Thursday, July 23, 2009

Should healthcare be a right?

The healthcare debate is raging. Obama is pushing hard and the Republicans are fighting back. We can argue about the various plans out there but the fundamental question is " In this nation of prosperity should affordable healthcare be considered a right for everyone?"

Just throwing it out there.

18 comments:

  1. How do you define a right? Is it something that I have a right to obtain or something that I have right to be provided for me?

    ReplyDelete
  2. The way the government defines it. You have a right to it whether you can afford it or not. If you can't afford it the government will supply it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The rights put forth in the Constitution were given by the Creator and not by the state. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness were not meant to be given to you by taking them away from someone else. The Constitution doesn’t limit the citizens, it was meant to limit the power of the government.

    The state should not be able to come along and take your life for just any reason. If people were starving in America, the government shouldn’t be able to come along and shoot every tenth person to lesson the starvation problem. The state shouldn’t be able to confine your movements, either in jail or to a geographic area in an attempt to control the population. If you haven’t seen the TV mini series Amerika, I suggest that you do. It made some interesting points on losing your liberty. The pursuit of happiness means you have the opportunity to go out and obtain it through legal means, not that the government provides it for you.

    I would have to say that health insurance is not a “right” under the Constitution.

    That doesn’t mean that some liberal court ruling might not find it hidden in between the lines of the Constitution. That’s what they did when they found the “right” for a woman to have an abortion. I find it unbelievable that the Founding Fathers, sexist bigots that the liberals say they were, would write a woman's constitutional right into the Constitution when abortion was illegal in all thirteen colonies at the time.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree. Then as a conservative am I willing to give up or vote against some of the other
    "rights" that we have become accustomed to.

    Society has deemed that education is a right and we all pay for it whether we have kids or not. Medicare, medicaid, food stamps, housing allowances, low interest college loans (which I have used), veterans benefits, childcare etc. have all become rights.

    Should a parent be responsible for funding their own kids schooling and also be able to decide that after 8th grade they don't need anymore. Are we willing to tell our parents that they need to find a way to pay for that hip replacement themselves. Do we have the heart to tell a single mom with 5 kids that there is no more food stamps and section 8 housing?

    If we aren't able to say no to these things what is the difference with healthcare?

    ReplyDelete
  5. As a Society, we have come a long way the last fifty years. I’m not sure that it has all been in the right direction. I believe the biggest changes began in the 1960’s with the birth of President Johnson’s welfare programs. Since then, the government has intruded into more and more areas of or personal lives.

    Once when a parent became old or disabled, it was the family’s responsibility to care for them. It wasn’t uncommon to find three generations, a grandparent; the parents and children all lived in the same house. The parents looked after them children when they were young and the children looked after the parents when they got old. I’m not talking about oldsters who need constant health or are bound to and can’t even get out of bed. However, in many cases even those types of oldsters were cared for in the family home.

    We became a selfish nation that didn’t want to be bothered by having to care for our parents. Now we had the excuse, “that’s what I pay taxes for”, so that the government will take care of them. Do you have a parent that doesn’t move as far as he/she used to, put them in a nursing home and let the government take care of them. It’s OK, you can ease your conscience by visiting them one weekend or holidays. Have a disabled child, turn them over to Human Social Services, let the government take care of them. It doesn’t matter if the person is an invalid or just mildly disabled. Maybe he/she only needs just a little bit of help. I’ve got things to do, I have my own family to worry about and besides, “that’s what I pay taxes for”.

    It doesn’t matter if you are a liberal, a conservative or even a libertarian, as a society we believe that there are some things that we do for the common good of the society. There may be a few that are against paying taxes to support the military that protects out country (society) against foreign invaders. There may be some that are against paying taxes to pave the streets and lay the water and sewer lines. There may be some that are against collecting taxes to educate the children of other people. Those of us that don’t object to paying these taxes only ask that the military doesn’t waste it on $500.00 hammers. They ask that the state doesn’t waste it by building a bridge to nowhere. They ask that the sewer and water line work without backing up and cost twice the original estimate.

    see page two

    ReplyDelete
  6. We saw a step back from some of this extreme government waste when in 1994 the government reformed welfare by requiring the people to work. A good number of people picked themselves up, with the government’s help and got off of the dole.

    In a new by city that is suffering huge financial crises, all of the thousands of children eat free in the school cafeterias. There isn’t any needs test requirement. The family that makes $250,000 eats free just as the family that makes $25,000. The schools now serve meals before and I believe after school and they are looking to serve meals on weekends. As a conservative, this is what I am against. I feel that it is ok for society to help someone as longs as it doesn’t become a lifestyle.

    The free insurance of children is supposed to help the neediest of our fellow citizens. It is given to families of four with an income up to $81,000. If you are making $ 81,000 a year and you can’t afford lunch for your children, there’s something wrong with your priorities and lifestyle. I know that there are some cases where medical costs can bring down someone’s income. In many, if not most cases, it’s a too expensive house, too expensive car(s) and other material choices that the people made that caused them to think that they can’t afford insurance.

    It comes down to two issues. How much are we going to help people ourselves and how much in taxes to help others. Everyone draws a line in the sand somewhere. Some, a few, would say that there shouldn’t be any help from the government, some would say that there should be a safety net but not enough to have it become a life style and other want cradle to grave involvement.

    Where you come down on this issue might depend upon where you are in life and what your life experiences have been. If you are young and healthy, come from a family that is healthy and has done well in life, you might be more it the first category. If you have seen hardships in your own life or in the life of a loved one you will be somewhere in the second category. If you have been brainwashed by the public school system and college, if you have no ambition and you feel that the world owes you something, you will probably find yourself in the last one.

    ReplyDelete
  7. So oh Grouchy one, where is your line? Medicare, Education, Food stamps, Healthcare? I have a hard time blasting the healthcare for all crowd (even though I think it's absurd) when I or others in my family have taken advantage of other government programs. And if your line is food stamps and someone else hasn't found their line, is their line wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I will be the first to say that I don’t know where the line has to be drawn.

    Someone said that they took advantage of the student loan program. If a person takes out those loans, better their education, and they repay the loans I have no complaint. If the loans allow that person to earn more income, provide for his family and pays his taxes, the student loan pays for itself in the long run. If the person takes the student loans, skips through classes and then can’t get a better job or repay their loans because they wasted their time partying instead of learning, I have a problem with that.

    If a person works and through no fault of his own is laid off, not fired from his job, I have no problem with him collecting unemployment while he searches for a new job or is called back to his old one. His employer paid into the unemployment funds all of the time that he worked. If the same person just quits or gets fired for stealing then wants to sit around and play video games until his unemployment runs out, I have a problem with that.

    If a woman with three or four children has her husband walk out on her, I have no problem helping her over the rough spot until she can get her life together. That’s provided that she has filed a complaint against the man for child support. If a woman has three or four children with different men and none of them are paying child support and she’s thinking about having another child, I have a problem with that.

    So as you can see, each situation is different. We need to have a safety net but it needs to be set low enough that it doesn’t bring in more income than working does.

    Having said that, I believe that we have to draw the line when it comes to not being able to afford it. Social Security and Medicare are broke. The healthcare is the straw that broke the camel’s back. Besides being too costly, it will be provided for illegal aliens. That, I believe is illegal in itself. Healthcare also takes away your freedom. The other programs take away your money. I believe that this program would in time, cost people their lives due to rationing of treatment and prescriptions.

    To steal a phase from the liberals, it’s my body, what goes on between me and my doctor is none of the government’s business. It is an invasion of my right to privacy.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I agree with most everything you've said. The problem as you said every situation is different and you can't have a rule for each situation. If paying back the loan or handout is the litmus test then any type of catastrophic health problem would fail that test whether it's in a government or private sector setting. Catastrophic to one person may be over a hundred thousand dollars and to another over five hundred dollars.

    As a person who had a low interest government home loan years ago, a low interest student loan, whose daughter had a low interest student loan, whose parents are in the Medicare/Medicaid age I have a hard time taking advantage of the system and then tell others they can't because we are out of money. And when I think about it I have a hard time seeing that me going to school or buying my first house is more important than saving a life or treating a serious medical condition for someone that can't get the insurance.

    What the administration is doing now is ridiculous. Approx. 85% of people in the US are covered by some type of health ins. That leaves around 47 million uninsured. Of that approx. 6-8 million are illegals. There is another large segment that are healthy and young and choose to opt out of any insurance. Maybe there needs to be a complete shakeup of the entitlement system and prioritize programs. Healthcare should come before low interest loans to students who can actually work their way through college (what a concept). Owning a house is great but healthcare is still more important so cut the low interest programs. Lets look at all government programs to see where we can come up with the money. Is NPR or the Arts more important? How about money to the Arabs who hate us? Let the 85% keep what they have. A government program should only cover the big costs. Everyone should have to pay for their own check up or routine visits. Let private ins. companies compete in each state. That way they could spread the risk out and drop the cost. We have the best healthcare in the world. Sure it has flaws but a government system would just make it worse.

    If it was actually a problem that the government wanted to fix, they could just by shifting funds from unneeded and wasted programs. The problem isn't lack of money, it's lack of common sense.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It appears for the most part that we are on the same page.

    I would like to mention that helping the student get through college or the first time homeowner does have benefits tot he government in that they pay higher taxes afterwards. If the student borrows and then pays back his loans, the government is only out some interest. How much more in taxes does he pay at his higher income? How much does he stimulate the economy by being able to purchase more items? How many jobs does his being able to improve his station in life because of the student loan create? As for the first time home loan grants and low interest. The same can be said for the housing market and all of the related jobs created there. Not to mention the taxes the city and state receives from a homeowner.

    Here the problem isn’t the program, it’s those that abuse the program. There are two main issues with healthcare as being presented by the government.

    The first is cost and the second it control. As you stated, the cost issue might be able to be overcome with good management of our tax dollars. Do you think that that is really going to happen? Social Security and Medicare are going broke because the politicians have purchased votes by expanding the programs to cover much more that was the original plan. Unlike some of the better charities where 90-95% of the money reaches the end user, government eats up too large of a portion of the funds in administrative costs.

    Think about private schools verse public schools. Private church schools offer a better education than public schools at ½ to 1/3 the cost, A good part of that difference is in the administration of the program.

    The second is who controls what? We have been told that we will be able to keep our current healthcare insurance. The problem is the law being written states that after it takes effect, the insurance companies won’t be able to write new individual policies. If you have employer provided insurance and you change jobs or start your own business, there won’t be an option to purchase individual insurance.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Currently Medicare allows you to stay with your current doctor. If for some reason you want to change doctors, you will face your worst day ate the DMV times ten. You and your doctor decide what is the best treatment and medication for you to take. Under the new plan the government would be the one to decide. You have read the problems with the health care system in Canada and England. Do we really want to bring those problems home to us in the name of “healthcare reform”? There’s a reason that Obama stuttered and didn’t answer the question if he would put his family on this program. It’s because he wants the best for his family, don’t you?

    There are many things that can be done to improve healthcare or insurance reform in America. This just isn’t it. The Republicans have put forth Tort reforms. I’ve heard that a good portion of the cost of a ladder is to cover the liability insurance needed to cover lawsuits from idiots that don’t know you shouldn’t rest a aluminum ladder against a power line. Doctor’s do make mistakes and the person harmed needs to be compensated. The problem is this, juries feel no qualms about rewarding extremely high amounts of money since the insurance company is paying for it. The same people then complain because their policy premiums go up. When the insurance companies get pinched, they turn around and put the squeeze on their customers to pay off the lawsuit.

    I heard it said that the government could have taken a small portion of the stimulus bill and purchased health insurance for most of the legal residents. The problem is that then they wouldn’t be in control and control is what it is truly all about.

    Don’t get me started on providing insurance for illegal aliens. It is against federal law to hire illegal aliens. It is against the law to house and provide aid for illegal aliens. Now the federal government wants to entice them to stay by providing them with health insurance? What’s next, housing, utilities and food stamps? Oh wait, some of that is happening already.

    So in ending another long rant. Yes, reforms can and should be made. The program that they are writing isn’t the program we need. It is a giant step in the wrong direction. So I am 100% against it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm 100% against it also but feel there is a workable solution (at least in my Tiredofthecrap runs the world scenario). Is there actually a good solution as long as government is involved, probably not.

    On the tuition issue I have to admit my 6 years in college were a waste of money. I'm doing a blue collar job not using any college knowledge. Our daughter's degree may have helped her get her job but as soon as she's pregnant she will quit. I'll be paying the loan back years after she is done working.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Grouchy and Crappy,

    Why don't you two get a room and continue the love fest! Doesn't anyone else have an opinion? So you don't want healthcare for everyone, I don't want to spend money to defend Iraq! Bring home the troops and we'll have all the money we need. How about lets cut the corporate loopholes and we again will have plenty of money. Instead of not doing something why don't we quit doing things stupidly and spend our money wisely. Problem solved. At least Obama has the guts to take on the ins. and drug companies.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Leftofcenter, you just don’t get it do you? You ask, “So you don't want healthcare for everyone,” Did you even read our posts?

    How far left of center are you? Has your love of Obama colored your thinking so that you can’t understand our concerns? “At least Obama has the guts to take on the ins. and drug companies.” That’s like saying my mother needed eye surgery but couldn’t afford it so I “took it on” and tried doing it myself. So what if my mother died, at least I tried.

    Obama isn’t about providing quality healthcare to America. He’s about taking over and being in control. So he “takes it on” and we end up with healthcare that takes six months to two years to even get a MRI. Then the doctors to tell you if you had the surgery six months to a year ago before the cancer spread they could have saved your life. “At least he took it on”. So one of your parents comes down with kidney failure and they need a transplant. The government rules that since they have reached that certain age they need to live with it until they die. Wait you exclaim, I’m a match and I will give my parent one of my kidney’s. The government says no, it wouldn’t be cost effective and beside, then you would be at great risk and they aren’t willing to let you donate it. “At least he took it on”.

    You stated that if we quit the war in Iraq we would have no problem paying for this bill. You seem to be concerned about how the tax dollars are being spend when it comes to Iraq but then have a blind eye when it comes to the pork in this bill.

    How can Obama be for a bill that he admits he doesn’t know what’s in it? Didn’t we learn anything from the stimulus bill? Shouldn’t Congress and the President at least read a final copy of the bill before they say they support it? If the President has changes that he wants made, shouldn’t he be communicating those wishes to Congress now and not wait until it’s passed and sitting on his desk? Shouldn’t they have read it so that when they sit down with a group of people to answer questions that they don’t squirm out of answering it by saying “I’m nor familiar” with that section? How an any Senator or Congressman expect his voters back home to support a bill unless they can explain how it is going to work and what the changes are going to be.

    I’m guessing that you don’t care about the 8-12 million illegal aliens that will also be given the insurance? How cruel you are. What do we do about their families in Mexico and other Central and South American countries? Should we give healthcare coverage to them too? Then again what good is giving them insurance if we don’t give them food, clothing and housing?

    Even you will have to draw the line in the sand somewhere?

    ReplyDelete
  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  16. ~ “Ok for society to help someone as longs as it doesn’t become a lifestyle” I love this quote. It’s so true.

    ~ One thinks on veteran’s benefits. My father was drafted into Vietnam and was shot in the back.
    Veteran’s benefits are a right 100%. If you put your life on the line for the freedom to do things like post on this bulletin board them you have the right to all that is given to you!!!

    ~ "Private church schools offer a better education than public schools at ½ to 1/3 the cost" ... This might be true, but have you ever talk to someone at a private school. Most need food stamps to live off the pay they get. I would say it's more about the parent involvement then the administration of the school. If a parent is paying 7 grand a year, I sure they will be making sure their kid is doing their home work. Our public schools are just fine. It's the quality of parent's that is the problem with our public schooling system, not the teachers.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Pook,

    There’s an old saying that goes; “Nothing can be said so well that it can not be misunderstood”.

    When I say as long as it doesn’t become a lifestyle, I’m referring to healthy people who live on welfare because it easier than finding a job. If you have children, with all of the benefits that you can receive, it still total more than what you can make at a job that pays above minimum wage but not middle income.

    There is no way to break the cycle if there isn’t an incentive for someone to take the first step and work for what they get. This the next generation will have the work ethic and do better than their parents did. Then the next generation will do better then the previous one. If they see that they can survive on welfare, then an education isn’t as important. When they see that they can live on welfare and make a few bucks under the radar, there’s no reason to go legit.

    Over my lifetime, I’ve seen too many people who are happy living on the dole without having to work. I knew of one grandmother (32 yr. old), mother (16 yr. old) and baby all living on the dole, spending their time at the bar and not worrying about tomorrow. I’ve seen too many cases where the second and third generation hasn’t improved their position in life. It’s not because of race because many of them are white. It’s because the government will take care of them.

    I don’t think that a Vet, disabled in the service of his country, falls under the guidelines of what I was complaining about.

    “It's the quality of parent's that is the problem with our public schooling system, not the teachers” You are partly right here. You left out the administration. In public schools the administration take too large of a share of our education dollars.

    I don’t know how old you are or if you have raised any children in the public education system. I have and it was a constant battle against programs and ideas that they system tried indoctrinate my children with. Everything from heavy metal to second and third graders during playtime to high school textbooks that stated that there was noting wrong with using pot. I know that some second and third graders were at that time exposed to heavy metal music and lyrics of free sex, drugs and rock and roll. That doesn’t mean that the school should reinforce the message by allowing it in school. Let children be children for as long as you can. They have to grow up too fast already. What parent of a teenager need to have a school text book contradicting his just say no message to his children, There is enough peer pressure without the school system supporting pot usage in their text books.

    You are right when it comes down to the parents. Today’s parents want to be their children’s best friend instead of their mother or father. Children need structure and reinforcement of family values and traditions. Children don’t need the school systems trying to undo what the parent teaches at home.

    If you take a look at the voucher program in Washington D.C. you will find that poor black children excelled in the private school. President Obama’s administration wants to end this program. Why?

    ReplyDelete
  18. I understand what you were saying and I agree. I hate the fact people take advantage of a system that was just mean to help the poor get on their feet. I love the fact we have systems in place to help people when they are down, I just hate the fact people take advantage of it and make it a lifestyle.

    I understand the school system too well. My wife is an administrator for a school system. The administration does use a lot of the money, but the amount of laws school systems have to follow is almost more then most business would ever have to deal with. You talk about the voucher program in DC. I don’t know a lot about it, but I’m guessing the children we’re not force to join the voucher program. So I’m guessing the parents that cared about their kids, signed them up.

    I’m okay with a voucher program and would vote for one, but not to be used for any religious owned school. I understand some think it should be used to children to go to private catholic schools, but to use a line from someone else “where do you draw the line”. What if a parent wants to send a kid to a Muslim school that teaches the far side of the Koran, or a school that teaches scientology? I would never vote for a voucher program in my state if it was used for any religious owned school.

    ReplyDelete