Universal Health Care

[Anddenex]

The question inspired by Andenex's...

Wow, we now know miracles have not ceased if any of my words have been inspiring...

[Backroads]

The US constitution is not and will never be a perfect document. Trying to say that health care isn't a human right is like trying to say eating isn't a human right, either.

A human being has the right to seek out food. A human being can not very well expect to sit in one spot and wait for food to magically come.

[Praetorian_Brow]

I find it rather amusing that the country that prides itself on being the defender of democracy and freedom, is divided on the principle idea of healthcare that most other countries with elected governments have embraced. Even more odd, is that owning a weapon seems more important than having quality access to healthcare, which logically, one should conclude that healthcare is far more important to a countries citizens than shooting each other.

From what I have gathered, the general consensus is that Americans feel that quality healthcare should only come from the private sector and those without access to said healthcare are too lazy to work to get it. Ironically, the private sector healthcare within the United States, has become the top grossing industry, eclipsing the arms industry, which is astounding considering the figures involved. That being said, I think the idea that someone is only giving me healthcare simply because they can charge my employer or myself excessive fees, thereby enslaving myself to them is by far more of a problem than living in fear that the government caps fees out of fair intent.

Healthcare is by far a more important right than weapons will ever be, considering that the former is far more Christ like than the latter will ever be. Then again, my perspective is invalid because my country has never used nuclear weapons and I am practically a communist with my social perspective.

[jerome1232]

I find it rather amusing that the country that prides itself on being the defender of democracy and freedom, is divided on the principle idea of healthcare that most other countries with elected governments have embraced. Even more odd, is that owning a weapon seems more important than having quality access to healthcare, which logically, one should conclude that healthcare is far more important to a countries citizens than shooting each other.

I would say the right to defend myself comes way, way, before the right to have a highly trained medical personnel cut me open for a societally shared cost.

[bytor2112]

I find it rather amusing that the country that prides itself on being the defender of democracy and freedom, is divided on the principle idea of healthcare that most other countries with elected governments have embraced. Even more odd, is that owning a weapon seems more important than having quality access to healthcare, which logically, one should conclude that healthcare is far more important to a countries citizens than shooting each other.

Divided ....yes, but not for the reasons you outline. Everyone wants affordable access to quality healthcare. Most of us do not want to entrust government bureaucracy to decide what type and when or how long we have to wait before we get treatment.

Certainly the cost associated with a single payer system like Canada or a system like England that is not single payer must be considered. Once we embark down this road, there may be no turning back. Let's not forget also that profit motive attracts the best and brightest to the medical field, if that is removed or capped by a government system, the best and brightest may look for fields outside of the medical profession.

And of course the right to bear arms isn't about shooting each other, it is about defending ourselves against oppressive and tyrannical government.

[Just_A_Guy]

From what I have gathered, the general consensus is that Americans feel that quality healthcare should only come from the private sector and those without access to said healthcare are too lazy to work to get it.

Not really. You don't see many Americans, even on the right, demanding that the existing Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIP programs be revoked. (Streamlined, sure, and we're very reluctant about expanding them; but no one's trying to eradicate them.)

We do have this idea that a market economy tends to provide superior products at the most reasonable prices. The trouble, as has been pointed out here, is that the pre-PPACA American health-care market was in a lot of ways more a cartel than a free market. It needed to be fixed; but we're concerned that PPACA is precisely the wrong direction.

Ironically, the private sector healthcare within the United States, has become the top grossing industry, eclipsing the arms industry, which is astounding considering the figures involved.

Might I request that you provide a source? Back in 2009 when we were discussing this, I provided statistics showing that the profit margin in the American health care industries rank something like thirty-fourth or thirty-sixth, behind a huge number of other industries. And if you're talking about gross dollar prophets, rather than marginal return, I again question your statistics--I think the oil industry, for one, easily beats it; and even if American health care profits are huge it would largely be because the industry itself is enormous.

That being said, I think the idea that someone is only giving me healthcare simply because they can charge my employer or myself excessive fees, thereby enslaving myself to them is by far more of a problem than living in fear that the government caps fees out of fair intent.

To me, the ugly truth (that that my boss only pays me because he needs the work I do for him) is preferable to a beautiful lie (that government wants me alive, healthy, happy, and prosperous regardless of what I say about it, what I teach my children, what I do with my money, or what whether I embrace the party line).

Healthcare is by far a more important right than weapons will ever be, considering that the former is far more Christ like than the latter will ever be. Then again, my perspective is invalid because my country has never used nuclear weapons and I am practically a communist with my social perspective.

Wait, so we're OK using government to build a Christlike society?

Tell me--what do you think of gay marriage? Bible study in public schools? Prayers at high school graduations, or at the beginning of public legislative sessions? Science classes presenting intelligent design as a possibility, or even just mentioning that such theories exist? Abstinence education? Making national/state law on abortion mirror the LDS Church's policy? How about a state-sponsored "Everybody-talk-to-a-Mormon-missionary-day"? Hey, you're in Canada--how about just letting a priest quote the Bible in a sermon or a newspaper ad about homosexuality?

Yeah. Didn't think so.

Edited June 1, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[Finrock]

Good Evening Praetorian_Brow. I hope you have had a good week! :)

Even more odd, is that owning a weapon seems more important than having quality access to healthcare, which logically, one should conclude that healthcare is far more important to a countries citizens than shooting each other...

...Healthcare is by far a more important right than weapons will ever be, considering that the former is far more Christ like than the latter will ever be. Then again, my perspective is invalid because my country has never used nuclear weapons and I am practically a communist with my social perspective.

Healthcare is a subset of the right to bear arms. **The right to bear arms is a natural right. If I have any right to health care, it would be encapsulated in my basic right for me to be able to take up arms in defense of myself against bodily harm. This is a stretch in the definition of health care, but it is not a stretch to say that it is the right to bear arms that has allowed us to establish and then maintain our country that, even before the passage of PPACA, has provided health care for most of its citizens in some form. No matter your philosophy on guns, somewhere, somehow, somebody has to have a right to bear arms or else there can hardly be a country to provide health care in any form. And here is where the logic either works or it doesn't. If somebody has to have a right to bear arms in order for a country to exist, then the natural question is why wouldn't the next person also have a right to bear arms? Where did that person get their right to bear arms? If from the government, where did the government get it? I don't mean to digress in to a debate about gun rights, but my point is that at least until the Millenium the right to bear arms is what makes any type of health care possible in the first place.

Number two: Your statement incorrectly makes the choice between health care and citizens shooting each other.

Owning a gun does not automatically equate to citizens shooting each other.

Because a right to bear arms is a natural right, we ought to feel that it is important. And, because we have the Spirit of Christ, we ought to feel charity towards all and desire that all people have access to health care in a way that does not infringe upon the rights of other citizens. We are free to pursue happiness insofar as our pursuing doesn't infringe upon the rights of others to pursue happiness.

Universal Health Care is good. UHC provided by the government because it is supposedly a right is not good.

Further, one's views or opinions are either true or false. One's views are either reasonable or not reasonable and labels have nothing to do with whether they are reasonable or true.

Respectfully,

Finrock

**Originally I had written: "The right to bear arms is a natural right and it is what makes healthcare possible." When I initially posted, I was at work and didn't get a chance to complete the idea. I have now expanded upon and clarified my original statement (hopefully).

Edited June 1, 2013 by Finrock
Made significant clarifications to my statement on bearing arms and health care.

[Wordnerd]

I believe Universal healthcare is not a right, it is more along the lines of a social contract. We (Canadians) willing give up some rights, and submit to increased taxation because we as a society believe there is value in providing Universal Health coverage. This is simply a societal choice, no country is wrong or right based on what choices the citizens make, that is what freedom is about. I believe universal coverage is good for society (in theory, the application leaves something to be desired) so i have no issue in living in a country that provides it even though it is an infringement of true free will. If I strongly believed that I did not want to submit to this social contract because I felt it was too much of an infringement on my rights, then I would seek to change it by exerting my political will, or I would exit it in some way, maybe by emigrating to a society that matched my beliefs more closely. Although the social contract theory is not perfectly reflected in our governments, it is true in that every society demands some limitation of rights for what we deem to be the greater good.

[Backroads]

From what I have gathered, the general consensus is that Americans feel that quality healthcare should only come from the private sector and those without access to said healthcare are too lazy to work to get it. Ironically, the private sector healthcare within the United States, has become the top grossing industry, eclipsing the arms industry, which is astounding considering the figures involved. That being said, I think the idea that someone is only giving me healthcare simply because they can charge my employer or myself excessive fees, thereby enslaving myself to them is by far more of a problem than living in fear that the government caps fees out of fair intent.

I think some of the high prices can be blamed on insurance. When no one but the insurance companies are really seeing the money, no one thinks much about price hikes.

[selek]

I find it rather amusing that the country that prides itself on being the defender of democracy and freedom, is divided on the principle idea of healthcare that most other countries with elected governments have embraced. Even more odd, is that owning a weapon seems more important than having quality access to healthcare, which logically, one should conclude that healthcare is far more important to a countries citizens than shooting each other.

From what I have gathered, the general consensus is that Americans feel that quality healthcare should only come from the private sector and those without access to said healthcare are too lazy to work to get it. Ironically, the private sector healthcare within the United States, has become the top grossing industry, eclipsing the arms industry, which is astounding considering the figures involved. That being said, I think the idea that someone is only giving me healthcare simply because they can charge my employer or myself excessive fees, thereby enslaving myself to them is by far more of a problem than living in fear that the government caps fees out of fair intent.

Healthcare is by far a more important right than weapons will ever be, considering that the former is far more Christ like than the latter will ever be. Then again, my perspective is invalid because my country has never used nuclear weapons and I am practically a communist with my social perspective.

I find it equally amusing that a mendacious critic can spend so much time beating us up for positions we don't actually hold while still hiding behind our skirts.

You presume to lecture us about all that we do wrong while simultaneously failing to admit that your own personal paradise has accomplished little or nothing of note in the last half century.

Of course, stomping on the freedoms of speech, of association, and of conscience are noteworthy milestones, but by the same taken are not particularly laudible.

What is boils down to is this: Those who dare, achieve. Those who don't, complain.

You've got your arrogance and resentment spun up into a high degree of dander, but for all your sound and fury you lack any sort of moral foundation for your jeremiad.

Canada- as a nation- has spent the last seventy years riding our coattails, sheltering under our umbrella, and smugly congratulating themselves for their "independence" and "sophistication".

If one were to consider, one might begin to suspect that Canada's primary industries are oil and actors (both exported to America) and tourism (which relies primarily on American dollars).

There are some very fine men and women in Canda. Canadian soldiers and sailors are among the world's finest.

Unfortunately, they are outnumbered (by at least a thousand-to-one) by supercillious brutes who fancy themselves the modern day equivalents of Balaam's interlocutor simply by virtue of sharing the same taxanomic identity.

[selek]

I think some of the high prices can be blamed on insurance. When no one but the insurance companies are really seeing the money, no one thinks much about price hikes.

The same argument is justly made about tax withholdings.

If Americans had to write a check every month for the moneys withheld by the government, this would be a VERY different country.