Is universal health care a moral issue?

[Erica in PA]

I will say it again... the fact is that when I had insurance it covered only about 10% of my claims, so paying for it was and is not worth it to me. Make it work and I might reconsider. I don't appreciate being condemned for deciding that health insurance is a joke.

 

I'm sorry, are you referring to my post? I didn't read any of your previous posts, so I'm not aware of your situation, but I apologize if something I said upset you. I certainly didn't mean to condemn anyone.

[pqr]

I said, "Here's why I believe UHC is a public good," and you continued to assert that it was Marxism without addressing my points, except to say no it's not. So we're not really having a discussion, are we?

 

Actually, unless the search engine is wrong, nowhere did you say "Here's why I believe UHC is a public good"

 

Nevertheless, your only point is that it is a public good? Therefore the "ends justify the means"?....and if the means are "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" you are in support of that? By the way I do not think moving towards socialism is for the public good.

 

It would seem to me that we are not having a discussion as you will not defend your beliefs and the fact that while they are not necessarily full blown Marxist they do have Marxist and socialist tenets.

 

Using the rosy phrases such as "public good" and repeating them ad nauseum does not an argument make. I will give you another quote by someone who believed in Marxist tenets (Lenin)

 

"A lie told often enough becomes the truth," (unfortunately you have seem to have fallen victim to the lies of UHC)

 

but I am afraid that supporters of UHC will have to keep saying "it is for the public good," "it is the moral thing," "it will make life better" for many years before you get me to accept it.

 

You see I am more in line with Lincoln

 

"You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time"

 

and people are starting to wake up.

Edited July 23, 2009 by pqr

[Perry]

That seem like kind of broad generalization - I personally know people who do not have health insurance because they are lazy, uneducated, self-indulgent etc.

 

Sure there are, and it's a serious problem. But that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that there are millions of hardworking people without insurance, through no fault of their own. It seems to be a common belief that if you don't have insurance it's your own fault, and I think it's a terrible misconception.

 

 

 

And there is not one single person in this country that does not have access to health care. They just don't have access to health care paid for by insurance. Although they certainly have access to health care paid for by charities or by making monthly payments themself.

 

Okay. I'll change that to "appropriate access".

[Lovedtodeath]

I'm sorry, are you referring to my post? I didn't read any of your previous posts, so I'm not aware of your situation, but I apologize if something I said upset you. I certainly didn't mean to condemn anyone.

Thanks. I worded it much better in another thread. I am in a hurry and sloppy in my responses in this one. Time to take a break.

[KidsHappen]

Here's what I don't understand. And I'm not being sarcastic or snarky.

 

We pay less in taxes a month off our pay cheques than I've yet to hear an American friend paying in insurance premiums. So I really don't understand how it would be theft, when in reality, you should have MORE income due to not paying high insurance rates, copays, etc.

 

:confused: It doesn't matter how much money you forceably take, $1 or $100, it is still stealing. Nor does it matter how much we have left, it is still ours to spend as we wish.

[KingM]

PQR, let me gently say that you often make it difficult to converse with you in many of these discussions because your tone is of that of a professor speaking to a particularly stupid student. Even in threads such as the peak oil discussion, where we largely agree, I found myself disengaging because I find your manner exhausting.

 

Re: public good. In the United States, we spent more than twice the per capita expenditures than other OECD nations as of 2000. I believe the gap has widened since then. However, our measures of health, such as infant mortality and life expenctancy, are worse than these other developed nations. Source.

 

What's more, much of the burden of this is borne by American corporations, while their European, Japanese, and Canadian counterparts don't bear this cost. You may look at this as a subsidy by our competitors or as an unfair burden for our corporations, but either way, it hurts American business. Much of GM's troubles, for example, comes from huge health liabilities for its employees and retirees.

 

First, I believe we would pay less for our health coverage by adopting a system like those favored by other nations. Second, reducing this competitive hurdle for our corporations would serve the same purpose as building a canal, an interstate highway, or an airport terminal in supporting the overall economic health of the nation.

 

There, is that enough for you to attack the specifics as Marxism? :)

[KidsHappen]

I will say it again... the fact is that when I had insurance it covered only about 10% of my claims, so paying for it was and is not worth it to me. Make it work and I might reconsider. I don't appreciate being condemned for deciding that health insurance is a joke.

 

I don't think she was condemning you but instead affirming you ability to make that decision for yourself.

[johnandtinagilbert]

Don't have time to read the whole thread, but I say no.

 

I do believe, however, charity is a moral issue. The gov't should not force charity, but I believe people should be charitable to those in their lives on a much more individual basis.

 

Give to Caesar his tax money.

 

Give my charity as an offering to God, showing my faith and/or moral convictions to others as an example of my faith.

[Sara R]

No, I don't think we're wealthier than we were ten years ago. But we are wealthier than 50 years or 100 years ago. I said that this argument carries more weight, but I think it still has a ways to go, especially as we have some other absolutely critical needs, such as a looming energy crisis. If the lights go out, the health care debate will be moot.

 

Sounds like we almost agree then. I think the financial crisis makes it impossible to provide universal health coverage at the level the average American has become accustomed. The looming energy crisis just compounds that. I think the free market is the quickest, most efficient way to adjust everyone's expectations about health insurance to reality.

[pqr]

Re: public good. In the United States, we spent more than twice the per capita expenditures than other OECD nations as of 2000. I believe the gap has widened since then. However, our measures of health, such as infant mortality and life expenctancy, are worse than these other developed nations. Source.

 

What's more, much of the burden of this is borne by American corporations, while their European, Japanese, and Canadian counterparts don't bear this cost. You may look at this as a subsidy by our competitors or as an unfair burden for our corporations, but either way, it hurts American business. Much of GM's troubles, for example, comes from huge health liabilities for its employees and retirees.

 

First, I believe we would pay less for our health coverage by adopting a system like those favored by other nations. Second, reducing this competitive hurdle for our corporations would serve the same purpose as building a canal, an interstate highway, or an airport terminal in supporting the overall economic health of the nation.

 

There, is that enough for you to attack the specifics as Marxism? :)

 

Now that is a reasonable, but flawed, (trying not so sound like a professor) argument, but in the end it is simply shifting costs. If we spend twice what others do now and we introduce the government then we will probably end up spending thrice.

 

The problem is UHC is socialism, but there is a solution to the health care crisis.

 

Tort reform, stopping illegals using our system, offering more scholarships for people who become doctors....working within the system to cut costs but do not advocate class warfare, do not attack the wealthy, do not take more and more from those who work. This is how we fix the system. The problem is that many who support UHC are those who rely on donations from lawyers and the ABA, who advocate amnesty in order to get votes and who are advocates of class warfare as it too generates votes.

[KingM]

If we spend twice what others do now and we introduce the government then we will probably end up spending thrice.

 

I would hope that we would end up with costs like those in other developed countries, but our government does have a remarkable talent for bungling.

 

Tort reform <yes>, stopping illegals using our system <yes>, offering more scholarships for people who become doctors <shrug>

 

Instead of the last item, I would argue that we should reduce the education requirements for some types of medical care. There's no reason that a PA/RN level of education shouldn't be sufficient for routine care, with MDs on hand for anything tricky. Of course, we're moving away from that, not toward it, as audiologists now need a PHD, and we're moving away from 2 year nursing degrees as well.

[pqr]

Instead of the last item, I would argue that we should reduce the education requirements for some types of medical care. There's no reason that a PA/RN level of education shouldn't be sufficient for routine care, with MDs on hand for anything tricky. Of course, we're moving away from that, not toward it, as audiologists now need a PHD, and we're moving away from 2 year nursing degrees as well.

 

No argument here.

 

My point is that until we have tried every possible option the idea of UHC should not even be on the table (even then I would oppose it). UHC is almost irreversable and I still stand by the argument that it is marxism light.

[Impish]

:confused: It doesn't matter how much money you forceably take, $1 or $100, it is still stealing. Nor does it matter how much we have left, it is still ours to spend as we wish.

I don't understand how taxes are stealing. And it would seem to me that insurance companies far more fit the thief role than would taxation. Insurance companies promise so much, yet deny claims constantly, seemingly based on a numbers strategy. You may *think* you have good insurance, until something horrible happens. Such is the way with insurance companies, at least in what I've witnessed. A child needing surgery wasn't covered for a friend of mine, so she had to resort to public pleading and fundraising to cover the payment the hospital wanted. This was for life saving surgery. Cancer victims find the same thing. Theft seems far more the case with private insurance companies than with the Canadian health care system.

 

Are all taxes stealing? Or only for things you disagree with? I mean, I pay taxes for public schools, and none of my children attend. Should I call that stealing?

 

I think the big difference in this debate is that it seems folks who've never been touched with serious medical issues are comfortable being against UHC, whereas those who have experienced the devastation huge hospital bills can wreak are for it. Its easy to say that folks should always have insurance when you've never been in the situation where it was impossible. Its easy to believe that insurance will cover what you need...until it doesn't.

 

No parent with a seriously ill child should have to worry about financial ruin as well.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Instead of the last item, I would argue that we should reduce the education requirements for some types of medical care. There's no reason that a PA/RN level of education shouldn't be sufficient for routine care, with MDs on hand for anything tricky. Of course, we're moving away from that, not toward it, as audiologists now need a PHD, and we're moving away from 2 year nursing degrees as well.

:iagree:

[Lovedtodeath]

I think the big difference in this debate is that it seems folks who've never been touched with serious medical issues are comfortable being against UHC, whereas those who have experienced the devastation huge hospital bills can wreak are for it.

I disagree. In addition, supporting UHC is different than supporting the bill that is currently being pushed.

 

Its easy to say that folks should always have insurance when you've never been in the situation where it was impossible. Its easy to believe that insurance will cover what you need...until it doesn't.

I agree.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

by PQR My point is that until we have tried every possible option the idea of UHC should not even be on the table (even then I would oppose it). UHC is almost irreversable and I still stand by the argument that it is marxism light.

 

 

I think that it is fear mongering to call UHC marxism. Is our dear military, roads, libraries, police and fire-fighters marxist? I don't think so at all. In my book that sort of argument does not hold water at all.

[Sara R]

And it would seem to me that insurance companies far more fit the thief role than would taxation. Insurance companies promise so much, yet deny claims constantly, seemingly based on a numbers strategy. You may *think* you have good insurance, until something horrible happens. Such is the way with insurance companies, at least in what I've witnessed. A child needing surgery wasn't covered for a friend of mine, so she had to resort to public pleading and fundraising to cover the payment the hospital wanted. This was for life saving surgery. Cancer victims find the same thing.

 

Many modern medical treatments are unaffordable, even for insurance companies. There aren't any good solutions to this one. In the past, people just died, and it wasn't anyone's fault. Now, if someone dies, but there's a prohibitively expensive treatment that no one can afford, it's someone's fault for not covering that treatment.

 

Of course there are other, free market ways to get medical costs down: separating charity care from regular care, have people pay out of pocket for their own routine medical expenses so prices have to come down to earth. But even after all that, there will probably still be treatments that are ultimately unaffordable.

 

I think the big difference in this debate is that it seems folks who've never been touched with serious medical issues are comfortable being against UHC, whereas those who have experienced the devastation huge hospital bills can wreak are for it. Its easy to say that folks should always have insurance when you've never been in the situation where it was impossible. Its easy to believe that insurance will cover what you need...until it doesn't.

 

This is the third time someone has claimed in these threads that only the perfectly healthy disagree with UHC. It's just not true. Even people who have had similar experiences might view the big picture in different ways.

[OHGrandma]

military -- national defense, also state funded

roads -- for interstate commerce, nationally funded; also state and local funding for local roads.

libraries -- state and local funded.

police -- state and local funded.

fire-fighters -- state and local funded.

 

I don't think these items support UHC.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

This is the third time someone has claimed in these threads that only the perfectly healthy disagree with UHC. It's just not true. Even people who have had similar experiences might view the big picture in different ways.

:iagree:I also believe that government provided (tax provided) health insurance would be quite different from UHC.

[OHGrandma]

:iagree:I also believe that government provided (tax provided) health insurance would be quite different from UHC.

 

I agree, that's why I specified "gov't run universal health care" in my OP.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

I agree, that's why I specified "gov't run universal health care" in my OP.

Yeah, it is all muddled though. On the boards and elsewhere. (like in my head) :D

[Sara R]

No parent with a seriously ill child should have to worry about financial ruin as well.

 

Do you think the solution is to make the bills the responsibility of the government, which is also facing financial ruin?

[KidsHappen]

I don't understand how taxes are stealing. And it would seem to me that insurance companies far more fit the thief role than would taxation. Insurance companies promise so much, yet deny claims constantly, seemingly based on a numbers strategy. You may *think* you have good insurance, until something horrible happens. Such is the way with insurance companies, at least in what I've witnessed. A child needing surgery wasn't covered for a friend of mine, so she had to resort to public pleading and fundraising to cover the payment the hospital wanted. This was for life saving surgery. Cancer victims find the same thing. Theft seems far more the case with private insurance companies than with the Canadian health care system.

 

Taxes are not voluntary while insurance is (currently in America). A market based system would allow people to chose the insurance they want. It is their job to determine if it is adequate for their needs.

 

Are all taxes stealing? Or only for things you disagree with? I mean, I pay taxes for public schools, and none of my children attend. Should I call that stealing?

 

I already answered this in this thread.

 

I think the big difference in this debate is that it seems folks who've never been touched with serious medical issues are comfortable being against UHC, whereas those who have experienced the devastation huge hospital bills can wreak are for it. Its easy to say that folks should always have insurance when you've never been in the situation where it was impossible. Its easy to believe that insurance will cover what you need...until it doesn't. No parent with a seriously ill child should have to worry about financial ruin as well.

 

 

I don't think this is true at all. I have already stated that my health care costs for this year will be $13,000. I personally have had life threatening illnesses as has one of my children. My husband has repeatedly had kidney stones that required hospitalization. We pay for good insurance to insure that these are covered. I have taken years to pay off medical bills and I have had to rely on private charity for hospital care which I try to return in kind. In other words, I have had to deal with serious medical issues and costs and I am still against UHC.

Edited July 23, 2009 by KidsHappen

[dangerdad]

Absolutely it is a moral issue. It is immoral to take my money and give it to someone else and do so simply because I have money and they may not. (The truth is that I am not in the income bracket that would be effected today, but that is an irrelevance)

 

Theft is a moral issue and theft by fiat is no different.

 

Beautifully said.

 

Me taking my money and giving to those in need is charity.

You taking my money and giving to those in need is theft.

 

I think that it is fear mongering to call UHC marxism. Is our dear military, roads, libraries, police and fire-fighters marxist? I don't think so at all. In my book that sort of argument does not hold water at all.

 

It's not fear-mongering, it's stating fact. Your comparison to other services is a false one. Public safety is clearly outlined in the constitution. Libraries are a capital investment that everyone can use -- though you could argue they should be privately funded, they do provide information that helps us know what our gov't is doing, and thus are a necessary service.

 

But medical treatment? Not guaranteed by any founding document. Furthermore, libraries, fire-fighters, etc. are all provided by localites, where control is closer to the citizens. The US federal gov't does not have the authority to impose such a scheme on us, and if a constitutional amendment came up, I'd be opposed. Right now, the federal gov't needs to shrink, not grow.

[CAMom]

 

I think the big difference in this debate is that it seems folks who've never been touched with serious medical issues are comfortable being against UHC, whereas those who have experienced the devastation huge hospital bills can wreak are for it. Its easy to say that folks should always have insurance when you've never been in the situation where it was impossible. Its easy to believe that insurance will cover what you need...until it doesn't.

 

No parent with a seriously ill child should have to worry about financial ruin as well.

 

Let's see....

 

I had a child with a very serious illness. In fact, she died. My insurance coverage was horrible. I received a bill from Children's Hospital (after my dd was gone) in the mail one day for over $800,000. All told, her medical costs were over $1 million dollars.

 

I have worried about financial ruin over a seriously ill child. I am still vehemently opposed to UHC.

[Impish]

Do you think the solution is to make the bills the responsibility of the government, which is also facing financial ruin?

I live in Canada. I base my responses on that, living where there is UHC. There isn't any of the doom and gloom that is so frequently used to denounce the idea of UHC in the States. That's why I truly don't understand how UHC is worse than the current situation, where families lose their homes, go bankrupt, and die under the current situation with private insurance.

Taxes are not voluntary while insurance is (currently in America). A market based system would allow people to chose the insurance they want. It is their job to determine if it is adequate for their needs.

 

But nobody plans on cancer, or other life threatening illnesses and accidents. Plus, even if their current insurance is knowingly inadequate, many families cannot afford more than they already are paying for.

 

I already answered this in this thread.

 

 

 

I don't think this is true at all. I have already stated that my health care costs for this year will be $13,000. I personally have had life threatening illnesses as has one of my children. My husband has repeatedly had kidney stones that required hospitalization. We pay for good insurance to insure that these are covered. I have taken years to pay off medical bills and I have had to rely on private charity for hospital care which I try to return in kind. In other words, I have had to deal with serious medical issues and costs and I am still against UHC.

 

Then my apologies to you. I've heard too many friends in the States wish that they have what we have in Canada, that it would allow them more money in their family budget, and far less fear.

[pqr]

If the bill before congress is so good, would somebody please tell me why not a single democrat would agree with the House resolution 615.

 

"Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Members who vote in favor of the establishment of a public, Federal Government run health insurance option are urged to forgo their right to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and agree to enroll under that public option".

 

As we are being told that UHC is the best thing since sliced bread why will Congress not agree to live under the rules they would impose on us?

Edited July 23, 2009 by pqr

[Impish]

Let's see....

 

I had a child with a very serious illness. In fact, she died. My insurance coverage was horrible. I received a bill from Children's Hospital (after my dd was gone) in the mail one day for over $800,000. All told, her medical costs were over $1 million dollars.

 

I have worried about financial ruin over a seriously ill child. I am still vehemently opposed to UHC.

I am extremely sorry for the loss of your child. :grouphug: Apologies to you as well. As I stated in a previous response, I'm basing my answers on personal experiences and friends in the States.

 

I suppose I should just bow out. I'll truly never understand how private insurance is a better idea than what we have here in Canada. Perhaps the model being suggested varies wildly from our own system, I honestly don't know. Dealing with WCB and having to get them to approve my meds and treatments is as close to the States medical as I've ever come, and its a nightmare.

[OHGrandma]

If the bill before congress is so good, would somebody please tell me why not a single democrat would agree with the House resolution 615.

 

"Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Members who vote in favor of the establishment of a public, Federal Government run health insurance option are urged to forgo their right to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and agree to enroll under that public option".

 

As we are being told that UHC is the best thing since sliced bread why will Congress not agree to live under the rules they would impose on us?

 

That kind of changes the intent of this thread, but thank you for posting that. I've been wondering the same thing!

[brehon]

I think that it is fear mongering to call UHC marxism. Is our dear military, roads, libraries, police and fire-fighters marxist? I don't think so at all. In my book that sort of argument does not hold water at all.

 

 

You keep writing that services such as roads, libraries, EMS (which you don't specifically mention; but, as I'm a paramedic I will mention), fire, and police are funded by the federal gov't. They aren't.

 

All of the above are largely funded by state, county, and local taxes along with a smattering of locally awarded grants, private funding, and fundraisers (for the volunteer FD's). What the federal gov't *does* contribute is largely unfunded mandates (at least for the latter three services) which many systems have trouble meeting. My system (a county run system) gets NO money from the federal gov't - including grants.

 

Too, when one talks about roads and, especially, libraries receiving local tax dollars, these are specific taxes which usually have been voted on by the local citizens. The notable exception in my neck of the woods are the blasted toll roads, but that's another story. True, some roads are at least in part funded by the federal gov't; those tend to be interstate highways, not a local FM road or city street.

 

I guess this is a long winded way of saying libraries, EMS, police, and fire are locally run services which are taxed at the local level.

[Audrey]

I live in Canada, and absolutely believe that it is morally the right thing to do. The idea that someone cannot afford the healthcare they need is terrible to me. That someone can go bankrupt because of hospital bills is repugnant to me.

 

I truly believe that adequate health care is a right. And it shouldn't come with fears of financial ruin. It shouldn't be based on income. Every citizen should be able to access the help they need, when they need it, without fear.

 

That's my take, anyways.

 

 

:iagree: Perfectly stated.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Perhaps the model being suggested varies wildly from our own system,

Ding Ding Ding! It is a very different situation here. The bill is different, the motives of the administration are probably different. The reason to fear it is different.:001_smile: And I am not stating my feelings. I am summing up the feelings of some of those opposed.

[Sara R]

I live in Canada. I base my responses on that, living where there is UHC. There isn't any of the doom and gloom that is so frequently used to denounce the idea of UHC in the States. That's why I truly don't understand how UHC is worse than the current situation, where families lose their homes, go bankrupt, and die under the current situation with private insurance.

 

Canada is in a better financial situation than the US. Your government apparently can afford your system. Our government is already overwhelmed with debt and started printing money in March (i.e. the Fed is buying Treasury bonds). We can't afford a new entitlement program. The ones we already have are killing us.

[brehon]

I am extremely sorry for the loss of your child. :grouphug: Apologies to you as well. As I stated in a previous response, I'm basing my answers on personal experiences and friends in the States.

 

I suppose I should just bow out. I'll truly never understand how private insurance is a better idea than what we have here in Canada. Perhaps the model being suggested varies wildly from our own system, I honestly don't know. Dealing with WCB and having to get them to approve my meds and treatments is as close to the States medical as I've ever come, and its a nightmare.

 

 

Perhaps I've misunderstood how the Canadian system works and please do correct me if I'm wrong. Isn't health care run at the provincial level? IOW, the federal Canadian gov't gives each province a set amount of money each year and the provinces run their own health care systems even if they have to meet certain federally set expectations? Is this right?

 

This is not what is currently proposed in the latest HR coming out of Congress. This proposed the federal gov't (American) would oversee and run health care/health insurance with nothing devolved to the states. As I wrote somewhere else, this is specifically against Article 10 of the US Constitution.

 

There are, I think, many reasons one could in theory support some form of UHC and in practice be vehemently opposed to this bill. (As full disclosure, I'm against mandatory UHC.) I don't think anyone has said that the current system works or isn't in need of drastic overhaul. What we've said is that *this bill* especially in it's current form won't help resolve the health care crisis in the US.

[Lovedtodeath]

Perhaps I've misunderstood how the Canadian system works and please do correct me if I'm wrong. Isn't health care run at the provincial level? IOW, the federal Canadian gov't gives each province a set amount of money each year and the provinces run their own health care systems even if they have to meet certain federally set expectations? Is this right?

 

This is not what is currently proposed in the latest HR coming out of Congress. This proposed the federal gov't (American) would oversee and run health care/health insurance with nothing devolved to the states. As I wrote somewhere else, this is specifically against Article 10 of the US Constitution.

 

There are, I think, many reasons one could in theory support some form of UHC and in practice be vehemently opposed to this bill. (As full disclosure, I'm against mandatory UHC.) I don't think anyone has said that the current system works or isn't in need of drastic overhaul. What we've said is that *this bill* especially in it's current form won't help resolve the health care crisis in the US.

well stated.

[Heather in WI]

Absolutely it is a moral issue. It is immoral to take my money and give it to someone else and do so simply because I have money and they may not. (The truth is that I am not in the income bracket that would be effected today, but that is an irrelevance.)

 

Theft is a moral issue and theft by fiat is no different.

 

 

 

:hurray:

 

This is one of my favorite videos to refer to when it comes to issues like this:

 

 

 

The Philosophy of Liberty

 

 

[KidsHappen]

Yes, it's a moral issue.

 

You know Colleen, I used to think you were abupt but I have come to realize that you are just succint. I like that. I am rarely confused by your posts. :)

[TracyR]

Being a mom to a child with multiple health problems I would Never, ever want our health care system to go universal. EVER!

I know many families who live in Canada, and over seas and they have to wait months and months for care. If its not an extreme emergency they could wait many months just to get in to see a specialist. Many of them come over here to the U. S for care that they can't get in their country because of this very thing. I've heard stories of pregnant women in other countries not getting in to see an OB until their 2nd half of their pregnancies.

 

If this happens it could take many , many months to see a specialist because they would be booked. It already takes us long enough to see some specialists but to have this happen at a grander scale...

 

All I can say is No thank you!

 

I'd rather see reform on dental care then medical care right now.

Edited July 23, 2009 by TracyR

[Catherine]

The limits of morality will not be the same for every person. I think it's illustrative to ask the question: Would I allow a person to die in front of me, from a preventable cause, if I could easily prevent that death by doing a simple act-like walking across the street? Well, if the answer to that is yes, then one could also ask, Would I allow a person to die a preventable death if it meant giving up $5? How about $20? $100? What if I had to cross the street to relieve someone's pain? Or give up money? What if that person was my mother? A total stranger? A murderer who had paid his debt to society and had just gotten out of prison?

 

Is it acceptable to, as a society, to permit some people to suffer or die younger than they otherwise would have? Younger than people with better insurance are dying? Would it be acceptable morally for a hospital on the verge of bankruptcy refuse to provide expensive, intensive medical care to a trauma patient who elected to opt out of a government plan? What if they opted out to have more money for gambling? What if they opted out because they desperately needed money to feed their kids? I believe one of the reasons we need some form of universal coverage is that it is not morally acceptable to refuse care to uninsured people if they are very sick or injured. The difficulty is that when our government provides "rescue funds" for people like this, but not to find their cancer at an early, more cheaply curable stage, we are essentially increasing our own burden of cost, and theirs (in the form of pain\illness).

 

Our society has made decisions about how much a life is worth, in money. These numbers represent how much as a society, we have determined is reasonable to spend to save a person\keep them alive for a given period of time. It's not an identical number in every case, but none the less, it is there. Based on these numbers, health care is doled out. So chemotherapy for a person who has incurable cancer, which will not cure them, but will extend their life, can't exceed a reasonable cost, in dollars or in discomfort to the patient.

 

So for me, universal coverage is not at all a simple matter of where my dollars are going. And to be honest, I'd rather see my taxes pay for another human being's medical care than an F-22 that's going to sit unused in a hangar for the foreseeable future.

[Melissa in FL]

 

I think the big difference in this debate is that it seems folks who've never been touched with serious medical issues are comfortable being against UHC, whereas those who have experienced the devastation huge hospital bills can wreak are for it. Its easy to say that folks should always have insurance when you've never been in the situation where it was impossible. Its easy to believe that insurance will cover what you need...until it doesn't.

 

No parent with a seriously ill child should have to worry about financial ruin as well.

 

I totally disagree. We have a child that was born with serious medical issues (the birthing room was filled with students shortly after birth so they could "see"). I am very thankful the government did not interfere with any of the treatment that my son needed in an effort to keep cost under control. We had insurance that covered almost everything including two surgeries. My son was at the doctors office once a week for two years. If I had planned to go back to work there was no way I could have. Even though we had insurance I was approached by many people with information to get free help for my son's condition (all different charities). One organization would have flown us across the country and paid for the flight, putting us up in hotels, and all the medical care he needed. My son's doctor often treated kids like my son for no payment to make sure they could get the early treatment that they need to live a normal life.

 

I'm glad that UHC works well in other countries. I don't believe it would here. We are unique with a huge population. I look at some of the other programs run by the FEDERAL government and cringe that they may take over insurance. Yes, things like fire, police, ect work (they are controlled locally). But ask anyone who has tried to get a passport in the past 18 months how efficient the fed government is! I've heard many on this board have problems with just getting a passport and have a friend who went through a nightmare while trying to get her sons. They have to make tons of phone calls, call congressmen, senators and really be proactive just to get a passport! What do we think the health care system will turn into?

 

Not to mention: My mom has been told by the FEDERAL government all her life that her medical care will be taken care of when she retires (she paid all her life into medicare). Yet she has to pay 1/4 of her social security to carry supplemental insurance to cover the costs that medicare (Federal health program) won't pay for!

 

I want the federal government to stay away and not screw up something that is SO important to the everyday person!!

Melissa

[Kari C in SC]

Let's see....

 

I had a child with a very serious illness. In fact, she died. My insurance coverage was horrible. I received a bill from Children's Hospital (after my dd was gone) in the mail one day for over $800,000. All told, her medical costs were over $1 million dollars.

 

I have worried about financial ruin over a seriously ill child. I am still vehemently opposed to UHC.

 

I am very, very sorry about the loss of your daughter. I cannot imagine the pain. I do have to ask though - did you pay the $800,000 bill? What portion was covered by insurance and what portion were you left to pay? I do NOT think any parent should have to shoulder such a burden after losing a child. Most would be forced into bankruptcy with this type of bill. Again, I am terribly sorry for your loss.

[OHGrandma]

If the bill before congress is so good, would somebody please tell me why not a single democrat would agree with the House resolution 615.

 

"Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Members who vote in favor of the establishment of a public, Federal Government run health insurance option are urged to forgo their right to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and agree to enroll under that public option".

 

As we are being told that UHC is the best thing since sliced bread why will Congress not agree to live under the rules they would impose on us?

 

I got thinking about my earlier response to this. This DOES go along with my question about UHC being provided as a moral issue, or not provided because our political system does not/should not provide UHC.

I think it is terribly IMMORAL for our elected representatives to design a health care plan & impose it upon the people, yet continue to use their own plan that provides vastly superior health care benefits. This is what is wrong with socialism & marxism, and this is what our representatives are trying to do.

[dangerdad]

The limits of morality will not be the same for every person. I think it's illustrative to ask the question: Would I allow a person to die in front of me, from a preventable cause, if I could easily prevent that death by doing a simple act-like walking across the street? Well, if the answer to that is yes, then one could also ask, Would I allow a person to die a preventable death if it meant giving up $5? How about $20? $100? What if I had to cross the street to relieve someone's pain? Or give up money? What if that person was my mother? A total stranger? A murderer who had paid his debt to society and had just gotten out of prison?

 

The problem with this analogy is that you can always give to charities to help people--that's not the issue at question. The real comparison is to ask yourself, "Would I force person X to pay $5, or $20, or $100 to help person Y," both of them strangers.

 

That's the big difference, the idea of using force to make someone else do what you think is a good choice for yourself.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

By Brehon You keep writing that services such as roads, libraries, EMS (which you don't specifically mention; but, as I'm a paramedic I will mention), fire, and police are funded by the federal gov't. They aren't.

 

 

I never said that they were specifically funded by the federal goverment and frankly I think taxes are taxes and that we do have representation on the federal level. However, our military is funded at the federal level and many of our roads receive federal funding. Also, the city I live in had for many years several police officers totally funded by federal money.

 

All I am saying is that America already has many socialistic-like public service entities that many Americans want and desire such as the military, roads, libraries, etc. and I don't think we are sliding into communism as a result. I am just tired of hearing the "loaded" words of communism and socialism used in conjunction with universal healthcare.

[KidsHappen]

All I am saying is that America already has many socialistic-like public service entities that many Americans want and desire such as the military, roads, libraries, etc. and I don't think we are sliding into communism as a result. I am just tired of hearing the "loaded" words of communism and socialism used in conjunction with universal healthcare.

 

 

I don't really understand what you are trying to say here. :confused: You use the words socialistic-like to describe the public services already offered and yet you have a problem with other people using it to descibe UHC? :001_huh: Are you arguing that since you think we already have socialistic-like public services, which many have explained to you are not in fact that way at all, we should just go ahead and buy into providing all the public services that people want and desire but not call them that? I really not trying to be snarky here but I don't understand your reasoning. Could you elaborate a little?

[Lovedtodeath]

I got thinking about my earlier response to this. This DOES go along with my question about UHC being provided as a moral issue, or not provided because our political system does not/should not provide UHC.

I think it is terribly IMMORAL for our elected representatives to design a health care plan & impose it upon the people, yet continue to use their own plan that provides vastly superior health care benefits. This is what is wrong with socialism & marxism, and this is what our representatives are trying to do.

Huh, last I heard the president said that his plan was to give the uninsured the same plan that congressman and their families have. Apparently something has drastically changed.

[OHGrandma]

Huh, last I heard the president said that his plan was to give the uninsured the same plan that congressman and their families have. Apparently something has drastically changed.

Listening to the president speak about the bill, and reading/listening to people who have read the bill -- I start wondering if the president knows what is in this bill.

[brehon]

I never said that they were specifically funded by the federal goverment and frankly I think taxes are taxes and that we do have representation on the federal level. However, our military is funded at the federal level and many of our roads receive federal funding. Also, the city I live in had for many years several police officers totally funded by federal money.

 

All I am saying is that America already has many socialistic-like public service entities that many Americans want and desire such as the military, roads, libraries, etc. and I don't think we are sliding into communism as a result. I am just tired of hearing the "loaded" words of communism and socialism used in conjunction with universal healthcare.

 

Well, the federal gov't has a Constitutional duty to provide for the common defense -- so funding a national military makes sense. I don't really see how that is socialist. And, you're right, many roads do receive at least some federal funds -- as I said these are mainy major interstate roads (at least where I live). I don't think taxes are taxes, though. At least where I live, if the library or local FD (not VFD, mind you, these are paid guys) need more funds there is an election where the voters vote on that specific issue: i.e. vote whether or not to assess an additional X cents [usually along the lines of a half-cent or so] on the water bill, for instance, with the money specifically going to the local dept in question. By law the money can't be diverted anywhere else. Everyone has the opportunity to decide on that particular issue. With this method there is more direct accountability between the voters and the local pols.

 

Cities too have a legal obligation to offer public safety services, so funding a police dept or fire dept makes sense. Strangely enough, in TX, counties are not legally obligated to provide EMS. The taxpayers in the county where I work have made it abundantly clear to the county commissioners that they want to fund a county EMS system. So, we continue to exist. I'm aware that there are, however, differing standards in different parts of the country for whether or not federal funds are used.

 

Maybe we're using different definitions of socialism. What is the definition you're using for socialism? Do you consider UHC a form of socialism? If not, what would you call it? And I'm not asking in a sarcastic tone, I promise. I'm trying to understand if you're pro-UHC and don't consider it socialist or if you're pro-UHC, consider it to be a form socialism (or have socialist tendancies), and you're fine with that.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

By KidsHappen I don't really understand what you are trying to say here. :confused: You use the words socialistic-like to describe the public services already offered and yet you have a problem with other people using it to descibe UHC? :001_huh: Are you arguing that since you think we already have socialistic-like public services, which many have explained to you are not in fact that way at all, we should just go ahead and buy into providing all the public services that people want and desire but not call them that? I really not trying to be snarky here but I don't understand your reasoning. Could you elaborate a little?

 

Based on the definition of socialism, the public services of the military, roads, etc. are socialistic-like in that they publically funded and provided by the goverment for public benefit.

 

The notion that this type of paradigm is in any way incompatible with or destructive to capitalism is misguided. Consider that, for example, that, for example, many goods considered by many to be best-of-breed are actually produced by thriving private-sector businesses in countries with long-standing traditions of a public health system, such as Germany's Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Porsche, Braun and others.

 

In this dialogue, the words "socialism" and "communism" are cast in such a manner so as to attempt to invoke a notion of the Great Red Scare and McCarthyism of the 1950s IMHO, and is misplaced. I am not saying that individual posters are specifically doing this. I also believe that these loaded terms are the talking points of the private health insurance companies that are designed to invoke fear in the hearts of Americans. Frank Luntz is a lobbyist working with private health sector and and he has devised a very detailed, 28 page, talking points memo which very specifically outlines these tactics of trying to elicit fear through use of words like socialism, goverment take-over, and putting goverment between you and your doctor, delayed care is denied care, and many others. All of these are being heard nationally verbatum in a number of forums.

 

I am not suggesting that the goverment should pay for anything and everything, but be allowed to act within the mandate given in the Preamble of the US Constitution. The health of the American workforce is vital to maintaining our economic vitality, which absolutely extends to protecting and preserving private sector industry. Our nation's health is a matter of national security. It is detrimental to corporate productivity to have a workforce which might not be able to manage its health issues effectively. Many companies are suffering under the burden of onerous health insurance premiums and it detracts from the corporate bottom line.

 

I think it is morally imperative that America help the millions of un-insured and under-insured Americans. I think it more efficient to do universal healthcare at the federal level due to economies of scale.

 

Lastly, I would ask yourself if they truly believe that their private health insurance plan will be just as good or just as affordable in 5 years or so. I know that my plans have been getting worse every year.:sad:

Edited July 23, 2009 by priscilla
spelling

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

By Brehon At least where I live, if the library or local FD (not VFD, mind you, these are paid guys) need more funds there is an election where the voters vote on that specific issue: i.e. vote whether or not to assess an additional X cents [usually along the lines of a half-cent or so] on the water bill, for instance, with the money specifically going to the local dept in question. By law the money can't be diverted anywhere else. Everyone has the opportunity to decide on that particular issue. With this method there is more direct accountability between the voters and the local pols.

 

 

 

Where do you live?;) Gee, where I live, the local powers to be just raise our taxes willy nilly:sad: For example, the school board autimatically raises our school tax the maximum they are allowed which is 6% and we don't get a say except for voting for the members of the school board. Locally where I live, we only get a say in our local representatives, not on the taxes themselves.