Health Care is a right

elkpark · Oct 26, 2009

No, thats not all they really mean. That's not what they mean at all. Coverage and choice are two seperate issues. Choice deals with things like the freedom to choose your physician and not being forced to go with one that happens to be in a specific program, and the ability to choose what type of coverage suits you best for the price.

Which is exactly what most people don't have with their employer-provided coverage ...

nicurn001 · Oct 26, 2009

. Why should the government be able to tell me that I dont have the option of forgoing unnecessary medical coverage to afford more immediate needs?

It is because , some would view any medical coverage as being unnecessary , as they are young and healthy and the probablilities are that they will remain so , but what they forget is the unexpected accident or twist of fate that ruins their health , creating an unexpected health care event they cannot cover , which then leaves the rest of us liable to cover those cost either through our taxes or higher insurance premium . That is why all of us should be covered by some provider of healthcare insurance government or private !.

SilentMind · Oct 26, 2009

It is because , some would view any medical coverage as being unnecessary , as they are young and healthy and the probablilities are that they will remain so , but what they forget is the unexpected accident or twist of fate that ruins their health , creating an unexpected health care event they cannot cover , which then leaves the rest of us liable to cover those cost either through our taxes or higher insurance premium . That is why all of us should be covered by some provider of healthcare insurance government or private !.

As Chris Rock so affectionately put it "Insurance should be called in case sh*t happens. If it doesnt happen, do I get my money back?"

You're saying the young/healthy should be forced to pay for something that -might- happen down the road to prevent others from paying taxes to cover their misfortune. This is unsettling for several reasons.

1) Under a government plan, those that can't afford insurance will no doubt be subsidized by the ones that can't. (The whole purpose of health care legistlation is universal coverage, including those who cant pay) Which means....in order to solve the problem of your taxes paying other peoples insurance, you're going to enact a program that will use your taxes to pay other peoples insurance.

2) The whole purpose of social programs in general is EXACTLY for this reason. To protect the working class in case of sudden misfortune. I know...it's blown so far beyond that that it's hard to actually recognize the original intent.

All in all, if you want to mandate financial obligations to prevent your taxes going for others, why not require all citizens to maintain "just in case" poverty insurance? If for whatever reason they become disabled, lose their jobs, etc...they'll recieve 30k a year. Of course, it'll probably cost you upwards of 10k a year, but it's necessary for you to be independant form government assistance.

You cant expect us to pay financially to cover every remote situation that might come up. The bottom line, private (and government) insurance is just a clone of the social security ponzi scheme. The young don't pay for their own insurance. They pay for the care of the elderly members in the insurance company. The actual amount insurance doles out for people in their 20's is just pennies in the bowl. So don't for a moment try to rationalize it as saying the young need to cover themselves so we don't have to subsidize them. It's entirely the opposite. You want the healthy to subsidize the sick.

GCTMT · Oct 26, 2009

The impoverished are truly fortunate to have you, as you obviously know whats best for them more then you do. They're ignorant and brainwashed, but you've seen the light. And as for rising up....I've seen it, I've done it. Sometimes, the only way to get ahead is to work two, three jobs. 80+ hours a week. Getting ahead sure isn't easy. But I subscribe to the old school train of thought where everything in life doesn't need to be easy.

Everyone has an anecdotal story of someone rising up from poverty. The vast majority of people don't however, and it's a cop-out to place the reason as solely lack of personal responsibility.

I ignored the rest of your post because it's irrelevant. But in the future, don't put words in mouth.

SilentMind · Oct 26, 2009

Everyone has an anecdotal story of someone rising up from poverty. The vast majority of people don't however, and it's a cop-out to place the reason as solely lack of personal responsibility.
I ignored the rest of your post because it's irrelevant. But in the future, don't put words in mouth.

The cop-out is that its easier to be a victim of the system, to be oppressed and kept down,and to believe that theres no correlation between hard work and financial rewards. It's a dangerous mentality, and it actually prevents people from going out and dedicating themselves. It makes slaves of people. When they genuinely start to believe that they're unable to provide for themselves, and that their only lot in life is to sit around and wait for the government to provide for them.

Obviously we're on different wavelengths here, so in an effort to bring this argument to a conclusion...I propose a test. If you can point out one person you know if in your personal life, who didn't go out and spawn children at 15, who's working 70+ hours a week, and still not making any headway as far as getting ahead, then I'll concede the point entirely. But I'm willing to bet not only that the majority of people that put in the effort get ahead, but that it holds true for EVERY SINGLE CASE.

FLmomof5 · Oct 26, 2009

touching the original post....IMHO, the writers of the constitution wrote what they wrote. Simplistically, equal opportunity, NOT equal outcome.You were guaranteed life....ie: no one may take that life from you (murder/manslaughter)You were guaranteed liberty....ie: no one owns your life buy you.You were guaranteed the PURSUIT of happiness. You were given an opportunity and the freedom to go after what YOU define as happiness. No one guaranteed that you would ever find it.No where in the constitution is anyone guaranteed medical care. Like anything else in a free society, you have the opportunity to go and get it and pay for what you can afford.Before folks get on the public option train wreck.....Do a google search on Health care reform for the state of Maine.Identical promises. Dismal failure.

GCTMT · Oct 26, 2009

The cop-out is that its easier to be a victim of the system, to be oppressed and kept down,and to believe that theres no correlation between hard work and financial rewards. It's a dangerous mentality, and it actually prevents people from going out and dedicating themselves. It makes slaves of people. When they genuinely start to believe that they're unable to provide for themselves, and that their only lot in life is to sit around and wait for the government to provide for them.

I never said there wasn't a correlation. I do think however, that it's a myth that hard work alone (in the service sector) is enough to sustain a decent life.

As far as your assertion that "it's easier to be a victim of the system". Nonsense. Do you believe that the vast majority of the poor are sitting around all day wasting our tax dollars? They're not, most people work HARD, if the can. The assertion that people fail because of "laziness" or "lack of personal responsibilty" is bogus and wrongly paints the poor as social parasites.

Obviously we're on different wavelengths here, so in an effort to bring this argument to a conclusion...I propose a test. If you can point out one person you know if in your personal life, who didn't go out and spawn children at 15, who's working 70+ hours a week, and still not making any headway as far as getting ahead, then I'll concede the point entirely. But I'm willing to bet not only that the majority of people that put in the effort get ahead, but that it holds true for EVERY SINGLE CASE.

Your effort to control the debate through your "test" is short-sighted and laughable. And don't take my response as not being able to come up with an answer that suffices your criteria. I can, I just choose not to bother with it because it wouldn't matter anyway.

I agree to disagree.

GCTMT · Oct 26, 2009

touching the original post....IMHO, the writers of the constitution wrote what they wrote. Simplistically, equal opportunity, NOT equal outcome.You were guaranteed life....ie: no one may take that life from you (murder/manslaughter)You were guaranteed liberty....ie: no one owns your life buy you.You were guaranteed the PURSUIT of happiness. You were given an opportunity and the freedom to go after what YOU define as happiness. No one guaranteed that you would ever find it.No where in the constitution is anyone guaranteed medical care. Like anything else in a free society, you have the opportunity to go and get it and pay for what you can afford.Before folks get on the public option train wreck.....Do a google search on Health care reform for the state of Maine.Identical promises. Dismal failure.

The Founders didn't guarantee life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to African slaves. Later, we realized it was fallible so we ammended it.

The document is still fallible, and can be ammended to represent the wishes of the people. It's a work in progress, not the final word.

CRNA2007 · Oct 27, 2009

Then by all means get a constitutional amendment passed guaranteeing a government health care scheme.

The Founders didn't guarantee life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to African slaves. Later, we realized it was fallible so we ammended it.
The document is still fallible, and can be ammended to represent the wishes of the people. It's a work in progress, not the final word.

CRNA2007 · Oct 27, 2009

lack of funding??????

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/25/per-pupil-spending-in-dc/

"Ignorance, the most expensive commodity we pay for in this country." Rush Limbaugh

Lack of funding has wrecked public education, K98, which is why public education in the richest communities is among the best in the world, and why people like yourself use the poorest and most underfunded schools to illustrate a generalization.

lindarn · Oct 27, 2009

touching the original post....IMHO, the writers of the constitution wrote what they wrote. Simplistically, equal opportunity, NOT equal outcome.You were guaranteed life....ie: no one may take that life from you (murder/manslaughter)You were guaranteed liberty....ie: no one owns your life buy you.You were guaranteed the PURSUIT of happiness. You were given an opportunity and the freedom to go after what YOU define as happiness. No one guaranteed that you would ever find it.No where in the constitution is anyone guaranteed medical care. Like anything else in a free society, you have the opportunity to go and get it and pay for what you can afford.Before folks get on the public option train wreck.....Do a google search on Health care reform for the state of Maine.Identical promises. Dismal failure.

No where in the Consitution does it state that one is guaranteed a free public education either. But in every state in the country, there is free public education. If you desire, and can afford it, you are free to place your children in private schools, at your own expense.

But most of us cannot afford private schools, and we make do with our children attending free public schools. The point being, we have a choice afforded to us, to choose what works best for us. We should also have a choice of public or private health insurance, for ourselves, and our families. Where did you go to school, or your kids?

The Founding Fathers saw to it, and realized that, education was in the countries' best interest, for its children. It is the great equalizer. Older, retired, individuals, have not had children in the public schools for decades, yet they continue to pay taxes so YOUR CHILD HAS A FREE PUBLIC EDUCATION! Like it or not. Its there if you want/need, it. JMHO and my NY $0.02.

Lindarn, RN, BSN, CCRN

Spokane, Washington

HM2VikingRN, RN · Oct 27, 2009

As I said, I work in the service sector. It's actually quite easy to make ends meet. Well, not entirely...but thats only because I'm currently only working part time due to school. I can afford to cover all of my bills, living modestly, working 2-3 days a week.
The service sector is NOT enough to make ends meet when you have a family depending on you, but then...the individual has an obligation to obtain something beyond a minimum wage job flipping burgers before they make the choice to have children. One might argue that we have an obligation to provide food and shelter to the needy. But we under no circumstances have a right to subsidize the needy's right to have children. Personally, family is very important to me, and I wouldn't mind having 5-10 children. I'm 25 as it is, and sometimes I wonder if I'm waiting too long before starting a family. But I know that I'm doing the responsible thing by setting myself up financially and obtaining a career so I can comfortably support said family. But if I have to make the sacrifice of putting off my own family for the time being, why on earth should my income be taxed so that others don't have to go through such inconvenience?

I would encourage you to read this book.

This is not the world I live in. We are born needing help, we die needing help, and we spend our days getting and giving help. People help because they believe no one is truly independent, and because they care about others. Our self-interest is hopelessly intertwined with the well-being of others.

Simply put we have a collective interest to assure that we each have access to affordable health care and earl childhood education for our children. I am recommending this book to faculty from my alumni nursing school because of its extensive discussion about health care ethics and caregiving.