Health Care Is a Right, Not a Privilege
Let's be clear. Our health care system is disintegrating. Today, 46 million people have no health insurance and even more are underinsured with high deductibles and co-payments. At a time when 60 million people, including many with insurance, do not have access to a medical home, more than 18,000 Americans die every year from preventable illnesses because they do not get to the doctor when they should. This is six times the number who died at the tragedy of 9/11 - but this occurs every year.
In the midst of this horrendous lack of coverage, the U.S. spends far more per capita on health care than any other nation - and health care costs continue to soar. At $2.4 trillion dollars, and 18 percent of our GDP, the skyrocketing cost of health care in this country is unsustainable both from a personal and macro-economic perspective.
At the individual level, the average American spends about $7,900 per year on health care. Despite that huge outlay, a recent study found that medical problems contributed to 62 percent of all bankruptcies in 2007. From a business perspective, General Motors spends more on health care per automobile than on steel while small business owners are forced to divert hard-earned profits into health coverage for their employees - rather than new business investments. And, because of rising costs, many businesses are cutting back drastically on their level of health care coverage or are doing away with it entirely.
Further, despite the fact that we spend almost twice as much per person on health care as any other country, our health care outcomes lag behind many other nations. We get poor value for what we spend. According to the World Health Organization the United States ranks 37th in terms of health system performance and we are far behind many other countries in terms of such important indices as infant mortality, life expectancy and preventable deaths.
As the health care debate heats up in Washington, we as a nation have to answer two very fundamental questions. First, should all Americans be entitled to health care as a right and not a privilege - which is the way every other major country treats health care and the way we respond to such other basic needs as education, police and fire protection? Second, if we are to provide quality health care to all, how do we accomplish that in the most cost-effective way possible?
I think the answer to the first question is pretty clear, and one of the reasons that Barack Obama was elected president. Most Americans do believe that all of us should have health care coverage, and that nobody should be left out of the system. The real debate is how we accomplish that goal in an affordable and sustainable way. In that regard, I think the evidence is overwhelming that we must end the private insurance company domination of health care in our country and move toward a publicly-funded, single-payer Medicare for All approach.
Our current private health insurance system is the most costly, wasteful, complicated and bureaucratic in the world. Its function is not to provide quality health care for all, but to make huge profits for those who own the companies. With thousands of different health benefit programs designed to maximize profits, private health insurance companies spend an incredible (30 percent) of each health care dollar on administration and billing, exorbitant CEO compensation packages, advertising, lobbying and campaign contributions. Public programs like Medicare, Medicaid and the VA are administered for far less.
In recent years, while we have experienced an acute shortage of primary health care doctors as well as nurses and dentists, we are paying for a huge increase in health care bureaucrats and bill collectors. Over the last three decades, the number of administrative personnel has grown by 25 times the numbers of physicians. Not surprisingly, while health care costs are soaring, so are the profits of private health insurance companies. From 2003 to 2007, the combined profits of the nation's major health insurance companies increased by 170 percent. And, while more and more Americans are losing their jobs and health insurance, the top executives in the industry are receiving lavish compensation packages. It's not just William McGuire, the former head of United Health, who several years ago accumulated stock options worth an estimated $1.6 billion or Cigna CEO Edward Hanway who made more than $120 million in the last five years. The reality is that CEO compensation for the top seven health insurance companies now averages $14.2 million.
Moving toward a national health insurance program which provides cost-effective universal, comprehensive and quality health care for all will not be easy. The powerful special interests - the insurance companies, drug companies and medical equipment suppliers - will wage an all-out fight to make sure that we maintain the current system which enables them to make billions of dollars. In recent years they have spent hundreds of millions on lobbying, campaign contributions and advertising and, with unlimited resources, they will continue spending as much as they need.
But, at the end of the day, as difficult as it may be, the fight for a national health care program will prevail. Like the civil rights movement, the struggle for women's rights and other grass-roots efforts, justice in this country is often delayed - but it will not be denied. We shall overcome!
To keep up to date on the health care debate in the Senate, sign up for the Bernie Buzz newsletter here.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The rest of the developed world looks on in incredulity at your barbaric system of "health care".
That you allow the corporatists to run such a basic and essential service in such a predatory fashion that debases human life, despite the fact that the VAST MAJORITY of you know it's wrong and want it to change is truly staggering.
Score one for the PR industry.
Once you go public, you will never go back. The vested interests know this and will do everything they can to maintain the status quo which allows them to charge you exorbitant rates for "Health Care" which they then don't even provide when you need it.
It is truly appalling the profiteering on human misery that passes for health care in your country.
It will take a similar grassroots effort to the one that got Obama elected to break the hold of big money on Congrees.
But let me tell you, as someone who would likely be long dead if my country's health system was anything like yours: It will be worth it.
Attention: Chicago Single Payer Activists and Supporters-
President Barak Obama will be speaking at the AMA annual meeting sometime on Monday.
Single payer activists and supporters plan to use the occasion to demonstrate in favor of single-payer universal health care.
When: Monday June 15, 11:00 am
Where: Tribune Tower, 435 North Michigan Avenue, near the American Gothic sculpture
The location is some distance from the hotel where the AMA meeting is being held to prevent demonstrators from having to deal with security problems.
If you believe "Health Care For ALL. Not Some. Not Most. ALL" please show your support!
Fine, if Health Care is not a right, then the government does not have the right to regulate medicine. Anyone can practive health care, who needs a licence?
Health Care is not a right, just like housing is not a right! If you don't work for it you don't get it!!!!
What if you go bankrupt after working your whole life or you become disabled and can't work? Should you still get it?
I can't wait til you're uninsured BIG SMILE
I believe that health care is a personal responsibility, not a right of citizenship. We have a right to our health, not a right to have our health needs taken care of by the government. It is the responsibility of government to protect the citizenry against acts that would cause harm to human health (think corporate polluters, etc) and to have systems in place to respond to acts of nature (hurricanes, floods and the like).
I also believe that our so called health care system is anything but that. It is a disease treatment system.
There have been numerous studies that point out that 80 percent of all illness is 'preventable' and results from personal ignorance, poor diet and lifestyle choices. That means that 80 percent of what sends people to the doctor falls squarely in the laps of individuals, a lack of personal responsibility.
I am all for providing financial support in the event of catastrophic illness, traumatic injury and health treatment for the indigent, but I find the thought of being forced to pay into a system that I do not use, support or believe in deeply offensive. Just as offensive as if state-run religion was being forced upon me.
Perhaps if we stopped using the misnomer health care and started using the more accurate and responsible terminology financial assistance for health treatment, an understanding of where true responsibility lies would start to become more apparent.
Excellent post!
(continued)
And yes, housing, food and clothing are a right too. . . or would you prefer that the myriad homeless, many of them mentally ill, fend for themselves forever, capable or not of providing for themselves?
Drawing the line is difficult: is a job a right or a privilege? how about an education? how about vacations in the countryside, or even abroad? how about travel itself? how about parenting? how about a huge salary? how about more than one abode? how about a truly just justice system? how about untampered with elections and counts? how about protesting perceived injustices, including economic injustice? right? or privilege?
The way I see it, true responsibility lies with all of us, for the healthier and happier the general population is, the safer I am, and the better I'm likely to feel about myself. We give too much power to the meme of "responsible individuality", and not enough to the one that exhorts us to love one another, which requires us to consider the (basic) needs of others as important as our own... that's what makes certain things "rights". . . in my humble opinion.
I also believe in "personal responsibility," but my quandary is thus: How does one completely avoid the poisons spewed into our ecosystems, singly or in ever more lethal combinations, which definitely impact our health, and the choices we make concerning it? (It doesn't have to kill you fast--just kill you eventually).
And since corporations claim to be people too, will the same degree of personal responsibility be expected from them as from us? Nor is ignorance always willful.
So, off-hand, I see at least two reasons that show that the choices are not entirely ours, (no choice as to what we ingest, knowingly or not, and ignorance, willful or not), so we should collectivize health care as we have collectivized fire and police departments, the road system, public schools and such. What we need to remember is that collectivizing is nothing but pooling the citizen's resouces (taxes) and administering it in accordance of the people's will.
In this case, as in many others around the world, some of us, actually, many of us, are consi-dering having the government (or a government agency) be the administrator, for the sake of efficiency and cost lowering.
One problem is that since we have no say in how our taxes are used, the powers-that-be have an unimpeded path to granting A HUGE percentage of our taxes to the Pentagon. With what they get annually we could pay for universal health care many times over.
(continued below)
I also believe in "personal responsibility," but my quandary is thus: How does one completely avoid the poisons spewed into our ecosystems, singly or in ever more lethal combinations, which definitely impact our health, and the choices we make concerning it? (It doesn't have to kill you fast--just kill you eventually).
And since corporations claim to be people too, will the same degree of personal responsibility be expected from them as from us? Nor is ignorance always willful.
So, off-hand, I see at least two reasons that show that the choices are not entirely ours, (no choice as to what we ingest, knowingly or not, and ignorance, willful or not), so we should collectivize health care as we have collectivized fire and police departments, the road system, public schools and such. What we need to remember is that collectivizing is nothing but pooling the citizen's resouces (taxes) and administering it in accordance of the people's will.
In this case, as in many others around the world, some of us, actually, many of us, are consi-dering having the government (or a government agency) be the administrator, for the sake of efficiency and cost lowering.
One problem is that since we have no say in how our taxes are used, the powers-that-be have an unimpeded path to granting A HUGE percentage of our taxes to the Pentagon. With what they get annually we could pay for universal health care many times over.
(continued below)
If health care is a right and to be provided to everybody by the government (thank you taxpayers), than the right to food, shelter, and clothing - provided to all by the government - is an even greater right. Am I right? I mean if we're going to go down this road we might as well continue down it and provide everything. No reason to stop with health care. Especially since food and shelter are more essential.
we have the right to be protected against rape---
Incorporating the nationalized methods of countries vastly different than us culturally and demographically while ignoring our own unique problems as a nation and proposing a system which imposes an impossible tax burden on middle class America is foolish.
Insurance companies are a major issue but simply insisting that a notoriously wasteful government handling the administrative costs will solve everything is nonsense. The proof of that are Medicare and Medicaid which are completely void of private insurance involvement and yet are 'unsustainable'.
But things cannot simply remain as they are. Industry greed and population boom has caused a meteoric rise in cost in the last generation which will result in a collapse far exceeding the banking crisis. There are many places for free market ideology. The healthcare industry is NOT one of them. A healthcare industry which profits on human death toll is absurd and abominable. The entire industry, not limited to insurance, needs to be regulated and redefined to lower cost and protect patients. From research companies, equipment manufacturers and medical schools to hospital administrators, doctors and malpractice lawyers. Everyone has to take a paycut.
If this regulation isn't adopted willingly by the industry or forced upon them by legislation then we've made a decision to simply allow our own citizens to die for the sake of capitalism. I've heard it said that a fair measure of any society is how it treats the least of its' people. On that count we would fail and history will judge us accordingly.
"Free markets" is not an ideology but an economic truth. For now let's simply consider the supply side (and ignoring downward price pressures of competiton). In any free market, whereby "suppliers" are free to enter or leave the market, the prevailing market price will determine how many suppliers participate (ie. provide goods and services). Increasing the prevailing price will draw more suppiers as the potential profits increase. Conversly, as price decreases, suppliers leave the market as either, maintaining profitability becomes untenable or there are more lucrative opportunities elsewhere. The point being, if you force market prices lower by fiat, that neccessarily reduces supply. Do you wish for less available health care? This can take many forms, less staff, supplies, or medical advancement. There are only two ways to recover that loss of supply, restore supplier price via subsidies to suppliers (higher taxes) or forced labor. The third option is what happens in most other countries which is long waits due to unavailability of services. Which is why so many Canadians come to the States for treatment.
"Which is why so many Canadians come to the States for treatment.
These kinds of lies need to stop.
I think all the bankers had a similar argument when they lobbied for the repeal of standards and regulations back in '99. That worked out pretty well huh? Maybe for you since you sound like a finance guy.
The only problem with your argument when it relates to healthcare is for all the choices suppliers have, consumers don't have any choice at all. It's either get treatment or die. Doesn't sound like a very fair business model to me on basic supply and demand economic standards. So we're left with the fourth option then where an unregulated healthcare industry is allowed to do as it wishes including dumping poor people off on street corners when they can't pay and refusing treatment on any grounds they can come up with.
But we can simplify it even more, it's just Darwinism really right? Strongest survive and all? Only thing is, we're not animals, at least not most of us. We can be reasonable, practical and compassionate and do the right thing in a sensible way. There's where your real choice as a supplier is because you can choose to do that or you can choose to be cold, greedy, indifferent and laugh all the way to the bank with your supply side economics.
"Which is why so many Canadians come to the States for treatment.
Riiight - and Americans crossing the border to get cheaper generic prescription drugs is just apocryphal.
You might have a clue about economics, but no idea about insurance. The only way prices drop with insurance is that the risk pool increases in size, not due to downward pressure from other companies. Because you have more people and as a result, more healthy people even if there is an increase in the number of people with pre-existing health problems.
If those free market principles were an absolute truth in reality, then why in so many situations don't correct themselves? Why do certain cycles become increasing severe?
http://www
A side note to this on legislation:
If federal and state government refuse to regulate because of lack of courage or their dedication to lobbyist bribery then we as citizens need to open our eyes and truly decide whether our structure of government has become too corrupt to continue. And if so we need to usher in third and fourth party candidates with revolutionary ideas, different platforms and different modes of operating. If that doesn't work we should begin to consider an altered form of fundamental government itself which doesn't allow political affiliation, religious dogma, cultural/s
A nation's problems are only as deep as the laws which ignore them, the lack of enforcement of laws which don't and the indifference of a general public which allows it all to happen.
Bravo!
Hang on Cynical, you're telling me that if we took the country's health insurance out of the private insurance companies hands, who have already created an unsustainable burden by raising prices rather than competing by lowering prices because they can make more profits by not competing, creating one of the largest market failures in history, and instead provided it through the government by raising taxes so that instead of paying the health insurance companies 7000 a year the middle class would then just have to pay the government 4000 a year, pocketing the extra money, and on top of it the U.S. worker could now compete on the labor market with other country's laborers that have socialized healthcare for high paying manufacturing jobs, the thing that gives most if not all first world countries the wealth that make them first world countries, that there would be an unsustainable burden created from this? how?
I really don't think it's going to work the way you think. All of us paying less for nationalized healthcare is a practical impossibility. If Medicare and Medicaid failing wasn't good enough than think about this:
France is #1 in the world as a healthcare provider. France is also a country of 240 million less people, far less people in poverty, far less undocumented workers paying no taxes, healthier people and much lower disease rates and cheaper healthcare because of their regulations across the board. And even with that they still require 21% of workers' income to be paid into the national health system with their employers covering half the bill. That's not total taxes, that's just for the health system. On top of that the fund still runs debts every year because of inflationary costs which has caused them to raise the prices of some services.
Let's assume for argument's sake we could have the exact cost ratio as France even though we have much bigger problems and our cost would be much higher. Are you really going to force middle class Americans in an inflationa
How would paying less for health care create an unsustainable tax burden? Not all taxes are oppressive, if the government takes over the healthcare industry and provides it at a cheaper price to everyone through taxes than the health care companies could provide it through charges, than that tax system is helping the american people financially, not hurting them. Medicare and Medicaid may be in financial trouble but they aren't being paid for enough by taxes. If you changed the health insurance system so that instead of paying the health insurance companies that money went to the government who could provide it for cheaper prices you would have the money for a national healthcare service right? It wouldn't be unsustainable, it would be financed with all that money.
There are government failures and there are market failures. I won't lie to you, ideologically I'd prefer the government administered healthcare no matter what the circumstances, I don't believe you should have to pay or die, but in this case the government clearly has the upper hand in administering healthcare over the private health insurance companies in almost every area.
Health insurance doesn't even function in the case of a serious illness, these people get health insurance and still go bankrupt. Health care cost is the number one cause of bankruptcy in america for the insured.
Kart, it isn't forcing the prices lower by fiat. The health insurance companies are over pricing because they have a control over the supply. If they all raise their prices and you can't go anywhere else because they all do it, then you have effectively fixed the price. You clearly don't understand the effects of an oligopoly on supply and demand. If you have an oligopoly it isn't a free market, they set the prices.
It's like liberals don't understand government failures and conservatives and libertarians don't understand market failures. They're both economic truths.
"The health insurance companies are over pricing because they have a control over the supply"
We don't know that. Nobody seems to want to look at what is really involved in providing healthcare efficiently, the only seemed to be intersted in vilifying an industry that they are not qualified to make financial assesments on. I certainly don't have enough insight into the business to make that judgment and most, if not all, of the people hyperventillating are not qualified either.
And if they are price fixing, then they are colluding and that is illegal (yes I do in fact understand oligopoly). My point stands. If they are overcharging due to collusion (tacit or otherwise) or inefficiencies the answer is still not government control. The answer is to eliminate the collusion to restore compettition or inefficiencies.
And how is government dictating the market not setting price by fiat? If not literally then certainly figuratively.
I am all for digging into the businesses and models and understanding what is really going on before passing judgement. Most people also don't know and aren't really interested inknowing because they think it has to be true so it must be true, even without having full understanding. Before we can effectively move forward we must first undrestand the market and business and nodody is there yet. To date all we have is a lot of conjecture and supposition and all the hyperventilating is getting in the way of getting to the bottom of things.
"... we spend almost twice as much per person on health care as any other country, our health care outcomes lag behind many other nations."
"Our current private health insurance system is the most costly, wasteful, complicated and bureaucratic in the world."
Yes, but how is it that the government is the solution? Really, the government has such an impressive record on reducing cost, waste and buracracy.
Let's say for the sake of argument it is a right. Isn't food also, then, a right? How is it that that the nation seems able to feed itself without government running farms?
Thing is eating is not a choice, so people are forced to budget their income for food. Difference is people can choose to go without health care and thus not budget for it. They then complain that they can't afford it. If people are expected to budget for food and housing on their own, they why is it not appropriate to expect them to budget for healthcare as well?
Life is about choices. We all have to budget for our neccessities out of available income. That includes food, housing, clothing, and also health care. In terms of neccessities, "rights", income/expenses, economics, and choices, health care is no different or special compared to anything else. Why should it get special treatment by government just because some people can't see it that way? The answer is to fix the economic and business models not to impose government control.
What's wrong with some competition?
If you think private health insurance is such a screaming deal, then no one's going to take it away from you.
All people want is the choice to make that decision for themselves.
Absolutely nothing wrong with compettition. I love competition in the market place. If government wants to provide fair market healthcare as any other competitor in the market place, that's fine by me. It's a problem when that becomes subsidised by taxpayers, then it's not longer fair market competition.
And the problem is that it is not _all people want to make that descision for themselves_. How is it that they don't have that choice already? Is someone preventing them from budgeting their income for healthcare? Is someone preventing them from working to get a better paying job or a better employer if they are unhappy with the resulting budget? The probelm is that what _people want_ is to not make the choices they need to make then have government provide it for them.
There's nothing wrong with competition which is why our government should lift the ban on international competition in regards to pharmaceuticals. Then we wouldn't have to pay 100 times as much for the exact same pill you can get in a different country. This is free market society isn't it? I guess there's special exceptions made to that ideology when domestic drug makers are showing up to the FDA and legislators' offices with bags of money. Lifting that trade ban would be an example of proper government involvement and regulation.
If the government is truly going to provide a market-based solution, there's a simple way for them to do it. Create a government sponsored corporation ( a la Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and the U.S. Postal Service) to provide health insurance for all of those that currently aren't covered. After an initial round of funding, let it compete and be self-funding. But since it would be a nationwide entity, allow the current market participants to compete on a national basis as well.
That's a pretty simplistic argument from someone who obviously has never had a huge insurance premium to pay every month. Groceries don't cost 1000 dollars or more a month but some peoples' health insurance does. Although it's equally foolish to think taking insurance companies out of the loop with nationalized healthcare and a monstrous tax burden on Americans will solve everything like it does in Canada, it's obvious that change is needed and government regulation is paramount in lowering costs in many different sectors across the entire healthcare industry.
I pay for it, same as anyone else. People pay rent, that's up there in monthly costs. The pont is there is an assortment of basic "life maintenance" costs. One of those is health care, along with food, shelter, and clothing. Why should health care be singled out as one of those "life" expenses that people shouldn't be expected to to be responsible for? People are expected to fit food, rent, and clothing within their available budget. Why should health care be any different? In so doing, people are expected to make choices about the food they eat, the places they live, and the clothes they wear vis a vis living within a budget. Similarly, people should be making their choices on health care and how they provision it. The problem I have is when people ignore that or fail to make that choice, I don't think it's government's responsibility to relieve them of that responsibility.
Now that's not to say nothing should be done about costs. I'm sure there is a lot that can be improved with careful study and considered problem solving. But all of the hyperventilating and hyperbole surronding the issue does not fascilitate that. I am all for going in and looking for ways to improve efficiency and efficacy, but I don't agree with shifting the financial burden onto government and taxpayers for things people should be taking responsibility for.
Food hasn't been a market failure, healthcare is. Can you honestly say you can pay 7000 dollars a year for healthcare on a mcdonalds salery? Do you really think that's realistic? And do you really think there's enough high paying jobs in America capable of allowing a parent to support both themselves and their children and pay for their health insurance that everyone can get one? And if people can't afford to eat we give them food stamps, we don't let them starve, because making sure everyone eats is more important than making sure everything is done through the market, a.k.a. natural selection.
So why not repair the market? Why not fix it and let fre markets do what they do better than governemnts?
And yes, food stamps are provided, but the government doesn't run farms and supermarkets. The market is still responsible for making food available at the lowest possible prices and more effective than any government could ever be. The point is let markets do what they do better than any government buracracy could ever do and government fills in the altruistic gaps. The problem with government control is the gaps get bigger not smaller when government takes over.
You don't have to budget for everything. If you can't afford food and housing, the government helps with food stamps and public housing or section 8. Why don't we budget to send our kids to school or check out a book from the library? I don't pay the postman either. I think it's so cruel of you to assume that people are blowing money instead of budgeting for health care. Most of those people, I am one of them, just don't have money left over after the other expenses of food, housing, transportation, etc. As a citizen of this country I deserve health care as much as the next person.
A thing I hear alot is that people are going out and buying crap like big screen tvs instead of healthcare, if you can't save enough to afford your healthcare bill every time what's the point in saving period? That's why poor people can afford some decent stuff, they know spending that money on healthcare is pointless if they can only afford to be insured once every three years.
I believe health care should be made accessible and affordable for everyone, and that it is the responsibility of all of us to work toward that goal.
But it is not a right.
Well, what is it then?
As someone posted downstream, there's no middle line between 'right' and 'priviledge'.
You might try going "downstream" again (about 7 postings) and read the response to that comment.
Life isn't a right? If you are sick you have a right to help just like if you are being beaten up you have a right to help.
To make healthcare affordable the cost has to go down. For the cost to go down doctors, hospitals, and pharma have to charge less and quit selling stuff that does more harm than good. To make this a realistic option part of it has to be nationalized and those who wish to provide superior care should go nonprofit. Providing health care for profit, including health insurance, should be made illegal, because at the current state paper pushers are literally gambling with people's (including children's) lives for a buck (or a billion).
New forms of therapies have to be approved faster. Combinations consisting of inexpensive supplement
Health care is NOT a right! Health care is a product you purchase or someone else purchases for you. The nonsense of calling it a right is just another tactic to make the working tax paying citizens pay for those who can not or will not provide for themselves. Many times people who are crying loudly about their rights are those who want others to provide them free services and goods. Everyone already has access to health care - not everyone is willing to pay for that access. Being poor or old is not an excuse, medicare and medicaid already cover those groups. It is not the working taxpaying citizen who is crying for health care rights - they generally are provided subsidized insurance through their employer, I understand some smaller businesses may not offer health care insurance but an individual can still purchase insurance or choose to pay for service directly.
Who are these mysterious 46 million without insurance? Mostly higher income individuals and healthy 20-30 year olds who choose not to pay for insurance and non-US citizens (illegal aliens).
http://spe
Why do some try to portray health care as a right? So we the tax payers will allow us to be saddled with higher taxes and fewer choices to pay for those who will not purchase insurance for themselves
Well said, Midwest Farmer! I whole-heartedly agree!
Yes, lets just leave healthcare exactly the way it is - its perfect!
Of course healthcare isn't a right!
No siree, we can't have you paying a penny out of pocket for those Welfare kings/Queens!
Can't pay - well f$%k 'em - go get a job you hosers!
Also - you forgot them - all those millions of ilegals rushing to our borders to avail themselves of our superior healthcare! Which you pay for!
Those hardworking people at the health insurance companies deserve every penny they get, from providing fabulous healthcare for all!
If you don't like the service your insurance company is providing then either switch to a different company or drop your insurance completely. Just stop trying to make the wage earners pay for YOUR care!
you've gotten away with this on the poor liberals again. but who can't scam a few east coast guys up too late, right? whether or not it's a right is not and never was the right question.
the right question is whether or not it's a MORAL OBLIGATION demanded of us by our humanist and religious traditions. there is plenty of room to debate that- but that for sure is the right debate.
it is, however, not as favorably stated as the "rights" red herring, which predefines the poor uninsured negatively as a an interest group making demands. you conservatives (schmidt, ailes, atwater, even coulter- god, give us a break over here) brilliantly preload the syntactical context and us liberals never know what hit us: "is health care a right?" man but that looks like a basic fair innocuous debate issue. in two seconds, however, it blows up into the image of a contentious mob demanding taxpayer funds and the income of honest working folk. game. set. match.
Saunders asserts: “First, should all Americans be entitled to health care as a right and not a privilege…”
Aside from the semantic redundancy of being “entitled to a right,” there are, simply with the statement, two problems:
1- What does Saunders mean by “health care”? Is it only band-aids, does it extend to triple-bypass surgeries? Or does it fall in between? If so, by what standard does Saunders decide? (Hint: There is standard. It is whatever the political forces can dictate. Kind of hard to claim that something that cannot really be pinned down is a “right.”
2- Saunders writes as if everything that is not a right is a privilege. Obviously not so.
Sorry -- typo. The hint above should be -- "There is no standard."
What's the 'middle line' between right and priviledge?
I wouldn’t call it a “middle line.” Rights are things that everyone is entitled to; privileges are reserved for a few. No one, for example, has a right to be elected to office, but being elected doesn’t mean that one enjoys a privilege reserved for a few. Rather, it’s an opportunity open to all. The same with any other job. No one should have a “right” to any job. But in a just society, everyone should have an opportunity for it, which is different than a privilege.
what everybody means by "health care" is diagnosis and treatment by a competent licensed health professional committed by his/her professional oath to care for the sick, and practice that care with full devotion to the patient. that's what we mean by "health care".
although the phrase "entitled to a right" isn't the best usage, it is not redundant. all constitutional practice does is determine whether or not plaintiffs are "entitled" to assert rights; i.e., does the plaintiff belong to the class of citizens to whom the statute pertains?
"semantic redundancy", however, is redundant. but not necessarily incorrect- since the term "redundant" can be applied to any repeating set. but when discussing language communication, "semantic" doesn't further distinguish "redundant" . it is superfluous usage.
Since all medical care is constrained by finite resources, I don’t find your more elaborate definition of it any more helpful to my question than the shorter version: to what extent is it a “right?” If a doctor’s diagnosis calls for a triple-bypass, does that become a “right?” – that is, a “right” to have other people cover the expense? What if there is a limit to what others can provide? Then is it no longer a “right?”
Regarding your second point, I don’t think your comments about issues about who falls into particular categories gets around the fact that you cannot be entitled to something you do not have a right to.
Regarding your third point, yes, I guess all redundancies are semantic. Point taken.
If Health care is a right, then is housing a right? Is good nutrition a right? Are all basic necessities a right? If so, what insentive do we as individuals have to work, to be creative, and to find the better medicines and techniques that have allowed the average life expectancy to double in the last century?
None at all.
You live in a bubble and have no incentive to better anyone's life but your own.
Seriously, its everyone for themselves, and its a dangerous sign of weakness to worry about other people.
smithfan-
you are perfectly entitled to exchange your brutish life of labor for the luxurious leisure of those unfairly living in the the social service bounty of cheating wastrels and slackers. but somehow no put-upon, abused taxpayer slaving under the socialist lash ever wants to change places with those basking in the infinite, ill-begotten largesse flowing from the labor of the just to the undeserving. if the welfare cheat grass is that much greener- jump over take a bite.
To "wayoutleft," no one is saying the grass is greener with the "cheating wastrels and slackers" (your terms). Those of us who are responsible for ourselves just expect everyone else to also be responsible. Period. That's not too much to ask.
Many people die in this country because they cant get medical treatment, EVEN PEOPLE WHO HAS INSURANCE, Do you know what happens if you reach your insurance policy's limit they drop you even if it is in the middle of your cancer treatment.
Great article.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
