I am an American citizen without health insurance. I don't have a dental plan, either. I am, however, very familiar with the inside of my doctor's office as well as that of my municipal emergency room. Not to mention the operating rooms at two city hospitals and my children's pediatric dentist's office.
I had routine pre-natal care, of course, preceding the births of my two daughters. Then came the emergency cesareans when both deliveries went wrong. There was the surprise E.R. visit and D&C when I miscarried my second pregnancy and the multiple office visits and expensive prescriptions when I was dealing with depression. Then, of course, comes the saga of my eldest daughter's teeth: the eight cavities that had to be filled in her baby teeth and the permanent tooth she broke on the jungle gym that had to be reconstructed.
I have no idea what all of this cost. The thing is, I don't have to know. My pre- and post-natal care was free, the surgeries and the E.R. were free, and the dentist was free. All I've ever paid is my $20 co-payment for doctor's visits and a $3 lab fee when I miscarried. Even my prescriptions were subsidized.
You're doing the math now, and you're right, it doesn't add up. American plus no health or dental insurance plus expensive procedures equals financial hardship.
Not if you live in Norway.
It took years before I was comfortable with the idea of not paying an insurance premium and my husband's not being covered by his job. Neither of us has had insurance here as such, not as students or employees, because we are covered -- our entire family is covered -- by Norway's social welfare system.
The phrase social welfare comes decked out with red flags in American parlance. It also tends to give Americans the heebie-jeebies when it's accompanied by the word system. It's true, social welfare smacks of Big Government; it may even evoke Big Brother and the Red Menace among the uninformed. But, having lived with Norwegian health care for almost twelve years now, I can state with confidence that social health care does not equal communism and that it's good not to have to worry.
In the heat of current debate most people have forgotten one fact: America already has social health care systems in place. Medicare, for one, is a government-run social health insurance program. All our veterans and troops receive government-run health care, too. If we're already caring for our elderly and armed forces with social health care, isn't it immoral to leave the rest of us to fend for ourselves?
The Norwegian health care system is not the best in the world. It was ranked 11th by the World Health Organization in its last poll conducted in 2000. The current American health care system came in 37th. Not only that, WHO found that America pays more, lots more, than any other country: "The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance."
So if America is already spending more on health care than anyone else and if America's health care technology is second-to-none, why isn't health care a fundamental right? Why do I, an American citizen, have the right to health care only because I happen to live in a foreign country?
Health care is not mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Not James Madison's fault: Universal health care was unthinkable in any country in 1791.
Universal health care equals socialism. Socialism is an economic system, not a political one, nor should it be a dirty word.
European health care systems are flawed. Forty-six million uninsured Americans -- including nine million uninsured children -- isn't flawed?
Opponents are inflaming public opinion with un-truths about ObamaCare's leading us to horrors like euthanasia of the elderly and coverage of illegal immigrants, hoping that the rest of us will help to kill this reform with misinformed squabbling. Instead, we should all be up on our chairs asking one fundamental question: Why isn't health care an American right?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
So...if "life" and "the pursuit of happiness" are inalienable rights, then health care must implicitly also be an inalienable right, or else we would not be able to exercise our "right" to "life" and "the pursuit of happiness".
perhaps this comment reeks of Legalese, but no one seems to be making this point...
As you can see, this debate has such controversy--ever since the inception of Medicare--in it, that one would rather fall silent and hope that we all just see another day, than add anything that might be construed as fuel for the fire.
I, on the other hand, am incredibly stupid. So please bear with me.
The reason why health care isn't a right, is that it was not necessary to spell out this right. This was always assumed. Deeply assumed. I mean, we don't pay for health insurance just to get care, but that we get a better "quality" of care. This is what we thought this system of competition actually defined. It turns out it's not. The money you pay for premiums is technically translated in physical space of a hospital is "how far down the halls you go."
This is a fatal form of oppression. People can and have died from this. Health care wasn't a right before, but it has become a "right" now. It just never needed uttering before.
You have a right to bear arms. Does the government have to buy you a rifle?
You have a right to practice religion. Does the government have to build you a church?
You have a right of freedom of the press? Does the government have to pay your printing costs?
Rights are not government financed.
The governement has not tried to interfere with our ability to get health care, at least not intentionally...its done quite the opposite. So if health care is suddenly a right guaranteed by the constitution what does that accomplish. It seems you are telling me it accomplishes nothing, except to guarantee that the gov't can't make health care illegal. Not sure there is really any value to that.
Now let's go a step further. since it is already legal to purchase, most people assume that a 'right' to health care means it will be provided to you. If I have no choice but to pay for it, then it's no longer a right, it's an obligation. And if I have no choice but to provide it to you, then I am your slave, servant, what have you. It's common sense and common practice that your rights are attenuated or eliminated where they conflict with the rights of others (yelling 'Fire' in a movie theatre).
So... try again, if you have something you were trying to get at that I missed I'd like to hear it.
The right to life and its relation to health care is obvious. I would go further and say that the relation of the other two are also, obvious. You could say that this was not the intent of this statement. However, you would then also have to explain the document's statement, that all men are ceated equal, and its intent, knowing that Jefferson himself was a slave owner.
Jefferson's intent is obvious and our implication of those words have evolved as our society has evolved; we see this in the struggle for civil rights. The idea of health care as a universal right, not a priviledge, as it is becoming, is without doubt a necessity in the protection of the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A healthy democratic society, with true equality, cannot depend on this promise without the individual right to quality health care.
So yes, I declare that your interpretation was clearly not Jefferson's intent, and to go beyond that, will take up your challenge. "All men are created equal" was to deny justification for the enhanced rights of the kings & nobility in most european countries, and support their own right to declare independence (i.e. you do not have to be a king or noble to break away from the state.) It had nothing to do with slavery.
Declaring a right to something you can't own... another person's effort / knowledge... is a very, very dangerous idea.
The same applies to health care. You are free to go and acquire any health care you want. It is not the government's job to give it to you.
Norway has a 28 percent minimum income tax rate. Earn much over $73K a year, and you can add 9 percent more to that. Have the audacity to bring in $119 or more, and that surchage jumps to 12 percent. Add 7.8 percent for their social security programs, and you're looking at at minimum of nearly 36 percent, and possibly as much as 48 percent national income tax.
But wait--there's more! You have the privilege of paying a 1.1 percent tax on your assets if you have over $78K in whatever Norway considers wealth. If you're married, the ceiling rises to a bit over $156K. You get to pay this every single year!
And that's not all! Just about everything you buy gets hit with a handy-dandy value-added tax of 14 percent for food and 25 percent for most everything else. Plus, there are gift and inheritance taxes, property taxes, corporate taxes, and other charges.
With as much as 50 percent in income taxes and a walloping 25 percent surcharge on most purchases helping to cover the tab for that medical care, "free" is a misnomer.
According to the Norwegian Tax Administration, "In addition to covering joint expenses, taxes are designed to contribute to greater equality between individuals." This isn't an economic or political objective, it's social engineering, and I can't see it flying in a contentious democracy.
Of course taxes are high! And people get access to good health care as a result. We make the same deal in this country, but for other social services, like Social Security and road creation and repair. I could get together with my neighbors and pave the road, but I'm glad to pay taxes and have
my city do it for me.
It is not that individuals don't have to pay for their care somehow; it's that in the Norwegian system, each person gets some equal access to that health care and there is no worry that you will bankrupt yourself if you or your child get sick.
The right to speak freely, the right to bear arms (however it's interpreted), the right to a trial by jury and all the other rights do not include the right to have it paid for by someone else.
Which is why the constitutionality argument is a valid one.
There is no right to "health care" under the US Constittution.
Having said that, I support HR 676, real health care refom. It is little different than Social Security and is constitutional. I do NOT support HR 3200 (the bill currently working its way through the house).
The primary reason I do not support HR 3200 is that it requires we all give our money to insurance companies. Insurance companies are a waste of money in terms of gov't provided or mandated health care. Requiring us to hand our money over to insurance companies appears to be unconstitutional.
When Congress decides they want to dedicate 100% of the dollars collected for that purpose to genuine health care, I'll be supporting that effort. So long as one dime goes to an insurance company, I will be in opposition.
HR 3200 is a windfall for insurance companies and will not result in health care reform. Insurance company & Big Pharma lobbyists will ensure that won't happen so long as they have a seat at the table. HR 3200 puts them at the head of the table.
No, thanks.
In a way there is that right. The 16th amendment says:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Congress can then spend that money as it sees fit.
How can a person with no home live a life that was envisioned by your founding fathers?
How can a person in these days without a car live a life that was envisioned by your founding fathers?
How can a person without a job live a life that was envisioned by your founding fathers?
How can a person without a phone in these days live a life that was envisioned by your founding fathers?
How can a person without a pot or pan live a life that was envisioned by your founding fathers?
How can a man without food live a life that was envisioned by your founding fathers?
The answer is he can go out and work to earn them. That is the life that was envisioned by your founding fathers.
What a great argument! I never even considered this. The UDOHR is a treaty and as such has the force of law equal to the Constitution. Here is what it says about healthcare:
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terry-humphrey/why-isnt-health-care-an-a_b_271648.html
I believe that the U.S. government does provide a public option, And I believe that those who don't independently benefit from the status quo would say that the current public option is insufficient.
The U.S. government provides the public option for medicare, medicaid and maybe even social security.
Unfortunately, the mass debate is too wrapped up in partisan politics to even argue in the above manner.
i am employed. i have insurance. it costs a lot, but only covers a percentage, has a limit on payout, and has a huge deductible. essentially, it's useless to me, and i pray i dont get hurt or have something in my body "fail".
i don't want this coverage. but it's the only thing i could possibly afford, because my employer pays some of it. this is my only choice.
i would rather have another choice. a choice where my coverage is not limited by how much profit a company has to make to keep its shareholders happy. shareholders who are insatiably greedy, and require more profit every year.
i'd rather have insurance through a non-profit org. with enough size to distribute the cost effectively, so it's the lowest it can be. THIS IS WHAT THE PUBLIC OPTION OFFERS.
"Free" health care is not a right because someone else must pay for it. Of course there should be a safety net for the poor, but it is not society's place to guarantee health care for one by taking from another.
we all pay for it together. it is shared.
there are plenty of unemployed people in our nation today. should we ban them from driving on our interstate highways because they're unemployed?
As for your analogy about highways, no one is "banning" Americans from seeking health insurance. Likewise, people are free to use the highways, but don't expect me to buy your car or pay for your gas.
But unfortunately we as a nation are caught up in a quagmire of an un-related topic of how can we hold townhall meetings without shouting and guns, although some may argue this phenomena is not new.
Is the current political partisan polarization a hinderance to governing? It' shouldn't be easy to argue that a two-party system isn't the only effective political form a nation may take, but nevertheless, is the U.S. government performing with all 4 cylinders firing?
But your initial question of whether the U.S. should provide healthcare as a right to all of it's citizens is a question some of us would love to get to, after all the other issues are taken care of.