Health Care A Right?

[layoutshooter]

Many in here and Congress and the current resident of the White House keep talking about Americans having a "RIGHT" to quality health care. Can ANYONE PLEASE show me just where that is in the Constitution? I have looked and looked and see NO RIGHT to health care. I also can find NO Constitutional authority for the Government to run or impose this on us. To make health care a RIGHT would take an amendment to the Constitution. I have not seen that happen. What am I missing?

 

[cheri1122]

From a philosophical viewpoint, I'd say it falls under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as two out of the three pretty much require a state of health to accomplish.
From a practical viewpoint, what's the alternative? Health care for those who can pay for it, and "too bad, so sad!" for those who can't?
Really, we're going to pay for it one way or another, unless we choose to let people die, ok?
Don't you think it's in society's best interest to keep as many folks healthy [and potentially productive] as possible?

 

[layoutshooter]

I have NO reason to pay for someone else's health care. I am NOT rich. I have paid for mine most of my adult life. We did NOT get free health care when employed by the Feds. When I was laid off when my first son was born, I paid for it then, I pay for our now. There are MANY plans out there that will NOT break the bank.

The problem is that the Constitution does NOT allow for it, at least how I read it. To be LEGAL the Constitution would have to be changed. IF this is a good idea is it not a good idea to do it in a legal manor?

There should also be OPEN debate. I have seen little of the down side to public health funding, and there are many. I also have NO idea who has written this, do you? It is now in excess of 1000 pages. How many of our Senators or Reps have even read this?

To pay for this we have to TAX people at different rates, which I THOUGHT was also illegal.

WHy should this program be a FORCED program? FORCING me to be invovled in this is taking away freedoms, is it NOT?

I understand that there are people having trouble with this. How many? Who knows? There is NO accounting for the figures used. No proof of the method that the numbers were derived from. No aduit to prove the accruacy of those numbers.

I am NOT comfortable with this at all. I lived in a country with a "system" it was WAY more expensive and covered less. I have problems with many of the provisions of this bill that give control of MY HEALTH to outside entities. I have a problem with the Government competeing with private industry without the Constitutional authority to do so.

Every socialist program we have in this country now has failed. Social Security is bankrupt, thanks to the congress. Medicare is bankrupt and full of fraud. Medicade is breaking the backs of the States. Welfare has NOT eliminated poverty as promised and may have even increased it. Why should this program work when nothing else has?

Again please, forget everything but the most important question. Is this LEGAL under the Constitution? If not, are you willing to amend it to insure legality or just do it and the law be darned? Do the ends justify the means?

I am not ragging, I am truely concerned. I value my freedom of CHOICE more than my health care. I do not see ANY way under current law that this is legal. That is more important to me. Do it right or do not do it.

 

[cheri1122]

If mandating insurance for vehicles [and seat belt and helmets] isn't unconstitutional, what's the difference?
You didn't answer my question: what's the alternative? And is it better for America?

 

[layoutshooter]

Seat belts and helmets are STATE laws, NOT Federal. It would be illegal for the Federal government to mandate those kinds of law.

Having lived in England I believe that America will be FAR worse off IF this system that Obama wants to put in passes.

I believe that there are FAR better and FAR cheaper ways to cover the few that need it.

Like, people in this country without "legal" status are NOT covered. They go back where they came from.

I am to be required to by for those who are just too darn LAZY to work? Like several in my own family?

Should those who get to enjoy the fruits of my labor be allowed to waste money on tatoos, cigarettes, booze, illegal drugs and then complain that they cannot afford health care?

What about cable tv? Season tickets to sports events, amusement parks? NO ONE who can afford to pay for those things should get ANY public assistance. It it the responsibility for EVERYONE to take care of all their NEEDS first BEFORE buying luxury items.

I have one reletive that goes on 3-4 cruises a year and later this year is going to Vegas for 2 weeks. She feels that she is "ENTITILED" to FREE health care. WHY? IF she can afford luxury she can afford her NEEDS. DOn't you think?

I think I answered you, if not, I will be happy to expound. If you don't understand, tell me what you want me to clear up.

NOW, what part of the Constitution gives the Federal Government the LEGAL authority to impose this on us by FORCE? IF it is good, and it is NOT legal as I think it is not, are you willing to go through the proper legal channel to amend the Constitution to allow this? Simple question.

 

[aristotle]

Healthcare is not a philosophical concept. It is a professional service bought and sold on the free market, not unlike the services provided by plumbers, electricians and/or mechanics. Some, particularly those on the left, confuse the issue by asserting their wish for "affordable access" to healthcare is a right.

The real complaint with healthcare, here in the United States, is that the care is obviously very, very expensive. Costs associated with providing healthcare have soared beyond the means of most average American families. The real issue is cost and affordability.

If we Americans were serious about promoting good health as a public policy, banning the use of tobacco products would have happened several decades ago. Moreover, the gluttonous addiction to overeating would be addressed. Lifestyle choices such as smoking and overeating cause more disease than most other factors.

For example, if a truckdriver who weighs 400 pounds and has smoked for 30 years suddenly shows up at an emergency room needing a heart-lung transplant, why should you and I be expected to pay for his/her bad choices?

Each of us must take responsibility for our own health. The public-at-large cannot, and should not, be expected to pay for the massive socialized healthcare initiatives be pushed through Congress right now. Healthcare is not a right. It is a business.

However, give Obama a little time and healthcare will no longer be a for-profit enterprise. These utopian dreams of the Left always morph into nightmares.

 

[layoutshooter]

Why are we in SUCH a hurry? Would taking another 6 months hurt? Would a totally free and OPEN debate be a bad thing? What about the so-called 50 million un-inusred? What method was employed to come up with that number? Can it be duplicated? (remember scientific method?) Verified? Was the method used biased? Of the number that are un-insured, how many are not here legally? How many CHOOSE not to buy insurance and could afford too? I have asked my ditz Congressman this, he will NOT answer, WHY NOT? I have a right to know. After all, it IS my money, not the governments OR those who want to use MY money for THEIR health care. I still contend that this is NOT a Constitutionally legal idea.

 

[cheri1122]

Seat belts and helmets are STATE laws, NOT Federal. It would be illegal for the Federal government to mandate those kinds of law.
So they just threaten to withhold highway funds from the states that don't go along - same end result.

Having lived in England I believe that America will be FAR worse off IF this system that Obama wants to put in passes.
You are allowing your personal experience to color your judgment, like those who say Chevy sucks, bc they had a lemon. I've had a very bad experience with American healthcare, but it isn't relevant to the question - others have had the opposite experience.

I believe that there are FAR better and FAR cheaper ways to cover the few that need it.
"The few"?! Do you have a clue how many that amounts to?

Like, people in this country without "legal" status are NOT covered. They go back where they came from.
That would be a big help, and one I agree with - now if Congress would go along, sigh.

I am to be required to by for those who are just too darn LAZY to work? Like several in my own family?
You're making assumptions based on personal experience again - irrelevant.

Should those who get to enjoy the fruits of my labor be allowed to waste money on tatoos, cigarettes, booze, illegal drugs and then complain that they cannot afford health care?

What about cable tv? Season tickets to sports events, amusement parks? NO ONE who can afford to pay for those things should get ANY public assistance. It it the responsibility for EVERYONE to take care of all their NEEDS first BEFORE buying luxury items.

I have one reletive that goes on 3-4 cruises a year and later this year is going to Vegas for 2 weeks. She feels that she is "ENTITILED" to FREE health care. WHY? IF she can afford luxury she can afford her NEEDS. DOn't you think?
So you want to set public policy according to 'value' judgements? Ok, whose 'values' shall be considered the 'right' ones?

I think I answered you, if not, I will be happy to expound. If you don't understand, tell me what you want me to clear up.
You still haven't answered the original question I asked: what's the alternative?

NOW, what part of the Constitution gives the Federal Government the LEGAL authority to impose this on us by FORCE? IF it is good, and it is NOT legal as I think it is not, are you willing to go through the proper legal channel to amend the Constitution to allow this? Simple question.

I'm assuming that as the President taught Constitutional Law, he wouldn't propose an unconstitutional program, and if he did, it wouldn't stand a chance of getting past the checks and balances designed to prevent it.

 

[LDB]

From a philosophical viewpoint, I'd say it falls under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as two out of the three pretty much require a state of health to accomplish.
From a practical viewpoint, what's the alternative? Health care for those who can pay for it, and "too bad, so sad!" for those who can't?
Really, we're going to pay for it one way or another, unless we choose to let people die, ok?
Don't you think it's in society's best interest to keep as many folks healthy [and potentially productive] as possible?

According to the Constitution we have the right to live, which eliminates any right to abortion, we have the right to liberty which means being free of tyrranical rule like we are under now, and we have the right to pursue happiness. It does not guarantee us happiness, only the right to pursue it.

It is not my responsibility to provide those things to anyone and it is not right to take away from me to give those things to someone else. Should I choose benevolent giving toward those goals that's fine. Government thievery isn't.

If you believe the government should pay to provide those things then work to force the government to remove the 50 million or so illegal criminal alien invaders of the last half century or so and to lock down the borders to prevent more. The money wasted on welfare, education, healthcare, housing etc. etc. etc. for these criminal invaders would more than pay for healthcare for legitimate citizens.

The only "right" regarding healthcare is the right to attempt to get it. It is not, never has been, and without a legal amendment (and there can't be a legal amendment as it's not a federal issue) never will be a Constitutional right.

 

[LDB]

I'm assuming that as the President taught Constitutional Law, he wouldn't propose an unconstitutional program, and if he did, it wouldn't stand a chance of getting past the checks and balances designed to prevent it.

Oh please. Since when does someone teaching something mean they know the first thing about what they are teaching? Additionally, he could care less about what is legal. He only cares about what he wants to see as the perfect America and if the Constitution or anything else gets in the way then too bad. He has shown his true colors too many times to leave any uncertainty anymore.

 

[layoutshooter]

Just because the Government uses FORCE to mandate laws that are NOT legal now, does NOT make it legal or right.

First we have to find out WHY health care is SO expensive. Bad tort laws, illegals, government regulations, fraud etc all play a part.

We DO NOT know how many are un-insured. Period. My congress won't answer that question. He will NOT give relevent answers. Just spouting a number of 50 million means NOTHING!! To be a VALID number you HAVE to include the method used to arrive at that number. You have to be able to duplicate it. What bias was in it? You do understand proper study method and the need for it do you not?

The fix? FIRST AND FOREMOST, everyone must FIRST take their own health care above all un-needed things. YOU are responsible for YOUR health and that of your MINOR children.
Not the Government, not your employer. MOST people are NOT looking at every viable option.

Get rid of the fraud, it is rampent in both private insured plans and ALL government programs.

Limit tort. Don't give me an arguement that it is a RIGHT to have wild outrageous law suits. Do you REALLY believe that you will be able to sue once the government is in charge?

WHy do you think that this program will be cheaper? I don't believe it will be. I believe that it will end up costing more than what we have now.

And why do you trust ANY politition to follow the Constitution? I don't. It is NOT a healthy thing to trust this government.

The government has NO RIGHTS under our Constitution, only a VERY few responsibilities that have been spelled out clearly in the Constitution. The Bill of Rights spell out the RIGHTS reserved for the PEOPLE.

Please show me where, chapter and verse, where in the Constitution does it give the Government the legal authority to do this? It is up to you to know this, NOT, ceed your power to the government or one man.

 

[LDB]

NO CABLE TV to any household that doesn't maintain health insurance. No new car loans, etc. etc. until they cover their health insurance. Now if the government were to suggest that then we'd see an uproar.

 

[greg334]

Alternative? Seriously?

OK here is what can be done right now.

Eliminate mandates. meaning Insurance companies are forced to pay for certain things. Let them decide what they will pay for so they can run the business as a business, not as an extension of Medicare.

Eliminate Medicare for those who do not want it. As much as this sounds as a bad thing, it forces the insurance companies to go back to where they were in the early 70's - insuring people who could afford it.

Get the feds out of the insurance business altogether may be a better alternative - stop medicare/stop Medicare part D. Get the insurance companies to run a replacement program.

Allow people to cover themselves as they see fit. This means that if I can get a better deal with BCBS of Ohio, then I should be allowed to buy that policy - even if I am an individual. Allow insurance companies to offer group rates.

The insurance companies need to stop paying for things that are not life threatening or anything like that - tattoo removal is one, Botox injections is another.

Let the people pay for the procedures themselves. This means that the insurance company's job is to approve the procedure and then the doctor bills only the patient. This means that the patient will have to stop, get off their a** and participate in taking care of themselves - no exceptions. This goes to the invisible dollar concept, if you don't see it, then you don't control it.

Force yearly preventable medication practices from the insurance company, not the state or feds. If the subscriber refuses a yearly phyisical, then they should have the right to boot the subscriber.

Tort reform is really really simple, make one change - the loser pays. Enforcing the laws on frivilous lawsuits will help a lot, impeace the judge who allows a law suit going forward where the doctor did something right - like diagnost a problem but the patient ignored the doctors instructions and died. The doctor was sued and the family made millions.

There is no real number of how many are uninsured, it surly doesn't exceed 10%, and it includes people who invaded this country, people who don't want to be insured and those who just don't care. You have to ask yourself a serious question, is socialized medicine worth your job? In other words, taking from someone who employes you has only so much money and anything to take more money out of their pockets will mean less for you. One better way is to lower taxes or adopt the Fair Tax.

As for your question about car insurance, this has been used as an argument to justify any socialization of heath care. BUT the truth is that insurance is not there for you, the insured but it is there for the people around you. It is there to make sure you are covered if you are part of an accident and most of the states went to a form of no fault insurance to save them money and free up money from these massive uninsured motorist funds. If you take the idea about car insurance, then you need to pay for mine.

 

[dabluzman1]

GREED.
Thats my slant on it.
But it is the greed of the doctors themselves.
Okay, free enterprise can do that.
My (ex) doctor of almost 25 years came up with this plan.
He sent out a very well made phamlet (color pictures and all)
stating he was changing his practice BACK to the way it use to be done.
Having a PERSONNEL relationship, you come in and he knows your name and history vs having to look it up.
He admits his practice is to large for this type of relationship so he is reducing the number of patients he will attend.
Sounds cool so far, I mean who wouldnt want a doctor who was able to view you as a friend and neighbor and still provide great health care.
SO, he is reducing his patient base, aprox. 2500 now, to just 600.
He feels this is the number he can deal with.
Now, back to that really beautiful phamlet,( glossy pics included of people sailing and puppy dogs and little children)
we read the fine print.
The CHOSEN ( 600 ) will pay up front, $1500 ( every year ) to receive this wonderful one on one the way it used to be personal relationship with this doctor. ( Note: This isnt per family but per patient. You can do the math for your family.)
Thats $900000 without even seeing a patient.
All the usual fees experienced in the past relationship will remain as well as the cost of you health insurance.
As I said, he is my EX doctor of over 25 years.
GREED.

 

[LDB]

And it isn't greed on the part of the lawyers and the phony malpractice patients and the government fools like we have now that just want the power grab? I don't agree with what your doctor did but don't paint all doctors based on that guy. My dad is a doctor. He practiced for 50 years. He never turned anyone away. He sent them to specialists if he felt they needed it but took care of everyone else. Doctors are the smallest part of this problem.

 

[greg334]

You're right Leo, the doctors are the smallest part of the problem but with that said, I do not want them to decide what health coverage that I will get. The doctor in much of the US has zero to do with claims or knowing what is covered - the office manager usually the one in charge of that unless they outsource their billing.

The Obama administration has talked to the doctor, the insurance company and others involved but really has ignored the people who are covered and who know how to fix these problems.

One of the problems that has been found is a lack of intelligence in the office, which caused a lot of problems.

Greed, yea there is a lot of greed - even the patients are greedy. many are too f***ing lazy to do what they need to do and they are the first to complain.

 

[SalParadise]

Not sure how revelant this is but here is my story

I have had two separate accidents that required surgery.Both times I was uninsured.
First was a shattered ankle that required a metal plate and screws. The second was a shattered forearm that required screws and a metal mesh type thingy instead of a metal plate. Both times I went to a University hospital. Both accepected me without insurance.
Im not completely sure but I think I waived alot of rights to sue and the such,tons of forms to fill out and sign. I dont personally know if students did the work, as I was knocked out during the surgeries. Maybe legally they cant,I dont know. But I do know there was students around with the main doc before and after both surgeries.Felt like I was their lab rat.
I was offered free physical rehab after my ankle surgery,which I accepted. Same student type deal. With my forearm surgery I was told I would have to pay a small amount for the physical therapy. I aksed many questions about the risks if I didnt do the physical therapy and I felt I was given upfront no BS advice and chose not to do it.If I recall it was like $40-$50 bucks a visit.
I do not know who paid for my surgeries,was I used for training,maybe, so what. I signed the forms. No complaints with either one.The ankle feels funny sometimes during storms and my "funny bone" on my arm is sometimes more sensitive. Maybe this is an answer to health care?

I do know putting emotions and feelings into any issue just seems wrong

 

[cheri1122]

Sal: you're right, emotions should be left out of the equation, but we're only human, and they keep getting in anyhow.
I guess the consensus is that healthcare should be available to those who can pay for it, and the rest of the poor folks are just out of luck.
Well, that'll teach 'em to fall and break bones, eh? Oh, and the diabetic kid whose parents have both lost their jobs? Sorry, only the strong survive in this country.
The founding fathers must be rolling in their graves at how badly we've screwed up the closest to perfect government ever devised, almost entirely through simple greed. But also with a big helping of value judgments along the way, as demonstrated right here.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Cheri..this is a dog eat dog country...no one gives a crap about anyone cept themselves....crooked lawyers, crooked doctors, crooked politicians, crooked bankers all trying to bilk us out of our hard earned dollars...but alas..stand on your own they say...

 

[LDB]

Teaching hospitals do exactly that, teach new doctors. The same thing happens at dental schools too as well as barber colleges. You get the services for greatly reduced rates or maybe even free. A student who has been approved by the teaching supervisor does the work with supervision and you benefit financially. Melodrama of that'll teach 'em aside, who determines who is responsible for the costs?

Again, are we willing to deport 50 million or so criminal aliens plus those criminal aliens who were wrongly given amnesty in the past to get the funds to pay for this? Should we all just send every penny to the government and when they get through stealing for earmarks they'll send us each our equal portions of what's left? I mean really, what is it?

The liberals glom onto every single issue there is and every single one of them is our duty. How do we pay for every single thing? Where does it end? I've mentioned 50 million or so solutions already. All I hear though are cliches like that'll teach 'em designed to make those who aren't gung ho to pay for all the dope heads and drunks and helmetless motorcycle idiots and so many others who failed to make good choices. When does personal responsibility and choices enter in?