Forum Post: Health Insurance is not a Right.
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 9, 2011, 2:22 p.m. EST by NotYour99
(226)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Discuss. Just want to hear both sides.
Let's TRY to not pick apart words here. Yes, everyone needs health care. Using the word "insurance" here denotes whether or not they are paying for it or if it is provided to them.
Health insurance is not health care.
Health insurance is an artificial layer of complexity and profit added to health care.
Health insurance creates a non-free-market system for health care in this country.
A free market system for medical providers would mean they would have to price at levels able to be paid by most of the public.
Most of the public are not millionaires/billionaires.
Therefore, in a completely free market, where providers dealt directly with patients most doctors would be charging 25 dollars for office visits or they'd be out of business.
Emergency room visits would cost 250 dollars (like they did not that long ago) instead of 6 thousand dollars and all the people getting rich off the health "insurance" system would have to live a more modest lifestyle.
I worked for a physician back when HMO's were just starting out trying to get all doctors contracted with them. I knew they were evil and I told the doctors I worked for that someday the insurance companies were going to dictate how you treat your patients. They laughed at me and said that would never happen. Well it did happen and is still happening today. Capitated and HMO's give incentives or kickbacks if primary care reduces the amount of testing and referrals to specialists. You would not believe how corrupt this is and at the expense of the patient who blindly trusts their doctor.
My GP almost killed me because of just such a system he's part of. I had high cholesterol for yrs. and instead of having me tested properly for heart disease or even prescribing the proper meds. , he did nothing and I had a serious heart attack and almost died. The system is corrupt and many of the Drs. are just as bad.
I am so sorry you had to go through that but unfortunately this is not uncommon.
you have to take care of yourself, i.e. do your own medical research so you are educated and can discuss with the doctor your options. You don't have to go to medical school to know the signs of high cholesterol,usually. Cancer is another story. It can spring up at anytime with anyone.
OH IC I'm supposed to play Dr. and pay them anyway? I can do without the condescending crap as well pal. My fucking Dr. chose not to put me on the right meds . knowing I had a family history of heart disease. My cardiologist after my HA told me that was very poor medical judgment.
It was not meant to be condescending. Sorry for not using different language. What I'm saying is that because the system is so broken you really have to look out for yourself. Poor medical judgement is a consequence of the fascist healthcare system we have.
Oh. Ok, IC what you mean. I agree. In my view many Drs. haven't much regard for their own patients. The reason is that they are all part of the 1%.
patients are just a number. They need to process you quickly so they can handle business with the insurance companies.
well said...I was a health insurance agent for years...a heavy hitter...worked for most of the major ones...if the American public knew the truth...They Would Occupy the medical industry...the whole thing...Insurance companies...doctors...hospitals...they all look at us like cattle......
None of that has any validity. The whole world has free health care and laughs at America. No one needs health insurance just universal free health care. Living is a right. If someone withholds medical care then he is not letting you live despite his oath.
Funny you speak of validity. The right to life is a negative right - meaning others must refrain from taking your life. If we understand it the way you would like to, the burden of keeping me alive falls on others. Who exactly does it fall on, though? Every doctor in the world? Every doctor within 5 miles of me? The employee at McDonalds who sells me burgers? The gas station clerk selling me cigarettes? This is a serious problem that you must deal with if you want to turn the right to life into a positive one. This imposes an obligation on others to keep me alive, not just refrain from killing me. Perhaps this can fly in the realm of personal ethics, but never in the realm of political ethics - not if you value equality under the law and take enforcement issues into account, anyway.
ethics professor in the house
The basic existence of you was determined by a multitude of people who came before your parents' proverbial twinkle in the eye. Who sells you burgers? Did you ever consider the concentration camps that we fund to store, torture and kill millions of your burgers? You're thinking is so self-centered that you don't even stop and thank the merchants that sold you that burger. You NEVER consider that this living breathing mammal had parents and siblings. And that it suffered throughout its ENTIRE existence so you could dip it in ketchup. Go to bed. Good night.
No more burgers for this guy... let him eat cake. But I bet you're very busy killing all kinds of veggies and plant life aren't you? You suppose they are somehow less entitled to life? Less entitled to go forth and propagate as nature intended? You're just another bigot.
Yeah that's me. The guy who relates to you that we evolved into humans the same time grasses became grains. Numbnuts...I can help you. Stop fighting it. The veggies are for animals to eat. Figure it out. The animals are for ...???? You to eat? What are you, evolved over the rest of existence or a Neanderthal who likes the taste of blood? Think man....think.
I'm of northern European ancestry and therefore part Neanderthal and that's a scientific fact.
I don't know of any particular animal that eats "veggies," do you? .
The wheat we eat today was never part of the paleolithic diet and neither are the many veggies that are now available to us as genetically enhanced from all over the world.
I'm an omnivore; I like the taste of blood (I'm convinced that everybody does), and I do enjoy killing shit.
very cool Dr. Nutritionist. Most of us are part Neanderthal. There were like 300 people in the world back then. There are many animals whose staple is veggies. Most are insects if you really wanna know. Many aquatic as well. But when I say 'veggie' I mean 'cerealarian'. Our natural staple is grain. Wheat is the latest and least evolved. Short grain brown rice is the perfect yin-yang balance. Why would you want to be Paleolithic? That is bizarre all by itself. We are 2011. Grass became grain and animals came and went before our eyes. We are all omnivores. Especially if our lifestyle requires it. A monk in the temple on the mountain doesn't require what a NYC construction worker on the FDR requires. Everyone is different. If you can assimilate beef, alcohol and sugar then you are super human and will never get sick.
Because... on the evolutionary scale we have evolved in relation to our diet over hundreds of thousands of years. The sedentary diet, or the agricultural/ beef diet, has only been with us for a very short period of time, as correlates to the transition from hunter/ gather to city dweller. This also applies to the many veggies and even the grains now available to us - if you track the origins of all vegetables you find most were specific to a particular geographic location, and have more recently been enhanced to improve yields; this is true of course for all grains as well. For this reason, though, I don't believe there is any such thing as a necessarily more nutritious choice; we have all arrived here along different evolutionary paths and therefore of different paleolithic diets. This becomes more obvious if we study the diets and health statistics of other cultures.
It is believed by scientists/ genealogists that the original homo sap sap gene pool consisted of about 500 couples. Most of these genes are no longer with us. In terms of some symbolic representation, the genetic pool would appear in the form of a diamond.
Tens of thousands of years for the latest developments. Read Macrobiotics by Michio Kushi. They have been curing cancer, AIDS and just about everything with diet.
We had cows and they were quite happy right up until they got eaten. Pigs too. First people must learn they are all God's children and brothers and sisters. Then we can argue if brother and sister wolf should be locked up and fed tofu, and if man is meant to eat meat and if that is his nature as much as that of the wolf.
It goes beyond that - if they had never been domesticated, these animals would have never been born to start with.
I eat meat if you think it would be cruel to to feed a wolf tofu, don't try it with me. Now, there is a huge difference in animals raised on small farms and the kind of lives they do live and ones raised in little pens.
Yea...
I appreciate your desire to be 'the wolf'. Still I am not against eating animals. Not for me though. No non-criminal should be locked up. No one should eat tofu...it isn't really good for you...too much protein. Only ancient man is meant to eat meat. We are evolving. We know now that this will cause; cancer, heart disease, diabetes and so many more diseases that cost our society billions more than smoking in front of our building downtown. More than that. We know it's wrong. Have you seen the slaughterhouse. Go look. See for yourself and try to hold on to your appetite.
These health problems are not from meat. They are from loads of refined carbs. I was taken to the local slaughter house the first time when I was 3 or 4 and we took a pig. I peeked in back and saw the dead animals hanging up, I watched as they cut up the meat. I was very impressed with the meat grinder. After watching all this the adults were worried. They asked if I was upset, "No, I like bacon!". I asked, "Did you have to go to college to do this?" I was confident I learn this job and do it and I really never ever wanted to go to college. My mom was in college and she would go stay in the dorm all week. I swore I'd never go. I did go one semester though. I am perfectly aware of the whole process of getting meat. I grew up on a farm! I don't mind doing what needs to be done to eat meat. I do hate to pluck chickens though.
You are so totally wrong... it's not meat but "beef" that we need be concerned with. And beef is a modern invention. And actually we can take this to the next level... because it's not really beef, either. It's the combination of beef with wheat... that threatens us.
I can't afford beef much, mostly I eat chicken and pork. I had to go on a lower carb diet and I try to avoid wheat and corn most of the time and stick to oats. Sometimes I'm guilty of pizza and chocolate covered pretzels and the occasional bun. But none of those things are regular. Food is way different now than what I remember even as kid. I just try to stick to whole foods at least. I skip right over the middle of the store.
haha... pork has always been the poor man's beef.
You are scratching the surface. Ask more. Are you soooooo hungry? Just eat and live and be healthy. Kill and eat then be unhealthy...unless you kill simpler, more digestible things. Just like dairy. The largest, biggest and most potent killer in this world. Goat cheese is 1,000,000 times more digestible than cow (fake, man made animal) milk. And if you took your time you'd know that no animal tit is good for a human baby than his own mother. Why would anyone suck cow tits? Makes no sense. Think.
I've totally kicked the milk but I have a thing for cheddar. The last I bought tasted like it was rubberized so, well no one is eating that either. I guess I am weird about food. I weighed 235 pounds at my high weight. I tried every diet and the only way weight came off was when I cut carbs by a lot. I'm too sensitive about food but one of the things I got huge eating was frosted shredded mini wheats. My diet is small portions of meat and most veggies.
Read Michio Kushi. Anything about Macrobiotics. It will seem very radical but one day you'll thank me.
Okay, I haven't studied those food yet. Weston A Price was a dentist who studied the diets of traditional people eating as they always had and were deemed healthiest from around the globe. He discovered some unusual common ground. I don't go to those lengths but it was interesting!
See Kushi Institute online. Read testimonials of people who were on their death bed and sign DNR papers. Then they went Macro and twenty years later they teach it. I cannot tell you the impression it will ,make on your life if you take it with an open mind. There is an order to the universe and people knew it LONG ago. Chew well and live long and happy, my friend.
But you would also need to thank those long removed ancestors who began eating meat. Many people believe it was the meat that lead to the extra protein intake that led to more and better developed brains. I believe you should eat what you want and if thats twigs and berries all good for you but don't tell anyone else what to eat thats like dissing their religion.
Many people would be wrong. We were eating meat for many years prior to becoming sapiens. Our brain developed the same time that the grasses evolved into grains. I would never tell anyone what to eat. Couldn't care less. Just know why you're getting cancer and heart disease and enjoy that meat. Also be thankful. Many people have no food.
I hope you are thankful too! To be able to debate this when many people have nothing to eat. Aren't you lucky to have the ability to make that choice of dietary intake when so many cannot. You need to do some fact checking though cause it pretty much an accepted fact that meat led to brain development. Maybe we could send some of these starving people canned beef. Now I do know that grains tend to build muscle mass over the long haul but protein from meat is an easy and quickly used form of energy in the human body.
I don't agree with you but your funny I like you.
That is a complete fabrication by the FDA about 50 years ago along with the 'food group' myth. The human brain developed at the same time that grasses evolved into grains. And, I am very very thankful for every morsel. I say a prayer with every meal, thanking even the merchants and drivers who brought it to me. If I eat an animal (sometimes fish) I also thank it for dying for me.
Meat is sooo delicious though. I would rather live to 80 eating meat than live to 100 not eating it. The US life expectancy is always increasing even though the vast majority of Americans eat a lot of meat.
Yes.It is. I used to eat a lot of it. btw- It isn't about longevity it';s about quality of life. You may, may make it to 80 eating meat of your constitution can handle it but the last 20 will be spent in hospitals. I hope not for your sake and thanks for intelligent conversation.
haha.... I've spent years researching and thinking about this. I'm just saying you are possessed of a very shallow philosophy that begins on a false premise.
Yup. y'got me. good night.
Your reply is completely nonsensical. My point is that no one has the political moral obligation to keep me alive. I do thank the merchants that sell me burgers. I love them, even though they don't facilitate me living as long as I possibly could. If I had a right to live that imposed on others a duty to keep me alive, the McDonalds employee should deny my purchase of a burger; the gas station clerk should deny my purchase of cigarettes. You can't enforce these things in a political system; it'd be complete nonsense. That's why our right to life is a negative one, and no doctor is compelled to save my life for free. In other words, my right to life cannot legally compel any single person to "save my life." Do you work for free?
I am one of the few who chooses and will fight for : No medical coverage. I believe in the macrobiotic life. I have a long way to go before I achieve what I aspire to achieve but I believe that you are your best doctor. That extends to your politics and ...every aspect of life. I hope I did not offend you. That was not my intention. I understand what you have been saying about : determination brought about by politics. That absolutely sucks. I am against abortion. I am against surgery. I am against eating animals. But if you can justify any of those than it is all yours. Not my government's and not anyone's other than the mother. It is what it is. They/we voted. Can't take it back. And no, no one works for free. Only slaves but the price is wayyyy heavier then.
And there's a point in that somewhere I guess we're to believe.
Yes. Read and be enlightened. Or better yet, try it and REALLY know. That's the only way to believe. No credo, mea culpa and the unarguable order of the universe. Try it for a few months and let me know. Your aches and pains will disappear. You will reverse the decay...you'll see.
I'm not against the idea of a universal health care system.
But this question asked about health insurance.
I think health insurance should be out of the picture entirely.
I agree, since insurance companies only want to insure healthy people that do not go to the doctors very often. They are in for a profit and they do this by convincing healthcare providers that if they don't become a provider they will not have many patients.
I misunderstood and jumped the gun when I joined this thread. You are 100% correct. Health care must be free and health insurance is a scam to be burned to the ground.
I don't understand this whole 3500 thing. If I'm self employed I pay 3500 to the government. Ok, cool. But they want me to pay 3500 for my wife and each of my five kids, too? I've got five kids.
What's the 3500 thing? The penalty under PPACA?
Well yea most will opt to pay the penalty. But if there are seven in my family that's some big bucks.
I didn't think it was per person? Isn't it per family?
There are penalties for employers, too.
I don't like Obamacare.
My feeling is that most employers will cancel coverage as no longer affordable. That means most families will fall into the tax penalty area as covered by Medicaid. In New York, the Fed only provides half of our Medicaid costs; in poorer states the percentage is higher. What this means is that we will not only see a huge tax increase here but also a disproportionate increase to help cover those individuals in poorer states. What this actually represents is national insurance coverage - in effect national healthcare - funded by those companies large enough to buy political influence. It will drive all smaller companies out of business. This is just another corrupt play by Congress, passed with an illegal process of budget reconciliation, intended to usurp state and individual rights.
[Deleted]
I would have loved to see that happen, if not single payer then at the very least a full-fledged public option to keep costs down, and all kinds of new consumer protection regulations on private insurers. His mistake was sinking all his political capital into this and underestimating the sheer obstinacy of Congress (including some of his own people)
I think everyone is entitled to healthcare but I also think that people should be able to pay for better healthcare if they want.
of course - capitalism can be sensible - in this context
Your advocacy for the free market in Medical care is illogical. who pays for MRI machines, Hospitals etc. should we be trading chickens for medical care? why use money lets all go back to the barter system.
Who pays for them now and who paid for them before eveyrone was insured?
Many surgeries that are done in hospitals can also be done in doctor's offices.
Doctors used to make housecalls and even set up oxygen tents in people's bedrooms (I have relative who was treated this way as a chidl).
We have a severe problem now with hospital-borne illness. People go into hospitals to be treated for pneumonia & other curable problems and die of MRSA instead.
http://www.safepatientproject.org/topic/hospital_acquired_infections/
Treatment in doctor's offices and in people's homes would be an improvement.
Doctors already purchase diagnostic machines and pay for them with fees, we don't need insurance companies for that.
I am not against some sort of national health care system I made several other posts indicating this. I am against for-profit insurance companies being involved in it.
Doctors used to take Chickens as payment. How could a doctor by an MRI Machine and why? Your argument is still illogical, think about what you are saying and perhaps you will be able to articulate a reasoned response.
Must See Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOAgT8L_BqQ
Repeal Obamacare
Every employer in New York is going to cancel their health care coverage. That means that virtually all will fall into the penalty area as covered by Medicaid. In New York the Fed only provides about half the cost of medicaid; in poorer states the percentage is higher. That means that not only will our taxes go up here, but they will also go up disproportionately to help cover individuals in poorer states. Our local government is already crippled with debt; this is definitely not going to work.
I've been having a hard time understanding exactly how a free market system would make price levels be affordable to the general public. You say what doctors and Emergency would be charging in a free market, but what would ensure this would happen?
there is no fascist middleman i.e. insurance company that lobbies for ever increasing profits.
Charitable institutions could still run hospitals and other facilities, too.
Nothing would stop them from doing so and that would provide more competition and more opportunities.
The Catholic hospital system was once a major provider of care in inner cities. They are still around but not as formidable as they once were.
One healthcare payor would force emergency visits to reduce in cost as well as all other charges that were increased in response to all these insurance carriers that kept reducing their payment.
The same way this happens in every other market. You either compete on price and quality, or you lose money and go out of business. Interesting fact: insurance companies only pay about 10-20% of the actual "cost" of services. They receive a steep discount when paying for your services. This is presumably due to the fact that an insurance company paying a bill is a sure thing, whereas a private individual paying a medical bill is much more uncertain. The risk of default is too high, so prices are jacked up to compensate. Without third-party insurers, though, I imagine we'd pay about the same prices that insurance companies pay now.
haha what a joke. the insurance companies jack up the prices to compensate because they perceive the regular person as too risky. So, what you are saying is that this is completely okay to do because insurance companies have a right to make sure they cover their ass and make a profit. so this only benefits the insurance company and if the person pays in full then we are over paying and it benefits the insurance company even more. how can anyone agree with this logic. this is absurd
Should you have the right to rack up a medical bill and then default on it? People can file for bankruptcy and get out of paying their bills. This is a serious risk for a doctor's office to take on. Note: I'm talking about doctor's offices covering costs, not insurance companies. That's who gives these "discounts." These prices get this way because the risk is calculated and doctors determine what they need to charge in order to stay in business. If everyone paid their doctor bills, our prices would be lower. Regardless, this risk calculation doesn't only benefit the doctors. If that doctor is not in business, I cannot receive care, and so I am happy that the doctor does what he or she needs to do in order to stay in business. Take an economics course, you joke. Profit is made by serving the interests of the consumer. Apple would not be profitable if we didn't like the ipod, iphone, macbook, etc. It's not like companies can shove their products down our throats - we both act voluntarily.
Insurance companies are really a middle man. It is also not really insurance, but in many cases prepaid healthcare. My dad had only a major, catastrophic health plan ( 40-50 years ago when I was a kid), to pay for a catastrophe should it happen, in our family of7. My parents always had a running bill at the clinic and as long as my mom sent in 5or 10$ per month, the clinic left us alone. Not so today, because insurance companies like united health and others, employ tens of thousands of high paid accountants and so on, that make big ass money. The system clearly needs reform, but not a different beauacracy; that is government.
Exactly! Also, does anyone think about the fact that you can't purchase insurance across state lines? That severely limits competition and drives prices and costs of operation wayyyy up.
How about port wine stain removal? Or chemical dependency? We pay for all of the shit we may never use, Or just plain not want coverage for. Why can't a person get the same tax deduction a corporation gets, so a person could pay for his own damn insurance?
Most people can't afford the price the insurance companies pay right now.
I'm pretty sure I looked at a recent bill for $450 for a doctor's visit, and the insurance company only paid $90 of that or less after an "insurance discount." I think that's more than reasonable. Yes, we are talking a lot more money when the illness gets more severe. However, people often ignore the potentially significant role that charity would play in the absence of excessive taxation and regulation.
I'm pretty sure my father received an emergency room bill and his insurance company was charged around $300 for crutches alone. Charity exist now, do you think people would donate more with less taxation and regulation?
Absolutely. It'd be hard to argue that taxation and welfare programs don't crowd out charitable giving. Take a look at the mutual aid societies of the 1800s.
True, but my brother in law has no coverage and shops around for best pricing. He always gets the insurance companies price. For an office visit or a procedure, he tells the clinic or hospital, what he is willing to pay. He always gets his price, or should I say, the insurance companies price. ,
This is true, I am uninsured right now and I had dental surgery that would have run about 8K at full price. But because I offer cash, paid in full at start of treatment, the dentist worked for less than 2/3 of that.
I haven't had an issue getting treatment. If I need major medical care, I'm sure it won't be that easy to negotiate rates but for now I am doing what I have to do and doctors are more than willing to work with me and take my cash. They don't have to worry about the bill being denied by the ins company or waiting 24 months to get paid.
If a doctor sets up a practice in a geographical area where patients can't pay $200 per office visit, he would have to lower his rates or move to another area.
If there is a glut of doctors in rich areas, there wouldn't be enough "business" to go around, meaning someone would have to practice in poorer areas which necessitates lowering fees.
Also - the current insurance system creates overhead costs for doctors. and hospitals and these are passed on to patients. They have to pay staff to deal with the voluminous paperwork necessitated by insurance companies. Claims are denied for work already performed, paperwork sits in cabinets or boxes unprocessed meaning docs don't get paid.
Insurance only started becoming universal in the mid 20th century. Before that doctors made house calls, negotiated fees, gave patients payment plans, etc. Because they wouldn't have had a practice if they didn't do so.
Blue Cross/Blue Shield were developed by doctors to increase/protect the incomes of doctors & hospitals.
On a $200 per office visit, the insurance carrier would only pay approx $75 for it so yes the cost would come down without insurance companies.
And as an unisured person, I know this is true.
When I go to the doctor or dentist, I'm able to negotiate an affordable fee because I pay cash up front.
But the fact is that there would be no guarantee of lower prices. Nothing is there to prevent groups of people in single industries to set prices. Who is to say that certain industries would not remain at high levels of cost? If the only option is high prices or go without then how is that better than what is currently happening?
Blue Cross/Blue Shield is a good example of several members of an industry pooling together to protect their interest. How would a free market economy prevent this same situation from happening?
A common theme of OWS is the idea of corporate/political greed, so how would a system that is entirely run by greed improve anything?
COMPETITION! The fact that greed also leads businesses to undercut their competitors. You really think medical providers could all collude to keep prices high? Ever hear of the prisoner's dilemma? Try it with just under a million doctors currently practicing in the US. Plus, the number would be much higher without governmental and quasi-governmental organizations putting up serious barriers to entry that aspiring doctors must face. More competition is a good thing. The problem with the economy now is that political favors have tipped the scales in favor of big clunky corporations who aren't good at competing. These government favors make collusion easy and keep newcomers from entering the market and competing.
Prisoners' Dilemma could also support my point as well, collusion would benefit those that participated. COMPETITION! promises nothing, it gives no guarantees and its only motivation is the acquisition of wealth. With that in mind it would make sense that a successful business would be able to dominate a market over time, and it would be in the interest of the business to do so. This would eliminate competition. In any competition the ultimate goal is to remove your competition, so does it not make sense that corporations would use any means they could to do so?
If they're able to do this through government mechanisms, then the problem is severe. However, if you take government out of the business of tampering with markets, it becomes much harder to remove your competition while simultaneously growing to a size where you could feasibly do that. Big corporations don't move quickly; they're bad at competing - that's why they seek government favors. If we're talking about the market of health care suppliers (aka doctors), the prisoner's dilemma does not support your point at all. The problem with the prisoner's dilemma is that the reward for defecting is so large that defecting is likely to occur. Change it from a 2-person problem to a 1 million person problem, and it'd be damn near impossible to achieve that level of cooperation.
It might be harder, but you'd be amazed at what you can do with enough money. Ever hear of Preston Tucker?
Yes, the doctor's that defected could receive more profits by defecting but he could also guarantee profits by staying with the group.
And collusion is not limited to doctor's mind you, many drug companies provide kick-backs to doctor's for choosing their brand over another. In a free market this would not be prevented, or at least I fail to see how it would be.
Under Medicare Part D, the government agreed to reimburse for prescription drugs based on the pharma companies' going rates instead of negotiating like Canada and all other countries with socialized medicine do.
Under PPACA, our new health care law, the govt negotiated up front for a discount but there will be no ongoing discounts as I understand it - which means before the law goes into effect fees could double and then there will be no ongoing negotiation.
We as taxpayers pay for this and likely we pay for it at the pharmacy counter, too.
My point is - there is no guarantee there won't be attempted collusion, but we have collusion now - we have collusion between govt & the health care "industry" instead of collusion among providers themselves.
it is not a free market because the insurance companies have lobbied congress to eliminate the competition that would drive the prices down. If the government were not fascist then they would have anti-trust law suits against the insurance companies, eliminating their strangle hold and freeing up competition.
1/6 of this country has no health coverage. If it were legal I would offer dirt cheap health coverage to 50 million people and retire in a couple years because I would make so much money with that volume.
1/6 of this country that has no health coverage goes to the emergency room where they immediately sign them up for AHCCCS so their costs get covered. They are covered after they leave the emergency room depending on their diagnosis by AHCCCS as well. The tax payors still pay for it so now if we all have to have mandatory healthcare coverage does that mean our state taxes are reduced?
No one has mentioned that yet.
I know we don't have a free market now, I don't think anyone is saying that. What I'm saying is that if the government is corrupted by corporations it doesn't make sense to think those same corporations would do any better when left to their own devices.
that is why the government is required to do something rather than just leave it alone, which means you and I are required to do something. They need to press the anti-trust lawsuits. We need to vote in an entirely new government so that it can be possible. They need to reinstate glass-steagall. We need to vote out the incumbents and vote in those who support this. They need to end campaign bribery and fascism. We need to vote out all incumbents so this is possible.
Funny thing about anti-trust laws - If you charge less than your competitors, you're guilty of predatory pricing. If you charge the same as them, you're colluding. If you charge more than them, you're price gouging. Thus, it's clear that anti-trust laws aren't principled at all. The government invokes them, or ignores such behavior, when it's politically expedient.
this government is corrupt as hell but monopolies and oligopolies need to be split up one way or another.
Suppose You have a severed leg that is bleeding profusely because you just got run over by a banker in his porsche. He drives off and leaves you by the road, since you couldn't afford to pay him to take you hospital. Fortunately for you an Occupier saw you and took you to the Koch Tea Party Hospital for Party Animals, where doctors charge the free market rate, of supply and demand.
There are 50 people in the emergency room. The receptionist says the doctor wants $90,000 to see you since you have a dire condition. Do you think you have time to shop around for a cheaper doctor? Of course not, but being a free market, you decide to bargain, you offer $250. Dr. Koch, the hospitals expert at cutting deficits and limbs, knows how the free market works, he realizes time is on his side.
Just then the banker who ran you over came in to the emergency room, holding his pet chihuahua which is wimpering away. He asks to see Dr. Koch immediately and out bids you at $96,000, which is more than what Dr. Koch asked you. So Dr. Koch immediately attends to the chihuahua, which as it turned required extensive psychological attention and pampering.
No other doctor wants to see you for $250, because, as you know emergency rooms are busy. In a perfectly free market, do you really think anyone but your mother will attend to your leg before you fade out of existence? Of course, if your mother is a doctor that would work out well for you, but then it would not be a free market anymore.
In a free market, all those charges would be reduced significantly since they were only increased solely because of insurance carriers.
"Free market" doesn't mean the hospital would become an auction house.
How would turning away patients benefit the hospital?
Have you ever walked into an emergency room in a hospital. My friend works at a university hospital. Every 30 minutes someone dies. Believe me demand for doctors is high, they can afford to turn patients away and maximize profits.
The emergency rooms are full with people who have insurance or Medicaid that is going to pay for that visit, or with people the ER is forced to treat because of EMTALA.
If we did have a completely free market, ER's would undoubtedly look very different than they do now.
EMTALA is the catalyst which propels uninsured poor/temporarily broke people seek ER treatment for things like toothache pain, sinus infections etc.
And one would pop up next door and be happy to take those patients. Hospitals wouldn't/couldn't be quasi-monopolists in a TRULY free market system.
Yup... that's a fact.
If it was market driven this would be true.
health insurance does not bar a free market and is perfectly acceptable in a free market. it is a tool for mitigating catastrophic risk. it works well for this (home, auto) where it is allowed to. in health care, it does not act like this. to make it logically equivalent, if we used auto insurance the way we used health insurance, people would use their car insurance for paying for their oil changes. when they have a 250 deductible and 350 charge they would never consider just paying 350 to keep their insurance down - they would always pay only the 250 because the remaining 100 would be spread amongst other employees - not themselves.
the reason people behave differently in health care with health care insurance is that it's not tied to individuals and is tied to employees. the reason it is tied to employees is because of a tax exemption created during ww2 wage freezes. if this was done away with we could go back to a more free and more healthy market. obamacare is trying to get us to that market - but not by removing this tax law, but by establishing an exchange on top of the current complicated mess. not everyone is likely to make it to this exchange equally or at the same time. why they didn't just remove the old exemption i don't know.
because big pharma and health insurance companies were allowed to HELP write the 2,000 page bill which assured that nothing would change.
a market would work better if allowed to actually operate.
what a strange idea. (sarcasm)
You make some interesting points.
Health insurance would never have become so ubiquitous had it not been for employer - provided insurance.
As for using insurance to pay for oil changes (good analogy) - another thing that is happening with so-called "Obamacare" is that they are building in things like preventive visits and free birth control which IMO is just throwing out goodies for the sake of public opinion.
I've always paid for my own birth control, for godsakes, why should that be factored in to my health insurance costs? In addition, there's already Planned Parenthood for people who can't afford BC.
I am single, healthy, self employed and currently without health insurance.
I would have liked to have had the option of a Health Savings Account which would have let me save my "prevention & minor injury" dollars, get a tax benefit and buy a cheap catastrophic care policy. My state doesn't allow HSA's because those kinds of policies can't be sold here.
i recently switched jobs and got an HSA plan with a high deductible. i think it's the way to go - but enough people need to have it for the market forces to work. it does not help when your own government is blocking it for your entire state. it is a plan where people will behave as would normally be expected under traditional insurance.
preventative visits could be established by setting up incentives. if you are a well behaving driver, allstate has programs that will cut you a check or give you a break. health insurance companies could do the same - get a physical it's this much, or get your blood pressure and cholesterol down from this much to that much, etc. maintain the fit level once you reach it and get $100 off each year, etc.
Suppose You have a severed leg that is bleeding profusely because you just got run over by a rogue trader in his porsche. He drives off and leaves you by the road, since you couldn't afford to pay him to take you to hospital. Fortunately for you an Occupier saw you and took you to the Koch Tea Party Hospital for Party Animals, where doctors charge the free market rate, of supply and demand.
There are 50 people in the emergency room. The receptionist says the doctor wants $90,000 to see you since you have a dire condition. Do you think you have time to shop around for a cheaper doctor? Of course not, but being a free market, you decide to bargain, you offer $250. Dr. Koch, the hospitals expert at cutting deficits and limbs, knows how the free market works, he realizes time is on his side.
Just then the banker who ran you over came in to the emergency room, holding his pet chihuahua which is wimpering away. He asks to see Dr. Koch immediately and out bids you at $96,000, which is more than what Dr. Koch asked you. So Dr. Koch immediately attends to the chihuahua, which as it turned required extensive psychological attention and pampering.
No other doctor wants to see you for $250, because, as you know emergency rooms are busy. In a perfectly free market, do you really think anyone but your mother will attend to your leg before you fade out of existence? Of course, if your mother is a doctor that would work out well for you, but then it would not be a completely free market anymore.
But as luck would have it Dr. Quack saunters in to the emergency room after a night of heavy drinking. He offers to saw your leg off for $350, but he said he left his saw in his basement but he can drive you to his home for an extra $400, including the fee to wheel you to his car, and to clean the blood from his car after you get out.
At his home he offers you the best anesthesia available: prohibition quality liquor. He demands his money first, since there is a risk you will die and not pay him. Sadly you didn't have enough cash on hand. You only have $400. So he takes your $400 to clean his car. Thus that is your fate. God will take good care of you in heaven. Thank God for free markets.
in your genius you forgot to account for the 95% of health spending that isn't a bullet to the abdomen and rush to the ER. oops.
Emergency room care is made as difficult and inconvenient to the patient who has been waiting for several hours to be seen and this is done on purpose so you think twice before coming to the ER.
The fees charged are outrageous due to the fact they must submit it to the insurance carrier who is only going to pay maybe a third of it and if you have a carrier where you only pay a copay or deductible the rest is written off. If they charged what they nornally would charge to a person without healthcare insurance they would not make any money at all.
You sound like a demonic combination of a sociopath and a psychopath.
I'm merely pointing out a fallacy in powertothepeople's claim that without the insurance industry true free markets will prevail for the healthcare industry and lower costs of care. I've chosen to illustrate my point and the fallacy of powertothepeople's claim with a dramatic example.
Well you clearly made it convincing.
In relation to an ER visit, your dramatization is likely true. I would argue that the free market would make things like non urgent care cheaper. Doctors would have to lower prices to attract more customers. I.e. clearly ER visits are an inelastic good, while routine check ups and procedures are elastic.
Quote: Doctors would have to lower prices to attract more customers.
Remember customers are patients. Do you really think if doctors charged less people are more apt to become sick? If that's the case we should be able to cure strep throat and the common cold just by asking doctors to charge less.
You should win the Nobel prize not on in economics but in medicine.
Preventative care, such as routine checkups and procedures do NOT require people to become sick. My argument was for those, not for the common cold or strep throat.
Assuming everyone gets preventative care, then the common vaccinated disease or ones that can be prevented, will be. This will lower demand for those services initially (less people will get them due to proper preventative care), and then the market forces will find a new equilibrium. Generally this results in a cheaper service, but that depends on how suppliers react.
I loved it! My grandfather was a doctor before people had insurance. I remember when the other doctors wanted him to charge $35 dollars for visits instead of $25. In a free market, the doctors wouldn't tell other docs what to charge. A free market approach would lead to a lot of death due to doctors not accepting prize chickens as payments anymore. In some poor rural areas there would be no doctor at all.
[Removed]
It is a right:
The simple argument is the one FDR had. You cannot pursue happiness if you are chronically sick and chronically under debt due to that sickness.
Follow that logic...Housing must be a right. Food, clothing, love...Where does it stop?
Yes food, water, housing, and job as outlined in FDRs second bill of rights would all be rights. I dont think clothing or love will be a problem once you have the above rights.
It is my belief that rights are not things that can be given Rights are those things that can't be taken away.
I just posted a new forum post. I would appreciate your input on it.
As for rights, in reality they can be taken away simply because at anytime someone can take them or the government can take them. Today all they have todo is call you an enemy combatant and your rights are gone. I think your definition is flimsy. I'm not trying to be rude, so excuse me if it comes out that way.
You're not being rude. You are correct. Rights CAN be taken away. But, I'm sure that you understood my perspective. Human rights relate to freedoms. These are not things that others provide. They are those things that you are allowed to pursue. What is the subject of your latest post?
I can see that, if you equate rights as freedoms, than it makes sense that they are "inalienable"... my latest post is a step through of the process of figuring out what republicanism mean, and how I could mold it into my ideas of libertarian socialism.... here is a link to it...
http://www.occupywallst.org/forum/republicanism-and-social-libertarian-ideals-can-th/
what rights do the doctors have? Are we not reinstituting slavery if require that they provide a free service to us?
I never said it is free. It is paid for through taxes. What that tax system looks like who knows.
that still enslaves the doctor to the government. the government will then make all the decisions for the doctor regarding his/her hours and his/her compensation.
I got news for you, the heathcare insurance carriers already enslaves the doctors.
that's not news to me. We need to get rid of the fascist healthcare system in this country. We don't need to replace it with socialized medicine because it won't be much better.
I dont see how my statements imply that. I never stated government would force doctors to do anything, they will get paid for a service (treatment) done. Its exactly the same setup, except now the incentives are there for preventative care rather that profit only. The government has no profit motive, and would be interested in preventing costly procedures usually caused by no preventative medicine.
You didn't explicitly state that. But have you thought this through entirely? What ends up happening to the healthcare providers? And I'm not talking about insurance companies who don't provide anything but higher costs.
The healthcare providers and the payor system would need to change how things have always been done and come up with a more practical efficient system that makes the patient be of primary concern.
I know! let's get rid of the middle man so the doctor has a vested interest in the patient who is his boss and writes his paycheck.
I am sure something will change for them, but nothing so drastic as to tread on their liberty.
invient i'm sure you are a good person and want to do the right thing. but this is a cop out. before you affect legislation and the liberty of others please have a reason or a solution to this problem.
Provide an incentive for the doctor to do a good job. If I know the doctor is a slave and hates his job, I would consider having my cancer treated elsewhere, where the doctor is happy and has a vested interest in my recovery.
The doctor does have a vested interest in your recovery, he is a doctor!
I am tired of people arguing that money is the only incentive in life. We are humans, we do many things for many different reasons. The least of them being this man made creation called free market exchange. We enjoy becoming good at something, this is why people spend hours on their off time playing instruments Some people become doctors because it makes them happy to help others.
I would much rather have a society of well paid doctors who are motivated to help others by the virtue of the act rather than some superficial measure of a persons worth relative to his peers.
i wish it were that simple. but we are talking economics and though the fortunate may feel altruistic and charitable at times, do you really want to rely on that when you have cancer?
I believe that human beings are neither good nor bad. I believe that human beings have weaknesses and the main weakness is selfishness. Knowing that, I do not want to have a slave treat my cancer.
Incremental changes are probably best. I would definitely start with those, pretty reasonable.
Yeah I see what you are saying, the government does like to spend money. I cant remember the quote, it was either founding fathers or possibly Henry Ford, that all democracies are doomed to fail once the people realize they control the public purse...
The supercommittee results should be interesting, although I suspect it will fall flat... in which case automatic cuts will occur, and that will put the blame on only the supercommitee members (thats how i see the media as playing it)... I think it is all theatre and bull shit, but well see.
well I don't know the perfect solution to healthcare in this country. But this is what I think we should do. First, break up the fascists in big pharma and health insurance. Outlaw, them from contributing to campaigns more than a hundred bucks. Then the doctor will have even more interest in the patient because they are being paid directly by the patient.
I think we should do this first and see how we have improved. If more is needed then I wouldn't be opposed to a catastrophic universal coverage. Many times a diagnoses of cancer is a death sentence because we can't pay for the CT scans and the chemo. We could have a social fund where if ones medical expenses exceed $20,000 or so and there is no way to pay it then this fund covers you. I think that is in line with our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Market speculation on pretty much everyone single one of those has caused prices to go up. My view of the military is, how can you keep the cost of it down when you continually go into wars.
I do appreciate your candor. However, your reference to chess makes me feel you are a few steps ahead of me.
Just a FYI I am going off to bed, so I wont be responding anytime soon.
speculation is a factor but not all of it. We need to cut the military budget and stop the wars. But getting the government to stop spending is.... i don't know...you saw what happened in August- They didn't cut anything.
I don't know that much and it is all from my perspective, which I might not have the clearest view from where I am standing. Maybe you have the clearest view.
the cost of medicine will go down because the government will have the interest in keeping the costs down through use of preventative medicine. Doctors will still be paid well, in fact you could argue that under this system they could be paid more because patients will be visiting them more often and regularly to prevent diseases that eventually would have led to more expensive care in the current system.
will they? have they kept the cost of the military down? no. have they kept the cost of education down? no. we spend more money on those 2 than any other country in the world. have they kept the price of gasoline down? have they kept the price of groceries down? all of these things are going up year after year.
thanks for arguing with me BTW it's an opportunity for us both to learn. sooner or later you will checkmate me but not yet. haha
They are getting paid, and I said paid well... I know of few slaves in history who have ever been paid, let alone paid well.
Since they are being paid I am not relying on them to be altruistic or charitable, that is the reason for them being a doctor, not the reason for them treating my cancer. The cancer treatment and their service is being paid for.
I believe humans are hard wired to be empathetic beings, that selfishness is trained into us by society. I point to research that shows humans, primates, and a few other animals have what are called mirror neurons, where our brains fire the same pathways as another human as they act. I also realize that humans have potential for being bad, but that potential must be realized with environmental factors (bad child hood, abusive parents, ayn rand novels before the age of 25 :P ect...).
they are paid well now but what will happen if we socialize medicine?
But you have the ability to AVOID being chronically sick, and free healthcare differs that avoidance to the taxpayer.
If you get sick, eat healthy, excercise, go herbal medicine and affordable healthcare. You have no right to have ME pay for your health which you are in complete control of.
You are brainwashed by the media so don't believe that if you eat right, have no bad habits, etc is a guarantee that you won't get sick. Genetics and a polluted environment plays a big part in diseases.
Oh yes, because those with genetic disease totally had control over that. My family has Dannon Disease... its not pretty, and no one chose this you can trust me on that.
Also, conditions like asthma are both genetically and enviormentall caused. We allow pollutions that cause these diseases, should not society be somewhat culpable as a whole to these people.
Doctors have been around for millenniums. Does it not stand to reason that if the founding fathers wanted us to have our health covered by the government that they would have made a provision for it? Also, who pays? only the wealthy? should the poor not be required to pay something?
you cant get blood out of a turnip. expecting someone without money to pay for something is ridiculous. you either pay or you watch them suffer or die. those are the the only two choices. in the millennium doctors accepted food or maybe a new chair for payment that is not the case any longer.
go back to the original point. If the founding Fathers felt it was a right, it would have been included in the Bill of Rights. It was not.
if that is true,, then why does the government force health care on parents? im refering to the kid that had cancer and the parents that didnt want health care for him. the government charged them with a crime for this. if health care was not this childs right,, what did they base this charge on? how was the child being wronged? by doing this the government stated it has the duty to force the right to healthcare upon the citizens.. so a precedent has been set that states that healthcare is a right.
Yes, which is unconstitutional and a travesty.
the moral thing to do is to pay for a good or service that someone else provides you. Or else you are just advocating piracy.
However, the declaration of independence states that we have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness- none of which is free, but if you work and still cannot afford healthcare then there is a problem with the system. Someone is infringing upon your rights and that someone is big pharma and the fascist health insurance companies, since they are considered persons by the supreme court. None of this could be made possible, though without the complete cooperation of your government.
Doctors in the sense of cutting off your arm, or blood letting.
The founding fathers wrote those documents in the context of political and religious persecution. So guess what the documents protect, political and religious actions.
There would presumably be no division in who pays. Everyone pays taxes, it will come from that. The wealthy will pay a higher tax, and the poor a lower tax. But both will pay for it in some way.
no, everyone pays sales tax, not income tax
Everyone pays FICA tax if they work.
Everyone pays those Federal taxes on utilities, phone service, etc.
If they travel, they pay that Homeland Security fee that is tacked on to every ticket.
did I preface tax with "income"... I dont see it, but I guess you did.
Well who would pay for a national heathcare system? I would assume it's the federal government, and they get their money from income tax
presumably : "by assuming reasonably; probably: "
I do not know what tax system would be in place if this were implemented. I am assuming that the current tax system would would be replaced or in some way reflect the cost of healthcare, that is why I used the word presumably.
Ok. Got cha.
We the PEOPLE
In order to form a MORE PERFECT UNION
demand that we have a healthy and educated population
I like what you're saying...
It is a right. My health care is covered by Canadian law.
[Removed]
It is not a right !
Health care is a service and someone has to pay for the service. The crowd who believes they are entitled to health care are the same who will stand with their hand out for more entitlements. There is value in a service and universal health care takes out the value. All have access to health care through an emergency room now and have had that access for years. By making it universal you take out the value, but still someone has to pay for it.
I run, eat right and take care of myself. Why sould I be liable for the person who eats like a pig, does not take care of themselves and their habits have created a servere need for a service they expect a someone else to pay for.
You still pay for it with higher taxes.
No health care is not a right!
You know who else provide services to the public: police, firefighters, and teachers. These are all public workers of extreme value. Would you rather privatized fire stations again? If enough people see health care as a right, then it is so.
It does not matter what you think since people without health insurance just go to the ER where they are put on AHCCS which the tax payors pay for it.
I would rather pay high taxes and have everybody in the country covered. I think it makes for a better strong capitalism. Whether it is a right or not, I don't care. All I know is that each province in Canada has to offer health care free of charge (paid by the government) and no one can pay to get faster services. I like this. Income tax is also not the same in Canada. Rich people pay a lot more than poor people. My brother makes 100k a year and pays above 40%.
The lie is that people do not have access here and they have always had it.
I'm not sure I get you?
The law here has been if you need health care you could go to an emergency room and they will have to take you, and treat you regardless of the ailment.
So, if you have a cancer they will pay for your medication and your long stay at the hospital. That's awesome. Just like in Canada I suppose. So it's just a question of going to ER. No big deal in the end.
yup, they cant turn you away.
lol no.
You get only "emergency" care. They do not provide cancer treatment in an emergency room. They will give you painkillers and send you home, possibly with a referral to a doctor.
That's awesome. You just show up to ER and you get a room with a TV, free meals, free medication, and you can stay as long as possible without ever having to worry about paying a bill. You guys should get this info out more. Some Americans should know about this.
Yes, we should! I sure haven't heard about it.
The illegal aliens do it daily, but it is a hospital not a resort. They take care of you needs
The only thing that I'm aware of which establishes a "right" to health care under Canadian law is the Chaoulli decision which relates to the right to seek private care when the public sector fails to provide.
But admittedly I'm not an expert in Canadian law. Where is the "right" to health care established?
I'm not a lawyer, so I wouldn't be the best source for this information. As far as I know, there are no private care clinics in the sense of some which you could go to and pay for a faster service instead of using public care. It's all "free". There are private clinics, but the government pays the bill. You can't pay to pass in front of the line in Canada.
I think such a system makes for a better more aggressive capitalism. I know, it sounds ironic ;-)
That does not constitute a "right." That describes a practice.
Rights are not provided by the government. By definition, they are established in law to be inherent to the individual and unalienable.
(BTW, you guys might want to work on that "free speech" thing of yours a little. ; )
if that is true,, then why does the government force health care on parents? im refering to the kid that had cancer and the parents that didnt want health care for him. the government charged them with a crime for this. if health care was not this childs right,, what did they base this charge on? how was the child being wronged?
Nah, I like the fact that we have protections against hate speech. Overall, I'm very happy with the Canadian system.
u like hate speech laws? dear lord thats crazy!! Free speech can not be taken away from you regardless of how unpolular it is. Your govt is oppressing you my friend
I don't see it that way. I've never felt oppressed by the laws in Canada, all to the contrary. I always saw US as much more oppressive, and when I lived there during my studies, the government always seemed like it was breathing down my neck. I also didn't enjoy the news channels and the general dumping down of intellectualism on TV. I missed Canada during those hard times.
so i can go to jail for saying something like......i dont know....ALL MUSLIMS ARE THE DEVIL!? thats pretty fuckin gay
The distinction being that where the government has the power to grant rights, it also can take them away and/or define and restrict them as it sees fit.
My understanding of the fundamental difference between our systems is that your rights are granted by the government, whereas ours are considered to inherent and cannot be infringed by the government. It's a subtle but significant difference.
We also have a constitution. But honestly, it would seem to me the rights of US citizens are much less protected than those of Canadians. For example, the Patriotic Act could never have been passed so easily in Canada. That takes a lot of your rights away.
I'm aware that you have a Charter. The distinction that I was noting was in how it's written and how "rights" are attributed.
How exactly is it that you believe that the Patriot Act "take rights away?" The concerns center largely around privacy vs rights (although there are various aspects of privacy that arguably are "rights.")
Well, I'm not a lawyer and I have to go because it's really late where I am in the world. Let's just say I wouldn't want to live under US laws. I much prefer the system in Canada where we pay higher taxes and get social programs. I like that we help each other.
As for the Patriotic Act. My first issue it the name. I hate it when governments ask us to be patriotic. My second issue is that I care about my privacy. I don't want my government in my affairs if is not needed. My third issue is how it was passed. Basically, the government instilled a culture of fear, then went ahead and passed it under your noses. Not too cool.
I'll be honest. When I cross the border to US it always feels very strange. I like the energy in downtown Manhattan, but generally speaking it just feels weird for me in US. The TV channels are also strange. The news seems much less varied and unbiased, and intellectualism seems completely absent. I'm a French Canadian, so I like to talk philosophy and stuff like that. We have that on our TV channels. Like Derrida for example.
It is if we want it to be.
Introduce natural treatments instead of relying only on patentable medicines and techniques. How primitive and ridiculous. Sheesh, does everything has to have a profit?? including life?
Medicine is free in NATURE. So is food.
The 'healthcare system' is really profit-motivated 'sickness profiteering'. It's my opinion that an improvement in the way we care for people should include a more comprehensive education on managing one's own health - education for diet and exercise should be a high priority for our society. Many, many health risks can be mitigated with this approach. Meanwhile we have a generation of children on the fast-track to diabetes and will likely die before their parents - parents who are not educated and cannot teach their children how to take care of their health. But since a healthy lifestyle makes sense, it doesn't make dollars. Healthcare is not a right & sickness profiteering is not right.
If cancer rates rise because of industrialization, then that is considered an externality, or a loss of longevity experienced by the citizen because of the accumulation of capital.Therefore, since we all had a part to play in causing cancer to rise, we should all have the same part to play in alleviating the damage caused by industrialization. and those that gained more pay more.
LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those are the rights outlined in the Constitution.
Some sort of assured health care, insurance, or other program, needs to be in place to insure that people have an equal chance at a right to life.
"pursuit of happiness" you don't get an equal chance! You take what you have made of yourself and you pursue. Personal responsibility - try it!
No matter what no one will EVER have an equal chance at life. I may be healthy all my life and die at 100 from old age. You might get incurable cancer and die at 44.
I didn't say an equal life, just an equal CHANCE. A twelve year old of a single mom barely making ends meet has the same right to a heart transplant as the head of any corporation or the president himself.
So the kid goes on the transplant list. Life kills. You may think that sounds funny but it's true if you think about it. We are all dying from the second we're born,it's just the trip in between that makes interesting.
Apparently your not a parent. If that was your mom? Your Brother who needed help and nobody cared...
I have two sons so wrong on that count. They would go on the transplant list as I said.
They would go on the list. But only those who can pay actually get one.
It is not a right !
Health care is a service and someone has to pay for the service. The crowd who believes they are entitled to health care are the same who will stand with their hand out for more entitlements. There is value in a service and universal health care takes out the value. All have access to health care through an emergency room now and have had that access for years. By making it universal you take out the value, but still someone has to pay for it.
I run, eat right and take care of myself. Why sould I be liable for the person who eats like a pig, does not take care of themselves and their habits have created a servere need for a service they expect a someone else to pay for. No health care is not a right!
I too am opposed to most forms of hand outs. But without health a person can't work, can't take care of their families and become a great "burden' (or there family becomes so because they died)
As healthy as you are, what if you got some crazy, rare, cancer and your insurance won't cover your testing, let alone your care. I've seen it happen. I watched another woman die from uterine cancer because her insurance didn't cover but she didn't quite qualify for state aid. By the time she finally got enough money together it was too late. She's dead now.
As human beings we should have enough compassion to care for the weak.
Insurance companies should not be the judges of what care people need. They are paid for a service and should honor it.
The lie has been that we do not have access to health care. The truth is we have always had access to it if we realy need it. As for some outside chance there is something we may get that might not be covered that is the insurance company acting like a doctor, that is wrong. As for handouts I am still opposed.
We do not have access to health care if we do not have plenty of cash or enough insurance. I have watched it happen.
ok so you do that.. but your heart goes bad anyway.. does that make it your right then cause you have some genetic weakness? shouldnt that make you ineligible also? why should i pay for your genetic weakness? or do we only target 2cd onset diabetes and heart disease ? even though,, if you were fat as a kid that is of course child abuse by your parents and still not your fault.
Noone should be responsible for the misgivings of others. I make my way, have insurance and plan. It is not my fault if others are poor planners, as for abuse and being heavy as a child, we all have the abilty to make choices and plan
and when you lose that job.. that company shuts down due to corporate greed. and on that same day.. because of course you planned for this. fall down the stairs and injure yourself to the tune of say 100k . thats cool.. you had a 100k put back. but after you recover you find out you have cancer. you ignorantly did not find a job while you were in the body cast.. and now you spent all your money recovering ,, you of course would not expect to be treated for the cancer then.. but accept your death as your own fault. you must say yes to prove your argument
This backwards Ayn Rand "rugged individualism" bullshit will tear apart society. I suppose hospitals should start refusing to treat anyone who can't afford health insurance or pay out of pocket. Empathy is one thing universally lacking in the brains of right wing shit heads. You guys are the biggest hypocrites in the world.
Wow,awful lot of anger there. Hospitals by law cannot refuse treatment.Those of us who can pay pay for those who can't through increased prices for healthcare.
So we as a society have decided that healthcare is a right in some circumstances. Otherwise hospitals would just tell the poor to fuck off and die.
If we already allow treatment regardless of ability to pay in some situations why not make the system more efficient?
There is a basic human right to live, and to have a dignified life. Health insurance is not health care, yet health care is part of that right to a dignified life, as is access to food, shelter, education, clean water and air. These shouldn't be denied people in a civil society because of pressure of circumstances. It's up to society to determine the best means of providing access to health care. The costs of health care in the United States are the largest problem in people's access. The myriad inflated costs of an over-priced system should be the focus for now in understanding and debating solutions for access of care to all.
Who cares about health insurance. People need health care. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. All human beings are entitled to free Health Care to ensure a long lasting and comfortable life - Universal Declaration.
Health insurance is not a right it is a for profit, tool that exists to ration health care and keep the average US citizen, the 99%, enslaved to their employer, unable to spend time at occupy or any other protest out of fear that if they lose their job they will lose the ability to seek quality health care.Please educate your selves about heat health care reform. Watch, study, Michael Moore's SICKO. Visit the physicians web site PNHP.ORG If Medicare were to be extended to cover everyone in the US from cradle to grave. If quality health care was indeed a guaranteed right the 1% would not be able to control us the way they do today.
I'm pretty conservative on most things, but I believe every American should have access to basic health care. The trillions of dollars spent in the Middle East could have been better used in so many ways, including giving those who can't afford health insurance access to medical care. It's just basic human compassion. I know it's a complicated issue, but I believe it's something we can and should work towards.
One of the demands of the Occupy London group was, "We don't want a US style health care system."
Health care is a human right and is included in the United Nations Declarations of Universal Rights. It is recognized as a human right by the great majority of the world's countries, the US being among the few exceptions. Somalia is another exception and I think there are one or tow more.
Sorry im an American not a citizen of the communist UN. Sure those other countries say it is a right because A) they either don't provide it to most of their people or B) they get their funding for health care from the US. Don't be brainwashed.
Here is something I think should be taken into consideration when discussing this issue. "There's a new drug called Taxol to fight ovarian cancer. That drug was produced by a grant of $31 million of taxpayer money through the National Institutes of Health, right through the clinical testing process. The formula was then given away to the Bristol-Myers Squibb company. No royalties were paid to the taxpayer. There was no restraint on the price. Charges now run $10,000 to $15,000 per patient for a series of treatments. If the patients can't pay, they go on Medicaid, and the taxpayer pays at the other end of the cycle, too.(Stop Corporate Welfare by Ralph Nader) story here: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Nader/StopCorpWelfare_Nader.html
Insurance isn't a right. Since insurance is bought. Health Care is a right.
Ok, lets take a look at the World Health Organizations top five countries for health care. Whats the difference between their healthcare systems and ours? Privatization. All of the countries in the top five have a public plan. Until the U.S. adopts the same the American health care system will remain in shambles.
http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/
How about if we looked at health care (not insurance but actual care) not as a right, but as a part of the nation's infrastructure, like the Postal Service?
The USPS was authorized in our Constitution for the good of the nation - to promote commerce and communication between the states and with the rest of the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Clause
Despite the undeserved bad rap the USPS is getting lately, it is actually quite efficient and quite cost effective. No longer subsidized by tax dollars, it is a non - profit government agency which offers great service at reasonable fees to it customers.
Healthy citizens promote commerce & competition with the other nations of the world, don't you think?
Heath care is a right. Health insurance is a scam. It is run by the mega pharmas and mega banks.
Preamble to the United States Constitution
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
welfare noun, the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization; well-being
That being said, health insurance is not a right. It is a device for denying people rights granted under the constitution.
A dislike on the US Constitution?
A demonstration of true conservative values. No wonder we're in trouble.
it is not a right, but an economic necessity.
Being healthy is an economic necessity. Sickness profiteering is not.
That too. But lets take the american auto industry. why is it, that Toyota or BMW building their plants in Louisiana or Mississippi? Union contracts which provide for health care in Detroit. So universal health care is a competitive advantage for the american industry.
I've had two hospitals and on dentist office assure me that I was covered by my private insurance cover
only to turn around and charge me when the issuance company found reason not to pay
Health care as such is considered a right in almost every developed country and in some not so developed countries as well.
http://costarica.com/relocation/health-care/
I hope Canada's healthcare never crumbles and we have to use a US system. That would suck majorly.
No, heath insurance is legalizeed mafia. Health care is a right.
Instead of health insurance.
Why not just create public hospitals and make deals with the pharmaceuticals (other countries do this and it works).
Universal health care will just increase the cost of medicine. While public hospitals will decrease the cost of medicine. Add government universities anexed to those hospitals. Offer free tuition for those attending the universities on exchange of 1 year at minimum salary for every year of free education. Meaning that those who graduate will not only finish without debt, but will experience. While the hospital get a supply of new doctors and nurses for cheap.
Add special provisions to limit the amount of money of a medical lawsuit that can be collected (of course adding criminal provisions from those who actually are crooks)
This is simple, proven (it was used in Puerto Rico for many years, until idiots decided to offer a card and privatize the hospitals) and will take far less money than the Obama plan.
You should never have the right to compel the service of another. And if you want to make health care a right, that is exactly what you are doing. It is an evil thought.
That does not mean there are not issues that can be addressed, to help decrease the cost of care. But most have focused on the wrong people, the insurance companies.
Its obvious the medical device manufacturers, and pharma, who are the most profitable businesses in the nation, are what should be addressed.
Yes, most complaining about the high cost of health care blame doctors and hospitals but they are completely clueless as to the costs of running a health care facility. I saw a 1/2 hp vacuum pump go from $1000 to $1500 in just two years. The exact sane model. If it were labeled for farm use instead of medical/dental it would have cost around $250.
General welfare, right to life--it's there, plain as day. Without good health there is no republic. It's a solemn right.
You can try to take those words out of context all you like, but they simply were not written in regards to healthcare. It was a promise to protect our citizens, not to provide them every need.
So, if you had a kid and that kid got a horrible cold from another kid at school, because the other kid's family could not afford health care, wouldn't you be mad that your kid got the cold?
Good grief, are you serious???? You can play what if games all day like that. My kid could have gotten the cold from anywhere. Assuming that a sick kid at school is the cause is ignorant. And no, I wouldn't be mad. If my kid was sick I'd take him to the doctor and pay my copay for my medical insurance I BOUGHT him with money I EARNED, and he'd get all fixed up.
What if the doctor doesn't wash his hands and kills him?
The doctor gets sued, I become one of the 1%, and I buy even more guns. What's your point?
If you "handed out" free health care, free food and free housing, the free market would still go on and people would still have the opportunity to get wealthy. I hate when people throw around the word "Socialism" and equate it to a handout. A handout is a tax exemption, but if you work for a living, the basic necessities of life should be granted. After all, every labor saving technology out there has been made possible by the labor of every human being. So, to answer you, health care should be a right for everyone.
Must see video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOAgT8L_BqQ
Repeal Obamacare
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304506904575180331528424238.html
One reason healthcare costs are so high. Discuss.
The pursuit of happiness is our primary right
Not only is it not a right, but it isn't even true "insurance" if you sick. Insurance and Assurance should be the same.
Yes. Let people die sarcasm
Sooner or later all of the rich are going to run out of people to do their work for them.
http://tiny.cc/8c0eo
Don't Let A Bureaucrat Get Between You And Your Doctor. You've heard it before, you'll hear it again, but guess what? The bureaucrat is already there in the form of an insurance rep patently denying services, procedures, or tests. Don't believe this mantra from the (far) right side. Profit should not be part of health. Health care should be a right. People shouldn't have to choose between food and overinflated drugs from legal pushers. I myself have put off going to doctors because I couldn't afford to.
Why do Americans need what almost no other country needs?
insurance company profits?
The republican mantra is "don't let a bureaucrat get between you and your doctor". Guess what?! He is already there in the form of an insurance rep denying your test or procedure. These buffoons patently deny services and procedures they don't understand themselves because they are NOT doctors (or even in the medical field for that matter). At least the people that review Medicare claims and applications are.
I am not an OWSer, but health care is a right. As human beings, we must see to that. don't care about insurance, but everyone deserves equal health care.
i havent had heath insurance for years. if i get seriously hurt i'll just go to the hospital and they will treat me, or if its cancer or the big one than i guess thats it for me.
that only works if you dont give a shit about your credit, which i dont, and do not wish to be a cancer survivor, which i dont. cancer survivors are annoying.
The election of 1948 was a referendum on the New Deal. Dewey had a significant amount of momentum and Truman needed every vote he could get (think of him holding the photo with the headline 'Dewey Wins'). After WWII, dubbed the 'People's War', citizens of Great Britain, France, Germany, Holland, the US, etc expected that their countries would provide the 'people's peace', which included basic governmental services and expanded the progressive initiatives of the first half of the century. Univesral Health Care was part of this 'craddle to the grave' intiative that was produced as part of the peace terms. The US missed out on this because of two reasons: The insurance companies/medical profession and the South would have never allowed hospitals to be desegregated. Since Truman knew he couldnt win without the south (back when the south voted democrat - and interestingly enough stopped voting democrat after the civil rights act of 1964) he dropped the initiative of universal health care. Health Care in some coutries is a right because it was promised as part of the peace that ended a war that saw their cities bombed, sons and husbands killed and a civilization destroyed.
We dont see health care in those terms because we werent touched like those countries were. We didnt lose the wealth of our individuals at the end of the war, we expanded it, and therefore had no need to be part of the people's peace. Other countries didnt have that massive prosperity boom like we did in the US - they depended on the people who sent them to war.
Health Care is a right - a right to live.
Health insurance used to be a really cool idea. But it's not any longer because these are investment firms, who maintain low reserves, and try to deny they sold you a product in the first place. One big scam......... national health care also sux a big fat one. So I'd recommend you get these insurance companies in order, require some quality control, at an affordable price. OR... we open the market to foreigners. Amazing right? The US has no problem allowing China to put our small solar companies out of business but they won't allow them anywhere near our insurance market.
Maybe not now, But health care should be a right. NOONE should go broke due to injury or illness, and people shouldn't have to choose between health care and food.
So when would this healthcare be provided to someone? Only for life threatening diseases? For someone's chronic pain management issue? For a wart removal? Strictly disease control or to protect life and limb?
Health insurance is the biggest rip off that I have ever seen. I firmly believe they have made people's lives a living hell in the past 10 years so that people will not seek medical treatment. So, have hospitals.
Many hospitals do not pay property taxes based on how much charity work they do, so the rest of us cover that. They may also receive funding through tax dollars. So, we cover that. Then they decide what kind of treatment that you get, when you get and how much you get depending on your income. And the x amount of bills that you get, you then have to go deal with the insurance company.
There is no reason that braces should cost 5,000 dollars with insurance. There is no reason that walking into an emergency room should cost $400 with insurance.
Let's say that you have a person that works at a place that has deliberately cut your hours to work 34 or 37 so that they don't have to pay insurance. That person has to work a second part time job that is also right at the cut off line. So, they do not make enough to pay full price for health care and yet make too much to qualify for any aid.
What right do the health insurance(or entire health industry) companies have to gouge the public? Especially with their lack of quality care?
One point another poster hinted at was about paying for someone else's "poor health decisions." How can we expect taxpayers to be ok for tens of thousands of dollars going to one chronic smokers heart and lung disease while the taxpayer themself lives a clean, healthy life? Should there be requirements to qualify, or like others said "it's a birthright"?
I'm with you. I want to know where are the Christians in this discussion. That fellow, "Jesus" was known for being a healer of sorts. It's a cornerstone aspect of 'the Son of Man'. What gives, Christians?
but did jesus tax others with threat of imprisonment for not helping the poor?
Right. I'm still looking for the Christians in this discussion.
How would I have known? It's the good old "just world fallacy". If anyone gets sick it must be their own damn fault. Blame the victim. It's a matter of personal responsibility to avoid being born with a genetic condition that requires lifelong treatment. As long as YOU aren't the one who needs care to live.
But IF we agree it is a right, then where would that stop?
It stops when what a doctor can perform is less humane than the patient going without treatment.
Anything less, would be inhumane.
The DOD is not a right.
[Removed]
I wonder if early humans also had this birth right? A right must be universally consistent - across time, place, and person - in order to be legitimate. So, how can health care be a right? Do we have the right to the newest and best medical technology? Do Kenyans have the right to be treated for HIV in the same way that Magic Johnson has been treated? They don't have anything remotely resembling widespread access to this type of care, so how could they possibly have a right to it? And if that's the case, how can it be a birth right? If they do have a right to access the same care that Magic Johnson received, who is to provide it to them? The US? The UK? Russia? Every HIV doctor on earth?
[Removed]
Perhaps you'd help me understand your position more clearly if you described what it would mean for someone to have a birthright to health care. Do you mean a right to access health care, or a right to be provided health care. If you have a right to be provided health care, who has the duty to provide that to you?
[Removed]
What about the Kenyan government? Same deal there? If it's truly a right, it's something independent of government declaration. That means Kenyans, Libyans, Nigerians, Indonesians all have the same right. But clearly they don't have the ability to use this right - extremely poor and corrupt governments run rampant - so do they even really have it?
I'm asking for both sides but this sure seems to be the very most far left response I would have expected. Health care is out there. Not everyone carries it whether they can afford it or not. With this stance where do you draw the line? Is car insurance a birth right? Is burial insurance?
[Removed]
That happens all the time in Indonesia. A few years ago, my friend's dad of cancer because he couldn't afford treatment. He was 42.
it happens all the time in the US. people die everyday for the sole cause of not having enough money in the US.
Ya, I heard the US government buried them in common graves and called them the children of capitalism.
[Removed]
I've got to say, the love of money has certainly led to some amazing medical breakthroughs that would never have been possible or imaginable otherwise. You're right, the profit motive is a horrible thing.
I am not a part of that "we". Your statement is too sweeping to be valid.
[Removed]
Me not agreeing with you doesn't make it denial. Someone so well versed in blog misdirection I would have expected to be such an expert in denial that they would know that.
[Removed]
People forget that there was not always health insurance in this country. Health care providers and pharmaceutical companies had to price their services and drugs accordingly. The health insurance layer that came about in the '80s is a middle-man system between the consumer and the health care industry that allows that industry to charge astronomical rates they would otherwise never get away with.
Or, it was an insurance, just like any other to help protect people from potential catastrophic loss. Not everything in this world is a conspiracy against the 99.
There was no "potential catastrophic loss" - cite links or show me how people got bankrupted by critical illness prior to the introduction of health insurance - the idea that a procedure or a prescription or series of treatments could bankrupt you is a tool used by the modern health system to justify ridiculous premiums and overpiced equipment and services. Its gouging plain and simple.
[Removed]
Health insurance is not a right it is a for profit, tool that exists to ration health care and keep the average US citizen, the 99%, enslaved to their employer, unable to spend time at occupy or any other protest out of fear that if they lose their job they will lose the ability to seek quality health care.Please educate your selves about heat health care reform. Watch, study, Michael Moore's SICKO. Visit the physicians web site PNHP.ORG If Medicare were to be extended to cover everyone in the US from cradle to grave. If quality health care was indeed a guaranteed right the 1% would not be able to control us the way they do today.
no it is not because it not anyone's right to enslave anyone else. that is a crime. for anyone to have health insurance requires that someone provide it. we do not have the right to free food because that requires enslaving a farmer. we do not have the right to free healthcare because that enslaves a doctor. you can say this about everything in the economy. you do have the right to work and earn money to pay for these goods and services.
the problem is the fascism between government and corporations that have made these things so expensive that people can't afford them. That is a right that is being infringed upon by the fascists. You have the right to affordable healthcare. i.e. life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
More socialism is not the answer. Getting rid of the fascism is the answer.
What is a right? Theft? Of course in a civilized society (all of the civilized world) health care is free. How can you have fair elections if the people who stand a chance of progressing the nation might die because they can't get health insurance. That's why the bimbos on other posts don't get that socialism is a live and well right here in the USA. That is good. It proves we can be civilized, care for the populations health and still be capitalists. The socialist part is always scrutinized but now the capitalist part is being put in check. Go OWS!
but how long will this health care be free? One insane economic downturn or a financial collapse and the govt may not have any revenue for it.
Forever if we want it to. That means breaking the back of the trillion dollar insurance industry.
Free to who?
Everyone. Or only the rich? What if your business died, your wife left you and your mother was dying?.
If it's free for everyone, who pays for it?
Stop feeding insurance companies trillions of dollars to tell us who is entitled and who keeps the rest. Ask the pharmaceuticals what it costs to produce their 50 side-effect 'cure' for the cold. Stop. Who pays. Stop the stealing. Free health care. No middlemen with caviar laden yachts to tell us who can live!
I'm not interested in your declarations of grandeur and rally cries. I'm asking a very concrete question - who pays for health care if it's free for everyone? Obviously SOMEONE is paying for it. But then you're treating some differently from others under the law - which violates a fundamental American principle.
You are asking me to balance a sheet in the middle. When the system is overhauled trillions of dollars will go from the rich to the poor. It sounds simplistic but it's late. Good night.
No it won't. If that does occur, then that will mark the downfall of the American standard of living. After all, we all know poor people are excellent at investing and saving money in order to facilitate economic growth. They certainly became (or stayed) poor, in part, because they were responsible with money.
Health Insurance is not a right, it's a business, It's original intent was to spread the risk around. Too many people look at it as a way to get free health care. It's never free, many pay in and never use up their premium's worth of actual care, that's the only way a business can maintain itself. (You can argue about excessive profits but the fact remains some have to pay in and not use those dollars even if it were a nonprofit.)
If we eventually decide as a nation to move to a single payer system then the government will take over as that payer. It still won't be free, health care runs over one trillion dollars a year in the US. Medicare alone costs us over half a trillion dollars a year and is only going to go up.
[Removed]
The way I interpret obamacare is that everybody pays $3500. a year for unlimited care, right? And those who fail to pay get no health care. Is that correct? I mean, cause, I think I could go for that.
The $3500 does not get you unlimited health care it gets you health insurance. The for profit health insurance company then decides how much of the $3500 it wants to give back to you in the form of health care. Under obamacare there are no "those who fail to pay"; it is now mandated / law, that we all have to purchase health insurance or obtain health insurance through an employer. This "health" insurance adds no value to our health care, if anything it takes away from it adding much greater expense for our Doctors and hospitals who have to fight the for profit insurance companies for payment
Well, what happens to those who fail to pay? No insurance right?
We need to state this: health care is not a right.
i don't consider health care nor insurance a right. if something must be provided by someone else i don't consider it a right. freedom of speech and religion cost nothing. health care costs something.
whether 1, 10 or 1000 people my idea of rights don't change with the population. a right to health care (or food or shelter) does.
Rights are very strong words. I only consider things like right to speech, freedom, property, and worship as rights.
Free handouts from the government are not rights because you are perfectly capable of taking care of yourself. You are in total control of your nutrition and your ability to seek treatment.
Asking me to pay for YOUR bad health decisions is not only not a right, it is injust.
Rights are fundamental liberties, not free handouts from the government.
pneumonia is a bad health decision? tuberculosis is a bad health decision? falling in your bathtub and breaking your arm is a bad health decision? you are missing the mark.
You have the ability to take care of yourself and AVOID those conditions. And if you do get them, to treat yourself accordingly. Only incompetent sheep need the government and big pharma to take care of them.
If you're one of them, I feel sorry for you and your overpriced and useless healthcare.
no.. you cannot AVOID sicknesses spread by other people. if so why the big scare about SARS? you of course could AVOID this on your own. and cancer i suppose is a persons own fault. you are only refering to two conditions.. diabetes and heart disease.
Obviously people need help when it comes to their health. I agree somewhat with the poster above though because there are so many people who don't take care of themselves. Look at all the fat people. It is unreal. And obesity is correlated with poverty. So is smoking.
It is pretty easy to solve. No free health care for current smokers and you can only use food stamps for approved, healthy items. Just those 2 things would save this country literally trillions of dollars in the long term.
so a smoker that falls in the bathtub and breaks an arm just too bad? i think you mean to only target specific health problems. and all the fat middle class that paid for thier own food,, they get healthcare?
No he gets care assuming he agrees to quit smoking from that point forward. If not, the bill becomes his debt.
ok then cause its really easy to agree to anything when you are in agony. and then.. should we use tactics like in stephen kings "quitters inc." to insure compliance?
Never seen it. I'm a dentist, in my residency I used to see people making medical decisions while in agony on a daily basis. Agony usually leads to people making the responsible choice.
of course. doesnt mean that they are going to follow thru with that choice once the agony is over.
Then they better get on a payment plan with the hospital.
Actually, Rush Limbaugh made exactly this argument one time to a caller on his show.
"You shouldn't have broken your wrist!"
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200908200032
lol and look how fat he is.
I'm a leftie but I wouldn't be against restricting food stamps to only non-junk-food items. We already do that with WIC which only allows purchases of certain "healthy" approved items, there wouldn't be a thing wrong with applying that idea to Food Stamps, too, IMO.
One thing to be aware of though is that the soda & snack food industry heavily lobbies & campaigns against any restrictions on selling their products.
example: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/07/10/1739565/industry-resists-food-ad-limits.html
but the middle class fat people and the rich fat people have no restrictions? you cant just target one segment of the populations because you control the money they use to obtain food.
We could take the next step and outlaw soda and cigarettes.
Then the lobbying will become even more intense.
then you become a socialist society with no individual freedom
"Asking me to pay for YOUR bad health decisions"
That assumes that everyone who gets sick does so through some fault on their part.
That is not always true.
Are you also opposed to some kind of assistance for people with genetic and hereditary disorders?
It is true enough to cost trillions of dollars. Look at all the people who smoke, all the people who are overweight, all those that drink too much, etc.. It is going to bleed the country dry.
for example,, chris christie. very rich very fat.
Like you said he is rich. He is not on Medicaid. I could care less what he does.
you pay for his healthcare. he is a politician.. taxes pay for his healthcare. so in a few years when he retires but still has tax paid healthcare.. and has heart disease and all that. you do not mind paying for him.
No more than the other fat state employees. The ones that really upset me are the poor ones because in addition to paying for the health care, we pay for the food that makes them so fat to begin with.
good. then you are not actually against taxes paying for healthcare. im glad we figured that out. it sounded like you were .
The majority of the country makes bad health decisions. You can't speak, be free, own property or worship anything if you're dead. Of course health care is the number 1 right. Are you okay with rich people getting the care they want and need and the poor washed down the drain? Free health care would make it a much more even playing field. Rich and poor could live longer and argue more.
Correct. "Rights" are inherent and unalienable . By definition, they cannot be taken away nor are they provided by the government.
it is not a right because it compels another person to provide the service. Thus taking the right of the person to choose by free will not to help someone. A right can not be defined as something that takes a right from another person. Simple.
I think you have a bit of an oversimplified view of how a society organizes itself. If we as a community decide to create a police force, we all pay for it collectively. Some may never receive a direct benefit,in the sense of say,having stolen property recovered, or having a violent attack thwarted. Since everyone pays, you might argue that you got no benefit, but you paid. You may feel that having to pay this has reduced your freedom. maybe it as, but that is the way society works.
health insurance is not a right. The constitution tell us our rights are life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. Many people think the right to life mean the right to healthcare but in reality, that just mean that your right to live is protected. No one can come and shoot you just for fun (without them getting punished) and the governmetn can't take away your life (with out a fair trial).
"life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness" is from the Declaration of Independence. Didn't you learn that in citizenship class?
From the Preamble to the Constitution:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Funny how some people consistently overlook the "welfare" part.
How about this, what is "the general wellfare"?
Ok, you are right, the Declaration of Independence tells us what are rights are. "life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness". Those are our rights, not wellfare. Prometing the general welfare is the job of government but that does not imply that health care is a right.
You are correct. The right to quality healthcare is a myth. Like so many things in life, you have to pay for it.
People or the companies they work for pay for insurance, insurance pays the healthcare industry. You get treated/cured. End of story.
The right to protection of life and property is also a myth. Like so many things in life, you have to pay for it.
Or do you expect the people working in the legal system and law enforcement to protect you for free?
If you are a victim of a crime, you shouldn't expect the criminal to be prosecuted if you didn't pay for your crime insurance. Why should anyone else be forced to pay for your misfortune?
Law enforcement creates vast positive externalities. We're willing to pay for it because protection of my neighbor means protection for me. However, health care is not the same type of good, and it is not vital to the functioning of a free society. It is a much more individually-focused type of good. While this may sound cold - I'm providing a rational and evolutionary explanation for why we balk at universal healthcare. Human nature is human nature, and it's up to us to find out how to channel it towards the best outcomes possible. Expecting people to become purely altruistic overnight, however, is just wishful thinking.
Speak for yourself. Your nature is not "human nature". If balking at universal healthcare is "human nature", then why is the US the only developed country without it? Why is it that the majority of Canadians or Australians are not complaining about their universal healthcare and constantly talking about how much better the American system is?
America has a very egocentric/individualist element to it's culture. Yet cultures change with the times. Your "human nature" argument is rationally vacuous. It isn't even an argument. People simply have differing values.
So why do so many Canadians come to America to get emergency procedures? Also, I think you're completely wrong on the fact that the US is the only developed country without it. Moreover, just because other governments coerce some to buy goods for others don't mean that the humans in Canada have fundamentally different natures. It only takes a 50.000000000000000000000000000000001% majority to impose something like that, and even then you can't tell me those 50.00000000000000001% of people are all acting out of pure benevolence and altruism. People that support universal healthcare are only acting out of self-interest, because it gives them warm fuzzy feelings inside and/or they are the people that would end up paying much less into the system than they'll get out of it.
Really? How many is "so many"? I think you're completely full of it. Propaganda that is. I'd like to see a poll of how many Canadians would like to move to the US for our superior health care system.
The reason is our dumb culture promotes individualism at the expense of justice and fairness. I think it's ridiculous to frame justice as a matter of money alone, i.e. how much you "get" vs. how much you "pay". A healthy person has much less to lose by paying slightly higher taxes than a sick person who could die without the ability to afford treatment. Reducing these things to a matter of money alone is dehumanizing.