Healthcare is NOT a right!

[fightingspirit]

Don't think anyone here refuses to acknowledge that are is portion of the population in need of healthcare and without affordable access to those services. The question was whether or not healthcare is a right. And, if so, should it be provided to everyone? And, if it is provided to everyone, can it be provided at or above the same quality as it is today?

If there is one thing that is in common among all the posts in this thread, it is the fact that they all oversimplify the situation in accordance to their poster’s personal experiences in life. Oversimplifying is naïve.
If healthcare becomes a right, then everybody becomes entitled to some form of care (where we are most likely heading whether we like it or not), be it basic or intermediary. In that case, the federal government would tax us more and medicare would include young adults. Having a bigger government is not a popular concept for understandable reasons but having EVERYBODY PAY LESS (as the risk is being spread thinner across the entire U.S pool –300,000000 covered lives--and EVERYBODY GETTING COVERED are very popular concepts--perhaps not in SDN or among OMFS peeps.

Some SDNers believe that patient/doctors’ insistence on every test and expensive treatment and new drugs is driving up healthcare costs. I on the other hand highlighted the insurers. Yet, no one seems to agree with me in implicating the private insurers, and that I think (not sure but think) is because SDNers are more trustful of business men (HMOs) than they are of the government. Exorbitant profits made by insurers along with trivial lawsuits (these are due to the influence of the lawyers lobby in congress more than that of a litigious population) are the principal culprits in my opinion. One big insurance company (the federal gov) is better than a million little private insurance companies I think. The idea is unsexy because it implies bigger government but it is financially sound not just for patients and welfare peeps but also for us and for honest hardworking working class people (there are hardworking Americans who cannot afford coverage and don ‘t have plasma tvs and x-boxes). In the universal insurance scenario, the government can use its leverage (through its 300,000000 covered lives) to negotiate with pharmaceuticals a drug-sales profit that is acceptable to both parties, which would make drugs more affordable to everybody. Stocks of Public corporations that produce/sale healthcare-related products would become utility stocks--like the case of Con Eddison. Nothing wrong with that. The only losers are gonna be insurers. I say the heck with them and their slime! Good riddance…

Some SDNers argue that it’s a matter of priorities: they imply: if you don’t make a lot of money than don’t have kids, don’t buy a car…etc. to those I say, is having kids or a car the right of the rich now or what? Are you suggesting that those who don’t make much (because they are working class, teachers, artists…etc) should spend their entire income on healthcare because if they don’t, then they are people with screwed up prioritizing skills? Are some of you guys suggesting living to eat and pay for healthcare? Some are implying that even divorce should be carefully considered before that woman becomes a single mother of two and then ask for “hand outs”…..Does that mean that a mother should live with abuse or an unfaithful husband just because divorce would be a burden, healthcare-wise? It is absurd to expect a single mother not to spend money on herself just so that she can have some savings handy for health problems. Sure, it’s matter of priorities and consequences but it is also a matter of fate and uncontrollable environmental factors. If one is saving every penny for healthcare because one does not make much to start with, then one should just die all together.

At this point, the U.S has 40,000000 uninsured American citizens (let alone non-citizens), about 1/8th of the population. Their cries don’t matter much now. But as this number grows, watch how the system will crumble violently. To those who favor the status quo (you know who you are amigo), I will say that like it or not, the current U.S healthcare system is unsustainable, and the emergency rooms will fall apart at some point. We can choose to lie on the sand with our asses facing the sun and wait for this social/medical disaster to come or we can discuss alternatives. The contention that the status quo is good and the alternative is big government is unrealistic and simply useless. Change is inevitable; we can prepare for it or ignore it until it falls on our heads hard and painful.

It is clear that SDNers, especially OMFS guys, are not too crazy about universal healthcare. By the same token, you guys are most probably not too crazy about social security and medicare. I am in awe over these two programs because one has to give credit for a federal government that tries to neutralize market-based capitalism with socialistic elements through gigantic programs administered to a population of 300,000000. No matter how bad their job is at executing this task, it is still amazing that these programs are working and helping millions of Americans (from crack ******—unfortunately--to elderly working class men who spent their entire lives cleaning our streets and working the assembly line).

But in the end, is this thread about whether or not healthcare is a right? Is it about social security and medicare? I don’t think so

I think it all comes down to our feelings towards wealth redistribution. And to that end, I swear that in my instinctively selfish side, I don’t want to give away a penny of my hard earned money to the government, a body that is primarily interested in serving itself. But I am a realistic person. In fantasy land, everyone makes 100k+, everybody is pretty and healthy and no one pays taxes and everybody has a home. Alas, in reality, that is not the case; some will have more assets from the minute they were born. True enough, lack of fairness in life is nature’s cruel design, not man’s. Now I ask you, if there is no social security or medicare, then what would become of all these working class masses? What? Should we just let them perish when they get old? Should we just euthanize them when they are young adults but sick? If we don’t keep them healthy, how can we expect them to have sufficient health to roomservice our hotels, wash our dishes clean our streets, hospitals and schools? You gotta keep those people healthy so that we can have the nice life we’re having. If working class couples stop having kids so that they can pay for healthcare and avoid government help, then where are we gonna get working class workers? What? Import them? So if we strip the government to the “bare essentials” as listed by mr. “old fashioned Hispanic” then how can it protect us from invaders if it does not have an army (those soldiers come from the working classes who need to stay healthy and keep having those kids that would enlist in the army…according to some of you, couples should have as less children as possible to pay for their healthcare)? Philanthropy would not serve the masses as much as you think it would.
What I argue here is that wealth redistribution is a necessity, not a mere dreamy egalitarian option. It is also a matter of avoiding revolution. Do you wanna live in a world of a few aristocrats surrounded by disenchanted working class masses who would be waiting for an opportunity to attack you and your families? Yes…survival measures can be that extreme (I’d rather have a coercive system take a buck or two from me every month as opposed to a mob of angry poor people behead me and my family)
….Finally, it’s a matter of compassion.

The arguments I presented in favor of wealth redistribution are the same ones I think of when I consider universal healthcare. We do not live in fantasy land.


apologies for the long post.....

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Biogirl361]

wow...

 

[tx oms]

Many people make mistakes in life and it screws up their entire life, that doesn't mean that they are bad people who deserve what they get.

It just means they have to live with the consequences.

You seem to think that it is easy to get ahead in life. Maybe for you and I it was. We both came from good families I am assuming. What did your family do and what hurdles did you have to overcome to be where you are.

My college was payed for by a scholarship I earned. I worked all through college to make money.

Even though it is technically possible for many of these inner-city kids and people living on the reservation to better themselves it is hundreds of times more difficult than anything you or I would have to deal with. [/qutoe] I doubt "hundreds of times". Those kids have a mind and can make decisions. We both know there are plenty of rich kids living with mommy and daddy b/c they couldn't hack it. There is more to sucess than where you grew up.

And are you saying that people who are paying income tax, Social security, medicare and sales tax are deserving to recieve federal aid in the form of insurance just because they weren't born here?? Many of your opinions are the very reason why so much of the world hates americans.

Illegals don't pay income tax b/c they're ILLEGAL! Like you said, the employers are also breaking the law, but it's hard to pay taxes for a guy with no SSN. Sales tax is not federal, so no, I don't think sales tax entitles one to federal aid.

Finally, if so may people hate America, why are we arguing about all the illegals scrambling across the border. More importantly, why should I care what anyone else thinks about America and me? France doesn't seem to care I think they're full of pansies and whiners.

 

[tx oms]

4. I do agree with you that everyone who works hard should have access to some form of healthcare...

They do, it's called insurance or self pay. Life is about choices and priorities.

 

[Cold Front]

Healthcare is a right, not a privilege.

The author of this thread is probably offering an excuse to this country's attempt to resolve the crisis of escalating healthcare costs.

 

[L8DYV]

dont criminalize.......legalize.......heheh

 

[tx oms]

One big insurance company (the federal gov) is better than a million little private insurance companies I think. The idea is unsexy because it implies bigger government but it is financially sound not just for patients and welfare peeps but also for us and for honest hardworking working class people....The only losers are gonna be insurers. I say the heck with them and their slime! Good riddance…

Have you ever worked for the government? They are incapable of running healthcare well. I think you hate big business more than government. If you don't want to have insurance, fine, but be prepared to write a check.

Some SDNers argue that it’s a matter of priorities: they imply: if you don’t make a lot of money than don’t have kids, don’t buy a car…etc. to those I say, is having kids or a car the right of the rich now or what?

No, they're a joy and privelage, respectively, to those who can afford them and a burden to those who can't.

Are you suggesting that those who don’t make much (because they are working class, teachers, artists…etc) should spend their entire income on healthcare because if they don’t, then they are people with screwed up prioritizing skills? Are some of you guys suggesting living to eat and pay for healthcare?

First, don't be an artist if you want money. Second, I defy you to find one person in America who spends their entire income on insurance. Third, the fact that some people opt out of insurance secondary to price indicates they feel health insurance is not an absolute need like food and water. If one can "take it or leave it", so to speak, how can healthcare be a right. Finally, I am implying if you don't have coverage don't bitch when you get a bill.

Does that mean that a mother should live with abuse or an unfaithful husband just because divorce would be a burden, healthcare-wise?

Most divorces are about selfishness, not abuse. Still, where is the blood family of this holy matriarch of which you speak? Does the family get to wash it's hands of their blacksheep so that society can take over?

It is absurd to expect a single mother not to spend money on herself just so that she can have some savings handy for health problems.

No it's not. Lots of responsible people do it.

If one is saving every penny for healthcare because one does not make much to start with, then one should just die all together.

No, if it's really that tight then you do what you must and forego the healthcare. Or you go to an indegent clinic. Or you seek charity from a warm-hearted doctor instead of Uncle Sam.

To those who favor the status quo (you know who you are amigo), I will say that like it or not, the current U.S healthcare system is unsustainable, and the emergency rooms will fall apart at some point. We can choose to lie on the sand with our asses facing the sun and wait for this social/medical disaster to come or we can discuss alternatives. The contention that the status quo is good and the alternative is big government is unrealistic and simply useless. Change is inevitable; we can prepare for it or ignore it until it falls on our heads hard and painful.

I already proposed a solution. Don't demand Cadillac treatment on a Kia budget and stop suing doctors. Reread my post about a tierred system. If you look at my OP, you can see that I don't think healthcare is a right. If the rhetoric changed to this viewpoint, we would unburden the system. Thing is, people always want something for nothing. Care to join me at the Audi dealer tomorrow? I'm going to picket them b/c they only give their cars to people with money.

Alas, in reality, that is not the case; some will have more assets from the minute they were born. True enough, lack of fairness in life is nature’s cruel design, not man’s. Now I ask you, if there is no social security or medicare, then what would become of all these working class masses? What? Should we just let them perish when they get old? Should we just euthanize them when they are young adults but sick?

Well, my gosh, I wonder how the world even turned on its axis before medicare and SSI. Maybe it was the family unit? Maybe it was relying on family, friends, and the kindness of strangers rather than government? Renovate a damn room on you house and take care of your parents, the people who gave you life, when they get old. It's not up to government or me to take care of your family.

Ifworking class couples stop having kids so that they can pay for healthcare and avoid government help, then where are we gonna get working class workers? What? Import them? So if we strip the government to the “bare essentials” as listed by mr. “old fashioned Hispanic” then how can it protect us from invaders if it does not have an army (those soldiers come from the working classes who need to stay healthy and keep having those kids that would enlist in the army…according to some of you, couples should have as less children as possible to pay for their healthcare)? Philanthropy would not serve the masses as much as you think it would.

Really? Again, how did the world survive and countries raise armies before Medicare part B, coronary stents, and composite fillings? Look, your arguements are nice but the whole of human history before 1917 suggests otherwise. In fact, forget 1917. Communism is dead.

What I argue here is that wealth redistribution is a necessity, not a mere dreamy egalitarian option. It is also a matter of avoiding revolution. Do you wanna live in a world of a few aristocrats surrounded by disenchanted working class masses who would be waiting for an opportunity to attack you and your families? Yes…survival measures can be that extreme (I’d rather have a coercive system take a buck or two from me every month as opposed to a mob of angry poor people behead me and my family)

You sound like a member of the new left. BTW, have the masses come to my door. I've got enough ammo. There are plenty of people on the other side of the "revolution".

….Finally, it’s a matter of compassion.

Exactly, so take care of your granmother so I don't have to. Or do you not love her enough?

Finally, "wealth redisribution" is a code for socialism. Socialism with revolution is communism. Are you a pinko? Even so, I enjoy the debate.

 

[tx oms]

Healthcare is a right, not a privilege.

The author of this thread is probably offering an excuse to this country's attempt to resolve the crisis of escalating healthcare costs.

Oh really? What make it a right? The fact that you want it even if you can't afford it? In that case I declare Blue Bell Rocky Road ice cream to be a right.

 

[TucsonDDS]

Illegals don't pay income tax b/c they're ILLEGAL! Like you said, the employers are also breaking the law, but it's hard to pay taxes for a guy with no SSN. Sales tax is not federal, so no, I don't think sales tax entitles one to federal aid.

Any illegal working a legal job is paying social security and federal income tax. If they aren't it is because the business owner is breaking the law. It is illegal for any business owner to hire a worker without a SS security/tax ID number. Unfortunately it is also illegal for the business owner to then verify if that number is fraudulent or not. It is a totally screwed up system that allows anyone to work as long as they have a SS number, actual or not. They therefor are paying taxes that are withheld by the employer. If these taxes are not being withheld then the american employer is the one who is screwing the people.

Also, sales tax pays a huge amount of the healthcare for people. Medicare (at least here in New York) requires that the county pays for 1/2 of the bill while the federal government pays the remainder. This is why so many counties are is such financial distress, not enough workers paying state taxes and not enough people buying locally. So how does having millions of illegal aliens, paying both income tax and sales tax, not support the economy. They are in essence paying for the healthcare for many lazy americans collecting welfare.

 

[Frank Cavitation]

What make it a right?

There is a part in the universal declaration of human rights that states "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." Can that be contrued to mean denial of life-saving medical procedures (due to cost) as infringing on a person's basic rights? I will assume we can agree that surgery and drugs are in general more directly linked to "life" than ice cream. Although I have not had rocky road in 10+ years...

 

[Cold Front]

Oh really? What make it a right? The fact that you want it even if you can't afford it? In that case I declare Blue Bell Rocky Road ice cream to be a right.

The right to healthcare is an extension to right to life.

Unless you are proposing "survival of the fittest" option - a very troubling thought!

 

[DrBowtie]

The right for healthcare is an extension to right for life.

Unless you are proposing "survival of the fittest" option - a very troubling thought!

Because when the right to life clause was written, they had triple bypass surgery in mind

 

[L8DYV]

Access to health care should be a right to all!

 

[esclavo]

The moment you make someone else besides the individual responsible for their life is the moment you open pandoras box. Life is fraught with risk and challenges.... it is a risk we all take when we are born. The government isn't responsible for your birth and to keep you alive throughout your life. You and I could walk down the street and fall over dead or suffer from some debilitating injury/disease. I don't expect anyone to do anything for me that I haven't been prepared to do for myself by saving money and purchasing insurance. It isn't society's problem to save me inspite of my (and my family's) limited preparation or capacity.

For those who think nationalized health care is the way to go or "universal" health care is the answer, just look at the current models. To make it work taxes have to be around 50%, it doesn't improve persons risky behavior, and doctors salaries are 1/3 what they currently are in the US. When they say "control" health costs what they are saying is that doctors will be the ones who take it on the chin for the nations health. Doctors will really take it on the chin twice: first in high taxes (everyone will take it on the chin) and then the sucker punch is doctors will pay for it with significantly reduced incomes. For all the investment in education for a doctor, making 1/3 what you should make will only drive the bright into other fields. Medicine will only decline when the best and brightest go elsewhere.

Look at the military model. Ask those doctors how "efficient", "excellent", or "well paid" military medicine is... Look at the comparative statistics (nationalized scores) of military doctors compared to the general public. That is where national heatlh care will send us....what tx and I are telling all of you neophites isn't necessarily compassionate but it is reality..

 

[OzDDS]

Have you ever worked for the government? They are incapable of running healthcare well.

No, they're a joy and privelage, respectively, to those who can afford them and a burden to those who can't.

Most divorces are about selfishness, not abuse.

No it's not. Lots of responsible people do it.

Thing is, people always want something for nothing. Care to join me at the Audi dealer tomorrow? I'm going to picket them b/c they only give their cars to people with money.

how did the world survive and countries raise armies before Medicare part B, coronary stents, and composite fillings? Look, your arguements are nice but the whole of human history before 1917 suggests otherwise. In fact, forget 1917. Communism is dead.
You sound like a member of the new left. BTW, have the masses come to my door. I've got enough ammo. There are plenty of people on the other side of the "revolution".
Exactly, so take care of your granmother so I don't have to. Or do you not love her enough?

Finally, "wealth redisribution" is a code for socialism. Socialism with revolution is communism. Are you a pinko? Even so, I enjoy the debate.

I could not have said it better!!

 

[Frank Cavitation]

The government isn't responsible for your birth

Can I draw a parallel to the supposed "right to education"? The US provides free primary education. If the government isn't responsible for your birth, they should not be responsible for your schooling. And people who have no kids should not subsidize those with children. And people who can't afford school should not have kids. Imagine the tax savings!

I am out of good parallels at the moment, but I am thinking along these lines: the government is not responsible for protecting us, we should not pay tax to get police and fire services, and those who can afford it can hire privately. Others take their tax savings and make the choice to buy booze.

 

[TKD]

The moment you make someone else besides the individual responsible for their life is the moment you open pandoras box. Life is fraught with risk and challenges.... it is a risk we all take when we are born. The government isn't responsible for your birth and to keep you alive throughout your life. You and I could walk down the street and fall over dead or suffer from some debilitating injury/disease. I don't expect anyone to do anything for me that I haven't been prepared to do for myself by saving money and purchasing insurance. It isn't society's problem to save me inspite of my (and my family's) limited preparation or capacity.

For those who think nationalized health care is the way to go or "universal" health care is the answer, just look at the current models. To make it work taxes have to be around 50%, it doesn't improve persons risky behavior, and doctors salaries are 1/3 what they currently are in the US. When they say "control" health costs what they are saying is that doctors will be the ones who take it on the chin for the nations health. Doctors will really take it on the chin twice: first in high taxes (everyone will take it on the chin) and then the sucker punch is doctors will pay for it with significantly reduced incomes. For all the investment in education for a doctor, making 1/3 what you should make will only drive the bright into other fields. Medicine will only decline when the best and brightest go elsewhere.

Look at the military model. Ask those doctors how "efficient", "excellent", or "well paid" military medicine is... Look at the comparative statistics (nationalized scores) of military doctors compared to the general public. That is where national heatlh care will send us....what tx and I are telling all of you neophites isn't necessarily compassionate but it is reality..

hey no need to accuse me of being a canadain-wannabe and liberal and all that stuff. my wife is Canadian and I have researched this pretty thoroughly. taxes do not have to be around 50% for it to work - not sure what models you are talking about, but Canada and some European models have taxes much lower - and the higher taxes not only cover health care, but subsidize education a great deal as well (imagine getting a dental degree for 15K/year!!!). 1/3 salary is wrong as well. (not sure about Scandinavia), but in Canada, depending on the specialty, the # is closer to 3/4. this applies to dental and medical specialties. now examining this number a little closer - american dentists will earn 1/4 more. But they have to pay for higher education costs for kids, pay for health insurance, copays, etc.
of course, the Canadian model has its share of problems. generally speaking, the standard of care up there is equal to US. I believe the major problems here are: malpractice insurance, ineffeciency (as someone mentioned earlier having to do too many tests to cover their arses), insurance companies dictacting health care too much. Benefit of our 2 or 3 tiered system is if you've saved up enough dough (also mentioned above - some equate this to working hard, taking responsibility,etc) you can take part in the top tier, which is damn good!

 

[Frank Cavitation]

taxes do not have to be around 50% for it to work - not sure what models you are talking about, but Canada and some European models have taxes much lower - and the higher taxes not only cover health care, but subsidize education a great deal as well (imagine getting a dental degree for 15K/year!!!). 1/3 salary is wrong as well.

Taxes are quite high actually. Not 50% but enough to be a pain compared to US. http://www.taxtips.ca/ontax.htm
If I put in 150k as self-employment income, without deductions, I have to pay 55k in tax, and that's about 37%. I don't know much about US tax rates, but found a calculator which gave 35k as the tax I would have to pay.

One difference (for non-specialists, anyway) is that HMO/PPO are not prevalent here which tends to keep billings higher.

Dental degrees may be 15k when the US dollar was high, but now it is 25k CAD which is about 22k USD.

 

[howui3]

Dental degrees may be 15k when the US dollar was high, but now it is 25k CAD which is about 22k USD.

are you talking about the cost of dental education? and i assume you are talking about canadian schools?

public dental schools in US are about 20-30K/year, just for the tuition/instruments/books/etc. Private ones are 30-40K/year!

 

[tx oms]

Also, sales tax pays a huge amount of the healthcare for people. Medicare (at least here in New York) requires that the county pays for 1/2 of the bill while the federal government pays the remainder. This is why so many counties are is such financial distress, not enough workers paying state taxes and not enough people buying locally. So how does having millions of illegal aliens, paying both income tax and sales tax, not support the economy. They are in essence paying for the healthcare for many lazy americans collecting welfare.

Most illegals are getting cash under the table. They are not paying those taxes. I would guess only 10% pay taxes under a false SSN. Still, I can't believe you're saying that someone who knowingly and willfully came to this country ILLEGALLY should have state benefits. If you break the law there are consequences. I hardly think paying taxes under an illegal SSN and not getting any services for it is a huge price to pay for their law-breaking.

 

[tx oms]

Can I draw a parallel to the supposed "right to education"? The US provides free primary education. If the government isn't responsible for your birth, they should not be responsible for your schooling. And people who have no kids should not subsidize those with children. And people who can't afford school should not have kids. Imagine the tax savings!

I am out of good parallels at the moment, but I am thinking along these lines: the government is not responsible for protecting us, we should not pay tax to get police and fire services, and those who can afford it can hire privately. Others take their tax savings and make the choice to buy booze.

I agree, the government shouldn't be in education.

As for police and fire, those are government responsibilites. The local government should provide basic protection to it's citizens. In fact, the most basic purpose of government is protection, not social welfare.

 

[tx oms]

There is a part in the universal declaration of human rights that states "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." Can that be contrued to mean denial of life-saving medical procedures (due to cost) as infringing on a person's basic rights? I will assume we can agree that surgery and drugs are in general more directly linked to "life" than ice cream. Although I have not had rocky road in 10+ years...

Survival of the fittest has been the rule for 6000+ years. Only since the turn of the century and the rise of socialism and humanism has that rule been questioned. For some reason some people think life should be fair. Nature/god seem to feel otherwise as people are still born with genetic issues that all the tears in the world won't fix. Not everyone will live to be 95. If living that long is a high priority you will work to do everything in your power to make it happen. If healthcare is a struggle for you to afford but you want it bad enough you'll do what everyone else with goals does: work to accomplish it.

 

[Frank Cavitation]

are you talking about the cost of dental education? and i assume you are talking about canadian schools?

public dental schools in US are about 20-30K/year, just for the tuition/instruments/books/etc. Private ones are 30-40K/year!

I too was listing only the cost of tuition/instruments. There are no private universities in Canada, but an international student (i.e. from US) must pay 42k/yr

Here is a breakdown of costs from my old school

http://www.fmd.uwo.ca/dentistry/docs/05-06_Budgets.pdf

 

[Frank Cavitation]

Survival of the fittest has been the rule for 6000+ years.

you want it bad enough you'll do what everyone else with goals does: work to accomplish it..

You are strongly suggesting that there are adequate opportunities for even the lowest socioeconomic echelon to become self-sufficient and successful. And I am sure we can pull anecdotes of people who came out of the slums to become doctors and lawyers. But isn't it true that most successful people come from successful (or at least average) families? And I think if we took away free public education then there will be even fewer success stories coming from the slums.

If we talk about survival of the fittest, there is a genetic component. Are the richest people also going to breed the brightest kids? Or are there bright people in the slums who have terrible parents, and require free healthcare/ education to grow up to be useful individuals?

 

[EyeAmCommi]

I agree, the government shouldn't be in education.

Lol.

This is the last time I'm taking tx om's posts seriously.

Now he's gonna try to say that education is NOT a right.

 

[TKD]

Taxes are quite high actually. Not 50% but enough to be a pain compared to US. http://www.taxtips.ca/ontax.htm
If I put in 150k as self-employment income, without deductions, I have to pay 55k in tax, and that's about 37%. I don't know much about US tax rates, but found a calculator which gave 35k as the tax I would have to pay.

One difference (for non-specialists, anyway) is that HMO/PPO are not prevalent here which tends to keep billings higher.

Dental degrees may be 15k when the US dollar was high, but now it is 25k CAD which is about 22k USD.

37% is what i had in mind for Canadian tax. much different than 50% which was posted earlier. now when i pay 32% in NY, then health insurance, and eventually tuiton for kids, etc., it isn't that much different.

i stand corrected regarding tuition. when i was a 2nd yr dental student in NY, tuiton for Canadian students whose residence was in Quebec for an entire degree was 15K - this was for McGill and another dental school in Montreal. I understand that tuiton has risen considerably in the past few yrs. also, i believe the schools in Ontario are more expensive. doesn't change my point, which is overall, tuition in Canadian universities (whether undergraduate or professional) is about 1/2 that of the US publics, and 1/4 that of US privates.

 

[Cold Front]

Because when the right to life clause was written, they had triple bypass surgery in mind

Don't get technical on this issue...

According to the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one’s family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care.”

Then again, this country hardly cares about what the UN thinks about anything these days...

 

[leia05]

I would hardly call our current econmic standing "robust and stable," in reality we are teetering on the brink of economic disaster. It is far too detailed to get into here, but our Country sold us out economically in 1913 with the creation of the Federal Reserve, and further sold us out and essentially sealed our economic fate in 1971 by closing the gold window and eliminated a currency backed by gold. If you are really interested in discussing this matter further then private message me, cause we could go on forever here.

word of warning, i'm typing as i'm thinking so this may not flow extremely well...

great point gestapito...and please forgive me if i'm wrong since i'm still learning (aren't we all), but with the loss of the gold standard i am reminded of the days from the american civil war when the value of confederate money was driven WAY down such that it was virtually worthless. isn't anyone worried that with inflation being what it is and job security seemingly decreasing as well that our economy really is in trouble? also, sorry if this sounds childish, but does anyone else recall reading aesop's fables and the like, such as the parable of the ant and the grasshopper? ant = hardworking and good at prioritizing values while grasshopper = lazy bum who'd rather let someone else work and then tries to capitalize on that other's work. i'm sorry but i don't agree with my money going to support those who are not willing to support themselves even to a small degree. they are also lazy because no one calls them on their actions. those who abuse government programs do so because they know they can get away with it, which leaves less money available for those whose finances are such that they cannot meet their basic necessities on their own. so many problems in this country stem from a lack of personal responsibility, yet no one can force another person to embrace said responsibility since it is something that must come from within oneself. hell, i saw it all the time at my previous job and throughout my years of school. as for corporations going overseas, they are *****s. do they really expect outsourcing to be such a great change longterm from staying in one's home country? after all, by moving overseas, they have start-up expenses and wages and training to be considered. plus over time, the economy of those nations will rise and the workers will eventually demand the same treatment that our workers here at home do. so what is really gained longterm? supporting jobs at home means you know that your workers will actually have the money to buy your products, thereby ensuring your sales and a fairly stable workforce and also helps to keep a healthy economy growing. going back to my earlier remark about responsibility though, i'm curious as to how much money in healthcare is spent upon people who know that unprotected sex can result in the financial burden of children they can't really afford as well as the possibility of transmitted diseases that will require longterm medical care...not to mention money spent in ER's on gangbangers who think shooting people is fun or on drug addicts who lie, cheat, and steal or on the victim of abuse because someone didn't teach the abuser that hurting another person like that is wrong??? i honestly believe that some of that responsibility comes from our parents instilling it in us as children while we are still impressionable. how much $ could be diverted to needier areas of medicine if people would only act upon those basic principles of right and wrong? i wonder if anyone else will agree with me.

 

[Frank Cavitation]

those who abuse government programs do so because they know they can get away with it, which leaves less money available for those whose finances are such that they cannot meet their basic necessities on their own. so many problems in this country stem from a lack of personal responsibility, yet no one can force another person to embrace said responsibility since it is something that must come from within oneself. hell, i saw it all the time at my previous job and throughout my years of school. as for corporations going overseas, they are *****s. do they really expect outsourcing to be such a great change longterm from staying in one's home country?

kinda offtopic, but interesting so I'll respond...

It is hard to establish a system to figure out which poor guy deserves welfare. So it is either all (bleeding heart) or none (tx omfs).

I don't blame corporations from doing what they do. They are not human and their sole purpose is to make a profit and increase share price. Short term gains are what shareholders want. People that have a vision will get fired and replaced by quickfixers. The solution must come from government.

 

[TucsonDDS]

Most illegals are getting cash under the table. They are not paying those taxes. I would guess only 10% pay taxes under a false SSN. Still, I can't believe you're saying that someone who knowingly and willfully came to this country ILLEGALLY should have state benefits. If you break the law there are consequences. I hardly think paying taxes under an illegal SSN and not getting any services for it is a huge price to pay for their law-breaking.

Then you should really be complaining about the americans who hired the illegals not paying there fair share of taxes, not the workers. The business owners, if paying their employees under the table are then not only paying the SSI and medicare but they are not paying the employment taxes or any of the other taxes that are associated with having the employee. Maybe they are taking this money that they are stealing from the US people so they can pay for their health insurance. Those illegals may have come across the border illegally but at least they are providing a needed service that many times sits unfilled by americans. If it weren't for these illegals picking your strawberries and artichokes then could you imagine what the prices on our produce would be. The increase costs of goods and services would probably make you wish you would have just paid for their health insurance.

 

[DrBowtie]

Don't get technical on this issue...

According to the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one’s family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care.”

Then again, this country hardly cares about what the UN thinks about anything these days...

Here is the kicker: What do you think should encompass medical care?
You can already walk into an ER in the US if you have an emergent injury and be treated regardless of ability to pay.

All in all we have philosophical differences. The government is already the most inefficient organization in this country. Imagine adding in the responsibility of healthcare for the entire nation.

Medicine/Dentistry would turn into Law School. The bottom of the barrel dentists/medstudents would become "public defenders" while the cream of the crop get the specialties and continue to serve the rich. IMO it would widen the gap between SES.

 

[JavadiCavity]

Lol.

This is the last time I'm taking tx om's posts seriously.

Now he's gonna try to say that education is NOT a right.

Education is not a right. And, it's a perfect example of how something that started off with good intentions has almost completed imploded--because of the governemnt! Public education in this country is underfunded and poorly managed. It is pitiful how many graduating seniors are poorly educated. Because of the underfunding, states can't hire enough teachers, provide enough materials, have to cut programs like music, art, and PE, can't afford to build more schools leading to too many students per classroom, and an inability to keep schools safe from violence, drugs and alcohol.

But, by all means, let's turn over healthcare to the government. They are doing such a good job managing medicaid and medicare that it would be paradise under the reign of the beauracrats. During the last election, the hot topic was Medicare reform. I imagine it'll still be a hot topic come the next election with the millions of seniors we have in this country.

My suggestion, although I won't lengthen this post with support for it, is to keep the burden on the private individual. Let the government maintain and continue to create new incentives for people to save money towards retirement and their healthcare. Create more incentives for businesses to offer retirement health options for their employees. Everytime we get a democrat in the oval office or a democratic majority in the senate, we decide to raise taxes on businesses so that we can take care of the poor by offering more programs. Effectively burning up an individual and a business's profits making it less attractive to provide better incentives for their employees.

My stance is that the government's only roles should be to create an environment that encourages individuals and businesses to take healthcare into their own hands, and to enforce the fair-play, "arm's length" transactions that make this economy turn. And, lastly, to stop pacifiying or justifying the attitude of greedy, lazy Americans who think that the day will never come that they'll need to stay in the hospital, but if they do, Uncle Sam will take care of the bill.

 

[jimbobb23]

Can we recognize rights that depend on others for their fulfillment?

Imagine a society of 100 people, and only 1 doctor. Let's say that the people vote that healthcare is a right, and that it should be free for everyone. They pool their money and pay the doctor - but only half what the doctor was making.

The doctor decides that he no longer wants to work as a physician, its too hard for the pay. So, now no one has health care which is supposedly an innate right? How can that be? Should they force the physician to take care of them? Should they take away his right to freedom of profession choice and association to fulfill their desire for free health care (they have already taken away his "right" to get paid what the market dictates)?

A few people have alluded to reasons our healthcare system is messed up (it is), but many have ignored the fact that much of it is messed up by the governments continued interference. They created some very weird markets where the people who consume the healthcare are relatively detached from the costs (does any company pay for your car insurance? why do they pay for health coverage?). Anyhow, lots of problems. The insurance companies are not the problems. See any problems with other insurance markets that the government does not have a hand in?

Anyway. American doctors seem to favor nationalized healthcare, while lamenting their wages being hurt by Medicare. We are the suicidal profession. I have never seen lawyers agitating for free lawyer-care.

So, just so we understand how this has worked in most other countries - if the US goes to universal government healthcare doctors wages will drop very quickly (no one cares if you screw doctors - apparently not even doctors). Doctors then decide that its not worth being overworked and over stressed for bad wages, and they demand to work less. Additional shortages are created. Many people who would have been doctors go into other fields where the market pays them what they are worth, and the quality of medicine goes down as the quality of doctor goes down.

This have happened everywhere - so its not clear why so many US docs think we will be the first country ever to have socialized healthcare and high pay. I just pray that if it comes we will have a two tiered system of public and private (India does) and I can be private.

By the way- if you think medicine is a right, instead of trying to change the law, why don't you just work for $40,000 a year and provide the rest of your services free right now?

Back to work.

 

[jimbobb23]

Education is not a right. Public education in this country is underfunded and poorly managed.

We pay more per student than almost any other nation. We are far over-funded, but funding is not correlated with outcomes (well, strictly speaking, it is inverse, but no one thinks that's causal)

 

[computerguy9355]

whats the point of arguing about who deserve the right ? i mean is that going to change the way government and healthcare runs? the answer is no

there are people sent to ER everyday for serious injuries, some of them can't afford health insurance, does it mean that they do not have the right to get treated ? if you think they do not have a right to get treated unless they pay for it first , then i am sorry you are a messed up person

 

[DrBowtie]

whats the point of arguing about who deserve the right ? i mean is that going to change the way government and healthcare runs? the answer is no

there are people sent to ER everyday for serious injuries, some of them can't afford health insurance, does it mean that they do not have the right to get treated ? if you think they do not have a right to get treated unless they pay for it first , then i am sorry you are a messed up person

This is where is gets sticky. Why should healthcare be treated any different than other commodities?

Essentially you are saying it is ok to steal someone's services.

 

[Frank Cavitation]

This is where is gets sticky. Why should healthcare be treated any different than other commodities?

Essentially you are saying it is ok to steal someone's services.

It's not stealing, we pay our taxes knowing full well it might be used for someone who burned themselves making meth

May I ask you which services should be provided for unproductive lazy people? Education, police/fire, legal representation? All of those require funding from tax. An unproductive lazy person gives nothing to the nation and thus has no rights?

 

[DrBowtie]

It's not stealing, we pay our taxes knowing full well it might be used for someone who burned themselves making meth

May I ask you which services should be provided for unproductive lazy people? Education, police/fire, legal representation? All of those require funding from tax. An unproductive lazy person gives nothing to the nation and thus has no rights?

Federal Gov or State Gov? The distinction should be made.

 

[computerguy9355]

This is where is gets sticky. Why should healthcare be treated any different than other commodities?

Essentially you are saying it is ok to steal someone's services.

exactly, i do agree steal someone's service is not right

take this for example

a person claims that his teeth hurts, so he stopped by at a hospital without a health insurance. Now tell me is he going to get treated without any cost? the answer is probably no since the problem is not that SERIOUS.

healthcare will always be there and it will be provided to people with "serious injuries" who can not afford health insurance at little or no cost at all. Maybe you guys have never been to Taiwan before, but their healthcare system is messed up beyond repair, as long as you are a taiwan citizen, you can get a healtcare for free!

So consider yourself lucky in the U.S. where heathcare isn't that bad

just like tx oms said, you get to live with the consquences for the profession you choose. if you don't like the way healthcare runs, then don't be a doctor, be something else.

 

[jimbobb23]

Some comments in your comments.

Exorbitant profits made by insurers

What is that? Microsoft has an insanely high profit margin - should we nationalize them?

One big insurance company (the federal gov) is better than a million little private insurance companies I think. The idea is unsexy because it implies bigger government but it is financially sound not just for patients and welfare peeps but also for us and for honest hardworking working class people (there are hardworking Americans who cannot afford coverage and don ‘t have plasma tvs and x-boxes).

This is a very theoretical situation, that does not bear out in real world industries. The reasons are many, but the primary is their is no incentive for this insurer (the government) to be efficient. The government has economic incentives as well, but none of them are in the consumers interest, they are in the interest of maximizing their bureaucratic fiefdom. Just think about any other item for sale: cars, clothes, food. Is it really better if there is just one supplier?

government can use its leverage (through its 300,000000 covered lives) to negotiate with pharmaceuticals a drug-sales profit that is acceptable to both parties... Stocks of Public corporations that produce/sale healthcare-related products would become utility stocks--like the case of Con Eddison.

Guess what - the current prices for drugs are acceptable to everyone. Shocking, I know. But, if they were not, the drugs would not sell. Whenever a sale occurs you know the price was agreeable to the buyer and seller. Its almost like magic, or economics, or something.

What you want is to negotiate a price that squeezes pharm companies. This is a bad idea, because unlike Con Eddison medical innovators are extremely high risk (thus high reward). If their profits are artificially reduced to the same as Con Eddison, than the capital available for research will go somewhere else like Google or Exxon or Wal-Mart. I want newer and better drugs for my patients, not Con Eddison mentality.

if you don’t make a lot of money than don’t have kids, don’t buy a car…etc. to those I say, is having kids or a car the right of the rich now or what? …..Does that mean that a mother should live with abuse or an unfaithful husband just because divorce would be a burden, healthcare-wise? It is absurd to expect a single mother not to spend money on herself just so that she can have some savings handy for health problems.

Ad reductum absurdam. We went from spend your money wisely and make good choices to living with abuse.

At this point, the U.S has 40,000000 uninsured American citizens (let alone non-citizens), about 1/8th of the population. Their cries don’t matter much now. But as this number grows, watch how the system will crumble violently.

A good portion of these people qualify for current programs but do not participate. Another sizable portion have higher incomes ($50,000+) but simply do not want health coverage. The proportion of people who want health coverage (not insurance -that's cheap) but cannot is smaller - like 12 million if I remember correctly. We could give them all care by redistributing current systems (less to more).

the current U.S healthcare system is unsustainable, and the emergency rooms will fall apart at some point. We can choose to lie on the sand with our asses facing the sun and wait for this social/medical disaster to come or we can discuss alternatives. The contention that the status quo is good and the alternative is big government is unrealistic and simply useless.

I agree - current system is bad. I will offer alternatives.
1. Remove tax favored status for corporations that offer coverage as a perk. Remove government barriers to health coverage. The intended result is that individuals will buy their own insurance or coverage. The connects the costs and benefits with the consumers. This will solve huge problems. After this change shakes out over years, we will then need to re-evaluate the system.

2. Cap lawsuit rewards.

I am in awe over these two programs because one has to give credit for a federal government that tries to neutralize market-based capitalism with socialistic elements through gigantic programs administered to a population of 300,000000. No matter how bad their job is at executing this task, it is still amazing that these programs are working and helping millions of Americans (from crack ******—unfortunately--to elderly working class men who spent their entire lives cleaning our streets and working the assembly line).

You are easily impressed. Everyday corporations move millions of tons of goods all across the county, employ millions of people, and participate in millions of transactions, jump through byzantine regulations, and do all this while striving to outdo their competitors. The government can't evacuate or get water to a few thousand people in a disaster zone over weeks.

The question is not whether they are working or helping, but are they doing it better (cheaper, faster, ect) than alternative? Well, no way. For every dollar taxed for welfare, the recipient received 13 cents. That's pathetic.

I think it all comes down to our feelings towards wealth redistribution.

What I argue here is that wealth redistribution is a necessity, not a mere dreamy egalitarian option. It is also a matter of avoiding revolution. Do you wanna live in a world of a few aristocrats surrounded by disenchanted working class masses who would be waiting for an opportunity to attack you and your families? Yes…survival measures can be that extreme (I’d rather have a coercive system take a buck or two from me every month as opposed to a mob of angry poor people behead me and my family)
….Finally, it’s a matter of compassion.

The arguments I presented in favor of wealth redistribution are the same ones I think of when I consider universal healthcare. We do not live in fantasy land.

Viva le revolution. Power to the proleteriat! Blah. We are so rich in the US that poor people have shoes and TVs. Who is going to revolt when they are rolling in money. I am a beggar compared to Bill Gates, but I live ok since I worked my tail off everyday (my parents did not do so hot at the game of life) so I am not about to start a revolution. As all those sad marxist learned, there is no revolution when the poor are rich. Which they are in western nations that embrace free markets.

Now, I am sympathetic to many arguments about this (inner city kids getting asthma treatment at the ER is a miserable life). So, here is a potential compromise that gives universal healthcare to all people in the US (but ditches medicare and SS). I don't like it because wealth redistribution forced by the government (wealth is always redistributing between groups in free markets) repulses me, but it is a compromise.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printed...,1,7224402.story?coll=la-headlines-suncomment

 

[jimbobb23]

exactly, i do agree steal someone's service is not right

take this for example

a person claims that his teeth hurts, so he stopped by at a hospital without a health insurance. Now tell me is he going to get treated without any cost? the answer is probably no since the problem is not that SERIOUS.

healthcare will always be there and it will be provided to people with "serious injuries" who can not afford health insurance at little or no cost at all. Maybe you guys have never been to Taiwan before, but their healthcare system is messed up beyond repair, as long as you are a taiwan citizen, you can get a healtcare for free!

So consider yourself lucky in the U.S. where heathcare isn't that bad

just like tx oms said, you get to live with the consquences for the profession you choose. if you don't like the way healthcare runs, then don't be a doctor, be something else.

What about private citizen funding these ER visits. Perhaps people of good-will could make a fund that helps out. I heard a rumor this type of thing happens in other places...

 

[Frank Cavitation]

Federal Gov or State Gov? The distinction should be made.

alas, I have lost the discussion due to information asymmetry. Let me go learn about the responsibilities of each layer of government

never been to Taiwan before, but their healthcare system is messed up beyond repair, as long as you are a taiwan citizen, you can get a healtcare for free!

messed up beyond repair = bad
healthcare for free = good
which is it?

In Canada it is free for most healthcare, and messed up not quite to the point of beyond repair.

 

[DrBowtie]

What about private citizen funding these ER visits. Perhaps people of good-will could make a fund that helps out. I heard a rumor this type of thing happens in other places...

I agree 100%. The burden should be shifted from the government to private charities for "welfare".

 

[Cold Front]

Here is the kicker: What do you think should encompass medical care?
You can already walk into an ER in the US if you have an emergent injury and be treated regardless of ability to pay.

All in all we have philosophical differences. The government is already the most inefficient organization in this country. Imagine adding in the responsibility of healthcare for the entire nation.

Medicine/Dentistry would turn into Law School. The bottom of the barrel dentists/medstudents would become "public defenders" while the cream of the crop get the specialties and continue to serve the rich. IMO it would widen the gap between SES.

I concur, and a great response and analogy if I may add.

The federal government failed to act responsibly on this issue.

 

[esclavo]

Can I draw a parallel to the supposed "right to education"? The US provides free primary education. If the government isn't responsible for your birth, they should not be responsible for your schooling. And people who have no kids should not subsidize those with children. And people who can't afford school should not have kids. Imagine the tax savings!

I am out of good parallels at the moment, but I am thinking along these lines: the government is not responsible for protecting us, we should not pay tax to get police and fire services, and those who can afford it can hire privately. Others take their tax savings and make the choice to buy booze.

Education is the great equalizer and it is just an opportunity not a right. The government offers the opportunity for education but it isn't a right! Education is unique in that it gives you opportunity but it guarantees nothing. It is still up to you in the end to do well in education. It isn't something on a silver platter which requires no individual effort!

I believe government should protect people but it can't protect them from themselves. The focus should be on the individual. The responsibility should be on the individual. Then and only then will you get sustaining results. The government or any other organization should only minimally assist the individual not suplant their responsibility for their life, decisions, or future.

Name one of those countries that doesn't have about a 50% tax. None of those other countries have even close to the socioeconomic mobility that this country has. If you are a poor imigrant in France you are screwed even if you work hard. If you are a poor imigrant in this country and you work hard and you have the greatest opportunity to jump the social strata.

 

[martinelli]

Lol.

This is the last time I'm taking tx om's posts seriously.

Now he's gonna try to say that education is NOT a right.

Yes, same here. A fascist Darwinist-that one.

Tx oms, Darwin formulated his theory by studying ANIMALS! Also, please don't pretend to open a window of discussion when you have already barricaded your views with barbed wires.

 

[leia05]

Education is the great equalizer and it is just an opportunity not a right. The government offers the opportunity for education but it isn't a right! Education is unique in that it gives you opportunity but it guarantees nothing. It is still up to you in the end to do well in education. It isn't something on a silver platter which requires no individual effort!

I believe government should protect people but it can't protect them from themselves. The focus should be on the individual. The responsibility should be on the individual. Then and only then will you get sustaining results. The government or any other organization should only minimally assist the individual not suplant their responsibility for their life, decisions, or future.

Name one of those countries that doesn't have about a 50% tax. None of those other countries have even close to the socioeconomic mobility that this country has. If you are a poor imigrant in France you are screwed even if you work hard. If you are a poor imigrant in this country and you work hard and you have the greatest opportunity to jump the social strata.

thank you... it all boils down to responsibility...a horrible thing most people nowadays shy away from *please note the sarcasm*

 

[EyeAmCommi]

Education is not a right. And, it's a perfect example of how something that started off with good intentions has almost completed imploded--because of the governemnt! Public education in this country is underfunded and poorly managed. It is pitiful how many graduating seniors are poorly educated. Because of the underfunding, states can't hire enough teachers, provide enough materials, have to cut programs like music, art, and PE, can't afford to build more schools leading to too many students per classroom, and an inability to keep schools safe from violence, drugs and alcohol.

But, by all means, let's turn over healthcare to the government. They are doing such a good job managing medicaid and medicare that it would be paradise under the reign of the beauracrats. During the last election, the hot topic was Medicare reform. I imagine it'll still be a hot topic come the next election with the millions of seniors we have in this country.

My suggestion, although I won't lengthen this post with support for it, is to keep the burden on the private individual. Let the government maintain and continue to create new incentives for people to save money towards retirement and their healthcare. Create more incentives for businesses to offer retirement health options for their employees. Everytime we get a democrat in the oval office or a democratic majority in the senate, we decide to raise taxes on businesses so that we can take care of the poor by offering more programs. Effectively burning up an individual and a business's profits making it less attractive to provide better incentives for their employees.

My stance is that the government's only roles should be to create an environment that encourages individuals and businesses to take healthcare into their own hands, and to enforce the fair-play, "arm's length" transactions that make this economy turn. And, lastly, to stop pacifiying or justifying the attitude of greedy, lazy Americans who think that the day will never come that they'll need to stay in the hospital, but if they do, Uncle Sam will take care of the bill.

Thanks for your well-thought-out response about education Javadi. However, I have to disagree with the assertion that the US government is unfit to handle education. Education is most certainly a right and the government has made sure that this is so by providing K-12 education for everyone but not everyone has to exercise this right.

Certainly there are many examples we can use to see how the school system has failed communities and we can say that this is directly the fault of the government by not providing funding, teaching incentives, etc. However, a study was conducted in New Orleans with the Vietnamese community there. They are relatively new to this country with most of the population unable to speak English. They have low human capital, no college degrees, no skills (they worked as fishermen and such), lived in dire poverty worse than the blacks of New Orleans and yet their children excelled in the underperforming, black, "poorly funded" schools of New Orleans. In Lousiana, the state handed out 9 scholarships and 7 out of those were Vietnamese students! (Minh Zhou)

The most obvious conclusion is that education and learning MUST be a cultural issue. American families simply don't have the culture that fosters learning like the ones in Asia. Those Viets carried with them the immigrant mentality that enabled them to work hard and overcome the social barriers in an environment (New Orleans) in which the government has supposedly "forgotten about."

The government has done a fantastic job of providing infrastructure and funding for education. Take the UC system for instance which is a great example of what the government can achieve when they enroll students who actually want to be there. It's unfortunate that the average American doesn't value their K-12 education and the problem begins in the household, not with the Board of Education. Bill Cosby will agree with me (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=/SpecialReports/archive/200407/SPE20040702a.html).

About healthcare, I mostly agree with you Javadi about how the government should foster individual enterprise but we can't overlook the hard working, tax paying Americans who are uninsured because they don't work for a company that provides health insurance. For healthcare, I offer no opinion until a good solution presents itself. I am not in support of a federally funded Hilarycare-type reform but I'm not against it either because the government already spends a buttload on healthcare.

 

[Frank Cavitation]

Education is the great equalizer and it is just an opportunity not a right. The government offers the opportunity for education but it isn't a right! Education is unique in that it gives you opportunity but it guarantees nothing. It is still up to you in the end to do well in education. It isn't something on a silver platter which requires no individual effort!

I agree with many of your points. Here you suggest that education is not a right, but you have no problem with it being offered by the government, so that a lowly immigrant's child can have the opportunity to climb the social strata through hard work.

Let me now portray healthcare as an opportunity. A child with poor uneducated parents will have more opportunities if he has free access to annual checkups at the family doctor. As will a child with curable leukemia. These individuals are different from the 40 year old welfare claimant who makes bad choices in life. Should the government take money from all taxpayers and provide free health care to every child?

 

[EyeAmCommi]

Education is the great equalizer and it is just an opportunity not a right. The government offers the opportunity for education but it isn't a right! Education is unique in that it gives you opportunity but it guarantees nothing.

I think most people in this thread have misused the word "right". A right is never guaranteed and can be taken away at the government's whim. Criminals have lost certain rights (such as the right to bear arms). International terrorists have no rights.

Like I've posted before, education is a right because it must be offered with no barriers (financial, racial, class, gender) and everyone must have a fair chance at receiving an education. It is the duty of every government to provide this.