Dude, you said it!Perfect.And if you were LDS you'd understand
and appreciate the fact that the war in heaven was NOT unanimous - but a
majority rule.(hmmmm, ding, another light of understand just turned
In response to Jeremy at 11:37,There are two parts to "free
agency".1. Freedom gives us the right to choose, and2.
Agency implies we must take responsibility for our actions.As
citizens of the United States, we should not embrace just our freedom, but we
should also accept the responsibilities that our citizenship places on our
shoulders. As an American and a Christian, I believe one of our
responsibilities is to provide for the poor and downtrodden. In terms of health
care for the poor, we as a country are put to shame when our health system is
compared to other industrialized nations.I would like to exercise my
freedom by choosing to support health care reform. I would like to exercise my
agency by choosing to pay taxes, a portion of which will be used to provide
health care services to those who are less fortunate than me. I
don't consider the lives of others to be a matter of "do I feel like being
charitable or don't I?" I take seriously my responsibilities as an American and
a Christian. Where much is given, much is required.
If I understand your position, it sounds like you believe that we must "reap
what we sow." In other words, whenever the government takes from
those who have more, and gives to those who have less, it is forcibly taking
away the freedoms of the rich to unfairly redistribute wealth to the less-rich.
Is this right?If this is the case, then public education, law
enforcement, health and safety services, and many other government-provided
services are simply unfair and wrong, because they force the rich to take on
more than their fair share of the burden.Using that logic, the
government should be providing a higher level of services to the wealthy.
People who have income so low that they don't pay any taxes shouldn't attend
public school, or be allowed to call 911.Providing these services to
low-income citizens puts an unfair burden on the rich. Not only that, it
somehow deprives the wealthy of their choice to be charitable.That
Those that invoke religion here have a skewed view of charity. Yes, Christ
taught and helped the poor, and even healed them from time to time. He
encouraged his followers to do likewise. But never did he force his followers
to be charitable - he respected their moral agency and their right to choose.
It was the adversary's intent to restrict the agency of man and require
action.By declaring health care a right and instituting a
government-run plan that provides for that so-called right, the government
forces each of us to be charitable. Thus, our agency is curtailed and we are
not allowed to choose for ourselves. This is contrary to what Christ taught.George Washington once stated: "It is not everyone who asketh that
deserveth charity; all however, are worth of the inquiry or the deserving may
suffer." I will be charitable on my terms, not on the terms of others who I
We already have a progressive tax structure that hammers the rich. We are
continuously penalizing those who work hard, take enormous risks, and make a lot
of money as a result. These "rich" people you are demonizing provide us jobs.
Have you ever been employed by a poor person?If we increase our
already progressive tax on those that fuel this economy, we will continue to
force their businesses overseas to countries like China and India.
Re: "The public government system is MORE EFFECTIVE!"You must be
kidding! Say that with a straight face to Native Americans receiving care from
the IHS. THAT'S the model for a government-provided, rationed
health care system.
ran out of space there. Universal health care is a privilege rich
societies can afford, it's a smart choice for all involved as it decreases poor
health, increases quality of life, and limits individual risk (risk that is, in
this particular area, unmanageable for some individuals). It's not a
right. It can't logically be. That doesn't take away from its importance and the
moral arguments surrounding it.
I hope a couple of you have seen my post at the end(ish) of page two detailing
that I've been convinced by the logical argument AGAINST health care being a
right.I no longer believe it is a right. Those on my
side, in favor of health care reform (I support single payer, all out socialist!
health care) would do well to take down the defenses and think for just a second
to see if our "health care is a right" meme, while well intentioned, can stand
up to any logical argument. I don't think it can.For health care to
be a right, we have to require a doctor to give it. I cannot give myself health
care, and even a willing unskilled friend cannot. I require the work of a
skilled professional. I cannot thus call health care a right, as my right to
health care takes away a professional physicians right to choose what to do with
his time. Does that make sense? Please think about it,
because we are being illogical.So what is universal health care, if
not a right? A moral imperative, sign of civilized society, out of words.
@ 4:22 p.m.The WHO study rates countries higher just for having a
nationalized system. The category we get dinged on is "fairness in financial
contribution." When the WHO definition of "fairness" *is* nationalized health
care, of course those countries get ranked higher.The U.S. system
does rank first in responsiveness. Which helps explain why so many Canadians
travel to our northern states to get prompt, quality treatment they can't get at
home, even though their overall ranking is higher in the WHO study.On life expectancy: health care is only one of many factors that determine
life expectancy. If we eat too many hamburgers and it causes us to die earlier,
that says nothing about our health care system. It says something about our
Truth. Change the system Now.When we buy in large amounts and work
together, we get better discounts and better results. This includes
healthcare.That is why so many nations have implemented nationalized
healthcare. They still have access to private healthcare too.They have shorter wait times than we do because they work more
efficiently at resolving their patients illnesses and problems.They
have LIFE PANELS to help people have better health and recuperate quicker and
happier.THE United States has Death Panels called Insurance
companies who look at ways to deny Healthcare and steal peoples lives and make
people miserable.The public government system is MORE EFFECTIVE!
On the subject of rights. The Constitution indicates clearly that we have a
right to property. At best, the health care debate is one about competing
rights. At worst, it is a debate about whether a governmental purpose is
sufficiently valid enogh to trump a right. The argument is moot though. If the
federal government decides to organize a single payer system, they have the
authority to do that and to tax the citizenry to make that happen.I'm more interested in the protestors at town hall debates. Why does it
matter if they are paid? Our system has a time honored tradition of hiring
people to speak for others. We call them politicians, lawyers, PR reps, agents,
and talk show hosts. How is a message invalidated by whether the bearer of the
message is paid or not? If someone could explain this to me I would appreciate
Jay Mayer @ 12:25 wrote: "Let competition drive up quality of care and drive
down costs."The World Health Organization conducted a study in 2000
that showed the United States' health care system ranked 35th in terms of
performance/quality. The US ranked 27th for life expectancy. The US ranked 2nd
for health care expenditures as a percentage of GDP (the Marshall Islands ranked
1st).In short, we are currently paying more than other countries for
lower-quality health care. Which countries have the highest-rated
systems? The countries that have nationalized health care systems that
eliminate the middle-man.
How sad is it when people start demanding things as if they are rights. Very
few rights actually exist and I do agree that people have the right to life (tis
why I am pro-life). However, the country is headed for trouble if people start
believing that they have a "right" to things. Healthcare is a
privelage. I earn the privelage of having healthcare by going to work every
day. I'm happy to earn it, makes me feel like I am contributing to society by
proactively going out and earning something rather than just holding my hand out
and just expecting it to happen.Please also don't try to paint
private organizations as evil either. Our own, home-grown, system, IHC, gives
out tens of millions of dollars in free health care every year...happily! the
real solution to efficiant health care is for the government to butt out. Let
competition drive up quality of care and drive down costs.
Everyone has their own special experiences or they formulate scenarios that
steer the argument in the direction they wish it to go.Come on
folks, lets get to the fundamentals:We have the inalienable rights
to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness given to us by our Supreme
Creator. We do NOT (as individuals) have the "right" to someone else's property
or what they produce.If I make a TV, car, boat, motor-home,
water-heater, refrigerator, etc. you are not entitled to it no matter how much
it would improve your life. Likewise, if I can make aspirin, vaccines, set a
broken bone, build a hospital, organize a team of doctors, nurses, and EMTs, you
still do not have a right to those. You have to offer something of value to me
(i.e. money) or I have to "gift" those things to you based on MY charity - not
your greed.All this belly-aching about rights to health care, or
access to it, is the same type of greed attributed to those "evil" corporate
CEOs or insurance companies or pharmaceutical companies or whomever we wish to
demonize to satiate our own selfish desires.Stay-tuned
After spending a night in the ER with my son, I am convinced of two things - 1)
everyone should have access (not FREE, I said access) to health care; and
equally important, 2) there ABSOLUTELY MUST be controls to limit abusers.While in the ER with a boy with a 104 temp, vomiting and convulsing, I
saw a waiting room/ER full of adults who were:- Drunk and looking
for a place to stay a dry out- Regulars ("this is my 3rd time here this
week")- Injuries related to being drunk/on drugs- Mildly sick
(scratchy throat, head kinda hurts)- LonelyTHIS is what we're
paying for? An ER visit is EXPENSIVE and takes valuable resources. Go talk to
someone who works in an ER and ask about all of the abuse by those on the dole.
THEN decide if we really want to expand Medicare and Medicaid to everyone.If we can't govern ourselves (and that includes the least among us),
universal healthcare is going to bankrupt our country.
Were you aware that most people who don't have health insurance could afford it
but chose not to?Rather than ranting about taxpayers who don't want
to pay any more, why don't you rant at those who think cell phones, satellite TV
and beer and cigarettes are "necessities"? Want to come visit the government
housing development by my house and count all the BMWs and plasma screen TVs?I have neither of these and I refuse to pay one more dime until these
deadbeats start tightening their own belts!
You are indeed right. Gov't, as formed by the people, has been organized to
band together to bring ideas or resources together for the greater good and
efficiency. Schools are open 8-5. If a student misses out on a lecture, they
miss out, or work their own way around to fix things with the teacher, or get
the help of another student. That incurs no costs on anyone. It is a limited,
180-days, so many hours a day resource.Health care is another beast,
with nearly unique needs for every person in the country. We can talk about it
and find incremental changes to work towards cost savings, efficiency and shared
benefits. Some people form co-ops of some kind and make it work, on a micro
scale and probably with catastrophic innsureance backing them up. Good stuff.
Gov't management from the top down, where it deprives what some have
earned, limits choice and progess, and takes from unfairly from one side, with
no checks, limits or whatever to what it can do without scrutiny or being able
to stop it is all wrong.
More than half of Utah adults (59.5%) and nearly one in four elementary school
students (21.5 %) are overweight or obese, according to the Utah Dept of
Health.The number of those overweight or obese in Utah is greater
than the entire population of Montana. You could simultaneously fill Rice Eccles
Stadium, the E-Center, and Energy Solutions Arena almost 13 times with the
number of overweight or obese Utah adults.Obesity, although complex,
is essentially an "addictive" condition, similar to smoking and addiction to
drugs, alcohol and other chemical substances. Further, Obesity is one of the
leading causes of serious diseases like diabetes and high blood pressure. Today, the current U.S. health system is essentially a disease treatment
system, rather than a health & wellness system. Instead of focusing on educating
people and helping prevent diseases, the system focuses on treating (after the
fact) diseases and health conditions. The current system is unsustainable and
archaic. The U.S. is at the bottom of the top 20 industrialized nations in terms
of mortality and spends more per capita today than any other modern,
industrialized nation. As a nation, we should be embarrassed. We certainly can
and should do better.
I dont get it.....more money the Insurance Companies take from your pockets, YOU
DONT SAY A WORD, When the Government is trying to help YOU CRY!Im so
happy to pay $15 a month for healthcare, plus my employer pay the difference.Im satisfied with the service (It is not perfect, but a lot better than other
countries)For MY OWN experience, I love my doctor and the system we
I believe most of the posts are in response to the claim that healthcare IS a
'right'. However, you are correct as to the real issue. I, for one, disagree
that the government can provide healthcare better than at present. But, I
certainly recognize and appreciate your position--and the civility in which it
is presented. I would certainly love to see the two sides debated without the
hyperbole and emotion that seems to flavor most arguments.
It doesn't matter whether health care is a "right". The government provides a
lot of services, many of which are not considered "rights" (education,
utilities, fire departments, etc). The real issue is whether it
would be advantageous for the governement to provide universal health care to US
citizens. The question we should be asking is, "can a
government-run system reduce health care costs and/or increase the quality of
care?"I believe the answer is yes, and that is why I am in favor of
the proposed health care reform measures.
Wow. I certainly hope you have access to some prozac. Now, put the keyboard
down and back away slowly. The "rights" in the constitution have no
associated monetary cost. It is not a 'right' if you have to pay for it. And, all of the items you mentioned (bigger boat, house, WII,etc) I have
the opportunity of buying for myself. I don't have to, no one forces me to, and
most certainly I don't have to buy them for someone else. Although, you bring up
an interesting point about a bigger boat. If I had a boat, my stress level would
go down, my quality of life would go up, and I would live longer. Yes, I get it
now! My right to "life" has been enhanced! So, would you please buy me a boat.
I'm sure I have a 'right' to have one since it ties in so nicely with the
'right' to Life.
I am sorry you cannot read for the blood in your eyes.I wrote plainly that
the current safety net should be reformed first, and that " just as insurance
and tort laws should be, as well as state and federal regulations that
complicate and leave heavy burdens on medical providers."State regs are on
the books elsewhere in America forbid more than one MRI machine within a
certain radius. One machine. Something about environmental or safety
ramifications if something goes wrong. Demand is thus up, thus the cost of
using it is up. That is an artificial, gov't imposed, supercillious
bureaucratic weight on supply and demand. Just an example of how costs could be
cut 30% if gov't got out of the way.Reform past socialist
entitlements for the supposed crisis and humanitarian safety net that we are all
forced already to support. Don't add further, and tear down the quality 85-90%
of us, and our Canadian flight-to-health friends currently utilize.
Thanks for your input. Health Care for all!
Healthcare is a RIGHT, WE have voted for people who MUST take care of the
people, that is EDUCATION, HEALTHCARE, PROTECTION AND WORK (to mention some) WE
HAVE THE RIGHT to spend these money in what is necessary for OUR people, if the
government raise the tax to have better schools, better education, healthcare
and work, IS AN INVESTMENT.If WE want to continue this war and continue to
spend OUR taxes in that BUSINESS, I dont think is right!!! WE CRY ABOUT PAYING
MORE TO HAVE HEALTHCARE, BUT DONT CRY WHEN WE GO TO BUY A NEW BOAT, BIGGER
HOUSE, THE 5O' HD TV, THE NEW CAR OR TRUCK, THE BULLETS TO GO TO HUNT, THE PS3,
THE WII, People wake up!! And remember IF YOU WANT TO KEEP YOUR HEALTH
INSURANCE, YOU CAN KEEP IT...U N D E R S T A N D? BUT dont let go the
opportunity for those who cannot have it, Health Insurance Companies have made
a LOT OF MONEY, WE PAY 100% TO THEM, BUT WE GET JUST 50% OR WORSED IN SERVICE!
And please dont be selfish!!!! everyone crying about giving money for others,
next could be you
You already have the right to health care. You have the right to see any doctor
(whether or not you have insurance). What you do not have the right to is to
have someone else pay for those services (via taxation). This whole idea is so
upside down. Mediscare should never have been introduced.And, lest
anyone use this straw dog argument: insurance companies do not ration health
care. You still have the right to see any doctor for any reason, just as that
doctor has the right to expect payment for services provided. If you contract
with a physician for services, you and you alone are responsible for payment of
those services, whether or not you have insurance.If this boondoggle
of a plan ever goes through, kiss your liberty and money good-bye. Gov't will
then have every means available to start dictating what you can and cannot do,
what you can and cannot eat, and any and all behaviors which can affect your
health. It's time to put this monstrosity in the ground and leave
it there never to be brought up again. But then, liberals will take exception
If Government is supposed to be so beneficent, so effective, so humane and
compassionate how is it that throughout all of human history one scholar after
another didn’t support it, instead so many were fearful of it, even
Aristotle, Cicero, Montesquieu, more recently Edmond Burke, Adam Smith not to
mention the founding fathers, were they all wrong about limiting, balancing,
putting checks on government so that the individual could live pretty much as
they want? Is human history wrong and Nancy Pelosi right? Is Human history wrong
and Harry Reid right? Do you think Obama, Pelosi and Reid could hold a candle to
those people? Because for Obama to be right they all have to be wrong, the
constitution, the declaration, the founders all have to be wrong.
If we would stop our ideological battles and just agree that health for all is a
good thing, then maybe we could work together to come up with a variety of ways
to prevent, treat and cure disease and injury, without bankrupting nations and
families. If we stopped arguing and started listening, thinking,
researching, and talking, we could figure out the best ways to use government,
corporations, non-profits, and individuals to make us a healthier, freer
(illness is slavery) world. Maybe institutions don't have a moral
obligation to help the poor and ill, but we as people do. We ignore other
people's needs at our temporal and eternal peril.We are
fundamentally good, intelligent people. Let's stop distracting ourselves with
political noise, and just determine to solve our problems. We can do it.
re: Try This Poker Analogy | 2:41 p.m.You DON'T have a right to "a good
hand", you have a right to play the cards you're dealt."---------------------- So please explain your line of thinking to
me - a liberal: a baby born with spinal bifida, cleft pallet or an open
heart should suffer because that’s the hand dealt them? No coverage = no
HealthCare is your answer and your OK with that??!! I’m
sorry, my bleeding liberal heart will just never agree with that…..
And the prophets warned that:"If man will not recognize the
inequalities around him and voluntarily, through the gospel plan, come to the
aid of his brother, he will find that through ‘a democratic process’
he will be forced to come to the aid of his brother. The government will take
from the ‘haves’ and give to the ‘have nots.’ "---------- It looks like time is up - and you had plenty of
warnings and plenty of chances.
I read how some posters cite the Constitution and Bill of Rights, yet others
"hear" a whole different thing.The old reliable "Neo-Con" has been
trotted out, in a lame attempt to demonize anyone who disagrees with them.My answer: If you want healthcare for others, go ahead and pay for it
out of your pocket. I choose not to. I am not a "Neo-Con", I have been a
conservative my whole life. Does that make me a "forever-con"? I would rather
my tax monies did not pay for golf courses that I don't use, but they do as a
result of the election process. Prior to that election, public input was given.
Those in support of the tax increase were not vilified as heartless bastriches
or unChrist-like because they didn't want their tax money used that way. Christ
taught that we should care for the sick, He didn't specify that the Government
should mandate how and to whom care should be given. It was a teaching for
individuals for their edification, not a mandate from the Government, ie, forced
to do it.
@ Try this poker analogyI think you are confusing the right to Life
with the right to Liberty...
Thank YouWell said.
Mike Richards | 8:36 a.m. "Please cite the section of the
Constitution that gives you, me or anyone else the 'right' to government
supplied health care."There is no specific reference to "government
supplied healthcare" just as there is no reference to building an interstate
highway system or a national anti-drug program. There are many programs today
that are not explicitly stated in the Constitution because it was written over
200 years ago when the world was very different. The men who wrote this
document realized that they had to allow for change.Developing a
program so that every American can obtain health insurance can be viewed as a
"right" because of the "promote the general welfare" aspect in our democracy's
covenent with the people. It is no different from any other attempt to make
life better for all. This distinguishes the United States from such places as
North Korea or Myanmar where the people are not as important within the
governmental organization.This does not mean "free" and "with no
responsibility" in regards to the individual receiving the benefit of their
rights. The rights of freedom are not automatic and free for the taking.
That should be "You DON'T have a right to "a good hand", you have a right to
play the cards you're dealt."Sorry for any confusion.
"re: Show Me Where | 10:52 p.m. | 9:50 a.m. Aug. 18, 2009 re: Show Me
Where | 10:52 p.m. Aug. 17, 2009 Anyone care to show me where in the
Constitution it says that "health care is a right"?-------------- "LIFE" is a right under the constitution - Healthcare is all about
assuring and sustaining life.If you still don't see or understand
the connection between Life and Healthcare - ask a Doctor, a nurse or any other
HealthCare PROFESSIONAL - not the neocon radio talk-show hosts."____________________________________Just guessing but I'm probably
not the first person to say you're clueless, am I?The right to
"LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" was NOT meant "hey, the government,
or in other words, your neighbors, should pay for your health care".What the Founding Fathers meant was that every human being had an inherant,
inalienable right to live their life as best as they can, i.e., free from the
physical bondage of slavery or terror or incessant fear that wicked people
inflict on one another.You DON'T have a to "a good hand", you have a
right to play the cards you're dealt.
Previous post: "Republicans... | 6:18 p.m. Aug. 17, 2009 ...love
their money. Christians love their neighbors. Which are you?"Wow.
You know, I've been reading Deseret News comments for over 2 years and in that
time I've read a whopping lot of comments from liberals that say that only
Republicans are the ignorant, narrow minded type.And yet, here's a
comment from a liberal, and most likely a Democrat, in which he boldly proclaims
that you CANNOT be Christlike AND belong to the Republican party.Your ignorance and your gall, Mr/Miss 6:18, pour like rain in a summertime
thunderstorm.Dan MaloyEnid, OK
The more rhetoric I read from those on the left in these threads, the more I am
becoming convinced that they ARE Socialists at heart.
Not a "right" in Canada--its in the Vancouver Sun newspaper today."THOUSANDS OF SURGERIES MAY BE CUT DUE TO GOVERNMENT UNDERFUNDING".Dix said a Vancouver Coastal Health Authority document shows it is considering
chopping more than 6,000 surgeries in an effort to make up for a dramatic
budgetary shortfall that could reach $200 million.“This
hasn’t been announced by the health authority … but these cuts are
coming,” Dix said, citing figures gleaned from a leaked executive summary
of “proposed VCH surgical reductions.”This has not been
announced to the public there yet but it will unless the government finds a way
to invent money to cover the budget shortfalls.My question:What is the difference? Of course Vancouver does not have death panels but if
the government system "that covers everyone" decides not to fund necessary
surgeries, what is the difference.If they in fact do this people
could/will likely die as a result of delayed or no surgery at all.Its semantics. The government is in a position to determine
whether you get care or not. Patients will get prioritized by
"someone" whether you call it a death panel or not is irrelevant.
We have a right to ACCESS healthcare (just like we have the right to own a gun).
But we don't have the RIGHT to have others pay for our healthcare (just like
the state isn't required to pay for anyone's gun).Nobody's being
turned away by healthcare providers just for their race, political party, etc.
They are just expected to pay for their services. Even that's sometimes
optional or negotiable.
To "re:RedShirt | 11:11 a.m | 12:38 p.m." if healthcare is in the Constitution,
then so must those other things, ok, maybe the gym, nutritionist, internet, and
computer are going a bit far, but the rest of the list is even more vital to
"life" than healthcare.How can I be alive, or healthy if I don't
have food?How healthy can I be I don't have clothes to keep me warm,
dry, out of the sun, etc...How healthy would I be if I lived
outside, exposed to the elements, or even in a poorly maintained house?If I can't get to my healthcare appointments, how do you expect me receive
preventative care?If you have provided me with a house, then I need
electricity to heat and cool my house. Would you want me to get sick from the
cold or die from the heat?
So what is it you in the far-right want?Going back to the days of Herbert
Hoover?pre-industiral 1776?The Dark Ages??Stop parroting
the Party of NO and suggest something.Seriously - I'd like to hear
your solutions.a Lib
@J Gilmore. I applaud your reasoning.And yes, Medicaire (for the
elderly, right? Medicaide for the indigent?) is a program that should be
repealed as socialist. However, just like Social Security, once an entitlement
is in the people's hand, NO one can revoke it. That alone is a huge part of my
opposition to Obamacare as presently proposed.Medicaide (for the
poor? If I have them backward, I apologize) is our society's safety net. I
have no huge problem with it, even though yes, it too has its inherent waste and
abuse due to gov't administration. Again, once established, no way to repeal
it. Both should be looked at for reform, just as insurance and tort laws should
be, as well as state and federal regulations that complicate and leave heavy
burdens on medical providers.I have allowed that IF a crisis in
health care for the poor existed, that along with reform and means to qualify
those with access, that it would be better to fund Medicaid to a greater extent
at a nominal cost compared to Obamacare and all its huge negatives for all of
us. We should care, give, but in the right way.
Please - use your head, seriously."Lifestyle" and "Life" in a real
Healthcare situation and issue are entirely different.[I assume you
are taunting - no one can be that lacking]
To those who think that healthcare is a right, I say this:If you
want me to be healthy, while receiving government healthcare, you better supply
me the following, because they too support my life:FoodClothingHousingTransportationHeatingCoolingGym
membership, including a personal trainerTelephone service (how else can I
get appointments made with my healthcare provider.)Access to a
nutritionistComputer and internet access (to keep my mind healthy I need
stimulation, and what better way than accessing news and information to keep a
brain active)Those are essential to "Life" and my health. How else
do you expect me to be healthy, or to protect my life? Who wants to pay for all
of that for me?
re: Show Me Where | 10:52 p.m. Aug. 17, 2009 Anyone care to show me where
in the Constitution it says that "health care is a right"?--------------
"LIFE" is a right under the constitution - Healthcare is all about
assuring and sustaining life.If you still don't see or understand
the connection between Life and Healthcare - ask a Doctor, a nurse or any other
HealthCare PROFESSIONAL - not the neocon radio talk-show hosts.
Buddy, do you think that with all the 'wants' that people THINK are 'needs' that
$1 trillion would be enough to even cover the health-care related ills of
Detroit for 10 years? I don't think so!All the money in the world
could not satisfy your level of 'want' especially when it becomes real
personal.So, yeah, someone has to think responsibly about money.
Too bad, so sad.But for you, robbery of the now, and the future, and
all investments in further advances should be shaken out of the piggy bank NOW
for this, to make you feel better in your leftist conscience. Thievery and
short-sighted fooishness, your justified means to a much worse end?
I've been convinced though:Health care is not a right.Some logical posters have used good examples to explain that, of course,
receiving health care requires others to act in a particular and voluntary way.
To call it my right would say their choice of whether to administer it is
nonexistent, that they have no choice, that they must work as a health care
provider and must provide me the health care that is my right. I
therefore concede the point 100%. So, if health care is not a right,
what is it?It's a responsibility: It's a responsibility of a country
who can afford it, like ours, and who desires to call itself civilized.It's an opportunity: Universal health care is something that only the luckiest
of countries can institute, only those with enough wealth, like ours, to sustain
a program that so adequately cares for the basic needs of its citizens.It's a moral necessity: 15-20 thousand die each year for lack of
insurance. Those with empathy, with a conscience, are compelled to act. It's a privilege only a wealthy country can achieve.
Interesting to see how poorly the "health care is a right" line plays out here.
Again, I feel disappointed that perhaps not a single comment addresses the issue
I am more upset about it: Medicare for all or for none. Let's choose. As An
observer rightfully pointed out, "it just is in fact just another government
program created by congress." Is it therefore unjustified? One
things for certain, health care isn't a right for some but not all. It's either
a right for none, clearly the consensus here, or for all. The majority then
should be absolutely railing on medicare. Come on. Lastly, I'm
fascinated how often it comes back to god. I'm starting to believe that my
atheism is the central reason I am a leftist and believe health care must be
guaranteed to all. If I believe that a poor person's suffering is somehow
"watched by god," it's a little easier to stomach. If I believe god is watching
how they toil, watching the sparrow fall, I can justify my selfish
libertarianism. If i recognize that there is no evidence for the existence of
such a being, I can't.
Health care is not a right. Nor is food, a job, shelter, marriage.... a
computer, TIVO, internet access.Rights are that which the government
cannot withhold or impinge. Man has the right to pursue happiness, in whatever
form. Life is happiness, so man pursues food, clothing, shelter, a job.
Pursuit is the same as earning. Families find happiness in
providing for their young, helpless and dependent. Families find happiness in
good health, or bad, in work, progress, improvement, education, conmingling and
learning.None of this the gov't should restrain. The
gov't is not responsible, directly, for any of it. Where people choose to
associate, to group, to form jointness and community, to build their prosperity
together, so be it.We ask the gov't to protect our borders, coin our
money, regulate commerce for our protection, and to organize us when we ask for
the common good for large projects - bridges, power plants, dams.Wants and needs are not rights. They are personal responsibilities if one is
seeking happiness.Liberals may want cradle to grave coddling, saving
them from lessons and tragedy of life. It is not a right. Lucifer suggested
it, but you voted against it.
It seems to to me that most here are missing the real crux of the issue. Few
would argue that we have no responsibility to help care for those who can't care
for themselves. Any caring individual will step out of his or her way to help
another. Some of the most exquisite joy in life results from doing so.Forcing someone to help is counterproductive. It helps neither the person
assisted (in terms of their self-worth) nor those forced to help. When I can no
longer give willingly, as a matter of choice, the blessings associated with that
assistance are forfeited. Is the need critical? Usually yes. Is that bad?
No...visibly critical need induces good people to set aside their own agenda and
divert their attention and resources to help another. Once made, that choice to
help when inconvenient or costly is an essential component to our development as
human beings. Absent that ability to serve others voluntarily our
growth is stunted. God never intended for our lives to be a continual bed of
roses. But he did intend both the sufferer and helper to grow. Let's not subvert
Food and shelter are necessary to life. This does not mean that they are rights
and that anyone should be obligated to pay for these necessities for others.A person cannot live for long without food or shelter, and yet I see no
one clamoring for nationalized Nutrition Reform or socialized Shelter
provision. Health care is a similar category. Why? Just because
something is necessary to life, does not guarantee that it is provided by the
government, whether you earn it or not!If we were a country with
limitless money and resources, this debate might be interesting and worthwhile,
but in these times of a failing economy, rising taxation and soon-to-be soaring
inflation, we cannot afford to suddenly decide that it is necessary to
redistribute wealth in such an enormous scale and force the workers and middle
class to pay for the health care of an entire nation of 300 million people. It
cannot and should not be done. The only reason for the incredible
haste to pass this legislation, is to get it on the books before the American
people realize they have been duped and it's too late to react!
How can something be a right when you have to violate someone elses rights, in
this case property rights, to achieve it?
I am just asking where doe syour right end and mine begin?YOU seem
to ignore that important point,and just plain demand healthcare.Ad NO, I am NOT sure medicare and medicaid is a right, it just is in
fact just another government program created by congress.There is
NO constitutionally created right to it. No admendment that I Ever seen.
Anyone care to show me where in the Constitution it says that "health care is a
right"?Sure it says the right to the pursuit of "life, liberty and
happiness" but get real, our Founding Fathers didn't mean free health care for
everyone, even the lazy, on the backs of the taxpayers.
@Anonymous 2:06 p.m.:"Who decided that (his insurance will pay only
part of the accident)? It certainly wasn't the Doctors at the U Hospital."He should have read the insurance policy coverage before signing up.
His bad. Does he expect someone else to do the Due Diligence for him?
Last comment, labeled "Observer," was from me aimed TO "An Observer," apologies
Again, we agree that it at least cannot be a right for some and not others,
correct? You DO want medicare to be repealed, correct?
Those of you arguing health care is not a right - I hope you all intend to write
to your representatives calling for repeal of medicare, medicaid, and all other
state health care programs. You are doing this, right? If you are,
congratulations for being consistent. If not, how can you justify letting such
socialism exist in your government? You know that your republican senators
support these programs- why do you let that happen? If it's not a right for all,
it can't be a right for anyone! You do agree, don't you? You must agree!
"It's NOT just up to the whim of the insurance company to just decide on the
spot that they don't want to cover something your brother (or his doctor) want,
just to boost next quarter's earnings."You are completely and
absolutely wrong on this. IT is ABSOLUTELY common for insurance corporations to
just decide on the spot that they refuse to cover something, just to boost next
quarter's earnings. They use all sorts of tactics, all of which are completely
HEalthcare is NOT a right, it can not be a right, a
RIght ends when ittramples on another,DO you the have right to the
product or services of another?Do you a have right to demand
another to take care of you?DO have right to someone else's
pocketbook or wallet?Do you have right to FORCE someone else to
Mostly, disappointed that the central purpose of my letter has been missed in
these comments. I believe health care is right, yes. But
can we all not agree that it is either a right or not a right? That it is either
a right for all or not a right for all?How does anyone justify
support for medicare while simultaneously fighting against a public option for
all? How can health care be a right for some but not for all?
My full letter, as sent to Des news:"I'm told the majority of
our country is opposed to a government roll in health care. We ought to tie all
government health plans together, and vote to make them available to all or
none. We could find out whether those currently enrolled in Medicare sincerely
believe that the government has no roll in health care, or whether that group
somehow believes that some people deserve a public option, while others do not.
What is this qualification that currently entitles one to a public option in the
USA? Being over 65? Being uninsurable in the private market?I
believe that all people are entitled to health care. I believe it is a right. I
believe it is critical, and that we ought to adopt a progressive tax policy to
ensure this right. One thing's for certain: it's irrational to believe it is a
right for some and not all. Get rid of medicare, or make it available to all.
Write this into a health care bill, and let our representatives vote on whether
a government health option ought to be available to all or to none."
Anonymous at 5:39 wrote: "People are better fed, clothed, and cared for under
freedom than under government dependence."The statistics don't
support your statement. The most recent study by the world health organization
showed that the United States ranked 37th in overall quality of health care,
while countries with government-supported health care systems were ranked at the
top. The United states is 25th in terms of life-expectancy. The
United States is 2nd in terms of health care expenditures as a percentage of
GDP. Second only to the Marshall Islands.
NeoCons, you had your chance:"If man will not recognize the
inequalities around him and voluntarily, through the gospel plan, come to the
aid of his brother, he will find that through ‘a democratic process’
he will be forced to come to the aid of his brother. The government will take
from the ‘haves’ and give to the ‘have nots.’ Both have
lost their freedom. Those who ‘have,’ lost their freedom
to give voluntarily of their own free will and in the way they desire. Those who ‘have not,’ lost their freedom because they did not earn
what they received. They got ‘something for nothing,’ and they will
neither appreciate the gift nor the giver of the gift." - Pres.
Howard W. Hunter
...love their money.Christians love their neighbors.Which are you?
People are better fed, clothed, and cared for under freedom than under
government dependence. It's not compassionate to turn someone into a ward of
the state when they are able to work and earn their own way. It's insulting and
degrading.Yes, there are people who are truly unable to to work.
Local efforts where the giver and the receiver are close to each other are the
most effective. Statistics show that conservatives do a much better job of
caring for these people than do liberals. Don't tell me how compassionate you
are, when you're being charitable with someone else's money.
Gus Talwynd | 4:28 p.m.YOU don't belive one's rights end at the
pocketbook of their neighbor?If so... this explains a lot.Sure glad I'm not YOUR neighbor if you think your rights include access to MY
wallet (just for being your neighbor).
3:51 p.m.If you really don't know when life begins... why not play
it safe and not terminate it?And trying to equate sneezing, etc with
abortion... Just amazing! Obviously you will bend over backwards to
feel good about aborting a growing living fetus. I hope ALL on the left aren't
as far gone as you are.If you decide to abort a fetus that's your
decision. But don't insult people by being flipant about it and equating it
with sneezing or trimming your fingernails. That's just obsurd!
Do you think anonymous ever goes to church or reads the bible? He brings up
Jesus every other post but I bet he could care less about what Jesus would say
about his own personal choices. Just to enlighten you.......Jesus
taught us how to live and make personal decisions. He never lectured on
government policy. Read the Bible!It is my responsibility to serve
others. It is not the governments job to force me to do so. If we choose to do
so collectively, then I will pay my taxes, although, I don't think it would make
good public policy. You need to separate your juvenile understanding of the
gospel of Jesus Christ from your political thought.
NeoCons - Your favorite Uncle is out chooping wood for your Grandpa...and
drops.If what you say is true, and said Uncle has no insurance...we
should just wait until he turns blue, then ash gray...the cry at his funeral.
Now widow and fatherless children become cared for by the State
because the breadwinner (and former tax payer) are gone.Please
explain how this is a better system?
Anonymous | 2:06 p.m.You really have that little understanding of
how Health Insurance works? That's amazing!What is or isn't covered
by your brother's insurance company is determined by the POLICY. It's all
spelled out to your brother when he signed up. It's all in print in the
policy.It's NOT just up to the whim of the insurance company to just
decide on the spot that they don't want to cover something your brother (or his
doctor) want, just to boost next quarter's earnings.That
misrepresentation of the way it works is... as you call it... "HOGWASH".Try showing some intelectual honesty and drop the political hype in your
postings. Insurance just doesn't work the way you described.
The leftists think free healthcare (AKA "Life") is a "right". But only IF you
are lucky enough to make it past their OTHER "Right"... to abort you before you
realise YOUR right to LIFE (AKA being born).
@Mike Richards | 8:36 a.m. Aug. 17, 2009"Please cite the section of
the Constitution that gives you, me or anyone else the 'right' to government
supplied health care."Even though I was opposing your statement, I
wasn't arguing healthcare was a right, actually. I don't believe it is. I
haven't reached my own conclusion about how to deal with the healthcare issues.
"Whether you accept or reject God as the giver of rights will not
change the wording of the Declaration of Independence..."I do indeed
reject the God theory of the universe because the claims about God cannot be
verified. As for the majority of people believing as they do, as
long as people do not recognize the establishment of religion as they reference
'God' when making laws, per the Constitution, I don't think there's necessarily
a problem. But if people are going to stand up and declare "God is
x, and God says y, and God wants z to be law," then I predict there will more
declarations of independence and more revolutionary wars.
I would agree that the world is not as black-and-white as SOME conservatives
would like to believe.But neither is it as gray (i.e. no black and
white lines) as too many liberals would like to believe.A single
fertilized human egg is not equivalent to a living breathing human being in my
book. But I also scoff at those pro-abortion liberals who think that a full-term
fetus who only needs to emerge from the womb in one piece in order to live and
thrive should have no more rights than a wad of spit.
Neocon Nutcakes | 1:35 p.m.So much for Neocons being the ones who
start calling names. Anyway, my opinion is... The "right to life"
does NOT equate to "the right to free healthinsurance and healthcare".In my opinion... The "Right to life" is GOD given. It's the right to be born
(A right the LEFT doesn't believe exists)... It's the RIGHT to LIVE without the
government holding you down or yoking you to pull their machine.It's
MY JOB to improve my QUALITY of life (NOT THE GOVERNMENT's). I don't want to be
at the mercy and whim of what the government decides to provide. I don't want
to have to grovel and promise to re-elect Democrats (or any other political
power broker) to get a hospital in my neighborhood, or quality treatment for my
family.People who want to turn this over to those in GOVERNMENT (in
light of how Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, AMTRACK, etc, which struggle
to keep up with their private competetors despite endless government funding)...
just make me scratch my head in confusion.
The questions of rights always comes down to the question of cost with
conservative elements within the society. Many who object to the idea that
health care is a right are opposed because they believe that someone is going to
get something for free. George Bush once remarked that everyone had
health coverage already because they can always go to the emergency room. Of
course, they get billed for using the emergency room service, and those who
cannot pay get subsidized by the general public.So it becomes a
question of money in determining what can and should be a right and what should
not. If Terri Schivo had been a ward of the state, conservatives would not have
been as quick to call for her continued maintenance since they would have to pay
for it. Euthanasia would have suddenly become the conservative mantra. Terri
Schivo would no longer have a right to life, regardless of the doctor's
diagnosis and the lack of health insurance.It appears that one's
rights end at the pocketbook of their neighbor. And those unfortunate enough to
be unable to care for themselves must become beggars on the street for
What about living wills, and death with dignity laws?Are the
right-wing pro-lifers standing in my free agency for termination of sustained
life-support?[Please, only answer if you've stood in an ICU and had
to make that call for an immediate family member.]
So, When exactly does life begin?At a Single cell??If that be
the case - then we are all guilty of murder at the cellular level.For example; we spit, sneeze, cough, bleed, skin your knees, or clip a
hang-nail. Each individual living organism contains genetic coding and is
fully capable of living, reproducing and dying.However, is that cell
or even group of cells - me, a human being?It's not as
black-and-white as neocons tend to want to make it....
Neither, I'm Libertarian.I'm simply for a person's "Right to Choose".The real evil is "Force" - elimination of freedom.Forcing
someone else to CTR (choose the right) or wrong is worse than someone exercising
their free agency and choosing sin.Personally, I'm pro-life.Do what you want, just don't force me or anyone else to pay it.I may disapprove of what you say (or do), but I will defend to the death your
right to say (or do) it. - Voltaire
If "Life" is a 'right', why havent some of these people gotten one yet.
not a right to the good life...guarantee me a life with absolutely no misery in
any aspect of my life or don't use medical misery to make a wish a right. I
need a million bucks a year to pursue happiness in other exotic lands...it must
be the job of the government to provide this for me...no? How is this
fundamentally different once you stop thinking emotionally and begin to think
"I don't think you right-wing-nut-jobs are getting it.The letter writer
is correct:Healthcare is a rightThe right to "LIFE".Isn't that
what healthcare is all about?"So you are pro-life and there is no
right to abortion in the constitution?OK
All Republicans think about is money.Democrats think for others.Libertarians think for themselves.
You left-wing nutjobs and paleoliberals are the one's who really don't get
it.Once you turn responsibility for your life over to the government
-- you've LOST your right to life.Look what the government has done
to an unborn baby's right to life. Look what it has done to a social security
pensioner's. To a military retiree's.People in these categories are
ALREADY being denied a right to life by decisions being made in government-run,
rationed health care plans.BY THE GOVERNMENT! How can you honestly
assert it will be any different in any other government-run, rationed health
care plan? Why do you insist on believing that it's somehow better
for all of us to be uniformly miserable?It doesn't take an Einstein
to figure out that, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing
over and over again and expecting different results.”When are
you left-wing nutjobs and paleoliberals going to get over your insanity?
I have a brother at University Hospital this morning suffering injuries from an
accient over the weekend. His insurance will cover part, but not all of his
injuries.Who decided that? It certainly wasn't the Doctors at the U
Hospital. They want to do everything they can to help.Guess what,
they told his wife it the insurance companies decisions, not theirs. They must
be protecting their next quarter earnings. Hogwash!
I don't think you right-wing-nut-jobs are getting it.The letter
writer is correct:Healthcare is a rightThe right to
"LIFE".Isn't that what healthcare is all about?
So what I hear from the neocons on the right (aka, Mike Richards) is that Jesus
was an evolutionist who taught that only the strong survive?Please
explain your idea of compassion for a newborn infant who is not eligable to be
"covered".Facts is, I had a baby brother that my parents had
to "donate" to science in order to stay at Primary Childrens Hospital for his
last 2 months on earth, and my parents and our family had to declare medical
bankruptcy.Do you even DARE lecture me about what is right and what
is wrong!!!You Heartless wonder.....
Why are you folks soo willing to pay for any defense program or war the previous
administration came up with but your not will to pay anything to help people in
your own country? We would not be in this hole if we werent throwing money down
the middle east black hole. Its ttme to take care of our own..Eveyone
Re: "I believe that people are entitled to health care. I believe it is a right.
I believe it is critical. . . ."If I believe President Obama was
born in Kenya, does that make it so? If I believe President Kennedy was killed
by the Mafia, does that make it so? If I believe I have a right to YOUR car,
does that make it so?Why would anyone listen to this drivel? Show
me the constitutional provision, then we can talk.Until then, it's
not a right, it's a political scam whose purpose is to take in deluded
"believers."And convince them liberals are looking out for them."What a gullible breed." [Agent K, Men in Black]
Can't find the reference to the "right to health care" you proclaim. Is it next
to the "right" to golf.Maybe you have an updated Bill of Rights.Now, you may say you believe the government should provide health care
for everyone, I wouldn't argue to that, but to say it is a "right" is
The "Right" to golf | 11:33 a.m.I feel golf should be a right. And there
should be a progressive/aggressive tax policy to insure that others pay for my
"Right" to golf daily!----------------- If you play at ANY
county course...we already do.
Eating is a right. It's something we all are completely free to do. We still
have to grow the food, or earn the money to buy it.
My tax money already goes to pay for your "right" to golf at public golf
courses. If my tax money can go to something as stupid as that, it could go to
health care. Health care isn't a right in this country right now, it
is a privelede for those who can afford it. It should be a right avaialable to
in order to determine God given rights one must simply ask themself "if I lived
on the planet alone, would this be something I had?" Life, check. Liberty,
check. Pursuit of happiness, check. Gun, maybe or maybe not depending on my
own ability to create it but I would certainly have weapons of some sort so, I
would have the "right to bear arms". Health care .....I hear the
crickets...only those able to care for themselves would have it. I do not
advocate living without health care...we have given power to certain
institutions in our lives...among them are the state, local, and federal
government...we must decide how much power we wish to give them. The current
situation demonstrates a government in a power struggle to dictate to the
constituency what power they have rather than the other way around.
..as Michael Moore so eloquently put it in "Sicko" is that the "health care"
industry in far less about health care than it is about profits.Like ANY
industry.And we can buy insurance or not buy, but the bank will foreclose
on me if I can't afford to pay both my mortgage, Orrin Hatch's friends $500 for
@ 10:44 & 10:58,Insurance companies are just like McDonalds - they
can refuse service to anyone for any reason. Walk in to your local fast-food
outlet and start yelling about their high prices or their limited menu or the
fact that the government offers you meals-on-wheels for free and see how fast
you are escorted out of the building.YOU HAVE A CHOICE! YOU HAVE THE
RIGHT TO BUY INSURANCE! If you look hard enough, you will find a company that
will insure you, regardless of your condition, BUT, you'll have to pay the
premium. Your complaint is that you can't buy the plan that you
want at the price that you want to pay. That's too bad. You're sounding
like spoiled brats who just want to throw a tantrum because they can't have
everything for free.You DON'T have to have insurance. Pay the
doctor out of your own pocket. Geez, who buys you breakfast, lunch
and dinner everyday? Do you ever pay for anything?If you think that
you can dictate to a vendor what he can charge you're thinking like some
I feel golf should be a right. And there should be a progressive/aggressive tax
policy to insure that others pay for my "Right" to golf daily!If I
don't golf daily I get stressed and it affects my health and welfare.
How do you figure this is a "right"?Just because you FEEL it should
be?What OTHER things to you FEEL should be a "right" to all? What
OTHER rights do you have in mind that should be provided by an aggressive tax
policy to make others pay for it?
I have a solution that is fair and equal for every American.Simply
stop coverage for everyone on Dec. 31st.Then, have everyone re-apply
for coverage on beginning on Jan. 1.I can only imagine the sound
from the know-it-alls who's families suddenly are denied healthcare due to
pre-exisiting conditions.Then, maybe, we can ALL sit down and talk
about what's fair and equaitable and what isn't....
re:Mike Richards | 10:10 a.m. You have never changed jobs or
switched companies before? have you?Have you ever had someone in
your family denied Insurance for something as mundane as a headache and treated
by a Dotoctor with over the counter medications. [tylenol, ibuprophine]I didn't think so. Congradulations for being such the know it
Mike Richards | 10:10 a.m. Aug. 17, 2009 Right now everyone has the right
to buy or to not buy insurance.-------- Not so....Insurance
companies can deny anyone for any reason....
"I believe that people are entitled to health care. I believe it is a
right."It's your right to obtain all the health care you need and
desire. That's your right... And it's also your right and responsibility to pay
for it. What's not nor should be your right, is for the government to take
money from someone else to give it to you for your medical bills."Get rid of Medicare or make it available to all."It IS available
to all... as soon as they reach the eligibility age of 65.
Income inequality in the United States is at an all-time high, surpassing even
levels seen during the Great Depression, according to a recently updated paper
by University of California, Berkeley Professor Emmanuel Saez. The paper, which
covers data through 2007, points to a staggering, unprecedented disparity in
American incomes. Though income inequality has been growing for some
time, the paper paints a stark, disturbing portrait of wealth distribution in
America. Saez calculates that in 2007 the top .01 percent of American earners
took home 6 percent of total U.S. wages, a figure that has nearly doubled since
2000. The top 1 percent incomes captured half of the overall economic
growth over the period 1993-2007," Saes writes. AND WHERE IS THE
Right now everyone has the right to buy or to not buy insurance. Under the
plan, everyone would be required to have health insurance, either private or
government provided. The plan would take away your RIGHT to NOT have health
insurance.Right now everyone has the right to choose an insurance
company and a policy from that insurance company. Under the plan, you would not
be allowed to change companies or plans from the day that the government plan
was made law. The plan would take away your RIGHT to select your policy or to
change policies.Right now everyone has the right to sue an insurance
company and/or health care provider if he feels cheated in any way. Would you
be able to sue the government without the government's consent?Right
now Congress has no money locked away for Social Security, even though you and I
and everyone else has paid into the system since the first hour that we started
work. If a lawyer co-mingled your funds with the funds of other clients, that
lawyer would go to prison. You want government to co-mingle your health care
with Congress's pork projects?
I'm only 22 and even I know UHC is not a right protected under the constitution,
but it is something that is correct. If someone is seriously injured or sick
but can't pay for it, I want everyone who is against the availability of BASIC
health care (no one is talking about premium health care here) to be the one at
the door turning them away. I work in sales (for many people who don't
understand what that means- it means I'm very low paid and I struggle to pay for
basic living month to month) and I am in school to be an elementary teacher
(also a very low paid job) and I'd be thrilled to pay more each month if it
meant I could be helping someone else. That doesn't make me stupid or
irresponsible, it makes me an altruistic person. So get of your high horses and
help people out. Your money doesn't follow you to heaven, but your conscious
and decisions sure do. And I'm sure most of you can afford it more than I can.
We already pay for the uninsured, in the most expensive way possible.
Healthcare reform is an attempt to do it in a way such that we control costs
better. The Corporations are not looking out for you. They will do
whatever they can to enrich themselves, no matter the cost to the rest of us. We
have just suffered one of the biggest financial disasters since the Great
Depression at the hands of the greedy in the corporate sector. Health insurance
companies are charging more and passing more costs onto those they insure, while
pocketing the profits. How dare you continue to shill for these
corporations who are rationing healthcare for profits. For 8 yrs we
watched a budget surplus turn into a trillion dollar deficit, under the leader
YOU elected. At the end of Bush's term our country was teetering on the edge of
disaster. WHY should anyone be listening to you?
What you "believe" is irrelevant in the law. The Constitution -- the supreme
law of the land -- makes no provision making health insurance or health care a
right. It simply is not so, no matter how you feel.
OK, I'll play the little game.Let's use the gun right for an example.I have the right to buy a gun - the governemnt can't force other
to buy me one. But I have a constitutional right to own and have
access to purchasing one.Someone in an earlier post mentioned about
buying a car.OK, same premise: I have the money, I want to be a car. Sorry, you're Asian, or you're a Mormon, I don't have to sell you a car.Likewise, under the current Healthcare system in this country even if I
have the money, and I'm willing to pay FULL price, Insurance companies can and
often do - deny coverage, and not have to ever explain or give a reason why. The is legally termed, discrimination.And constitutional
rights mean all men and women are to be treated equal - no favortism.Therefore - yes, "available" Healthcare (not free healthcare) IS a right.
Darrel, common defense and "post roads" are the purview of the Federal
government. You can find where we gave them the authority for both of those in
Art.1, Sec. 8. Everything else you listed is the States responsibility as per
Amendment 10. The right to tax is not unlimited, and if you think it is then
you need to provide a cite that says it is. Maybe you're the one that needs to
do a little reading. Since Clinton took office I tend to read the Constitution
on a fairly regular basis.
Healthcare IS a right.And I'm not advocating just another freebie - When I have the money, and I'm willing to pay full price just like
anyone else for the services -for the insurance companies to tell you, or
anyone else in your family that they have been DENIED coverage is just play
wrong.You have eyeglasses?....sorry - pre-exisitng condition -
denied.4 years ago, treated for arthritis? Sorry, DENIED.You snore? Too bad, Denied.I'm willing to pay to play - I
should have the RIGHT to access Healthcare,Therefore, yes it IS indeed a
I have no doubt that you believe Health care as a right makes more sense than
gun ownership does, but what you believe has zero bearing on what the law is.
Gun ownership for every individual citizen is guaranteed by the Second Amendment
and Art. 1, Sec.8, clause 16, grants the Federal Government the power to arm
it's militias. "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia
...".Try and couch your beliefs in some kind of concrete evidence
rather than a fantasy.
Can we please keep the discussion on topic. This is not about denying health
care to preserve your life. Anyone, with or without health care, can walk into
a hospital and receive life-saving health care. This is a
discussion about providing health INSURANCE to all. That's a different matter.
Insurance is risk mitigation. If you want to add $ for catastrophic health
insurance to unemployment compensation that's certainly worth a discussion. The
elimination of 'pre-existing conditions' when transferring jobs makes sense to
me. Health insurance companies already account for risky behavior
in insurance rates. I do wonder how many people could be provided catastrophic
health insurance instead of the massive 'stimulus' money being thrown around.My biggest concern is blanket health insurance for anyone regardless of
their own health risk behavior or for those who are uninsured because they
choose to spend their money elsewhere. If you're going to provide health
insurance to the uninsured, it should come with a thorough scrub of their budget
and the ability to pay. Conveniences like fast food, entertainment, new cars,
television (gasp), cigarettes, alcohol, etc. should all come after a person pays
for health insurance.
The public certainly has a "right" to purchase insurance,(or purchase healthcare
directly from the provider) but I have a "right" not to have to pay for others'
I believe a BMW and a beach front condo are rights, but I don't have either.
Please send me a certified check each month so that I can have my "rights". The real Constitutional rights do not force Party A to systematically
pay for goods and services provided to Party B.
@Imo Actually it does, it is called taxation. My taxes pay for
YOUR kids education. My taxes pay for the streets that lead to YOUR home and
work. My taxes pay for YOUR policemen, fireman and defense. Please tell
me what is wrong with my intrepretation? If you actually read the document you
would know it to be correct. Please cite real examples, and not just "I don't
like it, therefore it is not true"
Kevin,Please cite the section of the Constitution that gives you, me
or anyone else the 'right' to government supplied health care.The
Declaration of Independence 'declared' to the world who we are and what we stand
for (and what we would no longer tolerated). It also DECLARED that God is the
giver of all rights. After the war was won, the Constitution was
written to limit the intrusion of Government into the lives of the people of
this nation. The people never abdicated their God given rights. They never
deeded those rights over to George Washington or any President who followed
Washington.The Constitution is the contract. It does not give
government the 'right' to provide health care. It does not give government the
'right' to dictate who or when or under what conditions people may buy health
care or health care insurance from ANY provider.Whether you accept
or reject God as the giver of rights will not change the wording of the
Declaration of Independence, nor will it change the hearts and minds of the
citizens who love and respect the giver of our rights.
When deciding whether to support UHC all Christians should ask themselves a very
simple question:"What would Jesus do?"
no - its not
Health care as a right makes more sense than unfettered gun ownership as a
This is for Darrel @ 7:36. That is one of the most confused readings of the
Constitution I have ever read. You need to consider this principle when you
attempt to define your rights without any background in constitutional
authority. "Your rights end where mine begin." No way in heck does the
Constitution allow government to take my property in order to pay your, or
anybody else's, bills.
@Mike Richards | 4:38 a.m. Aug. 17, 2009The Declaration of
Independence was just that, a declaration to the British. It has no legal
weight today.As for your comment, "That 'right' is not found in my
bible," fortunately the Bible has no legal bearing on us today either. If it
ever does, you're going to have another war on your hands.
We have the right to free speech, yet the government does not have to provide
everyone a forum complete with chairs, podium, and microphone.We
have the right to bear arms, yet the government does not take money from the
rich to buy every poor person in America a handgun.If health care
could be obtained, like the air we breathe, without imposing on someone else,
then I would agree, we should make it a right. (It is not currently a right in
our constitution.)Unfortunately, it does not come for free. It is a
good (drugs, medical equipment, etc.) as well as a service (doctors, nurses,
aides, etc.) and those things come at a price.Yes, it would be
wonderful if everyone in the world received the best medical care possible, but
forcing hard working people to pay for someone else's treatment is not ethical.
@ Mike God gave us the right to life, as you so eloquently quote.
It also states in that same paragraph that it to secure these rights governments
are instituted among Man. Government protects that God given right to life by
providing for those that need healthcare. Disease does not discriminate
among social classes or "pay grades". Rich people can get sick just as easily
as middle class or poor people. Should not everyone have access to the same
treatment? Health Care is too a Constitutional Right. Please read
the IX ammendment. Also the same Constitution provides Congress the power to
enact this legislation under Section 1 Section 8 Clause 18, the Elastic
Clause. Didn't Jesus preach about visiting the sick in his parable of
the sheep and goats? Didn't he preach about their care in the Good Samaritan?
Did he not go around "healing all manner of sickness?" The Bible is replete
with evidence of caring for the sick. I find it interesting that the FIRST
thing he did after introducing himself to the Nephites was command the sick to
come forward to be healed. Where does it say it is not good to care for the
John Gilmore: Your letter is spot on. We should have a progressive tax to pay
for the health care option; in fact, that's what Pres. Obama is proposing. I
support him 110%. Good letter.
Mike Richards: Crawl back under your rock. The Constitution codifies the rights
expressed by our Creator in the Dec. of Ind. And Omar, the Constitution doesn't
enumerate every god-given right. That's why we elect good men and women to
interpret the Constitution and discern what rights should be protected--the ones
that talk about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.PS: Is
it possible to have life, liberty, and access to the pursuit of happiness
without health care?
Health care is a commodity, just as is a car, a house, a boat, etc. It is
something that is bought and paid for. Why should I pay increased taxes to treat
someone else's medical condition?
Mike Richards,Yes, indeed, the consitution is grounded on certain
unalienable rights. The first of the three is "Life". Lives are lost all the
time because "pre-existing conditions" make people uninsurable. Without care,
many illnesses turn into chronic, fatal disease. People who are denied health
care sometimes find they have been denied their right to life. Moreover, I believe we are morally obligated to come up with a system that is
fairer than the current one.
Health care is not a right. A thinking person would never argue that point.But, health care is the right thing to do.
actually, I agree somewhat with John. Legal residents have every right to go to
any place that offers goods and/or services, whether it be medical care, hair
styling, car repair, a restaraunt, the golf course, or whatever, and should be
able to receive the services offered (often appointments may be needed. They do not, however, have a right to expect someone else to pay for it.
If their faucett leaks, THEY pay the plumber; if their car breaks donw, THEY
pay the mechanic; if their hair is too long, THEY pay the hair stylist. If they
need health care, THEY make arrangements for the payment thereof.
The Constitution is outdated, times have changed, it is the foundation but not
the word by which we can abide today. Just as the Bible is a history of a
people how many years ago - we need to move forward to reach out to all and show
the love and charity the Bible mentions and of course I do joke
Gun ownership is a right as well - it's actually a right that is prescribed in
the 2nd Amendment. Why doesn't government then make sure everyone gets a gun?
Sorry, health care insurance isn't a right. Neither is abortion. Read the
Constitution. The government can't stop you from buying a car- any car- but
there is no right to car insurance. You can drive the car anywhere you want to
go, but there is no right to gas money. You can buy any car you want, OR you
have the right to do without a car at all. You can walk or take a bus or hitch
a ride or use a bike, or just stay at home and not go anywhere. Is the
governemt going to start forcing people to buy universal auto insurance if they
decide to use one of these other option? We should be thankful for our true
rights, not demanding more.
John,The Government does not 'bestow' rights on us. The Declaration
of Independence states:"We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit
of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"Those were the words that led to war. Those were the words that told
the world that our Creator gave us rights - not the government.Did
God give you the right to expect someone else to pay for your health care? That
'right' is not found in my bible.Since the government cannot give
'rights', because it has no 'rights' to give, why do you say that you have a
'right' to health care?Who has the authority to bestow that 'right'?
The government is restricted to do only those things that we, the citizens, the
owners of this nation, permit it to do. The contract that defines the
limitations of governmental authority is the Constitution.The
Constitution contains no 'right' to health care.
If healthcare is a "right" does that mean the government should reward people
who smoke, drink and abuse drugs by sending their doctor bills to healthy
people? Does that mean trial lawyers should get out of the way of
doctors who are constantly having to look over their shoulder, worried any care
or non-care they provide will result in a malpractice suit?Does that
mean nurses who work 12 hour shifts should have to work a few more hours each
day and week, to keep up on the demands of patients? Go ahead and
preach that health care is a right. Just remember that with rights also comes
responsiblities. Freedom of speech does not include slandering people or yelling
fire in a crowded theater.
Whether or not "free" health care is a right or not is mute. The constitution
doesn't mention free health care. The real question is: How will we pay for it?
How much red ink do you think we can endure? There aren't enough "rich" people
to tax in order to pay for this. Even if there were, do you really want the
government to decide what care you deserve to receive? Don't tell me about
Canada, they have one third the population as we do and taxes there are very
much higher and yes, they do have rationing! The truth, the government cannot
give you "free" health care, there is no such thing!