Healthcare is NOT a right!

[esclavo]

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?

BASIC Education is an opportunity/luxury (not a right)to give each person a chance to fulfill their potential. The percentage of people from the age of 3 to 18 who need REAL medical intervention is a low percentage. BASIC EDUCATION is the opportunity. It is the only REAL tangible thing the government does that ACTUALLY rewards the dilligent one by one! Education is one of the only things that correlates with crime, wealth, and change in socioeconomic status, BUT the individual has to contribute TREMENDOUSLY for that to be so (many go through-and education does nothing for them because they are lazy, idol, short-sighted individuals). When the government does things that makes the individual WORK HARD to develop themselve and personally sacrifice a lot, then it is making that person self sufficient. I think handing out medical care indiscriminately which is what nationalized-"health care for everyone" does, requires nothing of the individual....it won't help our current health care situation but only hurt it....any health care solution which does not require the active and dilligent participation of the patient both financially and lifestyle-wise, is only going to be a cluster !#$$% for this country.

Welfare-Healthcare, just doesn't work because it requires nothing of the individual! Work will win when wishy washy wishing won't!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[JavadiCavity]

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.

Healthcare cannot be refused to an individual based on race, class, or gender. I also can't refuse to sell groceries to someone just because they are of a different race, class, or gender...not without serious consequences. But, buying groceries isn't a right, it's a privelege that is earned when I trade my services for cash.

Not picking on you Eye, just enjoying the argument.

 

[aphistis]

Healthcare cannot be refused to an individual based on race, class, or gender. I also can't refuse to sell groceries to someone just because they are of a different race, class, or gender...not without serious consequences. But, buying groceries isn't a right, it's a privelege that is earned when I trade my services for cash.

Not picking on you Eye, just enjoying the argument.

No, but you can refuse to give groceries to someone who is unable to pay for them. They aren't allowed to use the excuse "I'm hungry and I don't have any money" to go rummaging through your store aisles at whim.

I think this example is particularly apt, Cyrus, given that food is even more important to good health than medical care.

 

[tx oms]

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?

1. Everyone has a family member who rose from serfdom to success, as it were. Maybe that family member was 10 generations ago or maybe that family member was last generation.

2. Self-sufficiency and success do not necessarily mean college education and advanced schooling.

 

[tx oms]

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.

Very insightful, communist. It's not even guaranteed by our constitution. BTW, I've never taken your posts seriously as your name suggests you believe in a political and social system which has proven a failure.

 

[Hardbody]

1. Everyone has a family member who rose from serfdom to success, as it were. Maybe that family member was 10 generations ago or maybe that family member was last generation.

2. Self-sufficiency and success do not necessarily mean college education and advanced schooling.

Nice response. I get upset every time I hear people talk about how everything is unfair. It really makes me sick. Of course nothing is fair. Would you rather be born in the worst ghetto in this country or your average village in Africa? In this country at least you have a chance, and for some of us, that is all we need!

 

[tx oms]

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...

Man, if the UN said it, it must be true. Just like when Koffee-Cup Anan said Iraqi Oil for Food was legitimate.

 

[Hardbody]

Man, if the UN said it, it must be true. Just like when Koffee-Cup Anan said Iraqi Oil for Food was legitimate.

Believe it or not, I had a political science professor actually tell me that the world would be much more prosperous if the U.N. were running things (one world government). Yes, these people do exist. It is best to just laugh it off when you hear/read it.

 

[tx oms]

Can we recognize rights that depend on others for their fulfillment?...The insurance companies are not the problems. See any problems with other insurance markets that the government does not have a hand in?...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?

EXCELLENT points. I like the end: hey liberals, put YOUR money where your mouth is.

 

[tx oms]

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.

I see lots of discussion. About 7 pages worth. I'm sure the discussion has changed your mind as much as it has changed mine. I guess I'm the kettle and you're the pot.

 

[tx oms]

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.

You have misused the word "right". A right is guaranteed by the fact that one is human and is not given by anyone or any entity (like a government). Rights are eternal and can never be legititmately taken away. Chinese people have human rights which are illegitimately taken away by their government; however, their rights still exist. If enough people in China decided to reclaim their rights they could overthrow the government. Rights are something that are only lost when people allow government infringement. Of course, people must give up some rights, like total autonomy, in order to establish civilizationl.

Bearing arms is not a fundamental human right. It is a "right" (really a privelage) assigned by our government. Their is a right to self preservation, but not necessarily to owning a gun.

 

[Frank Cavitation]

Nice response. I get upset every time I hear people talk about how everything is unfair. It really makes me sick. Of course nothing is fair. Would you rather be born in the worst ghetto in this country or your average village in Africa? In this country at least you have a chance, and for some of us, that is all we need!

The comparison between Africa and the US is good. But I would rather be born in the worst ghetto in Sweden or Japan, instead of the states. That's because I am under the belief that they don't have very bad ghettos. The US, with ample natural/financial/technological resources, should have the best ghettos in the world, and they don't.

Left-leaning people think that it is a useful endeavor to spend public money to improve the standard of living for the poorest people. And hopefully increase the rate at which people emerge from "serfdom".

An important question which I have not figured out, is whether a nation should be gauged by the best citizens (America would excel here) or the average (maybe middle of the pack).

 

[Cold Front]

Man, if the UN said it, it must be true. Just like when Koffee-Cup Anan said Iraqi Oil for Food was legitimate.

Mr. Anan wasn't around in 1948!

 

[esclavo]

This thread is an example of how confused the left is. The government offers privileges, opportunities, and luxuries and all of the sudden the left wants to call them "rights". "I have a pothole in the street in the front of my house!!!" "Where is the government? Where is my right to a smooth street?!?!" Education, healthcare, food, services, sanitation, transportation, HEALTHCARE are all privileges, opportunities, and luxuries NOT rights. This is proof that government shouldn't get too big because it has created a whole society of people who think that the government should be providing all of these goods and services as a RIGHT just like life itself!

I can just see in 100 years of the pace we are keeping up either this country will fall apart or the left will be crying because they actually have to wipe their own butt and some government program doesn't have its "department of Butt wiping" up and running....we are creating a society of overconsumers, under preparers even though the per capita of disposable income has never been higher in this country even with inflation calculated in!!!! There is a trailer park filled with the "poor and down trodden" here in Urbana, Illinois. It has 138 trailers in it. What percentage do you think has a "dish" of some sort attached to it? I live in a middle class neighborhood with about 450 homes and what percentage of them have a dish attached to them? This country gives its poor so much and it really doesn't help them. They don't need handouts they need the opportunity to work their butts off and develop their mental capacity, not be given unlimited food/healthcare/toys for their children....you can't save people from themselves!

 

[jimbobb23]

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.

The question is not does the government do a passable job - its whether we can arrange our society in a way that does better? And we know we can because everywhere that starts to privatize education sees increasing outcomes in both the public/private and government schools. So, passable job is not enough for the amount of money in the system. We can do better and we know how.

 

[Frank Cavitation]

The government offers privileges, opportunities, and luxuries and all of the sudden the left wants to call them "rights". "I have a pothole in the street in the front of my house!!!" "Where is the government? Where is my right to a smooth street?!?!"

The debate in this thread about what is a right and what is a luxury is mostly one of semantics. I will just call it an "entitlement". Road repairs are paid for by property taxes, and as a taxpayer/rent tenant I am contributing to the pot. I feel that I am entitled to get potholes repaired, so I call the city and it gets fixed. The alternative is we pay less property taxes and roads are fixed by rich people who want their favorite roads repaired.

you can't save people from themselves

If you talk to enough poor people, you may find a few that have enough self-insight to tell you that they can't save themselves. That's one of the reasons paychecks are often directly deposited into bank accounts, and voluntary deductions made beforehand. Poor people know when cold hard cash goes into their hands they will make bad choices. I'd say that is the main reason behind "big government".

We should not say that free public education and medicare should be scrapped because of the sorry state that they are in. If they ought to exist then it should be reformed until it is acceptable.

 

[esclavo]

The debate in this thread about what is a right and what is a luxury is mostly one of semantics. I will just call it an "entitlement". Road repairs are paid for by property taxes, and as a taxpayer/rent tenant I am contributing to the pot. I feel that I am entitled to get potholes repaired, so I call the city and it gets fixed. The alternative is we pay less property taxes and roads are fixed by rich people who want their favorite roads repaired.


If you talk to enough poor people, you may find a few that have enough self-insight to tell you that they can't save themselves. That's one of the reasons paychecks are often directly deposited into bank accounts, and voluntary deductions made beforehand. Poor people know when cold hard cash goes into their hands they will make bad choices. I'd say that is the main reason behind "big government".

We should not say that free public education and medicare should be scrapped because of the sorry state that they are in. If they ought to exist then it should be reformed until it is acceptable.

Just keep that sense of "entitlement" north of our border. I don't care what they do in Canada. They can hand out what ever they want on a stick. I don't pay taxes in Canada and I don't treat Canadians. I work in the USA, I treat people in this country. I've worked in hospitals and clinics. In emergency rooms and operating rooms. "Entitlement" in this country doesn't have a positive conotation....it is synonymous with "spoiled" or "out of touch with reality" or "not paying the price", or "I don't comprehend how outrageous my demands are" ....

 

[Frank Cavitation]

Just keep that sense of "entitlement" north of our border. I don't care what they do in Canada.

No need to be angry Canadians are taking small steps to be more like our big brother to the south, by electing the conservative party. And sadly, I will probably vote for them too, once I file a few more tax returns. But for now, I'd like to believe that good ideas can come from the left AND the right.

 

[Galen1]

I agree. One can be a moderate, or even a conservative and still stand-up for public health care. The notion that a public health care system = a socialist or at least left-leaning system of government is nonsense.

 

[fightingspirit]

I agree. One can be a moderate, or even a conservative and still stand-up for public health care. The notion that a public health care system = a socialist or at least left-leaning system of government is nonsense.

not just nonsense but also cruel and it reflects the paranoia over socialism...kinda like the red scare....

 

[DrBowtie]

I agree. One can be a moderate, or even a conservative and still stand-up for public health care. The notion that a public health care system = a socialist or at least left-leaning system of government is nonsense.

Maybe conservative as in the neo-Republicans of today, but a true conservative wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole.

 

[esclavo]

not just nonsense but also cruel and it reflects the paranoia over socialism...kinda like the red scare....

Paranoid no. I'm just not stuck on stupid. Avoidance of "cowpies" that others have stepped into would be called intelligence not paranoid. The "conservatives" (who are *****s also because they have lost the "traditionalists" which comprised the intelligent-steady-non-knee-jerk component of that sector) have no real answers. Conservatives have migrated so far to the left it is hard to tell them apart except you can identify one because they fight with the left.

The plan that works will make the individual bear primary burden of their decisions/body/life. It will require them to own their genes, susceptibilities, lifestyle, and health. A system that requires this will be a system that is the most efficient, cheap, and fair to society as a whole. It will keep people from being mad at anyone but themselves. It will keep people suffering or benefiting from who they are and what they are making of themselves. I believe government and insurance can play parts but they will be adjuncts and only be the main players when the general public is at risk (pandemics, epidemics, simple/cheap preventative high yield measures like fluoridation or vaccinations). Private, religious, humanitarian, philanthropic, and family organizations and others can help case by case based upon their own criteria. Then the individual can be so thankful and grateful for the care/mercy/goodwill/philanthropy they recieve which is beyond their own capacity to pay, instead of some of the public aid fodder that comes to the Emergency Room who are the trash of the earth and feel they are "entitled" to having someone fix their problem! Demanding, ranting and raving, ungrateful, blaming everyone else but themselves and expecting everyone else to go 100% to help and save them while they themselves are PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE for their condidtion. You neophites won't have to deal with this since many of you will be able to turn these patients away from your dental office to send to the Emergency Rooms/Hospitals.

 

[jimbobb23]

I agree. One can be a moderate, or even a conservative and still stand-up for public health care. The notion that a public health care system = a socialist or at least left-leaning system of government is nonsense.

As some others have said, unless words have no meanings, no you can't really be a "conservative" intellectually and favor universal healthcare funded by taxpayers through the government, unless you are engaging in some sort of intentional compromise whereby you get some other major concession - than you are being politically pragmatic. Somewhere in there you have crossed your philosophical wires or definitions. Almost by definition these proposals are socialist and left-leaning (which does not make them inherently wrong).

I favor public health care - just not involving the government.

 

[Yellow Snow]

The comparison between Africa and the US is good. But I would rather be born in the worst ghetto in Sweden or Japan, instead of the states. That's because I am under the belief that they don't have very bad ghettos. The US, with ample natural/financial/technological resources, should have the best ghettos in the world, and they don't. QUOTE]

I think this is important and I don't think the U.S. can pull off what Japan has been able to do but is now becoming unable to do.

Japan and Sweden are homogenous societies and therefore culture can overcome some of the selfish tendencies of the individual and semi-socialist healthcare systems can work. As Japan becomes less homogenous and its traditional culture erodes they are finding themselves unable to pay for their healthcare and their leaders are now suggesting U.S. style programs.

If anyone here has ever lived in a homogenous society then you have felt the power that the culture can have one controlling the behavior of the individual.

That is the key to semi-socialist healthcare systems like Japan, the individual must be the one to step up to the plate and be responsible. The U.S. is not homogenous and so culture cannot counter the selfish tendencies of the individual. This might be a good reason to talk about illegal immigration and California.

Please note that I am not idealizing homogenous societies or demonizing diverse societies, both have their unique complications. I just believe that culture has to counter the selfish tendencies of the individual in order for social healthcare to work and the U.S. is one of the last places where that model is a practical fit.

 

[Hardbody]

The comparison between Africa and the US is good. But I would rather be born in the worst ghetto in Sweden or Japan, instead of the states. That's because I am under the belief that they don't have very bad ghettos. The US, with ample natural/financial/technological resources, should have the best ghettos in the world, and they don't.

Left-leaning people think that it is a useful endeavor to spend public money to improve the standard of living for the poorest people. And hopefully increase the rate at which people emerge from "serfdom".

An important question which I have not figured out, is whether a nation should be gauged by the best citizens (America would excel here) or the average (maybe middle of the pack).

The reason that Japan doesn't have terrible ghettos is their culture. The Japanese culture values honor very highly, unlike this country. In the U.S. there are many that have the entitlement mentality, where they feel the government owes them a living. Good luck finding any significant number of Japanese citizens that feel like that about their country.

 

[molarama]

The reason that Japan doesn't have terrible ghettos is their culture. The Japanese culture values honor very highly, unlike this country. In the U.S. there are many that have the entitlement mentality, where they feel the government owes them a living. Good luck finding any significant number of Japanese citizens that feel like that about their country.

Interesting thread. agree w/ above statement. sense of pride is lacking here. society here is proud of being lazy and trying to get things the easy way. this is not a liberal or conservative thing either. it's funny how people everywhere love throwing around these labels - oh you don't agree you're a bleeding heart liberal, or you're a greedy neocon.
hey anyone who's worked in a medicaid clinic has seen how ungrateful people can be. on the other hand, would people on here say to parents of a cleft patient - (tolarova et al found the cost of treating these kids comprehensively into adulthood is 125K) - "pay up, if you can't well that's too bad." just suck it up even though your speech, feeding, maxillofacial growth and teeth would be horrible, i've read overly blunt comments probably for shock value, like, oh you're born poor, too bad. it seems to me whether someone is rich or poor, in some cases the state should have provisions for certian disease/illnesses.
sorry if this has been addressed in the post (didn't read all 7 pages!!). but where is the line drawn - what treatment ARE people entitled to??? i don't know the answers, just some thoughts to ponder.

 

[tx oms]

Interesting thread. agree w/ above statement. sense of pride is lacking here. society here is proud of being lazy and trying to get things the easy way. this is not a liberal or conservative thing either. it's funny how people everywhere love throwing around these labels - oh you don't agree you're a bleeding heart liberal, or you're a greedy neocon.
hey anyone who's worked in a medicaid clinic has seen how ungrateful people can be. on the other hand, would people on here say to parents of a cleft patient - (tolarova et al found the cost of treating these kids comprehensively into adulthood is 125K) - "pay up, if you can't well that's too bad." just suck it up even though your speech, feeding, maxillofacial growth and teeth would be horrible, i've read overly blunt comments probably for shock value, like, oh you're born poor, too bad. it seems to me whether someone is rich or poor, in some cases the state should have provisions for certian disease/illnesses.
sorry if this has been addressed in the post (didn't read all 7 pages!!). but where is the line drawn - what treatment ARE people entitled to??? i don't know the answers, just some thoughts to ponder.

People aren't entitled to any treatment. I would think a poor parent with a cleft baby could find a doctor to donate his services.

 

[Frank Cavitation]

People aren't entitled to any treatment. I would think a poor parent with a cleft baby could find a doctor to donate his services.

Eliminating so-called "welfare" services puts money back in the pockets of the populace... and then we have the choice to donate back money or services as we see fit (or keep it for our own use). I am totally without stats here, but there could be more people seeking donations (i.e. cleft babies) than donors (tx oms et al).

More importantly, from digesting both sides to this debate I have an interesting conclusion about L vs R with respect to universal healthcare, and welfare in general.

liberals just want to give money to the needy, ignoring the "collateral damage", i.e. paying deadbeats and encouraging their "entitlement" attitude.

cons want to deny the lazy bums, and the collateral damage in this case are the few cleft babies who have done no wrong and subjected to a life of poor nutrition/speech/etc.

neither side is perfect, but the conservatives have an edge because at the end of the day they have more cash in the wallet

 

[Hardbody]

Eliminating so-called "welfare" services puts money back in the pockets of the populace... and then we have the choice to donate back money or services as we see fit (or keep it for our own use). I am totally without stats here, but there could be more people seeking donations (i.e. cleft babies) than donors (tx oms et al).

More importantly, from digesting both sides to this debate I have an interesting conclusion about L vs R with respect to universal healthcare, and welfare in general.

liberals just want to give money to the needy, ignoring the "collateral damage", i.e. paying deadbeats and encouraging their "entitlement" attitude.

cons want to deny the lazy bums, and the collateral damage in this case are the few cleft babies who have done no wrong and subjected to a life of poor nutrition/speech/etc.

neither side is perfect, but the conservatives have an edge because at the end of the day they have more cash in the wallet

I think the belief that conservatives have more "cash in the wallet" is more myth than fact. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and George Soros are just a few names that come to mind when thinking of liberals with a few bucks in their wallet.

 

[esclavo]

I think the belief that conservatives have more "cash in the wallet" is more myth than fact. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and George Soros are just a few names that come to mind when thinking of liberals with a few bucks in their wallet.

I agree. The "conservatives" (not real conservatives in my book) are the ones who make between 60-500k per year. These people aren't independently wealthy but the working upper middle class and the working lower upper class. These people don't get the advantage of the wealthy (they still have to work hard) and they don't get the advantage of the low class (handouts). These people take it on the chin and feel every bit of it....

 

[Hardbody]

I agree. The "conservatives" (not real conservatives in my book) are the ones who make between 60-500k per year. These people aren't independently wealthy but the working upper middle class and the working lower upper class. These people don't get the advantage of the wealthy (they still have to work hard) and they don't get the advantage of the low class (handouts). These people take it on the chin and feel every bit of it....

Wow, you read my mind! It is frustrating for someone in my situation that is aspiring (busting their a$$) to be part of an upper-middle class or lower-uper class through hard work to hear someone like John Kerry, Howard Dean (Mr. 5th ave boy), or Ted Kennedy speak. John Kerry talked a big game about taxing "the rich" back in 2004, but what did that really mean? Translation, "I want to tax every hard working person who has done well for themselves in the country and give their money to the lazy (so I can get their votes). I need their votes so I can create tax loopholes through legislation that will allow me to pay next to nothing in taxes on the vast wealth that I have inherited".

I would respect these "old money" democrats more if they did as they said by giving away large sums of their own inherited wealth, or actually paying taxes on dividends earned on their investments. They are wolves in sheep's clothing. They play the class issue to get votes so they can get out of paying taxes. The sad part is, voters fall for it.

 

[esclavo]

I would respect these "old money" democrats more if they did as they said by giving away large sums of their own inherited wealth, or actually paying taxes on dividends earned on their investments. They are wolves in sheep's clothing. They play the class issue to get votes so they can get out of paying taxes. The sad part is, voters fall for it.

Exactly. They cry because of the tax cuts (all politics) but don't offer to pay more taxes for the causes they "feel so strongly about". I didn't see Kerry or Kenedy make the "most philanthropic" list by putting their money where their mouth is. During the early 90's under this kind of leadership, medicine was almost completely wrecked. Now I talk to doctors and they say, medicine isn't what it used to be and they have discouraged and are discouraging their kids from going into it....In 1973 medicaid/medicare payed 375 dollars to a surgeon for a hearnia repair, in 2006 it is 410 dollars.

I work at a private hospital. I look at the share-holders anual stock meeting minutes and the amount of bad debt, outstanding accounts is amazing. It comes down to 1 out of every 3 people that walks into the hospital will be treated for free. Guess who picks up the tab.... thats right the other 2. The number one and number two reasons that healthcare is going up is that if you are paying for your own care (insurance and out of your pocket) you are picking up the bill for others. Hospitals will raise the price until they cover themselves and push the load onto the 2/3 who pay or have insurance. The second is frivilous law suits. Settling every ridiculous complaint to avoid extended legal battles. Our hospital was put on this "in humane watch dog list as one of the 15 worst hospitals for not "bleeding our hearts out for the disadvantaged....if we are giving away 1 out of every three patients, I can't imagine what one of those "big hearted" hospitals gives away for nothing....

 

[kappa505]

Bump

 

[kappa505]

I am guilty of choosing cell phone and internet service over health care. Both of which, if I got rid of would provide health insurance for my self and my wife. We live off govt. loans, and she is a waitress supporting us. This is a CHOICE that we make. If we can afford health insurance by simply forgoing some luxuries (internet, cable tv, cell phone, iPOD, wearing a jacket in the winter instead of keeping the house really hot during winter, walking short distances to the store instead of driving, not to mention going out one night a week for drinks and food, drinking beer, eating out all the time, unused gym memberships) while our combined income is less than $20,000 a year, there is no reason why 95% of the United States can't pay for their own health insurance. I can admit that it is my choice, why is it so hard for others to admit that they choose BS over health care? They are choosing it, it is available for everyone that VALUES it. I get by, by paying out of pocket because I concentrate on PREVENTION for myself, not treatment. When I have a child, I will forgo these luxuries and buy health insurance, as my child is not able to choose for him/herself. I will be responsible for my own life as well as my families, why cant everyone else do the same? People already have the money to pay for it, they just have to value it more than American Idol, or text messaging. The saddest thing is that they don't value it, otherwise there would not be a problem.

 

[ptrianon]

I agree. The "conservatives" (not real conservatives in my book) are the ones who make between 60-500k per year. These people aren't independently wealthy but the working upper middle class and the working lower upper class. These people don't get the advantage of the wealthy (they still have to work hard) and they don't get the advantage of the low class (handouts). These people take it on the chin and feel every bit of it....

Perfectly stated. Liberals don't want to tax the rich, they want to tax those hardworking individuals who want to be rich, and there is nothing more destructive or un-democratic than that.

 

[EvolvedThought]

It must be nice to see everything so black and white. I hate to sound "holier than thou", but when addressing people and their healthcare, remember that these are people we are talking about, Not labels (crackwhores, bums, liberals, conservatives, etc.).

Remember that most of us are entering a profession where we self-proclaim that we want to help these people, not label them and treat them as tax-dollar trash-cans.

Think before you speak.

 

[lightfire22000]

An individual should help someone out who needs it especially if it is life threatening but they should not be compelled to politically.

For all you "healthcare is not a right" advocates that profess freedom, I encourage you to give consumers the freedom to buy any drug they want without a prescription from a "licensed" physician, effectively abolishing much of health care licensing.

Since this is a dentistry thread, most likely, you wouldn't need to save somebody's life. I would work out a payment plan with the patient or let them pay you later through loans.

 

[aphistis]

It must be nice to see everything so black and white. I hate to sound "holier than thou", but when addressing people and their healthcare, remember that these are people we are talking about, Not labels (crackwhores, bums, liberals, conservatives, etc.).

Remember that most of us are entering a profession where we self-proclaim that we want to help these people, not label them and treat them as tax-dollar trash-cans.

Think before you speak.

Most of the people you're addressing this comment to are in practice, and deal with these model citizens as part of our daily professional lives. In five or ten years, when you've had the chance to experience these issues as more than a philosophical abstraction, you might be surprised how much you find yourself agreeing with us. In the meantime, learn before you speak.