I'm interested in hearing your opinion about this new law here in the U.S. Are you...
1) Totally for it.
2) For it, but would like to see some parts repealed.
3) Totally against it and would like to see the system remain the same as before the law.
4) Totally against it but would like to see something else in its place.
5) Don't care... Shut it... Next!
I think I covered all the possible categories. But if you don't like them, let me know what you think. Personally, I'm #4.
I am confused by why you feel the question is relevant to the conversation or to the specific comment you were responding to. Unless you are simply curious about the OPs thoughts on tangentially related topics, which is of totally fine, just a little random :-)
To your other question:
Yes. The job of Congress is to promote the general welfare. But that does not mean anything that could promote the general welfare is the obligation of congress. My example/analogy intends to illustrate this in a more concrete (albeit humorous) way.
Admittedly, you might be confused by my response because the relevance of this observation to your comment might be diminished by my confusion. I probably would've done better to clarify the relevance of your comment and any point you might've been trying to make before injecting any other observations that might potentially be relevant to this this thread.
A more specific confusion that might help clarify: why is the Constitution the document you feel is most relevant to this thread?
To clarify: While i recognize that both the Declaration of Human Rights (which informs my understanding of "right to health care") and the Declaration of Independence (from which we get our articulation of the societal notion of "right to pursue happiness") are not legally binding in the same way as the Constitution is, they do seem relevant to the conversation about how people feel about this specific law, and what the government can and should do to alleviate a growing health crisis.
After all, rights are rights, whether they are encoded into our laws or not.
The problem I see with you including the Declaration of Independence is that leaves open all the nutters who claim that this country is a Christian nation.
Totally agree with you there. I've even tried to point out the exact wording for them: "...Laws of Nature and of Nature's God..." All
they hear is the 'God' part and of course it must be 'Christian'. Silly. LOL
And to the OP, regarding your original question: i'd probably be best summed up as a #4, more in the direction Write4U describes above.
I have to apologize upfront Joe. Now I'm confused by your confusion. lol The distinction you make ["...recognizing access to health care is a basic human right to saying the government is obligated to guarantee health care..."] does not seem to me to be much of a distinction at all. I mean, granted both cover the concept of government not being allowed to deny coverage. But how does the first one Not actually end up being the latter? In other words, if recognizing access to health care is a basic human right, wherein lies the argument that health care does not have to be provided.
Here's a question: If Pastor John has been smoking his whole life and paying into this new bill, does he qualify to have lung and heart transplants? Then when he recovers and goes back to smoking, does he get another? What about unhealthy eaters and lazy people? Does a healthy person who chooses to make healthy decisions get rebates later on for paying premiums now and making good decisions? If they don't get rebates, then they've paid far more in to the system than they should have. If they do get rebates, then there goes the money to pay for expensive patients.
I admit I think Write4U's approach is better than the new bill. But I just don't see how we could get any better system than just a flat-out "Outlaw medical insurances and leave the ability to pay between the doctors, specialists, laboratories and patients." Anything else simply creates a larger system of inequities.
I know I'm sounding heartless. Hey! I don't have health insurance coverage. I pay my doctor directly for anything I need and I pay for my prescriptions the same way. If there ever comes a day when things don't go well and they tell me I need an expensive whatever, I know this: Some day I will die. It is not my fault that other people cannot come to terms with this. I don't see how it is acceptable that I have to pay into a system just because they cannot come to terms with death.
Well put Write4U,
I would not object to this approach at all on two conditions.
1) It is entirely between individuals and government. No private organizations' profit-motive involvement.
2) There is an option to entirely opt out. I'm a smoker. I know I will most likely die of a smoking related illness. And I don't need any medical professional to tell me that, nor do I need their assistance when the time comes. I'll pass on in my home having lived a quality life and quite happy. Thank you but no.
Of course, I cannot expect everyone to have that same perspective on life. A lot of folks want to be saved 'no matter the cost'. I'm ok to let them play the government healthcare bingo game as long as they allow me to go my merry way.
What do you say? Agreed?
We're on the same page at least. With everything I've said, I know I could fall out at the mall and some 'Good Samaritan' calls 911 for two 'Johnny Save The World's' to rush me to the hospital where 'Nurse Ratchett' and two candy strippers under the whip of Dr. Jekyll stabilize me and now I'm in a coma. I get it. How to make the medical community universally aware, if I were awake, I'd be in no mood to put up with nor condone their crack science. I know they are required by law to try and save me and you are correct that it is totally unfair to expect anyone to have to absorb the costs.
How about a compromise. Let me know what you think.
1) The only aspect of your proposal that could not be opted out of would be Emergency Medical. A few dollars a month could cover it and it only allows for the pickup, delivery and DNR until #2 could be resolved.
2) We're already utilizing a national database called E-Verify. Let's incorporate a DNR+ option and digital fingerprinting in that system. This will not of course guarantee that a DNR is not initially performed but can stop any medical practicing as soon as a patient is identified. This would alleviate any concern of racking up a huge bill on someone who didn't want it and cover the cost of what was performed in the meantime.
Heh, well, first i should reference my comment up above, that confusions might've easily be compounded on confusions by my attempt to address a comment before waiting for clarification :-P
"if recognizing access to health care is a basic human right, wherein lies the argument that health care does not have to be provided."
I think the distinction is a matter access and denials by whom.
For example, currently the government is not actively denying most of us health care, barriers to access seem more often to come from lack of funds. Though for some of us, it is -- i know folks who have been in jails and prisons who have definitely been denied access to health care. The later is a violation of right to health care on behalf of the government, the former is just the government keeping out of things, for better or worse.
Tho i do recognize there are fuzzy areas in between these --
its a classic question: if there is a wide-spread lack of access among a population, is the government supporting that lack of access by not intervening on their behalf? Depending on the specifics of the situation, sometimes i'll answer yes, sometimes no. Though in this case, i do feel its somewhat moot. Whether the government is ethically or legally obligated to intervene on our growing health care crisis or not, most people are in agreement that they want the government to help in SOME way and agree that its well within the scope of the government to do so. It's just a matter of what, specifically, that will look like.
Regarding your other questions, these are the kinds of questions i prefer to answer after being able to study statistics, explore details, and have a clear sense of what the goal of a particular proposed policy being discussed is.
They are *supposed* to but that doesn't stop them from not doing it.
First of all, businesses that provide their employees with health care will receive a tax break...this is called an incentive. An incentive which will in turn help to stimulate the economy by hiring people to work because they have more money to do so!
There are so many people without health care that they end up being in the emergency room to receive services when something goes wrong. When someone WITHOUT health care seeks services in the emergency room and the bill ends up being thousands and thousands of dollars which they can’t pay! Oh but it definitely gets paid but it gets paid by you and I!
My health premiums increase every year even though I am a healthy 34 year old woman!
The cost goes up because there are too many people who use the emergency room as health care!
Same thing with car insurance…. I have never gotten a ticket in my life but because there are people who are horrible drivers I have to pay higher cost!
So instead of PREVENITIVE CARE they end up in the most expensive place to seek health care! By then the person may need an operation or additional care that could have been prevented if they only had health insurance!
So if everyone had healthcare they could go see a doctor BEFORE they were nearly dead and the bill is outrageous and impossible to pay!
People shouldn't have to lose their homes when they are sick....
We can't predict when our health will fail. What we can do is take preventative measures so that in the event of health failure we don't need to complicate matters by worrying how we will pay for our homes or passing the cost to our fellow Americans!
I agree Nara Nay. My son 17, has had type 1 diabetes since he was 10. It is an auto-immune disease, totally unlike type 2 diabetes (they shouldn't even both be called diabetes because it confuses people). He obviously got it through no fault of his own. We are worried that in the future he won't be able to get healthcare and he OBVIOUSLY has to have it to stay alive (insulin).
Health insurance should have nothing to do with ones employer in my opinion. You don't buy car insurance through your employer (unless you work for an ins. co.;) and you are required to have THAT.
I say we have wonderful health ins. but that is only because they pay for all of our medical problems and meds. (Mine, my daughter 20, and my son), so far my husband has no health problems. My daughters and mine are genetic. Our ins. pays because SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH US. BUT, get this, they don't pay for anything PREVENTATIVE!!!!! Like mammograms, shots the kids needed, well-baby checks when they were small...etc. I think that's INSANE. Luckily, since we DO have things wrong with us that cannot be helped by ourselves, our ins. (for now) is great. I just worry about the future, which is why we own our small home outright, and have savings and are trying to get rid of what little debt we have. We might have to help our children financially with their healthcare and we ALWAYS will.
I'm sorry to hear that...it's unfortunate that most people are so out of touch with any reality that isn't their own they think health care for all is a bad thing.
Until they lose their jobs and their kid gets sick....then health care for all is suddenly the bee's knees! LOL
Hopefully you will soon be able to have preventative care with your health insurance.