Why must the 'Right' spend so much time and effort spreading inconsistent rhetoric versus actually improving our country?
Health Care
(9 posts) (7 voices)-
democrat
Key MasterPosted 1 year ago # -
democrat
Key MasterRelated side note, great article..
http://openscandal.com/2010/05/06/health-care-in-the-usa-still-crazy-after-all-these-years/
Posted 1 year ago # -
GOP tried to repeal it even now...
Posted 1 year ago # -
ksu_aviator
MemberDo you believe that an individual has a right to life? Of course. Is it much of a stretch to say that a subset of the right to life is the right to maintain your health? Sure. Who wouldn't?
If you do, then you must oppose a public option. I know that is contrary to popular opinion, but here is why:
A right, under our Constitution, is an act or freedom that is held by the individual and unimpeachable by the government (be it federal, state, local or anything in between). A right can only remain a right if the individual controls the medium to which the right is exercised. Should the government control the medium (in the case of health care that would be insurance or money) then the government, through proxy, controls the act and the act becomes a privilege.
An example would be religion. For argument's sake, let's say that the government decided that religion can only be practiced in a government building and that each individual can go to any religious service they chose, but the government must know which service you attend. Do you have the right to freedom of religion? No. The government is, for all intents and purposes, telling you where you can go (a government building), when you can go (scheduled services in the government building) and that the government must know what your religion is via registration.
The same holds for any government run health care program (including Medicare and Medicaid). By controlling the medium of money (church buildings in the above example) the government controls the right to life's subset of health care and thus your right to life.
Now, I know there will be a bunch of emotional responses that demonize doctors, insurance companies and other nameless and faceless groups. The reality is, you had choices that would provide essential care at a reasonable cost. For example, you could purchase health insurance that covered only serious problems. This would have saved an individual around $300 a month (at least it did for me). Granted, you'd have to pay the $75-150 for a standard visit to the doctor...but you could do that 2 to 3 times a month and still not be spending any extra money!
But, that type of insurance was vilified and banned under the new HCR bill. So, those of us that made smart choices with our money are stuck paying for the people that aren't smart enough to recognize when they are wasting money. Do you people actually think the government can do something cheaper? They paid $1 million for a hammer for the space ship!
Posted 1 year ago # -
thelaw
Member'emotional' responses are vital because we are talking about life. Public option seemingly would cost much less than the current solution and would leave you to your own insurance. If you look abroad this has been executed with success and with a higher appreciation for it economically. Your stats are loose at best and 'right to life' is more like 'right to attempt to keep it'. Whether you want to believe it or not, some people do not have the same access you do to health care and its not because they are lazy, stupid, or otherwise. Shit happens. Some people don't have the option to even attempt to save themselves.. so there is no right to life or even a right to fight for it.
Governments role should be to provide options for life that are sometimes unattainable to everyone (Social Security, Health Care etc).Posted 1 year ago # -
obama1
Member@ksu_aviator while your theory is good unfortunately it is baseless and factually inaccurate. As 'thelaw' suggested, you don't have to research much to figure out that the public option can and has been implemented with success much greater than any system we have locally.
Also, by 'Right', it is a fundamental RIGHT of life not of the constitution. The Government is the best source to provide that and we do control that medium being that the medium is elected by the people.Posted 1 year ago # -
ksu_aviator
Member@thelaw:
An individuals ability to exercise a right does not preclude the existence of the right. Nor is it justification for absconding with the right. The governments role, according to our Constitution, is to protect the people from the loss of rights...not to provide them with the means to exercise their rights.@obama1:
Even if I was to stipulate that other countries with a social health care system have been cheaper and better (which they haven't), that doesn't mean that our government has the authority to provide health care.Posted 1 year ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.