I submit to you that we have socialized medicine now, but in a fashion which does not provide equal protection under the law.
Medicare discriminates based on age, & may soon do so based on means. Medicaid discriminates based on means.
This is constitutionally dubious, if one applies the sort of zealously idealistic standard Americans love to pull out for issues like same-sex marriage, free speech, or the inherent militia-y-ness of my own private arsenal.
Clearly, the law either prohibits or permits sleeping under bridges, for poor & rich alike. Surely the right to demand that taxpayers foot one’s medical bills is even more so a matter of equal protection.
Ergo, I propose that in order to better follow the principle of equal protection, Medicare & Medicaid either:
Be abolished in toto.
Be consolidated into a single program & extended to all resident citizens & legal aliens of the United States, as soon as humanly possible. This will of course require some tax increases, as the abolition of all “discretionary spending” & the Department of Defense would be silly.
I expect to hear great whinging that doing either of these things is far too costly to contemplate, as if Medicare weren’t (terminology depending on your alignment) underfunded/breaking the bank now. But I don’t care what it costs, this is about a basic principle of good government.
The government provides all sorts of handouts all the time to specific groups.
If Medicare violates the Equal Protection clause then so does most anything else the government spends money on. Provide money to stop drug abuse? Well, I want equal money. I do not use drugs but to be fair they need to give me my share too! The Violence Against Women Act which funds programs to stop violence against women? Well, I’m not a woman so this violates equal protection. Either pass a Violence Against Men Act and provide equal money for programs for it or cancel the one for women.
You can argue the constitutionality of the programs, but you are going to lose handily if you basis it on Equal Protection. EP doesn’t require every government action treats everyone equally to the extent of everyone getting the same result. It requires that where people are to be treated differently, the government has at the minimum a rational basis for the differing treatment.
The government clearly has a rational basis for providing health care to those who could not otherwise afford it, and to the elderly.
Indeed, being rich does not make one a member of a protected class under the Constitution.
Practically speaking though, it makes you more equal than others.
Well it is means-tested. The fact that it doesn’t cover all people below a certain income level does not mean that the government cannot advance a rational basis for who is covered. It isn’t a very high standard to meet.
That’s how things work in France. Litterally(*). And we think we’re doing pretty fine this way !
But I understand a vast part of American are against this concept of socialized medecine. I guess that you are all very happy about your health insurance system.
(*) I mean litterally. The mere suggestion that someone may be denied medical attention for financial reason is unacceptable, whatever the circumstances.
Nobody is denied medical attention in the U.S. It is illegal as a matter of fact for that to even be a consideration for emergency and critical care. The problem arises when someone has some money but no or inadequate insurance and has an unexpected medical crisis. The medical bills can easily exceed any money they have access to. The truly poor don’t have to worry about that problem because they have nothing to take and most people of means either have the money or good insurance to pay for it. There is a vulnerable group in the middle which is a problem but anyone can go to the emergency room anytime they want and there are lots of other options for people with no money but long-term health issues like cancer or kidney disease.
Well, I was thinking about even non-critical medical care, actually. Like a benign infection, or some mycosis problem, or other not-so-important things, but which should still be treated because it’s more healthy to do so.
Well, I guess it can be done at the emergency station (at high expenses indeed, this has been debated a lot recently).
But still, doesn’t it mean that people without health coverage don’t have access to general doctors, gynecologist, dentists, ophtalmologist and so on ?
They have it if they pay out of pocket for it, and many of us do. I see my general doctor as needed, see my dentist twice annually, my gynecologist and optometrist (not opthalmologist) and rheumatologist annually. I pay $50 each time I see my general doctor and dentist. $80 for the optometrist. $125 to the gynecologist. $180 to the rheumatologist.
If I develop a problem which needs tests (even a simple blood test starts around $250) or have an emergency of some sort, then things get tricky.
Well we did end up with a senate that until relatively recently was twice removed from the populace. Madison also recognized that it was good for the “opulent” that individual representatives represented large and disparate populations which assured or at least made it difficult for the “beast” to get together on a single issue or candidate to really affect legislation. Over time, of course, increased population with a constant number of representatives, the disparity has much worsened. So today, while the masses argue ad infinitum in their multitudinous culture wars, the rich manipulate the system to their benefit. The Constitution is in no way a “democratic” document and certainly favors the rich.
Equal protection doesn’t mean exact for everyone, it means equal for said groups. As long as you have a reason to justify your “discrimination” you can. For instance, those under 18 are deemed not mentally mature to make decisions on most things. This doesn’t mean the second you turn 18 you’re magically knowledeable.
The senior discounts and such have long been held beneficial for society as a whole and as long as you don’t discriminate against the individuals of those qualifying for senior benefits you’re fine.
In a country where bribery & [del]prostitution[/del] lap dances are “free speech,” where same-sex marriage is “horrible discrimination” against those offended by it, & one needs to do no more than own one’s own gun to be the “heir” of ancient regulated militias; my argument seems perhaps appropriate by the political standards of the mass of the populace.
