You opened the can of worms, lets have a look inside.
How does one “earn” the privilege of health care? The intelligence and wisdom to choose wealthy parents most likely will “earn” rather good health care, I imagine. How would other children earn the approval of the Bricker Commission?
When we declared the we hold certain rights to be self-evident, did we make a mistake by not declaring the means by which they may be “earned”?
We protect our citizen’s health, to some degree, depending on how much it interferes with the Free Market. We no longer send children to work in coal mines, for instance, its bad for their health. If our citizens have the right to have their health protected from depredations, why should we assume they need to “earn” that right? Well, we don’t, do we? Because they are our people, and you can only endanger the health of our people if you can make a lot of money from it.
So why is it that you need not “earn” protection of your health, but need to “earn” active measures to preserve it?
If this is a strongly rooted belief, then shouldn’t those who are opposed to paying for others’ health care be boycotting things like taxes, insurance, hospitals, etc? How can you participate in these systems without becoming a hypocrite? If you were to be consistent in your beliefs, shouldn’t you negotiate directly with doctors, nurses and surgeons for your services?
Depression is a ailment often caused or exacerbated by loneliness. Society should pass a law requiring people to give up one Saturday per month to spend with lonely people. We can’t leave the formation of friendships to the whims of personal agendas. We must legislate how people spend their Saturdays to share their wealth (the “wealth” of free time) with those less fortunate.
My father needs a new kidney. Society owes me a kidney. Society should pass a law that randomly finds a health donor to harvest a kidney from and give it to me (and also give me the surgical team for doing the transplant for free.) The purpose of society is to care for the sick. My father is sick. There is no reason to deny me.
If a human being does not want to “spend” 1 of his 2 healthy kidneys on a random citizen and he doesn’t want to “spend” 1 of his 4 Saturdays on a random introvert, it is contrary to the grander goals of society.
None of our rights are “facts”. They are all premises, that we hold to be “self-evident”. Our rights are secular dogma, their existence is not subject to proof, we say it, we believe it, and that settles it. Got a problem with that?
What you seem to miss, is that under the current system, you are still compelled to pay for other people’s health care. So if you’re against that, great, be against paying for other people’s health care by fighting against the current system that has you paying for people’s health care. UHC in and of itself isn’t going to change the overall cost of things, just moves it around a bit.
True, you might end up paying an extra $100 a year in taxes, but that $100 is coming FROM somewhere in the list I provided, that is already paying for other people’s health care.
So if you’re part of those three groups I mentioned in the OP, UHC isn’t going to be a dramatic change in costs for you, because you are already paying for other people’s health care.
As I said in the other thread, Bricker, et al are swinging their swords at strawman. They are using loaded words such as “right” and “earned” to paint UHC as some welfare entitlement scheme rather than simply a more efficient program. It is possible to support UHC without thinking health care is a right.
In order for your thoughts on this to be logically consistent, you must also agree that:
If someone does not have insurance, he should not be “given” any assistance from society, and should either die or rely on charity hospitals. Perhaps he can get treatment from a charity hospital, and perhaps not. If not, then he will not get any treatment whatsoever. If he’s bleeding to death on the sidewalk, people should simply step over him. Or perhaps cover him up if they are feeling charitable.
After all, it was HIS responsibility to look after his own health, not societies. If he was not responsible enough to get insurance or save enough money, then it’s really too bad. As long as you are not forced to pay for anyone’s healthcare, then it’s all good.
Why is it that the idea of “health care is not a right” is even mentioned? It has nothing to do with the argument. It’s not even logically consistent. You have the right to free speech, but no one has an obligation to pay for your ad time. You have the right to bare arms, but no one has the obligation to buy you a gun.
It’s just misdirection. A way to put in a truism that shifts the topic. Obviously health care was not included in the bill of rights, neither were roads, schools, or public parks.
It is a myth to suggest that under the current system, where people are NOT entitled to health care, that you are not paying for other people’s health care.
To argue against UHC because it involves paying for other people’s health care shows a lack of context.
If tomorrow, the country as a whole decided to stop paying for public education, you would still be paying for “other people’s education.” Companies would end up including it as part of salary compensation. Private schools would increase their fees to cover scholarships for needy children. Federal employees and military personnel would get vouchers for their families. Inmates would get their GED paid for.
So to argue, “I’m tired of paying for other people’s education, lets end public education,” has the same logical inconsistency as health care. You are paying for it now.
Let’s consider Ms. X, who has a life-threatening illness. There are three possibilities.
Ms. X can pay for her treatment. In that case I suspect we all agree that she should; and in fact, if she could pay for insurance, she should be required to so that the situation where she couldn’t pay for treatment won’t arise.
Now, let’s consider the case where she can’t pay for her treatment: she doesn’t have the money, and no one will lend it to her.
She gets the treatment anyhow, paid for by either all taxpayers through Medicaid, or by patients of her doctor and hospital through higher bills when she goes bankrupt. This is the current situation.
She dies. This appears to be Mr. Bricker’s favored alternative. Well, no one ever accused him of not being a good Republican.
I think the issue with this one (and why it will get you nowhere) is that, while this is certainly a part of many people personal philosophy, it doesn’t form a large part of the argument for those opposed to UHC.
It is easy for the those who are for UHC to trot the “oh, you evil rich people” argument out. But, it never helps the discussion, because in general, the anti-UHC crowd is actually arguing about things like economic impact, government inefficiency and personal control of healthcare decisions.
If you really want to reach a consenus, you need to talk about actual, concrete issues, not waste your time arguing about a nebulous, philisophical position.
I think the OP got off on the wrong foot. Whether or not it is a “right” is a red herring. It makes no difference to me if by having UHC we can have better and cheaper healthcare. If roads could be private and still have society work that is fine with me as well.
We have made the decision that some things are done better privately and some publicly. Sometime we change our minds and privatize a govt function or have the govt provide a service that used to be done by the private sector.
This is a time to look at that change. The cost of healthcare in this country is rising faster than inflation, it is much higher than any other place in the world, and we do not get better results. To me, that begs for a change.
I think some things have to be done by the govt; e.g., either requiring insurers to cover everyone regardless of re-existing conditions or have the govt be a safety net for the uninsurable. We could let people be totally responsible for themselves in all cases, but I find it inconvenient to dodge lepers and cripples and blind people on the street like I do in third world countries.
I really don’t like poor people as a whole because they remind me too much of myself growing up, but from a purely selfish viewpoint I favor a national healthcare system. I think it will be cheaper and better than what we have now, and I can point to Europe for examples.
I don’t live near a forest or own timber land, but I pay to fight forest fires. I don’t think that most of our military is being used for causes that help us, but I pay for the military. I don’t live in a place that floods, or gets regular hurricanes, or has frequent earthquakes and still I pay for those. My kid is out of school and I still pay for education. I haven’t been to the library in years and I still support it.
Making UHC a fight over philosophy, either libertarian of from a “rights” perspective, is a waste of time. I want a system that covers more people, has better results, and is cheaper than what we have in place. I’d even settle for two of those three.
