals are their brothers' keepers, not the government. If people in the private sector fail to care for each other, we're doomed and there's not a damned thing the government can do to make things better.

Can you tell me how the quote above does not fit with cyrano's interpretation of your basic position in the debate?  Individuals are their brothers keepers?  Are we to take the estimated 45 million uninsured and divide them amongst the insured and we all get a piece of an uninsured to care for?  That sounds alot like socialized medicine decentralized down to the individual.  What if the person you're responsible for has worse health than the one I'm responsible for?  What if the person you're responsible for is a hypochondriac and mine is afraid of doctors?  Mine will cost me almost nothing and yours will bankrupt you.

I know, my mother was a hypochondriac before I got her in my charge.  44 years of doctors treating her and they helped turn her into one and I get her after she ends up in the hospital and she's not one any longer and she was a nurse in the system you are defending.  She made a mistake in mid-life and divorced my dad and eventually developed anxiety over her decision.  Her doctors had her on anti-anxiety drugs and then eventually anti depressants to balance things out for over 27 years when the physicians drug manual indicated long term use of both were not recommended and indicated potential harm.  All she complained about in the beginning was not being able to sleep after the divorce.  Did these doctors create a patient / make a patient worse for profit because of the flaws in our system?  I fixed her in weeks and I'm a owner of a telecommunications firm with a B.S. in Business Administration.  This system is broke and it needs fixing!!

Do you dispute that Glass-Stegal prevented financial manipulation when it was implemented to prevent another "Great Depression" and when it was repealled by the Clinton administration all the excesses we are paying for now began to explode of the chart?  Government designed a fix and it worked for decades until those bent on profit at any expense pushed for its repeal.

You are a formidable debater, but what you fail to realize is that your tactics paint you to be a person unwilling to acknowledge opposing factual argument that conflicts with either your view of the world or your undisclosed bias.  In fact, a continual denial of undisputable facts would put you in the category of the type of person that lobbied to repeal Glass-Stegal among others for profit.  That is not me saying that, it is you doing it and the perception you cause me to have.  I am sorry to feel that way, but that is the way you make me feel.

I will acknowledge and learn from opposing well thought out argument.  I will modify my view of the world when that occurs.  Being a reformed conservative that has seen the results of their ideals with verifyable documented facts and having converted my philosophy to a more centerist-slightly liberal-socialistic view proves my interest in learning and social / economic improvement through the implementation of well thought out ideas.  What are you here for exactly?

Take care and happy new year.

It's more fun to pretend to care.

Did you know that the document has an escape clause for the UN itself? Or do you care?

Article 29.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations

(emphasis mine)

Sounds good to me.

I'm glad the US Bill of Rights has no exception like that. Can you imagine? "All the rights aforemention may not be excersised if that would interfere with the purposes of the US Government". It basically renders all the previous list of rights null and void. That you think it sounds good show that you aren't paying attention.

pcbynature,

Health is a human right and it is a SHAME that the US never signed the Declaration of Human Rights.

By what system do you determine that a right exists when that 'right' requires to seizure of resources from others?

If health were a birth right, then there would be no unhealthy infants. Clearly, it is not a birth right. Then who assigns and enforces that 'right'?

jpark

Seizure of resources? Please. I take it your resources are seized for a lot of other things you depend on and rightly so. I could list about a dozen for you right now but I presume you don't need a civics lesson.

Man of Knowledge,

pcbynature holds that healthcare is a human right. I argue is is not a right.

You argue that I have resources taken for many things. True but irrelevant. I am not arguing that good roads and bridges is a human right. I am not arguing that anything which the government taxes for is a human right. pcbynature is. If you want to argue that healthcare is a human right, answer my questions to pcbynature:

By what system do you determine that a right exists when that 'right' requires the seizure of resources from others?

If health were a birth right, then there would be no unhealthy infants. Clearly, it is not a birth right. Then who assigns and enforces that 'right'?

By what system do you determine that a right exists when that 'right' requires the seizure of resources from others?

Democracy. 

If health were a birth right, then there would be no unhealthy infants. Clearly, it is not a birth right. Then who assigns and enforces that 'right'?

The government. 

Wrong and wrong.

Government does not create rights.

Government is in fact, the only source of rights. In nature there is no right to anything including life. I don't, in fact, argue that healthcare is a human right. There are no human rights unless society provides a context for them and determines to enforce that context.

What I do argue is that a prudent modern society should have a plan to provide healthcare for all, since there is no political will to let nature take its course and have people dying miserable agonizing deaths in the streets of our cities. We wind up paying for healthcare for all anyway, only now it is at the worst possible time, in ways destructive to the social order, and in the most expensive way possible.

You will note that the United States Constitution does not create rights. It lists some of the rights which already belong to us.

Notice an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence which declares where rights originate:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Pretty language but I don't believe in a creator. There is no right to life, massacres are taking place this very day in many places in the world. Liberty is enjoyed by almost no one and what liberties we have in this country are fast being undermined and diminished. The pursuit of happiness is certainly part of most peoples lives but only fleetingly achieved.

I admire both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution but it is rarely interpreted in the way that I do. The only interpretation that carries any weight is that of the courts and they are political entities despite the founding father's attempt to make them as independent of politics as possible.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That was such a beautiful quote, why did you stop there?

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Jefferson did not believe in an active God; a god capable of ensuring the rights of men. Which it why it was necessary for men to ensure their own rights through the construction of a government which provided them. The only government which can ensure the rights of its people is one where the people have power. So sorry, you are wrong and wrong. If God enforced the recognition of rights, the world would be just, regardless of who governed any particular region.

No, I am not wrong. You are wrong.

I did not say governments should not secure rights. I said governments do not create rights.

Of what value is a right, if it is not secured?

Different question.

What value is your sight if you may become blind?

I believe I have a right to life. (I may forfeit that right.). Nevertheless, I shall die. My life is not secured by any agency including government.

Government is in fact, the only source of rights.

This is just so wrong on so many levels. That anyone in this day and age would beleive that the Government is the source of all rights is just unbeliveable. You may as well espouse your belief in the devine right of kings. (it's kinda the same thing) Now all your other comments make sense. Still wrong, but they make sense in your universe at least.

Speaking of John Locke or Ayn Rand will enlighten this person no more than would speaking to him in Mongolian, I'm afraid.

What value is your sight if you may become blind?

That's not really an appropriate analogy. Let me clarify. I was asking what is the value of an unsecured right, not the value of a right which is secured which may become unsecured. 

For example, If I say you have the right to liberty, it doesn't mean squat, because I do not have the ability to ensure that right, so it is unsecured. The government is much more powerful, you don't go to prison unless you are convicted of a crime, and if you are kidnapped the government will attempt to find you and free you.  So a right granted by the government is more secure, because the government has a greater ability and a greater tendency to ensure that right. If rights endowed by a creator, are either not ensured, or rarely ensured by the creator, they are not secure. As far as I know, there are plenty of kidnapped people and wrongly imprisoned people in the world to show that the right to liberty is not universally ensured. 

The right to liberty is recognized by our government. It is by no means secured.

I take it that you have accepted that governments do not create rights?

I take it that you have accepted that governments do not create rights?

Not exactly. A right only exists, to whom it is granted, to the extent that the agent or agency granting those rights is capable of securing them. Rights are created, upon being granted but only to the extent that they are secure.

So, if you violate someone's rights, the right or rights never really existed anyhow since they obviously were not secure?

One's ability to say that one has a right, is derived from the confidence one has that the right will not be violated through the actions or inaction of the agent or agency granting those rights.

You are back to arguing that rights are granted by government.

Rights are inherent. They are not acquired from government.

Perhaps those who do not believe in a creator would be more comfortable with the idea that humans have rights by virtue of being human. I think it is because we are moral beings who make moral choices, unlike animals, who with rare exception are driven by instinct and instinct alone.

It all depends on whether you think that man is and ought to be an end unto himself.

Firsty:

why should our health and well-being have anything to do with any kind of insurance company in the first place?

Insurance is simply a device to pool risk. It is impractical for most people to have enough money saved to cover their needs in the event of a relatively rare but still possible event, like a catastrophic illness or accident. So people will often form groups to share risk by pooling individual contributions to be used when one or more members suffer such an eventuality. This practice goes back thousands of years.

I think that the best course (and one I would take if I could) would be to purchase a catastrophic policy with a high deductible, fund a tax free account (the HSA) for everyday expenditures and the deductible on the policy. This seems to me the most cost effective way to pay for and be in control of your own health care needs. You shop for and select your own Primary care physician. Believe me doctors will often give you a discount for paying cash as it means very little paperwork compared to insurance.

Jpark, the reason I was using the terms agent or agency, was to include a possible creator in my statements. Observations demonstrate that nature doesn't appear to give much in the way of rights compared to people, or groups of people, including governments. Humans can not live alone in the wild as long or as well as they can with other people. Humans can not as free in the wild, they must spend a much more time performing activities which are necessary for survival. Nature only guarantees that a man alone can pursue survival. We live with people, because it is beneficial to our lives liberties and happiness. It is through other people that we find our security in these things increased. In lives filled with human interactions we find obstructions to our life liberty and happyness. People can be violent, dishonest, predatory, negligent etc.  Humans constructed governments to increase the security of human interaction in the environment.  In lives filled with law in governmental authority, we can still find obstructions to our life liberty and happyness. A government can be violent and opressive. When the masses can overthrow such a government, they can implement rights to ensure that their interactions with the government are more secure. 

When they are fetuses, they are pure and sinless.  As soon as they come through the birth canal, (or the incision), they are full of sin. 

You misunderstand. I have no disdain for "healthcare". However, the issue of the cost of defense for one who cannot afford it is an interesting one. It does appear to be an exception in the liberty vs welfare rights paradigm. The right to an adequate defense when accused of a serious crime does confer an obligation on the part of the Government to provide counsel via the 6th amendment. However, it can be argued that this is part of the administration of justice. (...establish Justice, ensure domestic tranquility, remember?) and therefore isn't an unwarranted transfer of wealth but one that is required for a legitimate function of Government. The preamble (which is limited in scope by the rest of the document), doesn't "provide for the common healthcare."

The FDIC, huh? Wow I never thought anyone would cite that as reason to consider healthcare a right. I can't quite see how exactly it pertains. It was established to engender confidence in the banking system so folks wouldn't make runs on deposits because banks don't actually have but about 10% of the money on deposit at any given time. It's in the interest of Government to instill confidence in the banking system and if you think the costs are comparable to providing everyone "free" healthcare you need help!

It's interesting how the conservatives bleat about the "right to life", then disappear when it comes to doing anything along the lines of health care to help keep the "born fetuses" alive. 

Actually, conservatives contribute mightily to organizations that care for women who have crisis pregnancies, to promote adoption among other things. That they don't typically think it's a proper function of Government doesn't mean they don't think it shouldn't be done.

Davy-755715

then disappear when it comes to doing anything along the lines of health care to help keep the "born fetuses" alive.

It's the responsibility of the baby's parents to care for their offspring. Any man and woman who like to @!$%# must shoulder the consequences. Pawning their unwanted children off on the government creates yet another moral hazard. Have we learned nothing from Fannie and Freddie?

Universal Healthcare doesn't do much for a promiscuous, fat, smoking, and lazy population. It just keeps the bills lower so they have more money in their pocket to keep making bad decisions. Fantastic!

Actually, conservatives contribute mightily to organizations that care for women who have crisis pregnancies, to promote adoption among other things. That they don't typically think it's a proper function of Government doesn't mean they don't think it shouldn't be done.

They care for fetuses, not babies.  If they really wanted government to stay out of these social issues, they would establish meaningful charities that deal with these problems.  Where is the conservative run daycare centers for those women after they give birth?

I would guess, Waynester, you were educated in a public school system.  It's too bad that money is more important to you than giving something back to a society who gave something to you.

Having an unplanned pregnancy at 16, I can assure you they care for babies. The government didn't provide help during my crisis pregnancy - a Christian organization did.

Having an unplanned pregnancy at 16, I can assure you they care for babies. The government didn't provide help during my crisis pregnancy - a Christian organization did.

And they provide well checks for your infant, child care when you need to go to work, subsidized housing so you don't have to live on the street, an education so you can get a decent job.  During pregnancy, your child was a fetus.  I wonder if that Christian organization will help you send you child to college-oh yeah-the tax payers do that.

You know, the more I hear of this argument, the more it becomes apparent that so much of it depends on our personal opinions: who is too fat, who eats too much cholesterol, who smokes too much, who drinks too much ... who doesn't act in the ways I would LIKE THEM TO ACT.

Well, the fact is: no one is ever going to measure up. Not the folks you would personally like to point out ... and not even YOU yourself. Measured by all the other rulers that exist out there ... no one is perfect, not you and not me.

The fact remains: The US is the ONLY industrialized nation in the entire world that does not provide Universal Health Care for its citizens. Argue all you want about quality, wait times, bureaucracy, Socialism, what's a "right", what's not ... whatever. The other industrialized nations have taken this particular burder off the individual and put it on the society as a whole. I've personally seen the results of that in Canada, Great Britain, and the Nederlands. IMHO, we would be better off, as a society, to do the same.

Hippo Potamus

Where is the conservative run daycare centers for those women after they give birth?

We conservatives pay the costs to raise our own children. Do you think we should foot the bill for lazy liberals as well? I don't. See post #4.3.

stevemax

The US is the ONLY industrialized nation in the entire world that does not provide Universal Health Care for its citizens

And with the pharmaceutical industry, the insurance industry, and the AMA firmly in control of their stooges in Congress we will remain that way. Anyone who thinks the capitalists in these industries will give up their seats on the gravy train to further a socialist cause needs to have his head examined.

You can find Christian churches with daycares operating on a sliding scale - I have. You could always PLACE your baby for adoption if the road ahead is too hard. Subsidized housing is so ghetto I would rather work 24/7 not to live there. It's disgusting. My husband COMES from the welfare life. It's NASTY. Which is why I placed my first baby for adoption. Other options were to be adopted MYSELF into a Christian "foster" family that could help provide a roof and free child care for up to 2 years while I save for myself. Many jobs provide daycare in the professional world. Do the taxpayers pay for that? Nope. Those 'evil' corporations do. Of all the places I have worked and interviewed at since moving to Houston, every major oil company has daycare and/or the option to work from home. Interesting.

YHAS, I'm only going to argue one of your points above and let you figure your way out of it.

Many jobs provide daycare in the professional world. Do the taxpayers pay for that? Nope. Those 'evil' corporations do. Of all the places I have worked and interviewed at since moving to Houston, every major oil company has daycare and/or the option to work from home. Interesting.

Now, how much in tax breaks did the Bush Administration give to the already wealthy oil companies?  Do you need me to find that answer for you?  I think not.  Consequently, the answer to your question needs to be changed to a big fat YEP!  Working from home?  Tax breaks for the Internet which makes that possible and forces brick and mortar stores to compete on an unfair playing field with Internet merchants is yet another example of your argument not meeting the sniff test.  Nice try.  Take care.

Young Hot and Smart

Having an unplanned pregnancy at 16, I can assure you they care for babies. The government didn't provide help during my crisis pregnancy - a Christian organization did.

YHAS, I hate to rain on your parade again, but have you any knowledge of the tax code as it relates to Christian (non-profit) organizations?  Tremendous tax advantages are given to churches and the like.  I know.  Beside owning a telecommunications firm, I was elected to a school board and eventually was elected treasurer.  I know the tax treatment.  Tax payers and the government were most definitely involved in helping you with your youthful adventure.  Take care and Merry X-Mas.

Waynster, below you state: However it could be argued.  You already conceded the argument before that.  After that you offer curiosity on the FDIC argument and state that you can't see how it pertains.  I beg to differ.  You know exactly how it pertains.  You can't have it both ways.  Offering yourself as a knowledgable source of information on the one hand and then pretending not to understand a simple analogy argument as a debate tactic is cheap.

You misunderstand. I have no disdain for "healthcare". However, the issue of the cost of defense for one who cannot afford it is an interesting one. It does appear to be an exception in the liberty vs welfare rights paradigm. The right to an adequate defense when accused of a serious crime does confer an obligation on the part of the Government to provide counsel via the 6th amendment. However, it can be argued that this is part of the administration of justice. (...establish Justice, ensure domestic tranquility, remember?) and therefore isn't an unwarranted transfer of wealth but one that is required for a legitimate function of Government. The preamble (which is limited in scope by the rest of the document), doesn't "provide for the common healthcare."

The FDIC, huh? Wow I never thought anyone would cite that as reason to consider healthcare a right. I can't quite see how exactly it pertains. It was established to engender confidence in the banking system so folks wouldn't make runs on deposits because banks don't actually have but about 10% of the money on deposit at any given time. It's in the interest of Government to instill confidence in the banking system and if you think the costs are comparable to providing everyone "free" healthcare you need help!

It's interesting how the conservatives bleat about the "right to life", then disappear when it comes to doing anything along the lines of health care to help keep the "born fetuses" alive. 

Actually, conservatives contribute mightily to organizations that care for women who have crisis pregnancies, to promote adoption among other things. That they don't typically think it's a proper function of Government doesn't mean they don't think it shouldn't be done.

Lastly Waynester you are ignoring the argument of disappearing when it comes to health care to help keep the "born fetuses" alive.  You're basically saying that Conservatives would not allow for abortion and a poor woman not being able to properly care for her child could give it up for abortion, is that correct?  Heaven help you, if you think that's a good thing.

Wayne, a wee bit of rebuttal for you:

However, it can be argued that this is part of the administration of justice. (...establish Justice, ensure domestic tranquility, remember?) and therefore isn't an unwarranted transfer of wealth but one that is required for a legitimate function of Government. The preamble (which is limited in scope by the rest of the document), doesn't "provide for the common healthcare."

Did you leave these out on purpose?  Or was that just an oversight?
(promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity)

Now, when you claim the preamble to be limited in scope you are mistaken.  Let me see if I can clear this up for you.  What does domestic tranquility mean?  Is there a extensive definitions section outlining what these to mean exactly like in a tariff filing?

If many are suffering from health problems and high medical bills is there domestic tranquility?  Only if the doc's are prescribing tranquilizers.

Is healthcare not apart of general welfare?  If we are placed at economic disadvantage by healthcare or insurance firms through economic and political manipulation is not our Posterity diminished?

Now Waynester you've been met with serious honest rebuttal that serves to expose you either as a person truly trying to promote a beneficial solution for our healthcare-insurance problems or as a person with a hidden agenda that is self serving.  Your response will serve to help us determine whether or not your arguments are worthy of debate.  The choice is yours.  Take care.

Like I said those things listed in the preamble are limited by what follows. Madison said so himself. Promote means in this case to create conditions amenable to (like courts, a national currency and so on), notice the difference in language when it speaks of defense: it says provide for the common defense.

The worst thing to ever happen to healthcare was it's seperation from the end-user. When employers started providing healthcare insurance as a benefit (which, I believe, is due to Gov wage and price controls in the Nixon era) it engendered the mindset that it's someone else's responsibilty. That mindset is a major driver in over-utilization and higher costs overall. When the customer pays directly out of his own pocket price competition will always come into play. Add to that defensive medicine due to a runaway tort bar and you get what we have now.

Waynester, where in the preamble or constitution does it spell out the definitions you are trying to have admitted as evidence in the debate? The language was created purposely with a lack of specificity for a reason. Overtime, these briliant men knew that times would change somewhat, but that basic principles would endure during that change. Having precise definitons for what was stated would have doomed the document at the outset because of rigid definitions. If you are referring to some writing that is not a legal part of the document then it cannot be admitted into evidence.

Now is where I will prove my why I'm out here on the vine. I will concede that the seperation you speak of caused part of the problem we have today. However, our system even if we remove the seperation will not have the desired competition you feel might lower the cost of health care. If we allow the system to remain the same and put the patient in charge of the process, the flaws of conflicts of interest with interlocking ownership of insurance companies and healthcare providers will remain. Doctors having hidden interests in suppliers to their employer will still continue have enough sway to allow their hidden interest to gain premium profit because of that hidden conflict. The flaw inherent in the malpractice insurance business will remain. Haven't you been made aware of the medical industries ownership interest in malpractice carriers? Haven't you gotten the memo that malpractice premiums are utilized to control competing doctors within certain markets? Practicing defensive medicine? Isn't that another way of saying doing a complete and thorough job? Isn't that what they are being paid for in the first place no matter who's paying the bill? Lawsuits is just another ruse. Some cases are frivilous, many are not. Rules preventing the frivilous case wherein the plaintiff pays defense costs in the case of a loss prevents contingent fee frivilous cases. Is it the goal of society to allow bad doctors or hospitals a free pass for negligence? If given the free pass what will be their incentive to do good work?

Getting back to your valid argument, if that were the only thing wrong many of us out here would be moved closer to your way of thinking. It unfortunately is not.

Take care.

Whatever the preamble may say or in whichever way it is intrepreted it is still a preamble. It is bound by all that follows and there is no power bestowed on the Federal government to esablish a monopoly of 1/7th of the US economy. There will have to be further grotesque contortion of the Interstate Commerce Clause for that to pass muster but I'm sure a way will be found. (If FDR can begin the destruction I have every faith that Obama can continue it) Does anyone remember what the technical term is for a Government that owns or controls the means of production?

The ability to pay for a good or service in a free market is always a major determinative of price. That's how free markets work. If no one can afford it the price drops because at the previous price there was no demand. Didn't anyone go over this with you in school?

I hadn't heard of the conflicts of interest you mention. On the surface they are troubling but nothing that couldn't be ameliorated perhaps with some sound legislation in the several states, as it were.

Loser pays is actually quite a good solution and it is gratifying to see your support of it. I agree! (see also my post on the effects of tort reform in Texas)

Actually, the only people who have a right to medical care are the elderly and the indigent poor, they recieve care through the government programs Medicare and Medicaid. 

Children's health care programs are offered through the state, but there are family income restrictions, so it is not a right for all children.

ty 4 the info

From above link:

I think many people are afraid to assert their rights and interests as individuals, afraid to assert these rights and interests as moral absolutes, because they are afraid of being labelled selfish. So it is vital that we draw certain distinctions. What I am advocating is not selfishness in the conventional sense: the vain, self-centered, grasping pursuit of pleasure, riches, prestige, or power. Genuine happiness results from a life of productive achievement, of stable relationships with friends and family, of peaceful exchange with others. The pursuit of our self-interest in this sense requires that we act in accordance with moral standards of rationality, responsibility, honesty, and fairness. If we understand the self and its interests in terms of these values, then I am happy to acknowledge that I am advocating selfishness.

We have to draw the same distinctions when we think about altruism. For it is, in the end, the moral code of altruism that makes people think that need is primary, that need gives one a right to the ability and effort of others. In the conventional sense, altruism means kindness, generosity, charity, a willingness to help others. These are certainly virtues, so long as they do not involve the sacrifice of other values, and so long as they are a matter of personal choice, not a duty imposed from without. I might note in this regard that physicians have historically been extremely generous with their time.

In a deeper, philosophical sense, however, altruism is the principle that one person's need is an absolute claim on others, a claim that overrides their interests and rights. For example, Dr. Edmund Pellegrino has asserted, in an article for JAMA, "A medical need in itself constitutes a moral claim on those equipped to help."[7] This principle has often been asserted by thinkers who are opposed to individualism, and it is the basis for the doctrine of welfare rights. It is the reason why advocates of government involvement in health care can take for granted that the needs of patients are primary, and that everyone else can be forced to provide for those needs.

No rational basis for this principle has ever been offered. The fact is that our needs have to be satisfied by production, not by taking from others. And production comes from those who take responsibility for their lives, who apply their minds to the challenges we face in nature and find new ways of meeting those challenges. Ayn Rand said it best, in her novel The Fountainhead: "Men have been taught that the highest virtue is not to achieve, but to give. Yet one cannot give that which has not been created. Creation comes before distribution—or there will be nothing to distribute. The need of the creator comes before the need of any possible beneficiary."[8] The creator's need, in any field, is the freedom to act, the freedom to dispose of the fruits of his labor as he chooses, and the freedom to interact with others on a voluntary basis, by trade and mutual exchange.

That freedom is a vital need, not only for doctors but for patients. It is only in a context of freedom that one person's need is not a threat to others. It is only in a context of freedom that genuine benevolence among people is possible. It is only in a context of freedom that the medical progress which has brought so many benefits to all of us can continue.

The problems of our current system were caused by government. More government is not the solution. But we must oppose the expansion of government control in principle, by rejecting spurious claims of a "right" to health care, and insisting on our genuine rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness

Jesus would ask if you were prepared to face the Lord and comfort you while you were dieing. 

Interesting idea since he healed people.

the moral code of altruism that makes people think that need is primary, that need gives one a right to the ability and effort of others.

In a deeper, philosophical sense, however, altruism is the principle that one person's need is an absolute claim on others, a claim that overrides their interests and rights.

Just because the writing is competent, grammatically correct, and contains no misspellings doesn't mean the writer knows what he/she is talking about. 

Altruism has absolutely NOTHING to do with the recipient (the person with the need) and EVERYTHING to do with the person who unselfishly gives, sometimes at a large cost to themselves. 

The antonym of the word altruism is egoism.  Your essayist definitely fits the definition of that word Waynester.  (In fact he is making me think more and more of Rush Limbaugh...) 

Trying to find Work

Post a story advocating international altrusim and tons of voices are there to tell you NO, even at this time of year. 

I volunteer for charity and am all for altruism. However it must originate within the private sector. The job of the government is to govern, period.

We are supposed to be a "Christian" nation.

Huh? The Constitution doesn't say that.

WWJD?

He would gently remind us individuals of His Great Commandment.

rickace -

I put Christian in quotes for a reason.

I can't believe you linked to Wikipedia, the on-line encyclopedia where everyone can edit entries whether they are qualified or not.  You are referring to "love thy neighbor" and you could have quoted the actual Bible using whatever translation you prefer, and whichever verse is your personal favorite, although since we were talking Christianity probably Matthew 5:43 would be most apropos.

jfrank,

And see where it got him.  They didn't want everyone to live then either. 

Yes, I'm being sarcasitic.

christians r but a group ,.not even the largest ,.,.good samaritans.,.,stands for the good of all people christian or not

good samaritans is right from the Bible not any other text.  While I agree anyone can be good and a valuable member of society however your asserition is incorrect as written. 

The good samaritan helped someone himself, he didn't take money by force from a third party in order to help him, nor did he empower the Government to take money by force from a third party to help. It's just not relevant.

http://www.crystalinks.com/samaria.html

this is the reference of some sort ,..,

That is exactly the point. How much do you pay for it now? Do you think an organized national plan with complete control of cost would cost more than what we have now?

We're paying the insurance companies alone 11 billion a year plus in profit to try not to provide any service at all.

Medicare, Medicaid and VA are all necessary because the insurance companies refuse to cover the sick, elderly or injured. Those systems alone when incorporated into a national health plan would go a long way to pay for it.

I don't know about you, but I pay about $8000 a year for my share of an employer based health and dental plan to cover me and my wife and I'm healthy. I pay about $2000 a year to the IRS. I can afford to trade off a little for guaranteed coverage even if I'm laid off.

You ever think that when you buy a car part of the price of the car is the cost of healthcare for autoworkers. If you buy milk your likely contributing to someone's health plan in that cost. Employer sponsored health care passes the cost on in every product or service. Plus it puts the companies at a competitive disadvantage against foreign based companies that don't have that cost. Why do you think businesses move their operations overseas. Labor cost.

Where is the free market competition. Do you choose your doctor based on price? Do you even know what they charge? Do you know they charge an uninsured individual two or three times what they charge an insurance company?

If healthcare costs were low now, there wouldn't be a problem in the first place.

No, I won't work as an RN for minimum wage, thanks. I deal with things that make even MDs gag, and we already have a nursing shortage. Deciding that MDs and RNs can have a pay cut to fund a national health care system will have a good many RNs walking right out of the hospitals' front doors. Cutting wages for RNs and MDs is not prudent...not if you wish to keep them.

You are right when you ask who will pay for all of this? The answer is simple: The taxpayers will pay for it. One of the reasons Bush vetoed sCHIP is because the plan would've paid to cover children whose parents already have them covered on private insurance plans. Want to save money? Cut your kids off of your private plan and put them in sCHIP - where they'd get far less quality care (less gets paid for when the government is footing the bill, remember?) than if you kept your kids on your private roll. I happened to think that Bush was right to veto the bill, but I'm in the minority on that one. I'm sorry, but I don't want to pay for the coverage of the kids of someone who makes 45K/year. My tax dollars don't go far enough as it is - I don't want to pay more just so some parents can get cheap coverage for their kids when they can pay for it through their private insurance plan instead.

I'm also not up for paying 50% or more of my income to cover folks who never give their health a second thought until they end up in the hospital (and some don't give a damn even then!). I see way too many "frequent flyers" who feel that taking prescriptions as directed (even getting them filled at free clinics at the local county hospitals) is "too much work". They come in for their monthly "tune-ups" because hey..."I ain't payin' for it"....and those are direct quotes from a patient that I see in my ICU every month at least with a hypertensive crisis. He spends two days in the ICU getting his blood pressure out of stroke-inducing range, and we all know that when he's discharged - despite the hours of teaching that he seemingly ignores - he'll be back again next month with the same problem because he just doesn't care...he "ain't payin' for it". Until society, as a whole, realizes that abuse of the medical system does just as much to jack up health care costs as insurance companies have done over the years, then I'm not paying for any national plan. Sorry.

Going to a nationalized plan will not ensure you the absolute hightest quality of care. You will get what is covered in the basic range of services as determined by the government - in other words, what won't cost the most money - and you won't have the ability to scream, "It's my right to have that bone marrow transplant! I'm entitled to it!" No, sorry, you're not...not under a nationalized plan where every conceivable treatment known to man will not be covered. Not when the middle class will STILL foot the bill for your health care, just like we foot the bill for all of the other welfare and other "social" programs the government wishes to provide in their role of nanny.

Good words GeminiGirl.

And that's not even getting into the 11-22 million (number changes depending on who reports) illegals we have to deal with.

The day we cut nurse or doctor pay is the day we lose all decent healthcare. I can't look at blood without passing out of vomitting. Want me to puke on your wound? Then keep paying Dr's and RN's well because not everyone can do that job.

Gee, GeminiGirl -

My mom has that same problem, she can't seem to get her BP out of the stroke inducing range, and she won't give up salt or caffeine.  She just spent a week in the hospital last month with a TIA, they got her BP down to a normal range, but now that she is home it is back up again.  Unfortunately, you will continue to pay for her care until she finally strokes out because she is 80 and on Medicare. 

Tough luck for you!

Gee, Trying to Find Work: When you find work, you'll be paying for her, too. Welcome to the club...again! Oh, and when she strokes out - if you want a GOOD nursing home for her, you'll pay for it yourself. If the taxpayers foot the bill, she won't get into a top of the line place. Keep that in mind, as well, for when you have to make that decision. Oh, and it is a "when"...not an "if". Unless, of course, she's lucky enough to die of that stroke in her sleep and not have to live out her last few years in a shoddy nursing home that her Medicare only pays for the first 100 days..and then she gets put into a Medicaid bed (read: Cheapest care there is...sucks to be her).

I am filled with contrition JCAtom for setting GeminiGirl off.

However, she brought up another area of health care we had not as yet discussed. 

Nursing Homes, which in general are almost 90% for-profit businesses, have one of the lowest satisfaction ratings of any business in America.  Most do not meet even the lowest basic standards of care.  Even if you are paying top dollar, you can not be sure that your loved one is getting even adequate care, particularly if the person is non-verbal or suffers from dementia.  Many families are forced to hire senior care consultants to visit the nursing home on an almost daily basis, and evaluate and document the level of care being given. The family can institute legal proceedings because they will have evidence that the health care is not meeting standards.

That's because it has always been the family's responsibility to care for the elderly.

Now that Jack and Jill can't be bothered to care for their "loved" ones they want someone else to pay for it so they don't have to sacrifice anything in their lives.  Just like you don't want to sacrifice anything to get better health care for you and your family. 

In the end this is about money and when people are forced to choose between keeping your loved alive or keeping their money the overwhelming majority will choose to keep their money. 

There are not as many resources as was mentioned earlier and the fight for resources will also play into this equation.  The ocean's are in crisis of being irrecoverably damaged and incapable of feeding anyone.  Farms are lost due to yuppie greed to have 2-5 acres and a 5000 sq ft home.  Other farm land is lost due to poor farming techniques.....

As the population continues to rise empathy will decrease as feeding your loved ones will take precedent over caring for others.  People need to die that is life's cruel reality.  One way that happens is when you can't buy care that might prolong your life.

If you think 11 billion to insurance company's is high wait untill the gov't bureaucracy gets a hold of it.  You can bet your a** it will skyrocket as politicians see it as an opportunity for "job creation" and show me a single example of socialized care where sick kids aren't sent home to die and quality of life surgeries don't take years to get.  Socialized mediciene has and continues to be an absolute failure. 

We have the best system on the planet now.  There have been many suggestions which can help and many which won't, the reality is MONEY.  It has always been about money and always will be. So, until you can show me that my expenses will go down and I'll get equal or better care, then I have zero interest in giving my money to care for people I have no say in how they live.

So you think the current system is just fine? As I've said before you don't have to pay taxes as long as your willing to forego income and property. If you choose to benefit from the system then you should be obligated to pay for it.

We have elections to agree on how the government should operate and how much each of us should contribute. I'm sorry but when you cast your vote you are going to your neighbor and saying these are the issues I care about and if you don't like them vote another way. Your not taking anyone's property by force, they agree to contribute, in order to benefit from what the government provides. No one has to live within the system. You are free to live outside the system and make it on your own. Then there would be no liens on your labor.

I think that minimal government provided healthcare is the best we could do and remain a democracy. And it would keep us from hitting 3rd world country fast. If Americans have to pay for healthcare, I guarantee preventative health would improve.

Think of car insurance. You don't get careless when driving and back into senor lexus do you? No because you don't want your auto insurance premiums to go up.

So you think the current system is just fine?

That's not at all what I said.  My point was that there is a natural tension between providing for social welfare and respecting individual property.  How much of my post did you read?

If you choose to benefit from the system then you should be obligated to pay for it.

Of course, but that doesn't mean people should unquestioningly write a blank check for each and every tax proposal.  Discussing tax proposals, which is what we're doing now, is a necessary part of a democratic system.

I'm sorry but when you cast your vote you are going to your neighbor and saying these are the issues I care about and if you don't like them vote another way.

If you're voting primarily for the sake of the social welfare menu, then you're right.  I go to the voting booth in hopes of realizing minimal government.  I do realize that certain social welfare programs, if run optimally, benefit the public.  I don't, however, see my vote as a contest for a slice of my neighbor's earnings.

Think of car insurance. You don't get careless when driving and back into senor lexus do you? No because you don't want your auto insurance premiums to go up.

That's a huge part of the systemic efficiency and respect for the unpleasantry of taxation.  I'm happy to contribute to, for example, a children's hospital (although I'd rather cut a check directly to the hospital, rather than letting the government tax system fritter away a chunk of my contribution).  I'm not so keen, however, on paying for people who spent their lives insisting on smoking, boozing, and eating excessively.  There are lots of people who live in constant abandon and expect that the government (e.g. the taxpayer) will ultimately take care of it.

You can't have it both ways, if you want everyone to pay for their coverage, but you can't afford to pay for yours what is that? 

If taxes were used to pay most of the cost for universal coverage, and employers that offer health care now would have to contribute, as well as the employees, and the unemployed or self-employed that pay for their own insurance, you would be required to pay whatever the cost was determined to be, or continue to go without. 

Great. Thanks for reminding me:

Health coverage should not be tied to a job.

Most employers anyway are looking to shed that cost and if you think it will available at all in the next 5years, you're crazy.

I shouldn't be held hostage in a bad job because I don't want to lose health coverage.

Thanks, I almost forgot about that.

How are you held hostage? You can get another job and another insurance policy. 

You are under the delusion that your costs will go down and your coverage will improve if you go with a natiionalized plan. Show me one example of this in the world.

Yeah right, and all the Americans acting charitiably have totally rebuilt New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, so we can eliminate FEMA because we don't need it anymore.

So you would ignore the sick and dying who cannnot provide for their own healthcare? If you saw someone dying on the street would you fork over the $200,000 cheefully to take care of that person or are you speaking of other people providing cheerful charity to the sick and dying?

Have you ever faced $200,000 in healtcare costs?

The homeless get free healthcare and the "sick and dying" can and will get treated in the ER. It's not like people are made to bleed out in the streets. It's just the COST we are discussing. No insurance means big bills. People don't want to shell out $300 per month on any policy. Which makes healthcare for people who pay more expensive. Someone has to offset the costs of people flooding the ER with no intention to pay AND the government shortchanging doctors.

If I cannot force you to live an immaculately healthy lifestyle, I should not have to pay for your health care. Simple as that.

The "sick and dying" do NOT get treated in any ER.  My local hospital won't take them, they have to go to the closest public hospital (20 miles away). 

So Young, Hot and Smart what about genetic diseases, like diabetes, Huntington's, some heart problems, and some cancers? 

What about people with chronic conditions that are refused coverage at any price by private insurance companies?

What about when diseased people become a public health issue?  TB, Bird Flu, menningitis, MSRA etc.

Are these people not immaculate therefore you won't allow tax dollars to pay for any care, it is not your responsiblity and none of your concern? 

Slavery is not a physical condition but a spiritual and physiological condition.

It's statements like these from the right that make me want go under the bed and get out the baseball bat.

Oh, and this little twisted bundle of inanity:

If I cannot force you to live an immaculately healthy lifestyle, I should not have to pay for your health care. Simple as that.

Trying to Find work. I suggest you familiarize yourself with EMTALA. ER's MUST provide stabalizing care and/or treatment. http://www.emtala.com/

Brian - I don't see an issue in what I said. Why should I see a large increase in my taxes to pay for the healthcare for those who refuse to take care of themselves? I do charitable things throughout the year - that would completely stop as would being able to be independent financially shoudl my taxes increase to 60%. At 304 million people, that's a conservative estimate when discussing universal healthcare. Also it would then be substandard universal healthcare with the government in control.

The "sick and dying" do NOT get treated in any ER.  My local hospital won't take them, they have to go to the closest public hospital (20 miles away). 

Actually, I will challenge you to read about the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), which says that anyone within 200 yeards of an ER must get an initial screening of their condition and cannot be turned away from any ER's doors. What you are stating is a clear violation of EMTALA, and I doubt that is what is actually happening. Now - ER's can go on diversion with the local EMS departments if they do not have the ability to handle critically ill/injured patients or those in labor. The examples of those situations would be: No ICU beds, no MD on call for a specific specialty (for example, they could divert all neurological surgery patients if they did not have a neurosurgeon on call that night), or no ability to safely care for one more actively laboring woman - though she would probably be kept in the ER if the next available hospital was too far away.

Let me quote this for you:

EMTALA, which applies to all hospitals that participate in the federal Medicare program, imposes two primary obligations on those hospitals. First, when an individual shows up for treatment at a hospital's emergency room, "the hospital must provide for an appropriate medical screening examination . . . to determine whether or not an emergency medical condition" exists. 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(a). Second, if the screening examination indicates that an emergency medical condition does exist, the hospital ordinarily must "stabilize the medical condition" before transferring or discharging the patient. Id. § 1395dd(b)(1)(A).

Not that this applies to all hospitals who participate in Medicare...which is all of them, since they depend on that reimbursement (as paltry as it is) for payment of bills. You can read about EMTALA here: http://www.emtala.com/ and my quote came from: http://www.emtala.com/history.htm  The fines for patient dumping are anywhere from $25,000 to $50,000 per incident and a hospital could lose Medicare funding status for repeated EMTALA abuses. So, this is not a situation taken lightly, and if your ER is turning way "sick and dying", then the hospital is either not following EMTALA laws (which I doubt), or the "sick and dying" aren't that sick or dying and can be transferred to the place where they typically go for care...and if they're indigent, that is the county hospital. Hospitals are not required to provide indigent care if they are not receiving state or county funding - like it or not, that's how they roll. Most hospitals will do a percentage of charity care, and that percentage varies from hospital to hospital. Again, without county or state funding, they are not required to take every uninsured patient in their doors, except if they come through the ER doors - and then EMTALA takes over with regard to whether or not they get transferred. If they're truly too "sick and dying" to be transferred, the hospital cannot legally transfer them until they are stabilized...and that rarely happens. The hospital just keeps them until discharge since by the time someone is stabilized, it could be a day or two after admission and there's really no legal reason to transfer them. The whole "higher level of care" excuse doesn't come into play if they've been sitting in my ICU for 48 hours before they're determined to be stable. We're keeping them. Period.

Nice one Gemini now I do not have to do all the research and post that answer. you are completely right if you want to help people with this teach them what their rights are and show vets how to capitalize on their rights as well.  I see very angry people that think it is their right to tell me what to do with my money and the money of others. As to what I donate well as much as I can. I am a missionary and spend much of my time taking food and clothing as well as helping raise funds for medical care for these needy and wonderful people. You have asked what I am willing to do in regard to sacrificing my finances. I am a professional in the financial industry and I drive a Hyundai Accent and live in a $500 a month home so that my wife and I can donate the rest of the money to doing good. We hike and walk as much as possible in order that we would not be wasteful and do this by example. We were taught how to live this way and I hope that others can as well. Of course these must be right wing views as one of you had mentioned. The core problem here is selfishness. Everyone wants to say they deserve everything yet no one here has discussed what sacrifices they are willing to make. I know that the doctor in this article sacrifices his time and I respect that but to decide for everyone else as to what they do. See maybe everyone here who is complaining should carry pictures around of the starving children they see on their outreaches and pull those out when people tell you they do not want to pay for someone Else's health care and tell them that they are the ones killing these starving kids every time they buy a corporate fast food burger or shop at a multi trillion dollar department store. If need be my wife and I are prepared to give up our home and our cars and jobs but unfortunately these things pay for our outreaches otherwise we would. See you have to understand that I have had to look children in the eyes and explain to them why life can be alright and at the same time unfair. When a child asks me why they are abused and hungry and it is not in my power to feed them I must give them what is most important and that is to let them know that they are loved and that they too can love back no matter how badly it hurts to do so. To tell these children that they can survive. Teaching people how to whine because they can not have what someone else has is what has brought our country to where it is today. To its knees. You do not have to convince me that it is a good thing to take care of the needy and the poor but if you want to go digging in pockets maybe we should be discriminating as to whose pockets we dig into for this as well. If you want to give your money to the Government to try give aide to the poor you go right ahead but the last time I checked the needy in this country consisted of Mortgage companies and auto manufactures the last time I looked our campaigns for the war ridden happens right after we bomb the crap out of some poverty stricken nation and blow half the country up. You really want these people managing assistance for the poor. Maybe we should look around our own communities and talk to our neighbors as to how we can help the poor find good jobs and keep small business in our communities alive so that the government ends up realizing that there are no poor people left in this country. With all the crap that buy in this country there should be no reason why people are starving here. But hey tell that to the next bum you run into. I know the bum around the corner from me and his name is Jack and I give him what I can. I am going to start knocking on doors to try and get people to help Jack get off the street. This is my part what are you going to do?

The ER is required to stabilize only if an "emergency condition" exists before transferring the patient to a more appropriate facility.  Now if you come into my community hospital ER in several pieces, or in active labor, or some other bona-fide emergency you will definitely be stabilized before they ship you down the road.  In every other case, the hospital has EMTALA specifically states the hospital has no obligation to provide any service whatsoever.  Most of the people that are refused treatment learn their lesson and don't show up at our ER again without a very good health plan. 

Maybe your hospitals should start following a similar procedure.  It would definitely lower ER staff requirement and probably plug a very big hole in the hospital budget.

You said the sick and dying were refused. Wrong. They aren't.

Read EMTALA again, they have to assess your situation to determine whether you are non emergency. However, if you are emergency and are stabalized, you usually have an abulance ride to another ER. I live in South Texas. Thousands of illegals turn up in our ER's. I don't see much denying. So your claim doesn't float.

Nowhere in the EMTALA does it say that dying is an emergency, likewise people sick with the flu or a URI is not an emergency.  People who are dead aren't able to report you to CMS or the JC.

Okay, now you're just being stubborn to your original and incorrect remarks. Read into some lawsuits before you start running your mouth about emergency rooms. Several of my friends are RN's and they can't turn away people if they wanted to because of the fear of being sued. EMTALA ensures that emergency room patients are assessed and emergencies are treated. Once in a while, yes, someone dies in a waiting room. That is not the norm and usually MASSIVE lawsuits follow because the ER was outside of..... You guessed it.... THE LAW.

I thought Texas had tort reform. 

Massive lawsuits?  I guess you guys need to go back to the drawing board.

The point is to keep folks from using the ER's. They're way too expensive. UHC prevents that and in doing so SAVES MONEY. That's been proven time and time again. Look into the health care system used in France. Much less expensive, per capita, than in the US. The fact is that the US has one of the largest costs per capita of any system in the world. Most UHC systems REDUCE costs overall ... and keeping people out of the ER's is one of the major reasons that's true.

Brian-497171

It's statements like these from the right that make me want go under the bed and get out the baseball bat.

LOL, bring your bat. We have guns.

 The ER is required to stabilize only if an "emergency condition" exists before transferring the patient to a more appropriate facility.  Now if you come into my community hospital ER in several pieces, or in active labor, or some other bona-fide emergency you will definitely be stabilized before they ship you down the road.  In every other case, the hospital has EMTALA specifically states the hospital has no obligation to provide any service whatsoever.  Most of the people that are refused treatment learn their lesson and don't show up at our ER again without a very good health plan. 

Maybe your hospitals should start following a similar procedure.  It would definitely lower ER staff requirement and probably plug a very big hole in the hospital budget.

 Nowhere in the EMTALA does it say that dying is an emergency, likewise people sick with the flu or a URI is not an emergency. 

That whole post reveals such a shocking ignorance and a refusal to become a tad more educated that normally I'd be dismayed; however, in your case, I see your post for what it is - plain argumentative ignorance. EVERYONE who walks into an ER gets a screening evaluation. By the way, "dying" is an emergency - unles you have an out-of-hospital DNR and the EMS is bringing there for what we call a "ramp consult" - a simple pronouncement of death, because a dead person has to be declared dead and not just shipped off to the funeral home. Some licensed medical or nursing professional must place a stethoscope on the chest of someone with an out-of-hospital DNR to say, "yeah, they're dead".

Sorry, but if your UTI isn't resulting in SIRS/sepsis or septic shock, then no - you don't have to be treated in that ER. THAT is adhering 1000% to EMTALA laws. If you come in with a UTI sepsis, then you get admitted to that hospital regardless of whether or not you can pay. Sepsis is a life-threatening condition. Your URI, if it is not causing pneumonia requiring admission to a hospital, is not an emergency and you can be sent on to another hospital if you insist on being admitted. Your stubbed toe is not a medical emergency - not even if it's fractured. Your heart attack IS a medical emergency, and the only way you leave that hospital is it does not have a cardiologist who can do some sort of PCI in the cath lab.

"My" hospital follows EMTALA to the letter. Perhaps you should learn a bit more before you try to sound knowledgeable on a subject in which you are obviously not before you run off at the mouth trying to say that everyone except you is wrong. Your appeals to fear and emotion are fallacious at best, but the more you post, the more you prove that you just want to argue, want to always be the one with the correct statements and opinions, and will spout off disinformation just to further your fallacious argument.

Enjoy arguing with yourself. The rest of us with knowledge are tired of listening to your factless rants.

Tort reform doesn't mean you cannot sue.

It limits frivolous lawsuits.

YHAS, tort reform puts a cap on awards. What happens if a doctor permanently disables a patient and the cap prevents an adequate award for negligence to sustain the harmed patient for life? Are you going to take care of them? We all will on SSDI. Is that fair?

How Tort Reform Works

TEXAS: Tort Reform Spurs Economic Growth; Aids Access to Healthcare

In 2003, the Texas state Legislature passed H.B. 4 to further reform the state's civil justice system. The bill addressed issues such as: limits on noneconomic damages; product liability reform; punitive damages; medical liability reform joint and several liability; and class action reform. Voters also approved a constitutional amendment, Proposition 12, in 2003, which eliminates potential court challenges to the law that limited noneconomic damages to $750,000. Since the enactment of H.B. 4 and the subsequent passage of Proposition 12, Texas has made great strides in growing its economy and providing jobs and accessible healthcare to its citizens.

Tort reform does not mean that you will not have the health-care you need regarding the medical error. Judges can and most likely still do insist that the medical treatment of the error be paid for in full.

Damages for noneconomic losses are damages for pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of consortium or companionship, and other intangible injuries.  These damages involve no direct economic loss and have no precise value.  It is very difficult for juries to assign a dollar value to these losses, given the minimal guidance they customarily receive from the court.  As a result, these awards tend to be erratic and, because of the highly charged environment of personal injury trials, excessive.

I don't know where you found that quote but tort reform has niether made healthcare more affordable or accessible in Texas. It may help doctors increase profits but that is about it.

Well, if you can find a legitimate site to disprove me.... I personally have had Cigna & Blue Cross Blue Shield in the past three years and it's been the most affordable I have ever had. I had Kaiser in Maryland/Virginia and Blue Cross Blue Shield while I lived in Delaware. When I got Texas insurance - it was the most affordable I had ever had or seen. My brothers in VA are not much older and single and they still pay more than I do.

What was the cost prior to Tort reform? Did it come down, stay the same or go up?

TEXAS: Tort Reform Spurs Economic Growth; Aids Access to Healthcare

In 2003, the Texas state Legislature passed H.B. 4 to further reform the state's civil justice system. The bill addressed issues such as: limits on noneconomic damages; product liability reform; punitive damages; medical liability reform joint and several liability; and class action reform. Voters also approved a constitutional amendment, Proposition 12, in 2003, which eliminates potential court challenges to the law that limited noneconomic damages to $750,000. Since the enactment of H.B. 4 and the subsequent passage of Proposition 12, Texas has made great strides in growing its economy and providing jobs and accessible healthcare to its citizens.

• The American Medical Association dropped Texas from its list of states in medical liability crisis (Houston Chronicle, 5/17/05).

• Malpractice claims are down and physician recruitment and retention are up, particularly in high risk specialties (Houston Chronicle, 5/17/05).

• The five largest Texas insurers cut rates, which will save doctors about $50 million, according to the AMA (Houston Chronicle, 5/17/05).

• Malpractice lawsuits in Harris County have dropped to about half of what they were in 2001 and 2002. There were 204 cases filed in 2004, compared with 441 in 2001 and 550 in 2002. There were 1,154 lawsuits filed in 2003, attributed to attorneys trying to file before the new law took effect (Houston Chronicle, 5/17/05).

• Harris County has seen a net gain of 689 physicians, an 8.4 percent increase, according to the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners (Houston Chronicle, 5/17/05).

• Texas Medical Liability Trust, the state's largest liability carrier, reduced its premiums by 17 percent (Houston Chronicle, 5/17/05).

• Fifteen new insurance companies have entered the Texas market (Associated Press, 2/16/05).

• Health Care Indemnity, the state's largest carrier for hospitals, cut rates by 15 percent in 2004 (Associated Press, 2/16/05).

• American Physicians Insurance Exchange and The Doctor's Company also reduced premiums (Associated Press, 2/16/05).

• The American Physicians Insurance Exchange saw a $3.5 million reduction in premiums for Texas physicians in 2005. In addition, beginning May 1, 2005, 2,2000 of the 3,500 physicians insured by the company would see an average drop of 5 percent in their premiums (The Heartland Institute, 5/1/05).

Source

Wow, thanks Waynester! I appreciate that research. Tort reform addressed the outrageous non-economic rewards being granted in malpractice suits. In the case of a misdiagnosis for example, I don't see why non economic damages should be 3 million. Those sort of suits make me wonder where people's real priorities are. Doctors will make mistakes. Every day you make them too, in your job. As long as the doctor was no intentionally screwing you up or being careless (which should be reasonably proven in that case), I don't see why it's necessary to get awarded such large amounts. The courts are going to ensure that medical expenses related to the cause are paid for no matter what.

Lawsuits are going to raise the cost of malpractice insurance which raises the cost of healthcare. It's important to ensure that only the real cases are awarded what is really deserved.

Many people want to see the "free" healthcare for the poor and old reformed. I wouldn't have a problem with it if people who accepted the FREE healthcare would agree to meet certain lifestyle requirements. Because poor health decisions affect everyone's cost of care for those of us who would still have to pay.

This is not about paying for schools.  Everyone benefits from schools, including the child-free.

We pay for police as a preventative measure.  When police must fully engage to a crime-scene, it means they failed to provide adequate deterrent.  Likewise, when doctors must engage, it means they failed to motivate the now patient to practice good lifestyle habits.

A smoker should never be allowed to receive funding for lung & heart repairs.  I think that's fair.  It is not exactly mandating that a person keep themselves healthy - rather it is just practicing tough-love and declining to be an enabler.

Let's start mandating preventative health-care.  Only then is it logical and reasonable to pay for what breaks.

The flaw in your argument, Trying, is that those seniors already paid into Medicare from the time they got their first paycheck, or their spouse got his or her first paycheck. They're entitled to their Medicare benefits because they paid for them all of their lives. Sorry to burst your bubble in that regard.

GeminiGirl - are you saying that universal health care should be paid for by the government, and we should have an election to get this started. 

GeminiGirl -

Medicare and Medicaid was started in 1965.  My mother never worked, she was a housewife, and she has been collecting benefits for over 15 years.  My father is alive.  He started working in 1942 and retired in 1976, so he only paid into Medicare for 11 years and it was a very minimal amount.  He has been covered by Medicare and has been collecting Social Security for over 20 years.  Even if they had both worked and paid into both systems for their entire working lives, they would still have received over 10 TIMES what they have paid in for both Social Security and Medicare by the end of this year. 

Garitaar -

I am dying to know HOW I BENEFIT by paying THOUSANDS A YEAR to educate the brats two doors down. 

If I have a dog and a gun, I really don't need police for anything.  Why should I have to pay for them? 

Education benefitted you. Because clearly you can write. That's how education benefits everyone. Everyone goes to school. And if you don't, you're breaking the law.

YHS -

Did you ever hear about home schooling?   It is the right of every American to educate their own children as they see fit.  I just don't understand why we have to pay for other people's choices because they are too lazy to educate their children themselves.

I have most certainly heard of homeschooling. I had to participate in it for a while when I became pregnant at 16 so I didn't fall behind... You're reaching here. Even though you are free to educate your children as you like, many states require testing before granting a diploma or giving credit for grade school. Most colleges will want to see some proof of aptitude. That testing needs to be paid for. Of course, your homeschooled child may not want to go to college in which case it's highly unlikely they will ever be in a high enough bracket to pay substantial taxes on education anyway.

I am dying to know HOW I BENEFIT by paying THOUSANDS A YEAR to educate the brats two doors down.

the government isnt here just for you. it's here for everyone, the brats included. thats what it means to be a part of society. if you dont want to be a part of society, then go live on a mountain in the wilderness somewhere. there are more people who want to be a part of society than those who dont, so it makes more sense to isolate the former.

the biggest problem in america, something which allows and enables the vast corruption in our government and commercial systems, is that the ordinary citizen thinks he or she is doing the right thing by voting on the basis of what he or she thinks is best for him or herself. being a responsible citizen means taking into account the needs and experiences of our fellow citizens.

human rights arent based on scientific laws of nature. they are based on the idea that human beings are compassionate and inter-dependent.

and compassion is about having empathy for everyone, including those who make mistakes, including those we dont like, including those we disagree with. thats why a responsible citizen would happily contribute to a health care system that you might benefit from, even if you might choose to deny a life-saving procedure so that no one can say they helped you in spite of not liking you.

You are absolutely right firsty, and that is what the seed article is all about. 

Basic Human Rights, the right of all the people on this planet not to die from bad water, lack of sanitation, diseases for which vaccinations exist, and the lack of basic health care. 

If you don't have health, what good is education, or the protection of a police force? 

If it is acceptable to refuse a person health care because of cost, why waste money educating them or protecting them from criminals?

Trying to find Work

Basic Human Rights, the right of all the people on this planet not to die from bad water, lack of sanitation, diseases for which vaccinations exist, and the lack of basic health care.

Those are abilities or opportunities, not rights. Human rights are those of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and others enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Many of the comments on this article reveal that sadly our educators have failed to teach the basics of the Constitution to the citizens.

rickrace -

Dr. Paul Farmer is a founding director of Partners In Health, an international organization that provides health care to people living in poverty.

Dr. Farmer has done a lot of work in Haiti and other impoverished third-world countries. 

I am sure you are entitled to think that the people living in Haiti, and in Rwanda, and in Darfur, and in Niger and the many other impoverished places around the globe have the ability to attain the basic human "opportunities" as you call them.   However, most if not all of their countries do not have a "Bill of Rights" so they do NOT have the rights enumerated in the United States Bill of Rights.    

This thread was started with an article talking about the right to basic health care for ALL PEOPLE in every part of the WORLD. 

It got side-tracked into a discussion of how -

1) People in America don't want to pay for anybody else's health care but their own.  

2) People don't take care of themselves properly, and those people who live unhealthy lives expect everyone else to pay for them. 

3) Universal health care in America will cost too much and will raise taxes to an unacceptable level. 

4) America already has the BEST health care system in the world and getting the government involved will ruin it.

(I apologize if I left out any other important points made above.)        

Trying to find Work

I am sure you are entitled to think that the people living in Haiti, and in Rwanda, and in Darfur, and in Niger and the many other impoverished places around the globe have the ability to attain the basic human "opportunities" as you call them.

Why would I when the article clearly reports that there are people who do not have these opportunities?

However, most if not all of their countries do not have a "Bill of Rights" so they do NOT have the rights enumerated in the United States Bill of Rights.

Wrong. They have the rights by virtue of being born. What may be different is that their governments are not restrained from infringing upon those rights as our government is by the Constitution.

OK, I see where you are coming from. 

But since the name "Bill of Rights" is just a construct to refer to the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution, are all the amendments basic human rights for the entire planet, or just the first ten? 

Also what about the body of the US Constitution, does that cover everybody in the world or just us?    

I'd say the rights protected by the Constitution are those that its framers and amenders recognized as important to the citizens of the nation. Although we might wish to see other nations protecting the rights of their citizens as well, we obviously have no authority to make that happen. The best we can do is demonstrate that our Constitutional protections serve us well and hope that others will follow.

GeminiGirl - are you saying that universal health care should be paid for by the government, and we should have an election to get this started. 

I'm not in favor of universal health care. Does that answer your question?

GeminiGirl -

Medicare and Medicaid was started in 1965.  My mother never worked, she was a housewife, and she has been collecting benefits for over 15 years.  My father is alive.  He started working in 1942 and retired in 1976, so he only paid into Medicare for 11 years and it was a very minimal amount.  He has been covered by Medicare and has been collecting Social Security for over 20 years.  Even if they had both worked and paid into both systems for their entire working lives, they would still have received over 10 TIMES what they have paid in for both Social Security and Medicare by the end of this year. 

Yeah...the key being that your father paid into Medicare, even for a little over a decade, and both he and his spouse were covered. Really, try to sound a bit smarter when making your obviously illogical arguments. I'll make a note to not bother with you any further.

Human rights are those of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and others enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

actually, no. those are considered civil rights, not human rights. that should clarify the question about how people in other countries ought to be considered in this context. further, as we all know, even the civil rights that exist in america are not limited to (and are therefore not wholly defined by) those rights "enumerated in the bill of rights."

Many of the comments on this article reveal that sadly our educators have failed to teach the basics of the Constitution to the citizens.

i'd agree with you on that, but probably for different reasons.

the civil rights acknowledged by our government were developed through philosophies of human rights, among other things.

the question about health care as a human right naturally extends beyond the egoism of america and its laws and policy. thats kind of the point here. we cant have this conversation if we're going to get hung up on one system of laws, policy and commerce.

if we are to debate this question, both sides much agree on one, 2-part premise:

• that human rights are universal and necessary to all people, and that the concept of human rights is integrated with general human progress in science, art, culture and government.

i present this as one premise because i consider the latter to be an absolute given. for example, without having made water dirty, we wouldnt consider clean water to be a human right. those things that affect the human experience change over time, so these changes must always be considered when looking at the concept of human rights. if we disagree on that point, i'm not sure that we can even have the debate.

but if we do, we can see that what we are obligated to continue to revise the notion of human rights in our world. these are different from the way we look at even the biggest policy decisions like free trade or nuclear disarmament.

generally, human rights are based on the basic human needs, which commonly include, in one form or another:

• food
• water
• shelter (or "sleep," or "homeostasis," etc)
• sex
• breathing
• excretion

but, as we can see, our idea of human rights is socially and culturally significant. so it is therefore perfectly valid to discuss health care as a human right.

and, to reiterate, it is a flaw to frame this discussion within the context of the civil rights present in american society and protected specifically or implicitly by the constitution.

and it follows that we could, very reasonably, accept health care as a human right without making any changes to the constitution, and without affecting it in any way.

and it should also be pointed out that we shouldnt get distracted by the term "health care" and its baggage. if we say that "clean water" is a human right, we're not saying that clean water must be delivered to everyone's door and forced into their homes. we are saying that the human right regarding clean water means that everyone in the world ought to have access to clean water. and the "access" that we refer to is implied to be reasonable. in other words, it's not reasonable to tell a town that because it is possible to walk 50 miles every morning for water, they are being treated like human beings with human rights.

so when we are talking here about "health (or health care) as a human right," we are talking about reasonable access to reasonable health care. this doesnt mean that people should be forced to get checkups or allowed to be irresponsible about their own actions that affect their health, or that a large group of healthy people will go broke trying to keep a large group of reckless people from dying.

remember that part of the reason that people dont have equal reasonable access to health care today is because the system in which the industry operates is entirely corrupt from top to bottom. some of it is intentionally corrupt - profit-driven, thoughtless, etc. - and some is unintentionally corrupt - the way doctors accept pharmaceutical giveaways, an over-extended medical welfare system, etc. but it is all misguided and corrupt. the very approach is corrupt - that to get health care for the mainstream requires the use of an insurance company middle-man. it is often overwhelming to realize the entirety of what that means. it means that the insurance company is who tells the pharmacy how many pills you can have at one time, not the doctor. it means that health care costs are hidden all the way through the system. it means that in one of the most profitable industries in the world, everything from research to manufacture to administration to "consumers" are 100% manipulated - the very opposite of a free market. most of us cant even choose which building to go to purchase identical products and services.

which is why discussing the issue in the context of a system which is inherently corrupt and which also is itself largely responsible for the problem. it is the corruption of the industry that is demanding the debate. therefore, no part of the industry should be considered necessary to the solution. and, by no means should any part of the industry be seen as something that should interrupt the debate.

firsty

as we can see, our idea of human rights is socially and culturally significant. so it is therefore perfectly valid to discuss health care as a human right.

Agreed. However, it must not be the federal government that provides it. The feds have demonstrated time and again that when they try to "help" the private sector, things turn to @!$%# (Fannie and Freddie, who BTW had bought and paid for votes from our PE among other people) and the crooks set up shop (Medicare and Medicaid fraud).

Agreed. However, it must not be the federal government that provides it. The feds have demonstrated time and again that when they try to "help" the private sector, things turn to @!$%# (Fannie and Freddie, who BTW had bought and paid for votes from our PE among other people) and the crooks set up shop (Medicare and Medicaid fraud).

the industry is already for @!$%#, without government intervention.

the private sector moving in on the military has compromised security, safety and the rule of law.

i dont see how we can even talk about who is implementing the solutions until we talk about the nature of a new system.

i certainly dont see the point in holding to biases about "this never works" or "that never works" this early in the conversation. if you go into the discussion completely opposed to a possible solution, for no reason other than you can cherry pick past situations to fit your bias, then i think you might lack the open mind necessary to talk about the underlying moral issue in the first place.

firsty

i certainly dont see the point in holding to biases about "this never works" or "that never works" this early in the conversation.

I didn't say it "didn't work", I said that the feds don't have a good track record and supported that assertion with two examples.

for no reason other than you can cherry pick past situations to fit your bias

Cherry pick? How the hell can I make a case for something if you won't even allow me to introduce evidence?

i think you might lack the open mind necessary to talk about the underlying moral issue in the first place.

Since you think it's OK to exclude my evidence simply because it suits your agenda to do so, it seems that it's yours is the mind that's closed.

Too bad the government doesn't agree with you. 

However, there are lots of government-sponsored opiates available straight from that small sandbox north of Pakistan.

Nicely put - to the point.

KyleN

Right of access to healthcare - a right.

Wrong. See #12.11.

The Bill of Rights isn't an enumerated list of all possible rights simply the ones felt in most need of protection from government at the time, hence the 10th.

A right of access to anything is a derivative to a right to self determination itself a derivative of right to property where you are your own most personal possession. It is a not an ability but an ordering of fundemental ownership.

KyleN

The Bill of Rights is a list of "don't"s, which prevent the government from denying the enumerated freedoms to its citizens. If there is a "right to access" it means only that the government must not prevent you from accessing. It does not mean that the government must provide what is to be accessed.

it means only that the government must not prevent you from accessing

Exactly, we are on the same side on this debate I think. There isn't a right to force somebody to provide you with anything.

My example of a right of access to healthcare is an example of a true right though it happens to be one selectively to largely unprotected in the US at present. It could (and should) fall under the 9th however that's never stopped the federal government before so why start now :)

Nowhere in the first 10 ammendments to the constitution is there a stipulation that citizenship is required. I should know I just posted all 10 on my column about a week ago.

That would be because the first 10 amendments are amendments, they do not unnecessarily repeat what is in the opening to the Constitution nor do they seek to alter the scope.

thomrob

There should be opportunity to be healthy, but everything you want is not a human right.

Exactly. See #12.11.

See if you feel the same as you are dying of a tooth abcess.

Don't you lock the doors on your house when you go out to prevent people from benefiting from your resources?

Is his handle intended to be perverse? Like a huge guy whose nickname is Tiny?

Now rational self-interest is called greed. Like it's wrong not to let a drowning man take you down with him instead of pushing him away inorder to save hime. MOK seems to want to save everyone with everyone else's resources. It's easy to be generous with other people's money, isn't it?

"Share the wealth", Waynster, "share the wealth"...(sarc off). The answer to your question is "yes", *laughs* as many on this thread would just LOVE to do. I'm not a fan of the whole "share the wealth" concept. I work hard for what I have, including my health insurance.

I guess I'm just stupid. I see people going broke trying to provide care for sick relatives and hospitals going broke because people can't pay their bills, while we're paying $5000 a person to bail out banks so their execs can keep their six figure bonuses. Whose wealth is getting shared?

Our health care system is not the best in the world just the most expensive. If you really want to keep your money the you should support a national healthcare system or else die before you get sick or injured.

If you think you can depend on a health care extortionist to pay for your health care in an emergency good luck. They're experts at not paying. The bigger the bill the less likely they will pay for it.

Man of Knowledge

while we're paying $5000 a person to bail out banks so their execs can keep their six figure bonuses. Whose wealth is getting shared?

Ours. I've opposed the harebrained bailouts from Day One. Every one of them robs Peter (you and me) to pay Paul (executives and certain privileged workers like the UAW).

If you really want to keep your money the you should support a national healthcare system or else die before you get sick or injured.

I don't object to that as long as the federal government does not provide it. See post #12.19.

I'm against anything that prevents me for better taking care of my own family. Including paying for other people's lives, bailouts, and pet projects. The bailouts I don't have a choice in at this point... But when bailouts are needed because of idiots living beyond their means and I am paying for that when during that time I actually PAID my bills, it's not selfish to want to use the money to - I don't know take my OWN CHILD to buy a pair of shoes.

GeminiGirl: you work hard for your insurance you say? Do you have employer supported healthcare? If so, should I have to pay more because I am a small business owner and make healthier choices than you do because the discounts provided to your firm and others need to be made up by me and other small business owners? That is the system you are defending.

I run every day, I eat healthy, I don't smoke, I rarely drink. I've been forced to move to a HSA plan with a 5000 premium. And yet my premiums have risen since that switch to over twelve thousand per year. Since that time my the only thing my carrier has had to pay for was a negligent breast cancer diagnosis which turned out to be incorrect and seven thousand dollars into the crap they had to pay two thousand dollars. They've probably profitied on my account since switching over sixty thousand dollars. Is that the system that you feel a need to defend. Be my guest. But you are wrong respectfully. Watch the PBS Frontline investigative documentary called Sick around the world. There are many examples of how to do it better and for less than we do and improve our medical outcomes on the program. If you choose to ignore the evidence that is your loss. If you choose not to view the program that will indicate you have a hidden agenda that won't allow you to consciously acknowledge a better way.

I work hard for my private insurance policy... $300 per mo. for a family of 3. Instead of a second car, I take public transportation and buy healthcare. My "employer-sponsored" plan is $500 out-of-pocket per month.

stevemax

We need to make UHC a part of our accepted responsibilities as a moral society.

I'm not sure I agree, but if we do implement UHC then as our brothers' keepers it must be done within the private sector. The role of the government is governing, not caretaking.

I'm not sure I agree, but if we do implement UHC then as our brothers' keepers it must be done within the private sector. The role of the government is governing, not caretaking.

the reason i dont like the private sector determining health care is because the private sector is there to earn a profit. as we can see, even if its product is beneficial to people, as long as it is driven by the bottom line, its product will suffer.

saying "the role of govt is governing, not caretaking" is mostly meaningless. what are you basing that on? using the word "caretaking" is biased - it implies a constant shadow to protect the weak. isnt one role of govt to protect its citizens? to say its role is only to govern is rather authoritarian, no? john adams strongly supported a government-supported education system. our interstates were built by our 20th century government to a very good purpose, and not to govern.

basically, that statement doesnt mean anything, and i dont see how it responds to comment #19 in any way.

The government can LEGALLY rip you off, the private sector cannot.

Chew on that, because bottom lline that's what a lot of us are saying.

firsty

the reason i dont like the private sector determining health care is because the private sector is there to earn a profit.

Not completely. There are nonprofit agencies in the private sector as well. If government is to be involved then let the states do it. See comment #12.19.

our interstates were built by our 20th century government to a very good purpose, and not to govern.

The feds built the Interstate system to strengthen national defense, which is a valid role of governing as prescribed by the Constitution.

isnt one role of govt to protect its citizens?

Isn't it the role of the citizens to help each other? If people cared more for each other instead of buying $3,500 television sets and turning themselves into couch potatoes there would be fewer demands on the government.

The government can LEGALLY rip you off, the private sector cannot.

really? the private health care industry has been ripping us off for decades. and i dont take it as an inherent part of govt that it can legally rip us off. if i were working in the industry, i might make decisions within the context of trying to make the best of a worthless, corrupt system. but i'd like to think that we can always try to improve the state of our government's ability to follow its own laws.

Chew on that, because bottom lline that's what a lot of us are saying.

i know thats what a lot of you are saying. and all of that is completely missing the point of the article.

The feds built the Interstate system to strengthen national defense, which is a valid role of governing as prescribed by the Constitution.

in part, yes. but also for trucking commerce and travel. are you really going to stick by the claim that the only valid things our govt does is about "governing?" no public schools, no govt spending on roads, no grants for arts, sciences, research, etc? i'm not trying to argue with you about this thing or that thing - but on the one hand you're saying that the govt shouldnt manage health care because it will @!$%# it up, and on the other you're saying that, philosophically, the govt shouldnt be involved in anything other than governing.

Isn't it the role of the citizens to help each other?

sure. but, according to the philosophies and publications that were the foundation of our constitution, it is also the role of govt to protect its citizens. if you really are insisting that that aspect of our govt's philosophy is entirely wrong, then you need to try to change the entire constitution to limit what the govt can do and is doing.

If people cared more for each other instead of buying $3,500 television sets and turning themselves into couch potatoes there would be fewer demands on the government.

ok. and if the govt cared more for its people instead of the corporations it allows to avoid taxes and public policy, there would be fewer demands on the govt, too.

you're not making entirely incorrect statements. but they dont mean anything to this discussion. just because people should take care of one another doesnt mean the govt shouldnt also protect its citizens. and saying that a govt should only govern, which then would exclude even the protection of already established human rights, is in opposition to most modern definitions of govt, including ours.

You missed the key word. LEGALLY. Sigh....

and if the govt cared more for its people instead of the corporations it allows to avoid taxes and public policy, there would be fewer demands on the govt, too.

The fat-cat CEOs and their cronies pay handsomely in campaign contributions to get members of Congress to place their interests before those of the people. Executives at Fannie and Freddie contributed over $125,000 to Obama's campaign so I guess we won't be getting much relief from him either.

you're saying that, philosophically, the govt shouldnt be involved in anything other than governing.

Correct. That's why it's called the government. Unfortunately Congress and the president don't see it that way and are now merrily dumping hundreds of billions of dollars into  sewers in the private sector without any idea of what effect it will (or won't) have. No way do I trust them "managing" national health care.

rickace, you made a concession to UHC above. You indicated the desire it be a part of the private sector. Now we're making progress. Have you watched the PBS Frontline investigative documentary called sick around the world. It analyzed many systems in comparison to the U.S. system which is ranked poorly in common metrics and has the highest overall cost and per capita cost. There are so many wonderful examples of successful adaption that if we just take the best components of all and build our own version I think we can do better than those who have done it ahead of us. I hope you are beginning to see there might be a better way. Take care and happy new year.

You are wrong. No country covers all its citizens.  While many have socialized medicine they most certainly turn away patients and deny care more than any US hospital or doctor, because they know what you refuse to accept, there is not enough money to cover everyone and decisions have to be made as to who gets covered and who gets to go home and suffer and/or die. 

This fantasy being pushed in the US for Nationalized care needs to be killed or more people will most certainly suffer needlessly then what happens currently.  If not why do people from these Utopian countries come freely to the US to pay out of pocket for health care????

CliffDogg

I've always found it amusing that if someone is arrested they are told they have "a right to an attorney" but if that same person is sick they have no right to a doctor.

That's because the right to an attorney protects an individual from governmental malfeasance. The "right" to medical treatment does not involve the government and is therefore not a right at all.

See post #12.11 above.

CliffDogg

If you are in police custody and become sick, you most definitely have the right to health care since your incarceration prevents you from getting it on your own.  The prisoners at Guantanamo, while they are not being granted Habeas Corpus, or always granted the right to legal representation, do have a right to health care that is superior to that granted any American citizen.

(Which was why Michael Moore took a bunch of sick Americans down there to ask if they could get the same American medical care the "terrorists" get.)

LIAMD

A national healthcare system does not proscribe private care for any one who chooses to pay for it over and above their contribution to the national system through whatever billing structure is put in place to cover the cost of the national system.

"You are wrong. No country covers all its citizens.  While many have socialized medicine they most certainly turn away patients and deny care more than any US hospital or doctor, because they know what you refuse to accept, there is not enough money to cover everyone and decisions have to be made as to who gets covered and who gets to go home and suffer and/or die."

Can you document this with evidence or statistical studies or are you going on heresay?

MoK,

You can't be seriously asking to show you what you already know to be true.  On this you can go do your own research.  If you choose to believe in the myth of socialized medicine go live in a country with it (even Canada) and come tell me how great your health care is in a year.

There's another key factor you are missing no country with socialized medicine comes remotely close to the number of people in the US.  If smaller populations can't cover all their citizens how are we ever going to do it?

Prof Ann Bowling, of the department of psychology, at University College London, led the study. She said: "Resources are limited and doctors have to make difficult decisions. Maybe they have run out of options and are using age as an excuse.

"When we spoke to the doctors they were quite ready to justify their reasons. They may see older people as less deserving," she said.

Here's a quick example about how old people are treated.  You see the point. If everyone has a right to it and the gov't is footing the bill why would doctors be denying care????

LIAMD

I've done my research. That is why I promote single payer health insurance.

I also have personal experience with the present system that costs a fortune and sucks big time.

If you want to rely on health care extortionists that's up to you. I will continue to promote an alternative idea. I don't see you making any constructive suggestions for improving the system. Maybe you think it is great. You better hope you never need it. Roughly half of all bankruptcies are due to medical care costs. And these are insured people who have jobs and own homes for the most part.

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html

How is single payer any different from the current system?

If I had the magic wand it would work as follows:

1.  Care would be tied to cost of living.  i.e. a Doctor in Ohio would charge based on Ohio's cost of living, meaning all doctors would charge the same amount for a doctor visit, say $40.  Those doctors who are competent and provide quality service will have full practices and make money.  Those that do not will fail. 

2. Surgery will be the same.  A heart transplant would be set in cost.  If the hospital wants to make more they will pursue innovation to stream line and improve the procedures not so as to raise prices just like the free market.

Insurance company's would be like car insurance, you set your policy based on your needs, there would be no preexisting condition clause and you would pay based on your perceived needs subject to change at each renewal.  Your premiums would be set based on coverage and usage.

I'm sure it's not prefect but a sight better than our current system and light years ahead of nationalized care.

If this discussion is representative of the feelings of most Americans, and their elected representatives, it is going to be a long tough road to get universal health care, or universal sick care, or even universal preventive care approved.

Since health care is a for-profit business now, Aetna, Kaiser, and many other corporations that are making billions of dollars, will spend millions to keep this "cash cow" in the private sector. 

They will generously let the government continue to pay for the health care for the elderly and the disabled, since the care for those groups will definitely cause a drop in profits. 

Perhaps the government can reduce payments for Medicare HMOs, increase benefits that private companies must provide, require private insurance companies to take over Medicare and Medicaid, and create a situation where making a profit in health care is much more difficult. 

Trying to find Work

it is going to be a long tough road to get universal health care, or universal sick care, or even universal preventive care approved.

And that's a good thing, as the role of the government is only to govern, not to be a caretaker. That role belongs to the private sector. When the HMOs and the AMA embrace that cause we will have good universal care.

rick -

if the government's role is to govern, and it isn't a caretaker, you better start writing your elected representatives, because the only way to get the private sector to embrace "universal care" would be if the government gets out of it.  We need to eliminate Medicare, Medicaid, the VA and military hospitals from government responsibility.

Trying to find Work

if the government's role is to govern, and it isn't a caretaker, you better start writing your elected representatives, because the only way to get the private sector to embrace "universal care" would be if the government gets out of it.

I know, I know. Unfortunately we're deep into it and huge bureaucracies are difficult to budge. There are also many people who don't share my POV so realistically I don't expect things to change my way.

Aunk,

"2. Universal Sick Care (USC)      (Pro-life for grown ups)"

I love it!!!

well, now we know what wouldnt work. i dont think it's too much of a challenge to invent a bad system. but that doesnt mean that a good system is impossible.

unless you're using a crystal ball. if thats the case, well, then, i think we all appreciate your making sure nobody wastes their time. are you using a crystal ball?

Try using some actual statistical analysis and scientific study rather than simply speculating.

Conservative in California

health is a human right.  That is precisely why we should let government no where near it unless we want them to run it as well as they run the DMV, Amtrak, social security, medicare, Walter Reed Medical Hospital, etc, etc.

I agree with you completely!

Wach the darn program conservative in california.  Then tell us all it won't work.  I guarantee you won't be back except to apologize for being so misinformed.  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

I highly doubt Christian organizations do it for the tax breaks.

Also, oil companies get tax breaks sure. But that isn't why they treat their employees so well. It's because they want the BEST. Schlumberger was the most intense firm I have ever worked with. Everyone was incredibly intellegent, efficient and dedicated. And happy. When our department was laid off, it was because they no longer had a need for our particular department in Houston. They offered many transfers to Katy and Sugarland but I opted to look elsewhere close to downtown where I live. It's not just oil companies that offer daycare here in Houston. My son is school aged but my factory has an offsite location as well open to both factory workers and administrative staff. Companies found happy employees are productive employees. That's why they do things like that.

Its also because they don't want unions.

I also worked in Houston in the oil and gas exploration and production industry for 25 years. Oil companies for the most part get a bad wrap. I worked there in 1986 when the price of oil went to $10 a barrel and it cost $15 to produce one. That was a bad time. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) that industry is fast becoming obsolete. Not because oil is running out but because the atmosphere can't stand any more consumption and the volumes of traffic on roads and highways is beginning to exceed sustainable infrastructure demand.

I not only advocate nationalized healthcare I also advocate stopping the investment in automobile infrastructure and moving to more efficient and better modes of transportation. The future is in rail and personal automated transportation systems.

You know on a side note. I find this interesting.

We worry about the air quality (for good reason of course) and pollution. We worry about healthcare and homeless/poor having access. Nationalized healthcare is mentioned as a way to help the poor.

Thinking of all the ways the government "helps" the poor:
Section 8 - Ghettos with high crime and dismal outlooks for the youth residing there. Welfare - Doesn't give anyone what they need to survive independently. Just gives a little dollar amount to someone for being poor. Medicaid - Government insurance for the poor that has a hand in raising everyone else's rates. Food Stamps - Currently, you can buy processed sugary foods. You don't have to purchase balanced diets. Fast Food Business Regulation - Yet ironically, they want you to have freedom with foodstamps but not freedom to buy fast food.

Have these things really helped the poor? Have the poor been able to become (as a whole) a better population with this 'help'? I can see section 8 housing from my westward facing window. It's a sad view. Each day the kids (either during the day or after school) walk over to the gas station across the street. They buy sugary drinks, snacks, some have bought beer obviously underage (I reported it don't worry), and MANY panhandle. It's a large section 8 complex. About 250 -300 units. It's gotten to be so depressing, I have asked to lease another unit in my building on the other side. You can't talk to the kids. They ask you for money or give you choice words if you want to talk to them.

How are we really helping the poor? Because from what I see, being poor is a sick inherited cycle that throwing money at hasn't solved.

We currently have the best system in the world.  Why would you want to muck it up by getting the government even more involved in it? 

Canadians in need of immediate serious health care needs don't get it in Canada.  They come to the United States to get treated.  If we socialize medicine, not only will the Canadians have no place to go, but we will screw ourselves out of needed healthcare that could save our lives.

In my opinion how one views our health care system depends on ones financial status. According to WHO (World Health Org) we don't rank in the top 30. Canada actually ranks higher than us. European counties like France and Italy are the top two and they both have national health care.

We currently have the best system in the world.  Why would you want to muck it up by getting the government even more involved in it?

because not everyone has access to it.

very few Americans don't have access to healthcare once you discount the 12-20 illegal immigrants who Obama wants to give free healthcare to as well.  Many of those are 20 somethings that could afford healthcare, but choose to spend their money on other things.  I'm sure there are a few million that don't have healthcare, but even then, then always have access to emergency care in a hospital if they need it.

Try backing your contentions with some evidence.

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/healthcare/healthcare_profiles.html

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html

Government doesn't cover care that it deems cost-ineffective

From your source.  How many semi's can you drive through that one.  At least here you can argue with your provider or pay for it yourself without going to another country.