"Health Care Is Not A Right"...?

[medking]

This is correct. Access to healthcare cannot be a right because it puts demands on others even if they do not consent to providing it. Mandating healthcare as a right would force other people to pay for it, and other people to provide it at prices and/or conditions which they would not otherwise consent to.

And they people making a stretch to call healthcare part of the right to "happiness" are wrong. The right to happiness is a negative right, in other words preventing others from impeding your pursuit (like freedom of speech, no one is obligated to buy you a time slot for a television show or buy you a megaphone to protest, but they can't stop you either). By that argument almost anything would be a "right" because people need it for happiness. People need homes, cars, food, recreation, computers, movies, ect., but they aren't rights that the gov't is mandated to provide.

The things you listed can be obtained if you have work (Of course you might not get everything you want and the "coolest" things, but the basics should be covered).

Don't you think you need health before work? I think "health" is the huge foundation/requirement of being able to pursue happiness.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[ringhal]

But using your ER example, isn't this part of the problem? That we as tax payers, and in some instances as insurance payers, are already paying for the uninsured or those that free ride at the ER? And this in turn raises health care costs and our premiums? Of course we should treat these people in the ER, at least in the ideal sense these are the patients who need urgent treatment the most, but at least where I am in NYC, and I'm sure in other places this happens as well, there's a significant population using the ED as their form of primary care which is just insanity. If we could get these people insured either through fixing up the terrible shape labor and the private sector is in, or through a public health care system, and with education to get these individuals to use primary care physicians first rather than go to the ER for a bump or the sniffles, would this not help to control costs? Wouldn't this also allow for better usage of time and care by physicians in the ER? And for the currently uninsured who do go to the ER for a serious issue, and inherently expensive hospital stay, with a national system wouldn't these costs be covered by a funded system with costs spread out more evenly rather than the current state of punishing responsible tax payers and employed individuals with insurance who have to currently pay and support the uninsured?

What you seem to be talking about is universal health care and overall problems with health care utilization. That is a little off the topic of this thread. Even with a more universal health care plan, I don't think of health care as some sort of inherent right.

There are a lot of problems with universal health care plans that you all, as premeds, are completely ignorant of (and I mean that in the purist, non-malicious way). From the most selfishly economic viewpoint, when you graduate medical school, you'll have 200k+ of loans which you'll have to defer and/or forebear through residency. Then, in order the support the new health care system the government will increase taxes for the wealthy (which now includes you), and also raise the Health Care Access Fund, a special tax on health care providers (docs and hospitals). Oh, and they're also gonna cut reimbursements. So in one fell swoop, your taxes go up and your income drops. Have fun paying back that 200 large...

I did 1/2 of my medical school rotations, my internship and 1/3 of the residency rotations at county hospitals. My current practice includes coverage of a county hospital where we only receive about 20-25% payment of what we bill. I consider myself well entrenched in this health care conundrum from the health care access perspective.

I hear a lot of people talk about raising taxes and taxing those greedy rich people. When I was in school (read: no tax burden) and a resident (read: minimal tax burden) that talk was meaningless for me. This year I paid just over 100K in taxes; now that talk makes me nauseous... Those you who would actually make it to medical school, consider yourselves warned. You will be among those greedy rich people. That IRS day of reckoning is coming.

My last thought on this universal health care issue - acknowledging that it is off the topic of health care as a right: how do you deal with litigation? As a doctor, you have a fairly high likelihood of getting sued one day. I mentioned that most of the work I do at the county hospital is done with essentially no expectation of receiving compensation. But I can be sued for something I miss. Countries with free or cheap health care have more stringent malpractice laws that protect doctors a little more.

Let's take that back to the health care as a right argument. As a morbidly obese patient, I demand an affordable gastric bypass surgery and if anything bad happens, I'm gonna sue the crap out of you! Do you think the lawyers in Congress are gonna protect us medicalegally with this reform when it's in their professional economic interest to leave things as they are?

In conclusion, young, heavily indebted residency graduates, you are facing lower income, larger debt and persistent liability. Good luck, and see ya in the reading room.

 

[medking]

What you seem to be talking about is universal health care and overall problems with health care utilization. That is a little off the topic of this thread. Even with a more universal health care plan, I don't think of health care as some sort of inherent right.

There are a lot of problems with universal health care plans that you all, as premeds, are completely ignorant of (and I mean that in the purist, non-malicious way). From the most selfishly economic viewpoint, when you graduate medical school, you'll have 200k+ of loans which you'll have to defer and/or forebear through residency. Then, in order the support the new health care system the government will increase taxes for the wealthy (which now includes you), and also raise the Health Care Access Fund, a special tax on health care providers (docs and hospitals). Oh, and they're also gonna cut reimbursements. So in one fell swoop, your taxes go up and your income drops. Have fun paying back that 200 large...

I did 1/2 of my medical school rotations, my internship and 1/3 of the residency rotations at county hospitals. My current practice includes coverage of a county hospital where we only receive about 20-25% payment of what we bill. I consider myself well entrenched in this health care conundrum from the health care access perspective.

I hear a lot of people talk about raising taxes and taxing those greedy rich people. When I was in school (read: no tax burden) and a resident (read: minimal tax burden) that talk was meaningless for me. This year I paid just over 100K in taxes; now that talk makes me nauseous... Those you who would actually make it to medical school, consider yourselves warned. You will be among those greedy rich people. That IRS day of reckoning is coming.

My last thought on this universal health care issue - acknowledging that it is off the topic of health care as a right: how do you deal with litigation? As a doctor, you have a fairly high likelihood of getting sued one day. I mentioned that most of the work I do at the county hospital is done with essentially no expectation of receiving compensation. But I can be sued for something I miss. Countries with free or cheap health care have more stringent malpractice laws that protect doctors a little more.

Let's take that back to the health care as a right argument. As a morbidly obese patient, I demand an affordable gastric bypass surgery and if anything bad happens, I'm gonna sue the crap out of you! Do you think the lawyers in Congress are gonna protect us medicalegally with this reform when it's in their professional economic interest to leave things as they are?

In conclusion, young, heavily indebted residency graduates, you are facing lower income, larger debt and persistent liability. Good luck, and see ya in the reading room.

Yea, this is a huge problem. Healthcare should be the one thing that doesn't even come close to the words economic interest. It's a shame that the US is like this; it needs to be changed.

 

[GeraldMonroe]

What if there's some guy who wants to spend his life on a river listneing to kid rock and fishing out of the back of his truck. Do you put him in jail when he doesnt have $20 to chip in to cover his portion of my cancer treatment?

No, but if he starts making money, you put him in jail if he buys an iphone or rims rather than paying his taxes or health insurance premiums. (well, you don't jail him at first, you give him a chance to pay the tax bill with penalties, and then you garnish his wages, but if it's deliberate, repeated tax evasion eventually it'll be time for the slammer)

This is how it works in nearly every other western democracy. It works that way here for people covered by medicare/medicaid.

Or the other way to go is to charge a VAT so that every time that guy buys a kid rock CD or a new ipod or fishing rod then the cost of universal health care is included in the cost of the item he buys. That's basically an unavoidable tax, and the only people you have to threaten with jail are a small number of corporate accountants.

Don't get me wrong : I don't like that is has to work this way, but this is how the other western democracies make their healthcare systems work.

 

[BlueElmo]

Healthcare is a right.

Human beings don't choose whether or not they want to get sick or acquire diseases. Sicknesses and diseases are natural entities that happen to human beings whether they want them or not. Thus, if they are part of human nature, government-sponsored universal health care coverage should also be a part of basic rights given to human beings. Universal health care coverage should be an extension of basic human rights given to people by their government.

 

[GeraldMonroe]

Healthcare is a right.

Human beings don't choose whether or not they want to get sick or acquire diseases. Sicknesses and diseases are natural entities that happen to human beings whether they want them or not. Thus, if they are part of human nature, government-sponsored universal health care coverage should also be a part of basic rights given to human beings. Universal health care coverage should be an extension of basic human rights given to people by their government.

So you agree then, since sickness and disease is eventually inevitable, then all human beings should be required to PAY for said universal coverage.

Also, the secondary problem is HOW MUCH universal healthcare is a human right? Some day, it might be possible to replace a person's major organs for a few million dollars in surgeries and lab fees to grow the new organs from stem cells. (as a matter of fact, prototypes for every major organ are already growing in labs as we speak) With that kind of medical care, it might be possible to extend a person's lifespan forever.

The catch is, if the cost were 5 million dollars in today's money per 10 years of lifespan gained, then there is not enough wealth produced by the United States economy to give everyone access to that treatment. The average person is only paid a total of about a million dollars in their entire working lifespan.

Some day, the costs would come down (so I think that if such treatment is ever possible, then it is ethical to give it to the rich until it's developed to the point of being cheap enough for everyone) but millions of people would have to die from treatable causes in the meantime.

 

[Gut Shot]

Please share your thoughts - why do you think health care is a right? Is it ...?

No, it's not a right. I believe it is better considered (to quote anonymous ER physician blogger Shadowfax) a "moral responsibility for an industrialized country."

Speaking of blogs, Maggie Mahar wrote a very nice related piece on the topic in last October's The Health Care Blog.

 

[badasshairday]

Health care is a right when you are a pre0med. Then through medical school and residency you realize it isn't a right. And you damn well know that your services are worth something, not FREE, but for a FEE.

 

[JJMrK]

Healthcare is a right.

Human beings don't choose whether or not they want to get sick or acquire diseases. Sicknesses and diseases are natural entities that happen to human beings whether they want them or not. Thus, if they are part of human nature, government-sponsored universal health care coverage should also be a part of basic rights given to human beings. Universal health care coverage should be an extension of basic human rights given to people by their government.

Applying your logic, this statement is also true:

Sex is a part of human nature. Therefore, having sex is a right, even if there is no consenting party.

 

[GeraldMonroe]

Applying your logic, this statement is also true:

Sex is a part of human nature. Therefore, having sex is a right, even if there is no consenting party.

Oh boy. That created a mental image of the typical employee you see at the DMV working in a government run brothel instead. Must scrub brain with bleach...

 

[DO2Be2013]

Healthcare is a right.

Human beings don't choose whether or not they want to get sick or acquire diseases. Sicknesses and diseases are natural entities that happen to human beings whether they want them or not. Thus, if they are part of human nature, government-sponsored universal health care coverage should also be a part of basic rights given to human beings. Universal health care coverage should be an extension of basic human rights given to people by their government.

That is definitely not true. Granted, most people do not "want" to become sick or injured, but they are capable of making a heck of a lot of lifestyle choices that lead to that end. Pregnancy, drug overdose, alcoholic cirrhosis, STDs... one could generate quite a list of conditions for which many healthcare dollars are spent. And that's not even considering the muddier, more indirect causes of disease... obesity, lack of exercise, smoking, etc.

 

[GeraldMonroe]

That is definitely not true. Granted, most people do not "want" to become sick or injured, but they are capable of making a heck of a lot of lifestyle choices that lead to that end. Pregnancy, drug overdose, alcoholic cirrhosis, STDs... one could generate quite a list of conditions for which many healthcare dollars are spent. And that's not even considering the muddier, more indirect causes of disease... obesity, lack of exercise, smoking, etc.

I think people should have to pay more for causes they can VOLUNTARILY control.

But, in the long run, every human being alive will become ill eventually.

 

[sarahl86]

No, it's not a right. I believe it is better considered (to quote anonymous ER physician blogger Shadowfax) a "moral responsibility for an industrialized country."

Speaking of blogs, Maggie Mahar wrote a very nice related piece on the topic in last October's The Health Care Blog.

I like that argument. Good post

 

[DrJD]

What you seem to be talking about is universal health care and overall problems with health care utilization. That is a little off the topic of this thread. Even with a more universal health care plan, I don't think of health care as some sort of inherent right.

There are a lot of problems with universal health care plans that you all, as premeds, are completely ignorant of (and I mean that in the purist, non-malicious way). From the most selfishly economic viewpoint, when you graduate medical school, you'll have 200k+ of loans which you'll have to defer and/or forebear through residency. Then, in order the support the new health care system the government will increase taxes for the wealthy (which now includes you), and also raise the Health Care Access Fund, a special tax on health care providers (docs and hospitals). Oh, and they're also gonna cut reimbursements. So in one fell swoop, your taxes go up and your income drops. Have fun paying back that 200 large...

I did 1/2 of my medical school rotations, my internship and 1/3 of the residency rotations at county hospitals. My current practice includes coverage of a county hospital where we only receive about 20-25% payment of what we bill. I consider myself well entrenched in this health care conundrum from the health care access perspective.

I hear a lot of people talk about raising taxes and taxing those greedy rich people. When I was in school (read: no tax burden) and a resident (read: minimal tax burden) that talk was meaningless for me. This year I paid just over 100K in taxes; now that talk makes me nauseous... Those you who would actually make it to medical school, consider yourselves warned. You will be among those greedy rich people. That IRS day of reckoning is coming.

My last thought on this universal health care issue - acknowledging that it is off the topic of health care as a right: how do you deal with litigation? As a doctor, you have a fairly high likelihood of getting sued one day. I mentioned that most of the work I do at the county hospital is done with essentially no expectation of receiving compensation. But I can be sued for something I miss. Countries with free or cheap health care have more stringent malpractice laws that protect doctors a little more.

Let's take that back to the health care as a right argument. As a morbidly obese patient, I demand an affordable gastric bypass surgery and if anything bad happens, I'm gonna sue the crap out of you! Do you think the lawyers in Congress are gonna protect us medicalegally with this reform when it's in their professional economic interest to leave things as they are?

In conclusion, young, heavily indebted residency graduates, you are facing lower income, larger debt and persistent liability. Good luck, and see ya in the reading room.

Thanks for coming into the pre-allo world and sharing a knowledgeable, informed opinion. Some day everyone else who is so gung ho about saying it is a "right" will come back and read your post and realize you were right along.

Keep up the great posting!

 

[GoSpursGo]

This is being move to Topics in Healthcare, as it's a little out of the scope of the pre-allo forum.

 

[majahops]

There are no such natural things as "rights." They are things that have been agreed upon within a society as being worth ensuring for everyone in that society.

In this country, we've decided that having police protect you from violence to the best of their ability should be a "right," that having a military protect you from international threats ("threats" as determined ultimately by the president) should be a "right," that the ability to have access to a phone line if you are willing to pay for it should be a "right."

However, we have not decided that having health insurance - comparable to that which is currently offered through, say, a governmental job - should be a "right."

Polls have shown that the majority of people in this country feel health care should be a "right" for our citizens, but that has not translated into a societal agreement in law, because politics are obviously more complex than majority rules.

But the point is, get the hell out of here with your "greedy morbidly obese patient" examples. Currently, if a morbidly obese patient happens to have a governmental job, they will have every right and opportunity to "abuse" the health care system in the ways you describe. Guarding against abuse and offering access to comprehensive health care to all Americans are two completely separate issues and you do yourself and everyone else a disservice by intertwining them.

 

[ringhal]

Healthcare is a right.

Human beings don't choose whether or not they want to get sick or acquire diseases. Sicknesses and diseases are natural entities that happen to human beings whether they want them or not. Thus, if they are part of human nature, government-sponsored universal health care coverage should also be a part of basic rights given to human beings. Universal health care coverage should be an extension of basic human rights given to people by their government.

The government doesn't give rights, it protects them. That's a subtle but important difference. If sickness and disease are natural and part of human nature, what right do you have to prevent it from taking its natural course? Hey, that baby girl was born with a congenital heart defect; what right do I have to interfere with natural selection or God's design (depending on your belief system) and spend my tax dollars on an expensive cardiothoracic surgery, a long ICU stay, and a lifetime of medications.

This is probably the weakest argument.

No one denies that we have a current health care mess. I know this from being an active participant in it. It's easy and popular to say that the government should just come in and clean up the mess. From reading these posts, its clear that many of you premeds are on that bandwagon, too. From the perspective of someone who is currently in the trenches, I'm trying to tell you that you need to be very careful of what you wish for.

In all likelihood, these reforms are not gonna go down in a way favorable to our profession. The public already has a perception that we physicians make too much money, so when your salaries get slashed and you find yourself giving 45-55% back to Uncle Sam, no one is gonna care but you and your families. And you can bet that the government is not gonna make provisions for medical school loan forgiveness in this reform. Us older physicians may be slightly less impacted: my wife has her convertible, I'm well into my loan repayment, and I have a 50" plasma just for my PS3 in my man-cave. You current premeds will be facing a huge debt burdens and lower salaries. If the banks start looking more closely at our debt/income ratio, you can forget about getting a home loan.

You need to realize that universal health care means a significant change to your life as the (future) physician. Caveat emptor.

 

[GeraldMonroe]

Rhinghal, thanks for posting here. It's rare to see attendings here, due to obvious time constraints.

The government created the current mess, did it not? Is not the current crisis an unholy marriage between the worst of capitalism (such as insurance companies having every economic motivation to deny claims) and poorly thought out government regulation (such as those silly waste of paper HIPAA notices we all get bombarded with, or how the government mandates EMTLA but won't pay a dime for cheaper primary care for the working poor)

As for debt burden : the government already invented Income Based Loan Repayment. That would let us all keep food on the table if they ever went to paying doctors a straight salary. Overall, of course doctors would make a lot less money, although I console myself with the idea that money provides exponentially diminishing returns. The difference in lifestyle between 100k and 200k is a lot less than the difference between 50k and 100k, and the difference between 200k and 400k is smaller yet. Pretty much every good or service you can buy with money provides less and less marginal quality improvement with a marginal cost increase. The government probably has to pay at least as much as doctors in England or Canada make, which is generally somewhere in the low six figures.

Why do you play PS3 games? I always thought that some day, if I'm ever a big cheese attending, that I would be able to find more interesting things to do with my spare time than to play video games. I mean, I can play tons of video games now...I would imagine that if my life were more exciting, I could find more engaging things to do that are more, uh, interactive if you know what I mean.

 

[deleted21609]

Every argument saying that healthcare is a right could be applied to food, shelter, etc., but I still have to pay rent on the first of the month and buy every meal.

The worst thing is that when it comes to a "right" to healthcare, people think they deserve the equivalent of a filet mignon on their penthouse balcony.

All leftist notions like this sound nice and caring and make you feel good about what a nice, caring person you are, but lead to ruin in the real world.

If you want to let the poor get better healthcare, support relief from government policies that lead to unemployment, then they can buy healthcare with their wages.

The government is pretty terrible at almost everything it does. I'd much rather 5% give my time to help the unfortunate than an extra 5% of my income to let some politician take the credit for helping them. But bottom line, the government doesn't have the right to give anyone the products of my labor. If I want to feel nice and caring, I can give on my own, sans government intrusion.

I can just see Obama and Pelosi taking credit for giving healthcare to millions when in reality THEY give nothing, they just steal from US, and take the credit.

 

[GeraldMonroe]

What about people who can't work?

 

[Instatewaiter]

The government doesn't give rights, it protects them. That's a subtle but important difference. If sickness and disease are natural and part of human nature, what right do you have to prevent it from taking its natural course? Hey, that baby girl was born with a congenital heart defect; what right do I have to interfere with natural selection or God's design (depending on your belief system) and spend my tax dollars on an expensive cardiothoracic surgery, a long ICU stay, and a lifetime of medications.

This is probably the weakest argument.

Couched in a different light, I actually think this is the strongest argument we have that health care is not a right.

Starting from the base document of this country- the constitution and using the context in which it was written we have a pretty strong argument that based on our system and the ideals it was founded on, health care cannot be a right.

So the constitution was created as a document that prevents to gov't from taking away on your inalienable rights- namely life, liberty and property (locke's vs TJ's "pursuit of happiness"). You are given the right to life such that the gov't or any person for that matter cannot take it away, not such that the gov't needs to provide it. Similarly you are guaranteed the right to liberty and property such that the gov't cannot take those away either- not that they need to provide you with property (or with liberty since it is innate).

The health care cannot be a right because it requires not only that someone provides it for you, but that the money come from others. This usurps both right to liberty and right to property. It does not affect your right to life because your right to life is not infringed in any way by not having health care.

 

[Captain Fantastic]

What if there's some guy who wants to spend his life on a river listneing to kid rock and fishing out of the back of his truck. Do you put him in jail when he doesnt have $20 to chip in to cover his portion of my cancer treatment?

Well, to follow the analogy, they can put you in jail if you refuse to serve on the jury. At least when I was called for jury duty, the judge politely told us that attempts to get out of it would put us in contempt. I was made foreman of that grand jury (three months of service) through the same manner of "volunteerism."

 

[ringhal]

But the point is, get the hell out of here with your "greedy morbidly obese patient" examples. Currently, if a morbidly obese patient happens to have a governmental job, they will have every right and opportunity to "abuse" the health care system in the ways you describe.

To whom is this diatribe directed? If it's me, then you're punching a little above your weight. With my previous posts, I have tried to illustrate that anyone from an illegal immigrant with multi-drug resistant TB, to a 25 year-old with hypercholesterolemia and in need of a 4 vessel coronary artery bypass, to a 37 year-old with morbid obesity, to a woman with end-stage liver disease secondary to alcoholic cirrhosis is capable of, what you call abusing the system. This is irrespective of having a "government job."

And guess what, incoming medical student, giving expensive meds which have to come directly from the CDC to that illegal alien, doing a CABG on the 25 year-old, doing a gastric bypass on the obese person, and giving half a liver to the woman are all acceptable standards of care. Not abuses. You'll learn that in medical school.

Guarding against abuse and offering access to comprehensive health care to all Americans are two completely separate issues and you do yourself and everyone else a disservice by intertwining them.

Wrong. Guarding against abuse is an inherent part of providing access. Do you really want a significant portion of your taxes going to a system that has been designed without any safeguards in place. That's like having laws without an organization responsible for their enforcement. I'd be doing you, a future physician and colleague, a disservice if I didn't point these things out before you bring that anger and righteous indignation into my profession. Lastly, you do yourself a disservice taking such a strong stance about providing health care to a population when you haven't spent one day truly learning how a physician provides health care to a single person.

Take this anonymous internet lesson for what its worth. In the face-to-face world of medical school, especially at some place like Jefferson, they can come with generous helpings of humble pie.

 

[ringhal]

Why do you play PS3 games? I always thought that some day, if I'm ever a big cheese attending, that I would be able to find more interesting things to do with my spare time than to play video games. I mean, I can play tons of video games now...I would imagine that if my life were more exciting, I could find more engaging things to do that are more, uh, interactive if you know what I mean.

You'll find that money seldom changes people. You're not suddenly gonna be interested in the opera, yacht racing and playing polo at the club just because you make more money. For the most part, you'll just have easier access to those things you enjoy now. I travel more now, but I lived cheaply as a resident so I could travel every year; my wife rolls her eyes but doesn't rush off to check our checking account balance every time she sees me opening up one of my computers or we get a box from Amazon; and I cringe a little less when she strolls in with an armful of things from "that sale" at Nordstrom, Ann Taylor, or Black/White.

If you play games now, you'll play as an attending. If you're a die hard Bulls fan, well, as an attending you'll be able to get tickets when the Lakers or Cavs are in town. What sucks is, back in the day, those tickets would have been free, courtesy of your local drug rep as appreciation for listening to their talk (which you heard during dinner at a 5-star restaurant - also free, of course).

 

[dodobird13]

Glenn Beck's insanity hour? The man basically is the human manifestation of the eight circle of hell. Sorry, anyone who goes on that show or even buys into what that snake oil merchant has to say is only fooling themselves. People like Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh just spew poison into the country to make a buck.

And yes, Ayn Rand and her followers are a cult, there's no other way to sugercoat it. Her cult were the kids in the playground who had a really cool football and would cry when the other children wanted to play with it together. Well, what good is a football if you're not going to use it?

oh please. this is no more a cult than anyone who slavishly and unthinkingly follows the words of another (and yes, that includes barack "can-do-no-wrong" obama).

 

[dodobird13]

What about people who can't work?

define "can't".

 

[MOHS_01]

What about people who can't work?

They are eligible for existing social safety nets.

 

[FutureInternist]

They are eligible for existing social safety nets.

Best bumper sticker I saw
"Work hard, thousands on Welfare depend on you"

 

[lee9786]

I recently came across this article, http://www.bdt.com/pages/Peikoff.html written in 1993, that attacks "socialized" medicine on moral, rather than practical grounds. I find the author's argument compelling, but I am reluctant to buy into it and I am looking for an out. Am I being naive in my resistance to his ideas?

Please share your thoughts - why do you think health care is a right? Is it ...?

The concept of accountability and personal responsibility needs to be taken into account. Unfortunately a majority of people/americans don't take care of themselves. Usually this is due to sheer ignorance. This is their personal choice so they should bear their own financial healthcare burden, but they should have the option to receive affordable healthcare.

Hardworking individuals should not be flipping the healthcare bill for everyone. A small segment of income taxes should be allotted for the conditions that aren't behaviorally influenced such as genetic disorders. This country is based on the opportunity to grow. Everyone has a choice if they work hard enough.

 

[Forthegood]

Everyone has a choice if they work hard enough.

Right... all you have to do is work super-dooper hard and everything will be fine.

Surely no one is so naive to believe that. In the real world, sometimes things don't work out. Healthcare is expensive, most jobs don't pay enough to keep the bills paid, and the social safety net is out-dated and ineffective both for the taxpayer and the recipients.

The government is only as responsible as the people it represents. If you are looking for a guilty party, get a good mirror. If you are looking to solve the problem, go into politics. If you want to complain, get off SDN. Not all who use the safety net are exploiting it, just as not all people on SDN have the ability to think past their sheltered, brain-dead egocentrism. What a series of pathetic arguments.

 

[ringhal]

The concept of accountability and personal responsibility needs to be taken into account. Unfortunately a majority of people/americans don't take care of themselves. Usually this is due to sheer ignorance. This is their personal choice so they should bear their own financial healthcare burden, but they should have the option to receive affordable healthcare.

This argument is as dangerous as some on the other side. It's very easy to blame "obese" people for their problems; I know I do it even as I've watch my own weight steadily increase from the 6% body fat I had as a 4th year medical student. Several times a week I gotta tell a patient who's taken 4 buses to get to the hospital that we can't scan them because he or she exceeds the weight limit for the table. But there's 2 problems with this approach.

First, there are a significant amount of health problems that are unrelated to poor lifestyle decisions: most neurological disorders, breast, colon and prostate cancer, and pretty much all pediatric stuff. Even something like lung cancer - sure ~70% of lung CA is related to smoking (though 90% of lung CA deaths), but that still means almost 1/3 people with lung CA have no smoking history. Also, there are genetic components to a lot of heath problems that are unavoidable. Both of my parents and 3 of my 4 grandparents are diabetic. What are my chances of getting diabetes later in life regardless of my lifestyle? Diabetes is an absolutely enormous plague on our medical system.

Second, just like we cannot establish reasonable boundaries regarding health care as a right, we cannot establish ones regarding personal responsibility. Not smoking, avoiding IV drugs and not letting one's weight balloon to 500 lbs. are easy, but I could ask you if you've ever sped in your car. Speeding is a contributing factor to many accidents. So if you've sped and get into an accident, sorry. Tore your ACL playing soccer, well, there are safer ways to exercise, sorry. You're 45 and have a tumor on your first mammogram? Well, we recommend screening starting at 40. Since you've been negligent for the past 5 years, sorry.

This country is based on the opportunity to grow. Everyone has a choice if they work hard enough.

If you truly believe this, then you will have an extraordinarily difficult time empathizing with people who don't look and sound like you.

 

[womp]

Good points ringhal. But if it were made known that speeding would lead to a loss of insurance coverage (due to evidence-based risk analysis), I guarantee you, the number of speeders (including this one) would go down dramatically.

 

[GH253]

Keep in mind Leonard Peikoff is a cultist. For more information on the Ayn Rand cult,
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html

That's a pretty generic ad hominem argument if I've ever seen one.

Rothbard was a former Objectivist who had a falling out with the group, so it's natural that he would publish bad things about them. Nobody who wasn't a part of that circle will ever know what really happened.

Anyway, whether their behavior was cultish is irrelevant. All that matters is whether their ideas are correct.

 

[GH253]

delted, for now

 

[majahops]

Just so you know, I don't feel illegal immigrants should have the ability to obtain government subsidized healthcare services in anyway. That's why I used the term American citizens. I feel strongly in that. It makes it harder for us to make policies for ourselves, otherwise.

To whom is this diatribe directed? If it's me, then you're punching a little above your weight. With my previous posts, I have tried to illustrate that anyone from an illegal immigrant with multi-drug resistant TB, to a 25 year-old with hypercholesterolemia and in need of a 4 vessel coronary artery bypass, to a 37 year-old with morbid obesity, to a woman with end-stage liver disease secondary to alcoholic cirrhosis is capable of, what you call abusing the system. This is irrespective of having a "government job."

And guess what, incoming medical student, giving expensive meds which have to come directly from the CDC to that illegal alien, doing a CABG on the 25 year-old, doing a gastric bypass on the obese person, and giving half a liver to the woman are all acceptable standards of care. Not abuses. You'll learn that in medical school.



Wrong. Guarding against abuse is an inherent part of providing access. Do you really want a significant portion of your taxes going to a system that has been designed without any safeguards in place. That's like having laws without an organization responsible for their enforcement. I'd be doing you, a future physician and colleague, a disservice if I didn't point these things out before you bring that anger and righteous indignation into my profession. Lastly, you do yourself a disservice taking such a strong stance about providing health care to a population when you haven't spent one day truly learning how a physician provides health care to a single person.

Take this anonymous internet lesson for what its worth. In the face-to-face world of medical school, especially at some place like Jefferson, they can come with generous helpings of humble pie.

 

[ringhal]

Just so you know, I don't feel illegal immigrants should have the ability to obtain government subsidized healthcare services in anyway. That's why I used the term American citizens. I feel strongly in that. It makes it harder for us to make policies for ourselves, otherwise.

No, it might make it slightly more difficult to enforce policies, but certainly not to create them. This is a straw man argument. No one has advocated universal health care to illegal immigrants. I mentioned them solely to illustrate that anyone is capable of utilizing medical resources under our current system and what you were ignorantly calling abuses, we medical providers call standard of care. As a physician, my job is to treat patients, not do wallet biopsies for green cards.

Your hard line stance on medical treatment belies your lack of understanding on this issue. This is expected given that you haven't spent any time providing medical care to an indigent population. Are you gonna deny someone ER treatment because you cannot verify his or her immigration status? What do you have in your wallet right now that proves you are an American citizen? If you say your social security card, I hope you take a class on street smarts before you move to Philly. And don't say driver's license because many states issue ID to residents regardless of immigration status.

So you send away that illegal with multi-drug resistant TB. What are you gonna do when his roommates and co-workers, some of whom are citizens, show up in 3 weeks, also complaining of fevers, nightsweats and coughing up blood? Maybe in time, your hard line opinions will change once you are confronted with the day-to-day realities of health care.

And yes, as an intern, I had patient with MDR-TB. He'd flown from LAX to Manila at least 3 times before he was adequately treated - with drugs we had to have shipped from the CDC in Atlanta. Think about that the next you're on a long flight near someone coughing non-stop.

 

[ChandutheMagici]

Right... all you have to do is work super-dooper hard and everything will be fine.

Surely no one is so naive to believe that. In the real world, sometimes things don't work out. Healthcare is expensive, most jobs don't pay enough to keep the bills paid, and the social safety net is out-dated and ineffective both for the taxpayer and the recipients.

The government is only as responsible as the people it represents. If you are looking for a guilty party, get a good mirror. If you are looking to solve the problem, go into politics. If you want to complain, get off SDN. Not all who use the safety net are exploiting it, just as not all people on SDN have the ability to think past their sheltered, brain-dead egocentrism. What a series of pathetic arguments.

1. Are you honestly suggesting that at least 51% of jobs in the U.S. aren't enough to pay the bills are you? I've had some pretty crappy 7 dollar an hour jobs in my day and my bills always been paid. But then again, I'm a responsible person.

2. I agree that the safety net is ineffective. It has been for quite some time. Why? Because the nature of these things is to fail. Most of these systems actually turn out to be disincentives to being productive. If you end up making more money (trying to work harder), they boot you from the program. The point is - entitlement does not equate to need.

3. You don't have to go into politics to fix something. Was MLK a politician? The key to "fixing" something is making as many people as you can aware of the true nature of a problem.

4. Not all the people who are using these programs are exploiting them. But seriously, so what? You think taking from one individual to give to another based on a medical condition is ok? That's not charity as much as some would like to think it is.

5. You tell people to get off SDN if they're complaining then proceed to throw out a snotty little argument about brain dead egocentrics. Were you trying to be ironical or funny?

 

[Forthegood]

1. Are you honestly suggesting that at least 51% of jobs in the U.S. aren't enough to pay the bills are you? I've had some pretty crappy 7 dollar an hour jobs in my day and my bills always been paid. But then again, I'm a responsible person.

7 dollars an hour. Hmm... well there is 365 days/year, say you work every day for 12 hours. Then you make 30k. Man, what an incentive. Maybe in your responsibility you forgot the goal is to get away from the minimum wage/living by the paycheck cycle. Of course, you went to college. So you were probably given other gifts than just work ethic (intelligence). But can you think about how life would be different for someone who wasn't? Perhaps born into debt, working a 9 to 5 (only 8hrs... not 12) at McDonald's with little opportunity for promotion. Then what if you had children? Of course, you will probably say the person had no business having children to begin with... which is probably true, but also irrelevant.

The thing is, it's not about whether these people can easily pay their bills (they can't), but rather, they have no reason to join in the capitalism that makes America the land of dreams. They don't get a fair opportunity, and so we try to help them. If you are arguing that we should stop this, propose a better way. You have not seen the other side of this. No one who has blames these people.

2. I agree that the safety net is ineffective. It has been for quite some time. Why? Because the nature of these things is to fail. Most of these systems actually turn out to be disincentives to being productive.

I don't think you will find many who disagree.

3. You don't have to go into politics to fix something. Was MLK a politician? The key to "fixing" something is making as many people as you can aware of the true nature of a problem.

Not every person in politics wears an Italian suit and runs for office.

4. Not all the people who are using these programs are exploiting them. But seriously, so what? You think taking from one individual to give to another based on a medical condition is ok? That's not charity as much as some would like to think it is.

Depends on the situation. Sure, but rationing health care will never be equal in this country. Not when there are dollars and cents attached. This is not the problem we are talking about. The problem is the inefficiency. The white coats without patients, the attorneys, the administrators... the giant chunk of change that makes this rationing a problem to begin with. If we could eleminate some of this waste, I think the true charity would be easier for everyone. Having to work weekends to make overhead is a problem if that weekend under better pretenses would have been pro bono. I think we agree on this... the charity part of it is also ineffective.

5. You tell people to get off SDN if they're complaining then proceed to throw out a snotty little argument about brain dead egocentrics. Were you trying to be ironical or funny?

Haha... ironic? Gotcha. I wasn't complaining... I was proposing they better invest their time. The snotty thing... nice touch. Again, you do know you can't actually yell over the internet, right?

Hope you feel better. I wasn't trying to piss you off.

 

[ChandutheMagici]

7 dollars an hour. Hmm... well there is 365 days/year, say you work every day for 12 hours. Then you make 30k. Man, what an incentive. Maybe in your responsibility you forgot the goal is to get away from the minimum wage/living by the paycheck cycle. Of course, you went to college.

I didn't forget. And try about 15k in my first year out of high school. And yes, I managed to live on this. And let's not detract away from what you said previous...that 51% of jobs in this country are NOT enough to pay the bills. I countered that by saying a responsible individual can live on 15k AND pay the bills. You then change the argument to talk about goals?

So you were probably given other gifts than just work ethic (intelligence). But can you think about how life would be different for someone who wasn't? Perhaps born into debt, working a 9 to 5 (only 8hrs... not 12) at McDonald's with little opportunity for promotion. Then what if you had children? Of course, you will probably say the person had no business having children to begin with... which is probably true, but also irrelevant.

I'm not being funny here, I don't understand how people get born into debt. Perhaps you could explain? And regardless of what you may think, we have equal opportunity in this country. Sure, equal opportunity doesn't mean guaranteed outcome, but if someone can't hack it at McDonald's then they can do what I did. Join the military, work your ass off going to school and work full time and then get accepted into medical school. Do I think everyone is smart enough/hard working enough to get into med school? No, of course not. Do I think a lot of people like like to blame their issues on anyone, but themselves...absolutely.

The thing is, it's not about whether these people can easily pay their bills (they can't), but rather, they have no reason to join in the capitalism that makes America the land of dreams. They don't get a fair opportunity, and so we try to help them. If you are arguing that we should stop this, propose a better way. You have not seen the other side of this. No one who has blames these people.

Dude, I grew up in Detroit. So yes, I've seen the other side of this. Is it harder as someone who grew up having nothing and was not "connected"? Yeah, maybe. But is it impossible for them to do it on their own? Hardly.

And who are these people you're talking about? Is there a certain class of individuals who don't get a fair shake? Last I knew, we all have equal rights, we all have equal protection. It's not as if we have a caste system or something.

Depends on the situation. Sure, but rationing health care will never be equal in this country. Not when there are dollars and cents attached. This is not the problem we are talking about. The problem is the inefficiency. The white coats without patients, the attorneys, the administrators... the giant chunk of change that makes this rationing a problem to begin with. If we could eleminate some of this waste, I think the true charity would be easier for everyone. Having to work weekends to make overhead is a problem if that weekend under better pretenses would have been pro bono. I think we agree on this... the charity part of it is also ineffective.

Yup, we agree. Healthcare will get rationed either way. If the government decides that healthcare is a "right" then it will ration as it sees fit. That's something I really don't want...efficient or not.

Haha... ironic? Gotcha. I wasn't complaining... I was proposing they better invest their time. The snotty thing... nice touch. Again, you do know you can't actually yell over the internet, right?

Really? You sounded like you were complaining. Perhaps I read that wrong, but when you say...

"If you are looking to solve the problem, go into politics. If you want to complain, get off SDN. Not all who use the safety net are exploiting it, just as not all people on SDN have the ability to think past their sheltered, brain-dead egocentrism. What a series of pathetic arguments. "

This sounds like a bit of an uptight, arrogant, and condescending statement.

Hope you feel better. I wasn't trying to piss you off.

Haha, dude, you didn't piss me off. And seriously, I'm not trying to bust your balls that much. Just know that not everyone on SDN is a brain dead egocentric. Some people value the discussion here.

 

[MOHS_01]

.....

The thing is, it's not about whether these people can easily pay their bills (they can't), but rather, they have no reason to join in the capitalism that makes America the land of dreams. They don't get a fair opportunity, and so we try to help them. If you are arguing that we should stop this, propose a better way. You have not seen the other side of this. No one who has blames these people.

Fallacy. BS. I will not rehash my, my wife's, nor any number of friends' personal stories, but we all came from very modest backgrounds in an already poor state and managed to do alright.... all without accepting massive amounts of handouts. We do not accept the notion that certain "classes" cannot get ahead without holding others back. The American dream is the prospect of being afforded the opportunity to hope for better, and is more than enough to encourage those willing to work for success so that they too may share in it.

 

[Forthegood]

Chandu-- For the most part, I agree with you 100%.

My problem with the right/priviledge thing is that it all boils down to taxpayer money spent to "help" these people. And I personally don't just naturally hate taxes. In fact, I kind of like the roads I drive on every day, and I am not sure how I'd feel without a fire department nearby. So providing a little extra to give some people in a tougher situation than I am currently a leg up? Well, I know how appreciated that little bit can be when you are down. I don't get upset when I pay my taxes. Even if they sometimes the programs they support don't work exactly correct.

I advocate changing these programs... not simply cutting all the funds and telling these people born in the deep end to swim. From my experience, when you cut off a small piece of an already small piece of income, bad things happen.

The military is a great way out, as you found out. Unfortunately, it is one of the only ways out if you are not naturally gifted in any area. But don't think for a second that makes you different. Those are still taxpayer dollars. Just less than half of all army recruits are from below the poverty line. And not everyone can join the military either. Again... safety nets are for the people who slip through the cracks...

Fallacy. BS. I will not rehash my, my wife's, nor any number of friends' personal stories, but we all came from very modest backgrounds in an already poor state and managed to do alright.... all without accepting massive amounts of handouts. We do not accept the notion that certain "classes" cannot get ahead without holding others back. The American dream is the prospect of being afforded the opportunity to hope for better, and is more than enough to encourage those willing to work for success so that they too may share in it.

Right, historically... I can't think of a single time when one class got ahead by holding another back. Get real. Who cleans the floors at your hospital? How much do they make? Benefits? Opportunities for promotion? At mine, we have a staff who (for many) have been working over a decade. I'm sure you will agree, these people do fine. They work hard, like you said, and survive (not well, but alright). Luckily, they are healthy and can work, and were lucky enough to find a job before unemployment cracked 9%.

I think you are misinterpreting what I said. When you stick the lowest of society's low in minimum-wage, minimum-opportunity jobs, you will get minimum work eithic and minimum hope. One has to be shown the beauty of capitalism to break the cycle. Right now, that is not the case. And that is a big reason this is not a fair system. You can't expect people to bust their balls for something they have never seen or experienced.

 

[MOHS_01]

....


Right, historically... I can't think of a single time when one class got ahead by holding another back. Get real. Who cleans the floors at your hospital? How much do they make? Benefits? Opportunities for promotion? At mine, we have a staff who (for many) have been working over a decade. I'm sure you will agree, these people do fine. They work hard, like you said, and survive (not well, but alright). Luckily, they are healthy and can work, and were lucky enough to find a job before unemployment cracked 9%.

I think you are misinterpreting what I said. When you stick the lowest of society's low in minimum-wage, minimum-opportunity jobs, you will get minimum work eithic and minimum hope. One has to be shown the beauty of capitalism to break the cycle. Right now, that is not the case. And that is a big reason this is not a fair system. You can't expect people to bust their balls for something they have never seen or experienced.

Forthegood,

Let me first say that your heart is in the right place and I can see where you are coming from; that said, I will never agree with that philosophy because I have lived it and know it to be untrue. As did my wife, her brother, one of my younger brothers, and innumerable others who did not accept the victim mentality, grabbed the reins, and made their life what they wanted it to be.

The janitorial staff at my institution are fine people for the most part. When I was in the hospital system, we chatted both in the floors when on call and in the lunchroom on a daily basis. A good number were immigrants just happy to be here -- from Somalia, Cuba, Mexico, mostly. Some were vagabonds without ambition. Some were going to nursing school and working their way through. They all received benefits; some only worked for the benefits. Promotion? Those who were interested in such, ambitious, and capable are more than capable of going to school to better their prospects.

Do not proceed to tell me that people neither understand nor have the capacity for want to better themselves. I grew up around that mindset and absolutely abhor it. It is a self defeating and enabling victim mindset whereby this flawed perception becomes their reality. It allows the bright but lazy to have an convenient excuse for their woes. It somehow gives those who make poor choices an out for their predicament. It is simply untrue, and I see the degree to which it is untrue every single day.

 

[Forthegood]

I am pretty certain that we agree on this.

But, it doesn't matter a bit if it is true or not. People believe it and live their lives believing in it. That is the whole problem. If you have a class of people without hope, they won't get out of it. I see this all the time with people I work with in the inner-city. The devil is not in the hours of labor, but convincing these people that they can get to a better life. You're right that it is possible to get out. But without intelligence or ambition, the hopelessness these people are drowning is a life-sentence.

I also wish we could kill the attitude that these people are held-back and can't make it out. But one walk through any inner-city school will tell you that the day is not yet here. They are held back, even if it is only by themselves. The vast majority has given up on these people, how can we not expect them to give up on themselves. And even then, it is unfortunately not true that you can will yourself out of every bad circumstance.

 

[MOHS_01]

How should we accomplish this self empowerment? It is not the role of government to protect people from themselves. Parents should tell their children to want better. We also have to accept the fact that many simply do NOT want better, they are "happy" with their situation. This could mean that they do not see the value in the marginal efforts to "get ahead" or they simply have a different value system than you, I, or anyone else who has been so inclined to "get ahead". To "want" the same for them is nothing more than imposing your value system upon them; an effort that is ultimately doomed for failure. You cannot want something for someone else and expect to ever be satisfied -- they have to want it for themselves. 10 years ago I did not understand how anyone could not want for better aside from being lazy; I now see that some people simply have different priorities and ambitions, and that is OK. If all they want out of life is a pack of smokes in the pocket, beer in the fridge, crack in the pipe, nails "did up", etc -- that's OK. The only problem that I now have with it is the fact that money is taken from my family in the form of taxes to fund their slotheness and the fact that a very vocal portion of society has decided to lay blame at the feet of the successful working folks for the less fortunates' predicament.

 

[Forthegood]

Agreed. The system sucks. We pay for people who don't deserve it. So we should change the system. If you really want an out, then we should lend a hand. The ones who don't want out shouldn't be recieving the gifts. But until we find a way to differentiate between these two groups of people, I can not in good conscience believe that it is worth the risk to discontinue these services. Societies are judged by how they treat those they don't need.

 

[Pharmavixen]

Unlike many people on the left, I believe that personal responsibility plays a role, but there really isn't a level playing field. I work with addicts in methadone maintenance, and many of these people have not had the same opportunities as many of us. I suggest that even those of us from a modest background here on SDN had parents who believed in us and supported us, if not financially, at least emotionally.

My sister-in-law is a college professor, and we had a conversation recently about highly accomplished people; like a Canadian doctor who wrote a book of fiction that won Canada's top literary prize, and he wrote it between working full-time in the ED of a hospital in downtown Toronto (and he was barely 30). What she said was in her experience with knowing some amazing people, they get a lot of support; ie, maybe they live with their parents, and they don't have to cook their own meals or do their own laundry.

When I have to deal with an abusive addict who has never had a legit job in his life, and calls me filthy names when I refuse to fill his dodgy Oxycontin script, I'm not exactly feeling compassionate. But we have to acknowledge that there are circumstances in people's lives beyond their control that helped make them into people who have such limited personal resources to change for the better.

I imagine few people here have endured the kind of dysfunctional parenting that a lot of these folks have had. And recent research has shown that some of these people have Fetal Alcohol Effect.

I see a lot of judgemental attitudes being expressed, and I can relate, and have vented myself sometimes. But we really don't know what's happened to people that makes them behave badly.

 

[ChandutheMagici]

Agreed. The system sucks. We pay for people who don't deserve it. So we should change the system. If you really want an out, then we should lend a hand. The ones who don't want out shouldn't be recieving the gifts. But until we find a way to differentiate between these two groups of people, I can not in good conscience believe that it is worth the risk to discontinue these services. Societies are judged by how they treat those they don't need.

Through government, there is NO WAY to differentiate between the two. None. Hence, entitlements based on income level. You can't create a system that identifies need.

This is why actual charity is a good thing. They're much much better at this sort of thing. Especially church type charity, because they generally know the recipients.

I agree with you that societies are (and should be) judged by how they treat the less fortunate. But remember that has nothing to do with government.

Listen, before New Deal economics we got by just fine without these programs. The nation didn't tear apart at the seems. Hell, we didn't even have an income tax until 1913. After New Deal economics, people seem to think there is no possible way we can live without these. This is because the government has created a society of dependent individuals.

When you decide to think critically about the nature of governmental "charities" they just don't work. If they can't streamline a program in 76 years, they will NEVER get it to run efficiently. EVER. Hell, even medicare (the system all the liberals tout as the best thing ever) doesn't pay the market rate on nearly ANYTHING.

Unlike private enterprise (which is allowed to fail) the government can continue to increase taxes or deficit spend for systems that are financially unsustainable. You see, while it sounds nice to help people out and blah blah blah, in the end, it's the productive people who get screwed. However, all the unproductive people can continue to vote in the guy who will give them what they want. And thus, the mob wins. Strangely, if I've understand the Constitution correctly, mob rule is exactly what it's designed to prevent.

 

[GH253]

Societies are judged by how they treat those they don't need.

Judged by who?

 

[MOHS_01]

...

I agree with you that societies are (and should be) judged by how they treat the less fortunate. But remember that has nothing to do with government.

Listen, before New Deal economics we got by just fine without these programs. The nation didn't tear apart at the seems. Hell, we didn't even have an income tax until 1913. After New Deal economics, people seem to think there is no possible way we can live without these. This is because the government has created a society of dependent individuals.

When you decide to think critically about the nature of governmental "charities" they just don't work. If they can't streamline a program in 76 years, they will NEVER get it to run efficiently. EVER. Hell, even medicare (the system all the liberals tout as the best thing ever) doesn't pay the market rate on nearly ANYTHING.

Unlike private enterprise (which is allowed to fail) the government can continue to increase taxes or deficit spend for systems that are financially unsustainable. You see, while it sounds nice to help people out and blah blah blah, in the end, it's the productive people who get screwed. However, all the unproductive people can continue to vote in the guy who will give them what they want. And thus, the mob wins. Strangely, if I've understand the Constitution correctly, mob rule is exactly what it's designed to prevent.

Insightful observation that government does not equal society; it is an imperfect quasi-representation of the people that it represents. All Germans were not Nazis, all Russians were not Stalin, and all Americans are not Bush/Obama/FDR, etc. I wish that we had the first 30 years of the 20th century to do over; many damaging changes were set into motion at that time. I welcome the day when historians take a more critical look at how damaging the changes in both Europe and America were following the Depression, as well as the events leading up to it. FDR, LBJ, and now BHO have/will fundamentally change the relationship between citizen and state, and not for the better.

You understanding of the Constitution is also correct; the Founding Fathers understood the short lived nature and dangers represented by pure democracies, which is why they took great care in protecting the rights of the minority from the mob rule of the majority. The Constitution was designed to protect the people from the government... it is a limiting document. Our courts have trampled on it, our President says that it is "a fundamentally flawed document" that unduly limits the powers of the government. Unless some semblance of responsibility and a restoration of a system for checks and balances comes quickly, we are headed for troubling times.

 

[Forthegood]

Through government, there is NO WAY to differentiate between the two. None. Hence, entitlements based on income level. You can't create a system that identifies need.

Which is obvious. And I thought, obviously why I said it.

I agree with you that societies are (and should be) judged by how they treat the less fortunate. But remember that has nothing to do with government.

You do know that is exactly what the government does and is responsible for. Everyone pays their taxes so the government can do what no individual could. How that is allocated is up to the people (through elected officials). And, the people have elected representatives who find these people to be important and in need of assistance, so assistance is given. That is government.

Listen, before New Deal economics we got by just fine without these programs.

No.

This is because the government has created a society of dependent individuals.

No. The government doesn't create its people. And this is irrelevent anyway. The point is that regardless of how or why, these people are here and we can not just let the rot.

When you decide to think critically about the nature of governmental "charities" they just don't work.

Perhaps because you are thinking of these as charities. How exactly do you think this country would fair without the lower class? The wages paid to these people on the bottom rung are meager, yet the jobs they perform are often demanding. And, they are the majority of jobs. The government is simply making up for some (not even close to all) of the damage inflation does. Look at the changes in minimum wage for Christ's sake.

Unlike private enterprise (which is allowed to fail) the government can continue to increase taxes or deficit spend for systems that are financially unsustainable.

True, and unfortunate. But again, this power ultimately rests in the people. If you really wanted a program cut, well, you would know who to call. On the other hand, if there was no police, who would you run to for help? Government is not a bad thing.

You see, while it sounds nice to help people out and blah blah blah, in the end, it's the productive people who get screwed.

Right, you poor baby. You've been treated soo unfairly. Why, you haven't had all the opportunities you needed. No way that the government paid for or subsidized nearly every aspect of your life.

However, all the unproductive people can continue to vote...

Which, by the way, they rarely do.

Insightful observation that government does not equal society

You're kidding here, right? This is insightful now? That's it, I'm buying a dictionary.

I welcome the day when historians take a more critical look at how damaging the changes in both Europe and America were following the Depression, as well as the events leading up to it.

Right, all those historians are just sitting there complacently. Too bad their aren't more books on this time period than any other period in history. But hey, what do people who study this their whole lives know? Certainly not more than us.

... our President says that it is "a fundamentally flawed document" that unduly limits the powers of the government.

Who are you, Rush Limbaugh? That's not even close to the context, and you botched the wording. Nice try though.