Healthcare is NOT a basic human right. - Page 34

Hi, GrnTea: which post is this in reply to?

"Pursuit of happiness" is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution. It is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

The 5th amendment to the Constitution (part of The Bill of Rights - 1st 10 amendments to The Constitution) protects us from the deprivation of "life, liberty, or property" without due process of law.

I beg to differ. Those who already have insurance won't be affected? And where do you think the money is going to come from to pay for all this? Taxes will have to be raised, if not now, then most likely in the near future. I am sure that after the elections, if the current administration stays in power and doesn't have to worry about getting re-elected, we can all expect a tax hike. So yes, if we have private insurance, we WILL be affected by having taxes increased.

I wasn't meaning "not affected" as in "no tax increases". I meant not affected in terms of the expediency of care, choice of facilities and physicians, etc. I meant that if you have private insurance, you will continue to see the providers participating in the plan--your care won't be affected. I wasn't talking about taxes.

I expect that taxes will pay for all this, I get that. My taxes always seem to go up for no good reason, at least this is something I can get behind.

I don't like it. Healthcare isn't a basic human rule? This is not true. Everyone who need a medical help should get this.
___
ciągniki rolnicze wiodących firm.

Well, if you deny people healthcare, you are essentially depriving them of their life at one point or another. It always amazes me how strict Constitutional constructionists who want to interpret everything "as the founding (racist, slaveowning, sexist) fathers)" wanted it, fail to remember that in the days of this country's founding, the town doctor provided health care to everybody, rich AND poor. I don't think they imagined at time when people's health would be turned into a commody for the enrichment of powerful insurance companies.

Well, first of all, in many countries universal healthcare is only part of what Americans call tax. Actually, it is a deduction which includes healthcare, unemployment, retirement, etc. So, please don't put it all in one pot.

Secondly, as for acute care in America, I had a zygomatic arch and orbital blow-out fx with bones shifting in my face, went to the county hospital, and was not getting care until I put down $2000 because I did not have insurance but was above the poverity line in income (Dallas TX).

Also, I have ulcerative colitis, with my insurance premium paid by myself would run around $300-600 a month, meds (running up to $200) not included. So, in 2008, I went back to my home country, got a colonoscopy ($25 there, $3000 in US) and my meds filled ($15 for 3 months - all meds).

Now, yes, there are downfalls with universal healthcare, mainly that physicians and healthcare personnel earn less. Physicians are also held more accountable as to what prescriptions they write and its necessity. Having said that, the emphasis is on preventative care and longterm remissions, which includes a huge emphasis of patient/public education.

I'm quite sure that most people do understand that insurance companies really determine much of the care, by either providing or pulling funds. Patients get discharged too early without aftercare because the insurance says they won't pay more and the hospitals/physicians/healthcare personnel don't work for free. It sickens me, though, to see how hospital administrators make huge, huge amounts of money and we save on patient care.

Both systems are not perfect and, of course, you feel most comfortable in the one you are used to (creatures of habit), but I take universal healthcare anyday because I know that in case I lose my insurance for any reason, i.e. I develop cancer, I will have security to know I will be cared for, as I wish for my fellow citizens.

Actually this is getting to a part that I want expound on.......Speaking for myself, most of you have realized that I do not support ACA. I am a generous person and I do give to charities and to my neighbors in need. At times, when I venture to Houston, I even give money to panhandlers. However, healthcare is only one of the problems areas, but it is the one we are discussing so I will try to stick to it. However if we do not include the others it allows for the defenders to make arguments like..."Healthcare omission will not fix this" But I am still stating that it is a start. So here goes...... I believe a person has the right to life and is free to do whatever they see fit to do with it. I dismiss the notion that we are all in this together, especially when you are comparing New York with California with Texas and so on. I believe, I have the right to live and do what I see fit with that life.Which includes having the right to earn an income and disperse it at my discretion. I do believe as a civilization that we need the staples of congruency and need to pay to be a part of it. However, those staples should include things that are uniformly interstate. Examples are of course infrastructure, Foreign defense, payment for essential personnel to carry out the BEST INTEREST to all and other things of the like. However, many of the people that we are paying and many programs that we finance are not within the scope of the Federal government. Each individual, and family, and then municipality and then county/parish and eventually state are responsible to create and maintain the social programs that they, AS A WHOLE, see as a NEED that they wish to "work together" to RESOLVE. If a people are wanting to create a healthcare system in their family they acquire private insurance. However larger groups (employers, unions, and even self-employed persons) come together and create a group insurance coverage. The larger the group the more bargaining power they acquire. The same could apply to cities, counties and states if they so choose, this is within all of their scope of existence. I would go even further and say that if ALL AMERICANS were united in the decision it could happen on the federal level. However, there is no consensus surrounding this reform and therefore should be nixed and the people that see this as a priority NEED that needs to be RESOLVED in their area can still do it with their people. However for me and the bulk of the people that live in my part of the country, we pride ourselves in being self-sufficient and take personal offense at being mandated to relinquish our income to anything that we have not agreed to have taken from us. I state again that I believe that if the Federal government would get out of many different projects that are not theirs to solve the people who are affected will find a way.

As far as healthcare being a right I don't care if you say basic human or constitutional or generic, I cannot compute. A right is something that someone has that cannot be infringed upon. A person does not have healthcare it must be obtained. However, my "ability" to earn an income (not the income itself) is a right and if someone infringes upon it (by all rights stealing it --- taking what is mine without my consent) I will fight tooth and nail; to keep what is mine.

As far as the post speaking of the federal government mandating certain requirements for communicable diseases, that is an area where the people had chosen by a consensus that it was in the Country's BEST INTEREST. (By the way, I do support the CDC, however the FDA needs an overhaul and so does the USDA)


As far as the posts trying to assure people that we will be allowed to maintain our own insurance, that is yet to be seen. Once the federal government, enforces their regulations on the providers many may go under and many others may bail, in fact several companies have already bailed refusing to offer healthcare "I'm sorry I can provide you with your life, auto and home insurance but we don't offer healthcare"

As far as the inefficiency of the current system: Yes it is and yes it needs to be annulled but not replaced by the federal government, that is where the problem lies....... I will never want to enter into an contractual agreement with the entire country. Problems are best solved in smaller units.

As far as the issue where people try to intimidate others by pulling out the moral and ethical card: I am not insulted because I know that I am very generous person who is willing to assist those that I can, within the limits that I have. I cannot help everyone or I myself will be in need of help and for me; being self-sufficient is a vital moral issue. I also am insistent on policing the need for assistance with proof of citizenship (by photo ID), random drug testing, mandatory work searches (it also needs to be stressed that a job does not have to be to your liking nor what you went to school for nor rejected because you aren't happy with the wage or any other excuse not to work) AND significant community service to give back to the system.


As to the idea that the bulk of Americans without insurance are hardworking, low paid, honest to goodness Americans. I will not dispute; some are and some aren't. However first you must separate the two and the ones who fall in the second category must be allowed to fall on their face and be forced to fight to survive, in order to (as a community) assist them to become a productive member of society. One poster brought up the animal kingdom helping their own kind. That may be true but only for the members that fight. If an animal is willing to die the other animals walk away. Now as to our fellow hard working low paid Americans, I do hope that they are assisted with their needs. They need to find a place in society that is open to their needs. Also if I am going to be assisting them they would need to have their finances in order, in other words they cannot have a house that is deemed excessive, nor other excessive toys or behavior. They would need to realize that they are (at this time in life) needing to make sacrifices in order to not have to fulfill their personal responsibilities and become a "burden" to their fellow citizens. If the Federal government is doing their job by staying COMPLETELY out of things states will be free to assist. If the states aren't being strangled by the Federal Government they will not be in the dire straights they are now facing which free up the Municipalities to assist and the people of America are for the most part very generous anyway.


The last area I can think of is the posts that try scare tactics "what if it was me?" Well first I would not run to the government under any circumstances that isn't what it is there for!!! Second my family raised us knowing that you take care of your own, so if I was down on my luck like many of my family members are or have been, I'd have to eat a little humility pie and ask them for assistance. When it comes to life sustaining procedures or other catastrophic medical diagnosis most in my family are no codes due to the expense and what have you. But regardless, we would do what we had to to take care of each other if that isn't enough we'd reach out a little further to extended family and maybe the church if that still didn't get us there we'd keep searching. The point here is we would help each other to GET BACK UP AND BE PRODUCTIVE. None of us are rich and probably never will be, but I sort of like the idea that in America it is possible. If we allow the government to continue to take our income, in the name of the common good, that hope and inspiration will go by the way side.

As to comparing America to Europe states or Canada neither are a good comparison because they are individual states NOT 50 UNITED states. When the USA joined forces with each other it was not to share the burden of one state with that of another; it was to solidify our borders for security from abroad. That is why we have 50 BONs and a group is working on the compact nursing states.

yeah this!

Healthcare should be a basic human right...... Well why stop at healthcare? I also believe that food, clothing, a new house, cell phone, cable tv, air conditioning, the internet, college education, and a car are also basic human rights.

The problem lies when you pronounce a good and service a "human right" and choose to provide others with it, it must be paid for somehow. This means stealing hard earned income from person A and giving it to person B. And for some reason, person B believes that somehow person A owes this to them, that it is their right to take person A's income to provide for their well being. Somehow person A is indebted to person B for some unknown reason.

I am tired of getting my check after two weeks of work and seeing 25% of it taken from me by the federal government.