Originally Posted By Mr X lth care as a privilege is dead WRONG. "The judge wrote that his survey of case law “yielded no reported decisions from any federal appellate courts extending the Commerce Clause or General Welfare Clause to encompass regulation of a person’s decision not to purchase a product" <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/health/policy/14healt.." target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12...4healt..</a>. To view health care, including the means for obtaining it, as a product is exactly what's wrong with the insane right wing view on this literally life or death matter. Doctors don't have "customers", they have patients. And they DON'T sell products, they give orders. Right wingers will argue that health care is not a right, but they are absolutely wrong. This judge calls mandatory insurance unconstitutional, but I say that HIS view is the unconstitutional and un-American one. The Constitution, right off the bat, guarantees the right to LIFE. And what is health care if not a proven means of preventing premature death. Health care is not a commodity.
Originally Posted By Mr X Dang...my first paragraph got chopped somehow. What I wrote was - Okay, now I know some will argue that this genius of a judge is talking about insurance "products", but I say this attitude of health care as a privilege is dead WRONG.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt We will never move forward as a people as long as the rich have control over us. Please wake up people.
Originally Posted By Donny The judge is right.Just like there is no guarantee you will have a home to sleep in,a car to drive or a job, health care is something you need to provide for your self.
Originally Posted By Mr X Bull...the consitution doesn't guarantee ANY of those things Donny (in fact, most of those things were very different when the constitution was written). Would you tell a dying child who's parents happened to be deadbeats "hey, sorry kid, you don't have the right to medical care, you're parents should've done better"? How heartless could you be? And anyway, YES there are certain constitutional guarantees and the RIGHT to LIVE is one of them. How do you square that with denying medical care to people who's lives literally depend on it?
Originally Posted By Labuda Wow, you totally just went where I would have gone, X. Tea baggers seem to be big on honoring the Constitution, yet they are woefully ignorant of it. the right to life is guaranteed, ergo health care is a right.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Like many issues that divide us, the problem for me is that this isn't black or white. I think unemployment should really be for people who WANT to work and are TRYING to work but really cannot find a job. I don't think it should be the default program for unmotivated people. And, I view health care in a similar manner. I do not want to pay for the health care of an individual who has no intent to ever even try. Now, I fully understand that makes me sound callous. But, I will take it a step further. I have a family member (a cousin) who is experiencing some very difficult times. She is very "public" about these problems by sharing her stories on Facebook and through other means. A few years ago my wife and I were compelled to send her money to help her out. Since then she has had another child (though she could not afford the ones she already has) and she boasts of her frivolous spending just as publicly as she complains about her obstacles. There comes a point when our "assistance" is really enabling her to dig herself deeper. Again, I am a charitable person but this just isn't a simple issue for me.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I think unemployment should really be for people who WANT to work and are TRYING to work but really cannot find a job. I don't think it should be the default program for unmotivated people*** I agree. The problem is (and we all know it all too well) is that no generalized program can filter out ALL of the deadbeats without harming folks who are truly in trouble and in need of some public assistance. It's a balancing act, to be sure. ***And, I view health care in a similar manner. I do not want to pay for the health care of an individual who has no intent to ever even try*** I really can't agree that it's similar...I live in a country where death due to lack of medical insurance DOES NOT EXIST. Are there deadbeats in Japan? Sure. Can they see a doctor? Yes. Can their children? Yes. I'm sorry, but I find it to be very different issues frankly (even criminals enjoy the RIGHT to health care, as denying it to them constitutes cruel and unusual punishment...is it okay that in America you can die from lack of treatment UNLESS you kill someone, in which case you will GET the treatment you need to stay alive!!??). I do agree that these issues are *never* black and white...but I think at some point human compassion needs to play a part, as well as concern for the public good...do any of us really want to see poverty stricken Grandma or little baby Jane die for lack of medical care? In the ONE case (Grandma) she's got medicare. Why don't the rest of us have that same privilege? PARTICULARLY children (deadbeat parents or not!). ***Now, I fully understand that makes me sound callous*** Yeah, a little. But I understand where you're coming from. Throw in a touch of compassion (personal experiences aside), and you'd make a fine DINO. ***you can be in poor health and still have a life the 2 are not sanominous*** You can be in poor health for any number of reasons, some self-inflicted, some hereditary, some as a result of exposure to bad stuff like chemicals, and the list goes on...but the endgame is, most of the people in poor health will die without proper medical care. Are you fine with that? And I think the word you were looking for is "synonymous".
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<.but I think at some point human compassion needs to play a part, as well as concern for the public good...>> I think we should be looking at health care the way we look at other publicly funded offerings. Do people have a problem using public money to pay for clean water? Food Safety Inspections? How about road repairs? Electrical grids? All of those things are supported by public funds, and all help make society function. Health Care for all citizens should be just another of those things - something critical to keeping our society functioning at the level we all want it. It doesn't really matter whether it's a RIGHT or not - what should matter is that it will help make this country a better place to live for all its citizens.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<you can be in poor health and still have a life the 2 are not sanominous.>> I'm sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. It is virtually impossible to have a chronic medical condition that absolutely requires adequate and consistent medical care AND be able to work at a job that pays you enough to keep a roof over your head, clothes on your back, and food in your stomach WITHOUT that adequate and consistent medical care. PERIOD. There are millions of Americans who have medical conditions severe enough to qualify them for SSA disability, but who were fortunate enough to find jobs where accommodations were provided to them by their employers because of their disabilities. These jobs afforded them the healthcare they needed in order to keep working at those jobs. But what happens when those same disabled workers lose their jobs through no fault of their own, such as the company going under or downsizing because of lost revenue, etc? They're now competing with other unemployed workers in a tight labor market, most of whom do NOT have disabilities that need special accommodations. Trust me... those disabled workers do NOT get hired. These workers become unemployable, and end up filing for disability, which pays less than the Federal poverty limit of $14K annually. And almost two-thirds of applicants wait between 18 months and three years to even get their first disability check, and you cannot take unemployment while you're waiting. So how, exactly, are they being guaranteed "life"? You cannot be guaranteed "life" and be forced to deal with chronic bad health which keeps you from competing on a level playing field for jobs that give you that "life," all at the same time. How is the government guaranteeing you "life" while refusing to pay for your medical care which allows you to earn a living with which to guarantee your "life"? Either you stop working and have the government pay for your "life" through disability checks and take care of your poor health through Medicare, or you're forced to compete with healthy workers for jobs to guarantee your "life" that you cannot do without adequate and consistent medical care that you can afford. It's one or the other. No way a chronically ill worker with poor health can work the same as a healthy worker without adequate and consistent medical care. And too many workers cannot afford that adequate and consistent medical care, poor health or not. Being guaranteed a "life" in our society automatically requires adequate and consistent health care. You cannot have a "life" without it.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "The judge is right.Just like there is no guarantee you will have a home to sleep in,a car to drive or a job, health care is something you need to provide for your self." How can you do that if you are so sick that you can't work?
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo What gets me about the right wing, they want to afford rights for a faetus, but once it is born, that interest and compassion is gone. Many are supposedly Christian, you know, follow the guy that tried to heal the sick, work with lepers, give to the poor. somehow, the messages were perverted. Next thing you know, they will be claiming that education is only for those that can aford it.
Originally Posted By Daannzzz And most seem to be so worried and focused on the smaller percentage of those who do not "deserve" health care that they are willing (and sometimes happy) to sacrifice all those who do deserve health care. As humans we can organize this so that everyone gets care, the problem is so many stingy people who don't care about others suffering.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << health care is something you need to provide for your self. >> What about people with pre-existing conditions who were previously barred from even purchasing health insurance on their own because the insurance companies wouldn't allow them to have health care?
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka One of my clients works in the insurance industry and some companies are now just NOT covering children at all. That way they can get around any sort of pre-existing condition coverage laws, even if parents are both working and can afford AND WANT TO BUY insurance for them. Forget those losers.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy I related this story here once before, but it's worth repeating. I have full health insurance coverage. I was traveling around the country a couple of years back and needed to find an allergist to administer my monthly shots. There wasn't a single allergist within 250 miles who would accept my insurance. So, I decided to "suck it up" and pay out of pocket. Not a big deal right? Well, turns out that none of the doctors would accept cash payment either -- apparently there is liability involved if they don't receive their fee via an insurance company or other health plan. So, I was in a situation where I couldn't even pay for health care out of my own pocket. Fortunately, I was in possession of tickets for an event that one of the allergists was interested in attending and we ended up bartering to achieve my allergy shots. The whole situation was utterly ridiculous. The for profit health care industry needs to be abolished.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "Health industry" should be an oxymoron. The system we have now is completely illogical, unfair, inefficient to the max, and ends up costing us soooo much more than single payer would. That's the only way to go.
Originally Posted By Mr X Thanks all for such interesting and impassioned comments. Much appreciated.
Originally Posted By andyll <<What about people with pre-existing conditions who were previously barred from even purchasing health insurance on their own because the insurance companies wouldn't allow them to have health care?>> My wife is one of them. I can never quit my job because of it.
