If one were to read the Constitution one would realize that the Constitution does not grant anyone freedoms, liberties, or rights. The Constitution only protects freedoms, liberties, and rights from transgressions on part of the government. A right is something that is inherent to the individual, comes from that individual, and is maintained by the individual. You are born with such rights like the right to speak freely, the only thing that can be done to that right is to have it infringed. No one can grant a right to another, only limit or impede the exercise of that right.
Healthcare is a human invention that does not exist in the natural environment. Only through the work of others and through the taking of resources from one party and giving to another does healthcare exist. You cannot force someone to give effort and resources to another and call that a right. In the absence of human intervention the individual would live their lives and succumb to the natural forces which would act upon their bodies.
Do I think we should provide preventative care and basic primary care? Sure. Do I think that we can? Maybe. Do I think that healthcare is a basic human right? Absolutely not.
I agree, and by having the elite it encourages the "underlings" to aspire to greater things!! If all are truly equal, "all living in little pink houses all in a row...." Their is no incentive to progress. Why would a young adult choose to go to college for 10 plus years if the government dictates their salaries or even worse let's them appear to make their income only to tax it beyond a "reasonable and customary" amount.
I think you're getting a bit off topic here. Universal health care and government dictating salaries are two very separate issues. The government doesn't dictate my salary, my nursing union does. It's very fair. However, the government will stipulate that I pay more taxes making 80 thousand a year than the person making 30 thousand a year. I see nothing wrong with that, since I can afford to pay more. That money funds health care, education, and infrastructure.
Rivernurse's post is why no matter how many people take advantage of the system, we still need A system., while a difficult journey, it is inspiring. thank you for sharing
I totally agree but I don't think you jump from the frying pan into the fire. We need to find a unique resolution that does not encourage dependency, does not infringe upon the American dream of prosperity, and is overseen by a neutral party that is not affiliated the the federal government and has restrictions on political affiliations.
No, it really doesn't. We have agreed for a long time that children have a right to education. It's not free. Now, likewise for health care.
What you are not considering is what I said above:
The problem for your perspective is that health care is a de facto right already. It may not have been true in the "good old days," but now it is considered unacceptable to leave someone to die by the side of the road. They will be brought to an emergency room and they will be treated. Who do you think pays for that? A magic fairy?
People not having health insurance is an expensive burden on our society that no other industrialized nation is saddled with.
If you're directing this to me, how do you even know what my perspective is???
I agree, and by having the elite it encourages the "underlings" to aspire to greater things!! If all are truly equal, "all living in little pink houses all in a row...." Their is no incentive to progress. Why would a young adult choose to go to college for 10 plus years if the government dictates their salaries or even worse let's them appear to make their income only to tax it beyond a "reasonable and customary" amount.
And therefore, it's okay for children, who have no insurance for no fault of their own, to just do without chemotherapy for their treatable leukemia — that somehow, dying will make them stronger? And the people who work two modest-wage jobs, but have no insurance coverage from either — they and their family can just go die if they get sick?
Does it make us stronger as a nation to have a lot of vaccinated children (and adults)? Does it make us stronger as a nation when a family breadwinner becomes disabled because she hasn't had any medical attention for a chronic condition?
Those arguments are moot, since as a society, we have decided that acute/emergent health care is a right. It is illegal for a hospital emergency room to simply kick out an unstable person. That really did happen in our very religious, very moral, very family-values-obsessed country before it was made illegal. So, since those who can't afford to pay for care will still receive (very expensive) care, why do we insist on providing it the most expensive way possible?
There are people who not only oppose universal care, but who oppose any kind of social safety net. Why, there might be a poor woman driving a pink Cadillac who will abuse the system, so therefore, the poor can go die! We might as well shut down all human activity if that's the criterion. There's fraud everywhere. The people who are so concerned about fraud have a lot of anecdotes, such as Reagan's fictional welfare queen, but few of them that I've encountered have numbers. None of them so far has assigned a monetary value to a human life. For some, apparently, a life is worth a few dollars.
The Ayn Rand approach doesn't work, since as a society we have rejected the "I don't care at all about the suffering of others" idea of watching people die in the street. The majority of people favor either what the ACA offers, or something better. Such is life in a democracy. The minority doesn't always get what it wants, even if it has a lot of money and resources.
I don't know if they are available everywhere in the US however inn every county I've ever lived we had a public health ofc. that gave vaccines and for people to go and get basic care or be refered to other sources and even assisted with getting assistance if they qualify.
The question should have been, "Should there be...?", rather than "Can't there be...?" Wouldn't you think that would lead to dependence?
A social safety net does not eliminate the "elites." Massachusetts is a good example. Even before "Romneycare,' the state had more comprehensive healthcare safety net than most states. All the while, it has had one of the strongest economies, full of new and already-successful entrepreneurial companies.
Massachusetts in effect pays a lot of federal taxes to states with traditionally weak economies, which tend to be populated by citizens who are hostile to federal aid, but are the most dependent on it.
Does that make sense? I'm talking to you, Mississippi and West Virginia.
If you're directing this to me, how do you even know what my perspective is???
mc3:nurse:
It really doesn't become a different story if they pay for it and disagree. They're already paying for it, but in the least efficient way imaginable, and with not-very-comprehensive results. Ironically, a lot of people who are not paying for it, and who don't have any insurance, also disagree (I'm talking to you, Mississippi and West Virginia).
I think it's more a matter that people imagine that have unlimited social and financial mobility. They see themselves as the next Bill Gates, though it may take a couple of years. Once they are plutocrats, they don't want anyone touching their money, even if they're currently in every possible government welfare program.
A lot of our citizens are disconnected from reality.
Well, I really was hoping that the thread would be generally about human rights and healthcare and not just the Constitution.
That link was a great find, thank you.
I would disagree that a certain standard of living is a right. I think that there is a right to achieve that standard of living but not the standard itself.
Please tell me how extending the right to "achieve" a standard of living, particularly health care..is an acceptable alternative to extending the standard itself? Say to an ill infant? You are going to give a sick infant the "right to achieve" a standard? I'm sure that little baby will appreciate the opportunity..but in my world...as a NURSE and as a HUMAN BEING...IT IS NOTTTT OK...to just give an opportunity to someone like an infant..or anyone incapable of seizing said opportunity...in lieu of giving them basic sustenance.
EXAMPLE: Two crying babies are hungry and you decide to put a bottle in front of each them about 2 feet away. One baby can crawl, and goes and gets the bottle. YAY! The other bable SHOULD be able to crawl, he is healthy...but for whatever reason, he does not crawl to the bottle, yet cries still cuz he is starving. We dont know yet why he "refused" to crawl. Was he not hungry enough? Or is it more likely he has something affecting his crawling ability that you do not know about or understand yet? At any rate...now what do you do?? Let the baby starve?? After all you gave him the right to achieve a standard of eating...you are not about hand outs.
The question should have been, "Should there be...?", rather than "Can't there be...?" Wouldn't you think that would lead to dependence?
A social safety net does not eliminate the "elites." Massachusetts is a good example. Even before "Romneycare,' the state had more comprehensive healthcare safety net than most states. All the while, it has had one of the strongest economies, full of new and already-successful entrepreneurial companies.
Massachusetts in effect pays a lot of federal taxes to states with traditionally weak economies, which tend to be populated by citizens who are hostile to federal aid, but are the most dependent on it.
Does that make sense? I'm talking to you, Mississippi and West Virginia.
Since you quoted my post, I am assuming you are talking to me..... I am a Texan and I believe we have gotten our lines crossed. I am NOT against helping out my fellow Americans. I want to live in Utopia where everyone lives happily ever after. My concern is I do not want 1/3 of Americans to work their fingers to the bone so that the rest can feast on a fat hog. I want the federal government to stay out of a lot of things I guess if I had to choose a political party I would come closest to aligning with Libertarians. I believe that the People of America have always (In my life time) been able to take care of themselves. It has only been since the special interest groups (fill in the blank Oil, pharmaceutical, religious, ACLU, etc.) have taken control of the government and leaving the mass backbone of America disenfranchised that these issues have become so overwhelming. I am not even going to say I am against a centralized insurance, however I will say that the government is too corrupt to be in charge of said entity.
I see you didn't get the memo. The Greeks invented democracy. The Greeks had slaves. Therefore everything they created is built on misery and suffering.
"Magic fairy", argue, Republicans, ... having a bad day? I didn't say I wasn't in favor of universal healthcare. You need to take time to read the posts before you attempt to wow us with your...wit.
For someone who writes well, you make far too many assumptions.
Congress passed the best that it was going to get. Such is the political process. No one got everything they wanted. There is no way that anyone would. So Congress passed what it had, and the president signed it.
The Republicans were in opposition. When things they wanted were incorporated into the legislation, they then opposed those things. That is not my imagination. That is on the public record.
Laws are not unchangeable, and the ACA will be modified. That is a good thing, since, even if everyone fully cooperated with one another, it's nearly impossible to achieve perfection the first time.
As the ACA goes into effect through 2014, we will see how it goes. So far, something similar that went into effect six years ago has gone pretty well in Massachusetts. It's very nearly achieve its prime objective of insuring everyone, something that Mitt Romney thought was an ethical imperative at the time.
What always amazes me is that the Canadian who complain about healthcare are the ones who didn't get what they wanted, the minute they wanted it.
And what amazes me are people that think here in America you get things immediately. I waited almost 2 months to get an MRI. It was more than another month before I could get in to see the specialist after that MRI. And after that wait, I still had to pay a huge copay for both. How would I have been worse off in Canada?
And therefore, it's okay for children, who have no insurance for no fault of their own, to just do without chemotherapy for their treatable leukemia — that somehow, dying will make them stronger?
I think people have a huge misconception about the ratio of hardworking people that can't afford healthcare versus the sterotypical illegal immigrant welfare queens with manicures and iphones.
I'd rather a few lazy people get healthcare than see the many hardworking people that end up bankrupted or dead.
joanna73, BSN, RN
4,767 Posts