I guess I'm having trouble with the whole concept here...

[txaslftist]

"Everyone has a right to quality health care"...

I don't know. What if it isn't available? Like in Haiti, it has to be rationed, the survivors have to be triaged, there are folks who will die because the level of care they need exceeds what is available there on the ground... I think we accept this as being a place where the reality on the ground outweighs the general right of "things deserved".

Or in Africa, in Uganda. "Everyone has a right to quality education..." So why am I sponsoring a child there to the tune of $250 a year? Clearly I feel that child deserves the best education available for $250 a year, but what about the rest of the children in his village? With my income I could support 200 of them, but then of course I would have nothing. So, at least in the case of Ugandans, the principle must be modified to "SOME have a right to quality education". And of course the medical treatment available in Uganda is comparable to the education available... So the general principle must be modified again..."SOME have a right to quality medical care". Again, though, we must look at the term "quality". The nearest hospital to my sponsoree's village is over 50 miles away, and is a run-down ramshackle affair with a collapsing cieling. There is only one "doctor", and he is about as medically knowledgeable as a first year med student in the US. So in Uganda, the principle becomes "SOME have a right to SOME medical care".

If it is not universal, then it is not a right, it is a privilege, right? So really, "SOME have a PRIVILEGE of SOME medical care". That seems to be a universal truth, but it's a good deal watered down from "EVERYONE having a RIGHT to QUALITY medical care". So maybe what is meant is "Every American has the right to quality medical care". This is a bit more ethnocentric, but it will do to go on, right?

Except it, too, must be qualified. Who is to pay for the medical care? In the case of those of use who earn money, presumably our insurance company through redistribution of our premiums after taking out their profit, right? Well, if I have to pay for it, it is not a right, is it? However, my paying for it does grant me the right to demand it. So for me, an earner/payer, it is a privilege I have the right to demand so long as I pay for it.

But how can the same hold true for the uninsured? He pays no premium and therefore has given nothing toward the privilege he wishes to demand. If his medical care is to be paid for, it must be paid for by someone else, right? Or he must have his own money, apart from the insurer, with which to pay, if he is to get medical care. He may not have a job. He may not even want a job. He may be like my Ugandan sponsoree, in that there is literally NO WAY for him to pay for what he wants or needs due to his circumstances. I, on the other hand, can afford to pay my own way and contribute somewhat to his well-being, but in the case of the Ugandan, I have a choice. I choose to sponsor one child because that is what I have determined I can afford in the management of my own property and affairs. I shudder to think what the Ugandan government, if they had a say, would decide I can afford.

By the same token, if universal health care passes with an insurer component, I shudder to think what proportion of my new, mandatory and higher premiums must be devoted to the profit of the hospitals, doctors and insurance companies. I also worry about what level of care they will decide I or my family deserve to get from my higher premiums. If universal health care passes without an insurer component, then it will be simply a government agency deciding how to spend my mandatory premiums.

Either way, the premiums will become mandatory, and like all taxes, will be enforced with the penalty of imprisonment if I do not pay, and murder if I resist imprisonment. The government will take by force from me my property to redistribute to those whom they decide have the "right" to it. This will go further, in that the government will also decide who has such a right. Like "welfare to work", medical care from this program will undoubtedly be tied to working, schooling, not getting in trouble, etcetera. I suspect drug tests will be part of eligibility.

Convicted felons and drug users are denied social security benefits under certain circumstances. Seems to me that denying them medical care will be a likely thing, in which case let us please not call this a "right". And of course, we all know how independent, immune from political pressure and competent government agencies are, right? And we all know that, like the premiums paid to social security, these medical premiums will be set aside, managed responsibly and cared for, right? They won't be put in the general fund or doled out to influential constituents, right? Because our government has a record of pristine fiscal responsibility...

In sum, I think this is a fight I don't mind seeing the Democratic Party lose. I guess Winston Churchill was right about the migration of ones ideals as one ages... I may lose my leftist credentials over this issue, but the past 10 years have taught me a tremendous distrust of the government. I don't want to entrust them with even more money.

[begin_within]

1. In my opinion, universal health care is part of the social contract

Living in a particular nation, being subject to its laws, being subject to its taxation, should carry along with it a certain set of basic benefits including guaranteed health care, regardless of the individual's means. Just my opinion though.

[txaslftist]

3. But with every benefit recieved, there is a concomitant obligation...

the Tanstaafl principle must be applied here. Regardless of our nation's ability to kick the obligations like a can down the road through deficit spending, eventually the piper must be paid. I don't mind sharing (some of) what I have with less fortunate people, but I don't think I care for being REQUIRED to it, social contract or no. Aside from the principle of the thing, upon which reasonable folks can certainly differ, I find it hard to believe that any "partnership" between insurers and the government will inure to my benefit or the weal of the republic.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[grasswire]

4. Oboy.

What are your leftist credentials, btw?

[txaslftist]

5. I am a precinct chair,

a participant in a number of Democratic Party organizational things, and some other stuff. Not so fervent as I once was. Like I said, my credentials may be fading.

[sendero]

19. You sound more like.

.... a libertarian.

[Berry Cool]

9. My leftist credentials, such as they are, are simple.

They consist of a set of basic beliefs, one of which concerns caring and responsibility. As a result, I believe that everyone in my country should have access to affordable health care--even those who cannot pay for it themselves because they are temporarily or permanently unable to do so. How that is achieved is another matter, but I know I do not trust private enterprise acting alone, or individuals engaging in private charity acting alone, to bring that about. I think we have already seen how well that works.

I believe that given that we already have precedent for allowing the government to manage health care affordability for our most elderly and poorest populations, we now should extend that type of system to everyone in our country.

One can argue over the details and the logistics. One can argue over whether private industry is still going to end up profiting the most from the arrangement while the people profit the least (and if the program is poorly structured or mismanaged, that might happen. The solution? Not to scrap it, but to reform it). But I don't have any problem at all with being one of many citizens in this country who helps make sure, in my small way, that all my fellow citizens can have decent health care. I would hope to be there for them so they will be there for me. Of course, I do believe the rich should pay more into such a program, the middle class less, and the poor not at all (unless they move out of poverty). I honestly believe that a well-managed government-run program will enable this to be reality. We have examples of its success elsewhere in the world. In fact, we are one of the few countries who somehow stubbornly refuses to believe such a thing is possible or even "morally right."

We have the opportunity to correct that now. Maybe not in one fell swoop, but starting now, and to refine it over time. I hope we take that opportunity. Because if we don't, I think America will wither and die as surely as any other society in which the wealthy are so far privileged over everyone else that no one else can ultimately survive.

[BeFree]

6. Who has a right to Peace?

If you can't afford peace, you don't deserve peace?

Having health care is a piece of having Peace.

Where do you draw the line?

[branders seine]

7. when Hitler conquers your country,

do you still have a "right to vote" even though you can't exercise it?

[Berry Cool]

10. You confuse "reality on the ground" with "ideals."

We are talking about the ideals we hold dear. We are talking about our basic belief that people SHOULD have a right to vote, even if in reality they DON'T. We are talking not just about dealing with what is, but thinking about what should be and making it happen.

If others had not done that, they would have given up when Hitler conquered their countries. They would have said "Oh well, he's here, we can't do anything about it, so now we have to live under him. Oh well." There would have been no resistance movements, because they would have been considered "unrealistic."

[branders seine]

12. no, I asked a question.

I believe rights are inalienable, that is, independent of circumstances on the ground.

universal access to health care should be a right, not a commodity

[Berry Cool]

15. Well then, we actually agree.

I too believe rights are inalienable, but I don't believe our OP here does. I believe our OP believes that something is not a "right" if not everyone enjoys it in actual practice. I do, and I gather you do also. Perhaps it was the rhetorical nature of your post title that caused me to think you were disagreeing with that. Anyway, we both agree on universal health care access.

[FSogol]

8. You are already paying for the uninsured. Reforming the system will

spread those cost around more equitably. Giving free health care or much cheaper health care will prevent many sickness/illness making the system cheaper. It is easier to attack medical problems in the form of prevention which is cheap than later, which is costly. As for felons, you are already paying 100% of their, room, board, food, and medical. How does this change with denying medical coverage to more working Americans and children?

[Newest Reality]

11. Why?

I know I diverge from the OP's original opinions here, but ...

Within the reams of discussion about health care, laws, costs, insurance companies, rights, etc., there seems to be a missing element. That element is one that I feel is compelling, logical and even vital.

Does anyone see or feel the benefits of Universal coverage on a grand scale?

Maybe I am being too pragmatic and idealistic for this to sink in, but what about the overall impact of guaranteed health care? These potential benefits cause me to sincerely question the motives of those in business and government who oppose a rapid and viable solution that would serve the population at large adequately.

That element can be summed up as, is it not a widespread benefit to everyone to have a healthier population, across the board? For example, access to health care for everyone would be diminishing actual and potential disease vectors, increasing overall morale, raising productivity, preventing potentially expensive long-term results from neglect of preventative and interim care, etc.

At the very least, keep your peasants and slaves healthy as you extract your due rewards from their incessant toiling and struggles, dear Plutocrats!

I am not naive about the fact that there are many special interests who profit from the very opposite of the above short-list of benefits to our collective well-being and wealth, so let that then serve as a contrast. The divisive arguments of the game being played to get us to sigh in relief for some crumbs in this insurance industry serving bill just pale in respect to a long-term, large-scale boon implied by full, Universal coverage of the citizenry. There is a bigger picture obscured by the forest of distractions and manipulations, i.e., adept and precise social engineering at its finest.

Logically, I would also add that, while people debate whether health care is a right or a privilege, it is pertinent to ask, can a person who has poor and/or deteriorating health and no access to care able to work in order to sustain themselves? Is it more cost effective to deny them care without concern for the results and then deal with the consequences, or to utilize to the fullest degree, measures that are preventative so that the person in question can continue to be viable and productive? It goes without saying that, barring the insane genuflection to profit motives, the whole point of health care is to accomplish just that.

[Greyhound]

13. You flunked logic and debate, didn't you? n/t

:thumbsdown:

[Cleita]

14. My thoughts too.

Started out with a faulty premise and built from there, so he could only come up with a faulty conclusion.

[kenny blankenship]

16. Our system is currently premised on your "privilege" model. And it ranks BELOW Costa Rica

in the UN World Health Organization's rankings of health care systems by country. Below Costa fucking Rica - owing no doubt to that country's national health insurance service. And we also rank below Finland, Malta, Morocco, and Greece -and 32 other countries. There should be enough there already in that fact alone for you to take time out to reconsider your starting point and assumptions.

I share your suspicion of the crony capitalist nature of the proposed "reform" - the overly cozy relationship between corporate campaign donors who in exchange for their millions get to write the legislation "regulating" their business, as well as receiving the enforcement muscle of the federal thugocracy to prop up their bottomlines. But asserting health care as a RIGHT, and therefore a mutual PUBLIC responsibility, is the necessary first step to escaping the racket of insurance, big PHRMA, and big box hospital chains and their model of pirate enterprise.

[Spike89]

17. Universal, even near-universal = efficient

Aside from the moral and ethical discussion, you're wrong on the true cost of single payer health care. It doesn't make sense for every house in a city to have it's own water source and wastewater treatment facility, a public utility or in some cases a highly regulated monopoly provider is more efficient.

We don't even debate this concept anymore. Clean water, sewage systems, safe and efficient roads, law enforcement, fire protection, the list goes on and on. Health care can be delivered to everyone in the "utility" model for less than we spend now to provide a lower-level of health care.

[MattBaggins]

18. I hope you lose your health care

Have a nice day