To "Ranch" you realize that what you are advocating is communism.If you believe that food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare are a right,
then you are advocating a system of slavery in which those that work care for
those that don't. It is forced, and those that work have no choice in the
matter.Luckily we know that once you make all of those things a
right, then the nation's days are numbered. You will experience an
economic collapse as more people realize that the harder you work, the less
others will work because they can just take any increase that you have.To "atl134" you realize that once the expanded medicaid money runs
out, the state is on the hook for the increased cost. Where is the state going
to get the money? You should also realize that the CBO has a failed track
record for estimating medical costs.
Healthcare isn't just a privilege for those with jobs and money either!.
The insurance companies commonly denied coverage to folks with any pre-existing
condition to protect their profits and the high shareholder investment returns.
A basic right to healthcare is recognized by almost all of the advanced nations
in this world. They spend a lot less on healthcare and have better outcomes
than we do in America with our over paid healthcare empire. Nobody is saying
you shouldn't pay your way, but there needs to be some rights for those who
are less fortunate in society. With the outrageous cost of healthcare, even a
household provider with a salary of say $40.00 per hour (if you don't have
insurance) you can't afford what the cost of getting seriously ill and
going to a hospital, much less folks who make less than that.
@Badgerbadger – “Ah one of the favorite liberal lies, the ACA is the
republicans' fault, when not one of them helped write it of voted for
it.”One of the favorite conservative lies…The Republicans did not help write it by their own choice. Obama gave them
plenty of opportunities to provide input, including a last ditch five hour round
table meeting where he offered to consider any ideas they had if they would
support it, only to be told no over & over. Obama naively thought that
resurrecting their 90’s anti-Hilary plan would get him 5 or 10 Senate
Republican votes straight away, but unfortunately he did understand the level of
Obama hatred already in place. They opted for the strategy of
denying Obama any victory on healthcare (or anything else, really), and you want
us to believe that it was all a case of nobody willing to play nice with those
poor Republicans on the playground? Please… Your fellow
conservative David Frum wrote about this in an article called
“Waterloo” and was subsequently drummed out of the movement for
In the implication of the founding fathers 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", is that the new
government would treat individuals as equal to other individuals. If a person has a right to life, does he also have a right to the things that
are necessary to life? Like food, shelter, health care...No, a
person does not have the right to another persons property but he does have a
right to have the way to obtain the things he needs. If that way is denied to
him the promise of America is broken. Would it be wrong if our
society decided that equal opportunity to have the promise extended beyond mere
birth on American soil to the food, shelter, education and even health care?
Ah one of the favorite liberal lies, the ACA is the republicans' fault,
when not one of them helped write it of voted for it. Light your
candle to Obama and the democrats and worship, while you ignore the facts and
@Redshirt1701"and who is going to pay for the cost of expanded
Medicaid? We are already hurting the economy with the ACA, why do we need to
damage the economy with more taxes and debt?"The bill is fully
paid for (that's why the CBO scored repeal of Obamacare as increasing the
deficit). You should know that seeing as your side railed against every single
mechanism used to pay for it (tax increases, mandate fine, medicare cuts,
medical device and tanning taxes...). There's also no evidence that the ACA
is damaging the economy.@Badgerbadger"Having no insurance
for anyone would make the prices of medical care go down."Medical bankruptcies would sky rocket and our life expectancy would drop due
to people not being able to afford care (you see it turns out not everyone has
tens of thousands of dollars laying around for surgery).
Just as people have the need for clothes, food and shelter as you mentioned,
they have a need for healthcare. But not free as you are probably thinking.
Except for the poor whom get Medicaid as they have done for years, the people
that need health coverage need to pay a fair price for it. I am an example of
this. Until Jan 1st, 2014, I didn't have health insurance for seven years.
I was denied a personal plan when I became self employed due to a
"preexisting condition" This unfair practice was one of the main issues
that the ACA corrected. My spouse was not offered health insurance at his small
company because it was too expensive. He also now has coverage. We will pay a
fair price of $300.00 a month and have free health care screenings as well as
access to doctor's visits and prescriptions. For hospital coverage we would
pay a deductible like almost anyone has to. Our coverage is through a regular
local plan that chose to be part of helping people get health insurance. Those
are the facts that people need to get straight. God Bless America!
@Redshirt1701;Food, clothing and shelter should be a right.
Transportation? Humans were born with legs. The bigger question is why is
everything so expensive as to be unaffordable? If it weren't so pricey,
people could pay themselves and not rely on the government or the charity of
others. Jesus said care of the poor and needy IS an obligation; so,
was Jesus a tyrant?
"Requiring insurance for everyone is the best way to make costs rise. Great
job Obama and democrats!"It cannot be denied that the original
plan for mandatory insurance was "hatched" by the GOP and supported by
Hatch.And this was touted as a Free Market solution.Proving once again that the quickest way for a Republican to be against their
own plan is for a Democrat to support it.
Having no insurance for anyone would make the prices of medical care go down. It
is probably the most effective way of controlling the costs. Providers should be
required to post the charges and they should be uniform for all patients. People
would shop around and doctors would have to compete. It would be way
better than what we have now, or what the ACA is bringing, or a one payer
system. More freedom for everyone, and lower costs for everyone. Aspirins in the
hospital would no longer cost $40 each.Requiring insurance for
everyone is the best way to make costs rise. Great job Obama and democrats!
I don't know if this letter has spent much time in an ER with uninsured
children having convulsions from dental abscesses, a fractured femur bleeding
out, a child with a gunshot to the eye, etc.I have seen these things. But
according to the letter writer, these poor children have no right to medical
care. I cannot think of a more callous, savage viewpoint than this, but it is
typical of my conservative neighbors.
"I wonder if any of you Obamacare opponents care about the 5 million
Americans who would've had the Medicaid expansion but don't because
Republican governors blocked them, and don't have the subsidies because the
bill assumed that Medicaid would be expanded so they wouldn't need
them."Here's the rub.All those Republicans
living in states without Medicaid expansion are nonetheless paying for that
expansion but not getting any of the benefits in their state.
It is funny to watch the liberals avoid the issue.If healthcare is a
right, why isn't food, clothing, shelter, and transportation?What good is healthcare if I can't eat, or am exposed to the weather?The bigger question is who is going to pay for everyghing? The money
that the government spends comes from all of us.To "Schnee"
the right to life only means that the government can't just decide that you
are not needed any more and kill you. It does not mean they have to keep you
alive, that is your responsibility.To "The Real Maverick"
you are right, and now thanks to the ACA, we can pay 2 times for the poor to be
cared for. Once for the insurance we subsidize, and again when they go to the
ER because they can't afford the deductible.To
"Hutterite" since when are we "obligated" to help another
person? Only tyrants force people to help.To "atl134" and
who is going to pay for the cost of expanded Medicaid? We are already hurting
the economy with the ACA, why do we need to damage the economy with more taxes
Lynn Price, if you want healthcare professionals to be treated like a capitalist
enterprise then let them pay 100% of their education costs with no taxpayer
subsidies. Let them compete like any other retail business. Make them post their
prices instead of charging one price to the insured and another for the
uninsured. Make them fight for every patient like Walmart or Target does or
better yet like the Mom & Pop store on the corner. Open up medical schools
for all instead of allowing the AMA to set quotas for admission. Instead of
allowing their costs rising 3 times faster than inflation maybe we need to set
up a real competitive environment for them rather than this vulturistic system
we accept. Better yet, pay them well, take the insurance companies out of the
equation and create a Medicare for all. There's nothing free about that
since that is what you are worrying about. After all when you are healthier our
nation is healthier.
@Mountanman (sic) - Since I am not a fan of the ACA, I would like to learn more.
Please, direct me to all legitimate studies wherein "millions of
Americans... have lost their healthcare insurance and are now forced to buy more
expensive insurance with less coverage." I have no doubt that, in making
such a claim, you have ample evidence to support your statement. Please
provide. Oh, and I understand you to be LDS, like me. If that is
the case, abortion is not now nor has it ever been murder or killing. I would
suggest you look more in depth at the subject.
This thinly veiled defense of economic Darwinism is pretty much saying, "Let
them die." If they can't afford health care, they have no right to
health or even life. This letter is simply more evidence convincing me I made
the right decision to exit the Republican Party several years ago. And this
sentiment about health care is not popular just in the tea-party extremist wing.
It is shared by pretty much all conservatives.What is ironic is
that, as a recent Pew survey revealed, even as Republicans increasingly embrace
economic Darwinism, they are increasingly rejecting Darwin's theory of
natural selection. Go figure.
@Mountanman"I wonder if any of you Obamacare supporters care about the
millions of Americans who have lost their healthcare insurance and are now
forced to buy more expensive insurance with less coverage?"In
most cases there is either a comparable plan at similar cost on the exchange or
there's a more expensive insurance that has much more coverage because the
person had a junk policy (which are known for being cheap and covering next to
nothing), so I just plain reject your premise since it doesn't apply to
most who lost their health insurance.I wonder if any of you
Obamacare opponents care about the 5 million Americans who would've had the
Medicaid expansion but don't because Republican governors blocked them, and
don't have the subsidies because the bill assumed that Medicaid would be
expanded so they wouldn't need them.
It always a bit sad when a movement (conservatism) that was founded by some
incredibly smart people (Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, etc…) is eventually
inherited by the not-so-smart masses who, instead of possessing the power to
analyze, understand complexity, make distinctions and deal with nuance, are left
to reciting bumper stickers.
"the millions of Americans who have lost their healthcare insurance and are
now forced to buy more expensive insurance with less coverage"I'm still waiting to hear a first-person account of this happening. All
I've ever heard is anectodal. If there is someone to whom this has
happened, please tell us your story. I'd really like to know how and why.
One of the problems this writer puts forth is to equate health care with any
other commodity. Unfortunately, this is not the case. When you need building
material and don't have the cash, you can hold off on the purchase, When
you're exhibiting signs of a heart attack, that may not be as much of an
option. Instead of calling health care a 'right', how about a moral
obligation we owe one another as members of an oft cited 'christian',
charitable society. As a bonus, it can be done for all, with a smaller total
expenditure than we are experiencing now.
Pope Benedict (that's the last pope, the conservative one, not the new
liberal one) said that healthcare is a basic human right and that all developed
countries have a moral obligation to provide universal healthcare. It seems
funny that the same people who insist that we have to follow the Pope on
abortion and gay marriage simply chose to ignore him in this context.
I would like to remind this letter writer that when she rushes to the ER for
health care and isn't denied service that health care isn't a right
(according to herself).MM, millions of Americans can still choose
whether to obtain health insurance or not. That's the beauty of Romneycare,
choice. Just because some Americans have chosen to go without or are choosing to
procrastinate until spring, doesn't make supporters of the Romneycare
@ Ranch. IF you are lucky enough to make it out of the womb! Odds are someone
might deem you unworthy to live and kill you before you are born. I wonder if
any of you Obamacare supporters care about the millions of Americans who have
lost their healthcare insurance and are now forced to buy more expensive
insurance with less coverage? You fake your concern for the relative few
uninsured but ignore those millions who are harmed! Hypocrites!
Translation:Once you exit the womb, you're on your own baby!
Until people look at the big "health care" picture, we will get letters
like this.In a nutshell, health care is unreasonably expensive and
the aging population will take a bigger and bigger chunk of our resources and
ultimately bankrupt the country.Google "reddit 55000 bill"
as an example of the disconnect between costs and services. So, we
can continue to play partisan politics on the issue, or we can look to address
it.Too many see no problem. Hence, they see no need to make any
changes.There is a huge difference between wanting reasonable costs
vs free services.The average cost of childbirth in the US is more
than twice as much as other developed countries. And the outcome is similar at
best.Why is that? Someone? Anyone?
So much for self-evident truth of inalienable right to life...
So the writer asserts that individuals don't have a right to much of
anything. If they don't have the cash with which to make a purchase, they
have no right to any substance. But how does that square with the
government's capital infusion into the big banks in 2009 to rescue them,
and the extremely cheap, practically zero cost, of Fed funds being loaned to
these same banks to keep them solvent. Did these banks have a "right"
to that support? I hope the writer would say no to remain consistent. But the
capital infusion and the cheap Fed funds were necessary to keep the banks, the
center of the capitalist system, afloat. Here the needs of the system trumped
the natural rights doctrine. Maybe the needs of individuals also trump the
writer's rights doctrine.