If you believe healthcare to be a right ...

[ekarl2]

I'm just curious ...

 

If you believe the government should ensure all receive adequate health care because it is a right, what about food and shelter?

 

I mean this honestly. Do we have a right to food and shelter? It seems to me that these two things are more important to the lives of Americans than health care (lack of either for a prolonged period of time will kill you before lack of health care will). I've heard many say they feel health care is a right (referencing the "life, liberty, pursuit ...).

 

We do have charities and small federal programs that aim to provide these things (especially food) to those less fortunate, but there is no all-encompassing government program that guarantees food and shelter to all Americans.

 

Why then is it most important to overhaul health care right now instead of making sure all are fed and sheltered adequately?

[Cammie]

IMHO, it is not a question of one being more important than another.

 

I would agree that food, shelter and health care are ALL fundamental human rights. The government has put much attention into homelessness issues (remember in the 1980's that was a big focus) and it is very rare that you ever hear of people starving to death in the US. To the contrary, those families living in poverty tend to have higher levels of obesity because of the types of food promoted by government programs - so lack of food is not as critical an issue in the US.

 

Healthcare has been left out in the cold as far as issues are concerned because of the oppostion to meddling with the current system from those groups that most benefit from the current system. It is a shame that other Western developed countries have managed to figure out systems that work very well and that don't have the problems of our system. It is time for this issue to get the time and attention is deserves. Again, this should not be in isolation from other issues - of course the government has to focus on many issues all at the same time in order to function.

[Janet in WA]

I don't believe healthcare is a right. Nor do I believe food, shelter or even an education are rights. They're rights in the sense that no one can deprive me of them -- but not in the sense that someone else has to give them to me.

 

But I believe that it is the right thing to do to ensure that everyone in a society has access to these things. We are all better off if our fellow citizens have homes and enough to eat, are educated and are healthy. Just as I accept that public schools have a place in an educated population, I have come to accept that some form of government-provided healthcare has its place in a healthy population.

 

That said, I don't believe that the staggeringly expensive, hastily cobbled plan that the President is proposing is the answer.

Edited September 14, 2009 by Janet in WA

[IsabelC]

The UN Declaration of Human Rights lists all of those things (and a great many others) as fundamental human rights. (I know this because my kids have been looking at human rights lol) From the perspective of someone outside of the US, I think it is a great pity that the richest country in the world does not provide a particularly good example to the rest of the world in taking care of its citizens.

[Blessedfamily]

....... but there is no all-encompassing government program that guarantees food and shelter to all Americans.

 

Why then is it most important to overhaul health care right now instead of making sure all are fed and sheltered adequately?

 

Aren't a lot of people already getting food and shelter free from the state? Maybe that's why it's not being pushed as much right now.

[Janet in WA]

 

The UN Declaration of Human Rights lists all of those things (and a great many others) as fundamental human rights. (I know this because my kids have been looking at human rights lol) From the perspective of someone outside of the US, I think it is a great pity that the richest country in the world does not provide a particularly good example to the rest of the world in taking care of its citizens.

From the perspective of someone inside the US, not all of us believe that the UN declaring something makes it so.

[ekarl2]

The UN Declaration of Human Rights lists all of those things (and a great many others) as fundamental human rights. (I know this because my kids have been looking at human rights lol) From the perspective of someone outside of the US, I think it is a great pity that the richest country in the world does not provide a particularly good example to the rest of the world in taking care of its citizens.

 

Interesting ... I hadn't thought of that. Of course, one might say that the US is the richest country in the world because its systems are what they are. Many would argue that were the US to provide enormous social systems like many European countries, it wouldn't take too much time for it to lose that status.

[ekarl2]

Aren't a lot of people already getting food and shelter free from the state? Maybe that's why it's not being pushed as much right now.

 

There are homeless shelters, but they are usually overcrowded (and mostly run by charities, not the gov't). My point is that there is no government program that says it guarantees food or shelter, yet they want to guarantee health care.

[Sputterduck]

Regardless of whether other fundamental rights are guaranteed, guaranteeing this one fundamental right is still the right thing to do.

 

Should we provide food and housing for our citizens who can't do that for themselves. Yep. Should we provide health care for those who can't. Yep.

[Blessedfamily]

There are homeless shelters, but they are usually overcrowded (and mostly run by charities, not the gov't). My point is that there is no government program that says it guarantees food or shelter, yet they want to guarantee health care.

 

I mean section 8 (free or very low cost housing) and food stamps from the state.

 

(I do understand the point you're making, though.)

[Mrs Mungo]

There are homeless shelters, but they are usually overcrowded (and mostly run by charities, not the gov't). My point is that there is no government program that says it guarantees food or shelter, yet they want to guarantee health care.

 

Guaranteeing *access* to health care and guaranteeing *free* health care are not the same thing. Many people do not have access to health care right now in the same way that they have access to food and affordable housing.

 

In congested areas where access to affordable housing *is* an issue it often is included in development plans when it comes to issuing building permits, granting land use, etc. It's a hugely contentious issue here in Hawaii, for example.

[Blessedfamily]

......

 

In congested areas where access to affordable housing *is* an issue it often is included in development plans when it comes to issuing building permits, granting land use, etc. It's a hugely contentious issue here in Hawaii, for example.

 

It's a big contentious issue where I live too. Often, if a builder wants to build a big sub-divsion, he has to donate land for low-income housing right beside it or no deal.

[ekarl2]

It's a big contentious issue where I live too. Often, if a builder wants to build a big sub-divsion, he has to donate land for low-income housing right beside it or no deal.

 

Those are state, county or city restrictions, though, yes? Constitutionally, there is a big difference between a state providing something (or not) and the federal government.

[Mrs Mungo]

Those are state, county or city restrictions, though, yes? Constitutionally, there is a big difference between a state providing something (or not) and the federal government.

 

Access to health care is a nation-wide problem, the housing issue is not. You can get a cheap house in nowhereville-Kansas (no offense to Kansas, I'm from Oklahoma, people ;) ) but you're still screwed if you don't have insurance and need a major operation or if you have a pre-existing condition that precludes you from getting insurance.

[Blessedfamily]

Those are state, county or city restrictions, though, yes? Constitutionally, there is a big difference between a state providing something (or not) and the federal government.

 

Yes on those issues. But my point to your original question was that maybe people are already getting assitance with shelter and food (though they may say not enough)

 

Actually, according to what I read, section 8 actually comes from the federal government $$$, not the state(which is what I always assumed).

 

"Section 8 housing vouchers subsidize low-income families so that they can afford decent and safe housing in the private market.......Section 8 housing vouchers are federal benefits distributed by local public housing authorities (PHAs). The national government makes most key policy decisions and provides funds for vouchers as well as administration costs. Income eligibility limits and fair market rents vary by locality—based on area median income and local rent prices respectively—but they are determined at the federal level by HUD. PHAs have some control over establishing priorities in serving applicants, and they can establish a minimum rent for voucher recipients of up to $50 per month."

[Blessedfamily]

And I see that the funds for food stamps come from state and federal money

 

"The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly Food Stamps) is a Federal/State program to help low-income families buy the food they need to stay healthy, and be productive members of society. It provides low-income households with electronic benefits they can use like cash at most grocery stores to ensure that they have access to a healthy diet."

 

FWIW, I'm not arguing with a particular opinion on healthcare, I just think the reason those things aren't pushed right now is because they are more readily avaible already.

[Mrs Mungo]

And I see that the funds for food stamps come from state and federal money

 

"The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly Food Stamps) is a Federal/State program to help low-income families buy the food they need to stay healthy, and be productive members of society. It provides low-income households with electronic benefits they can use like cash at most grocery stores to ensure that they have access to a healthy diet."

 

FWIW, I'm not arguing with a particular opinion on healthcare, I just think the reason those things aren't pushed right now is because they are more readily avaible already.

 

WIC is also federally funded.

[FO4UR]

I actually think it would be better to encourage private charity before going with gov't healthcare. I think it's better for the patient, and a more efficient use of $.

 

Why not give huge tax breaks for people who donate $ to organizations who provide care for those in poverty/with pre-existing conditions/expensive diseases...etc....??? I know lots of people give large donations at the end of the year in order to pay less in taxes...not b/c they don't want to pay taxes but b/c they know the private charity is a BETTER STEWARD of the $ (and they will be paying the $ out one way or the other).

 

Why not give HUGE tax breaks for Dr's who take pro bono cases??? (You can NOT tell me it would cost even a fraction of the $ we are talking about...)

 

My heart wants every American to get the best of healthcare.

My head knows that handing it over to the gov't is a step in the opposite direction!

 

ETA: I think it's a matter of human compassion...not a right in the gov't sense.

[KidsHappen]

My belief is that your God given rights are those that would come with you if God himself plopped you down in the middle of the mountains in, say, Idaho. So unless you happen to believe God is like the tornado in The Wizard of Oz that is going to plop you down house and all, which I don't, then no I do not believe food, shelter and health care are God given natural rights. I believe as humans we showed up on this planet butt naked, and hungry and had to learn to provide out own clothing, food and health care. It wasn't a right, we weren't entitled to it and no one gave it to us. It's not easy, it doesn't feel good and sometimes it's not fair but unfortunately no one ever said it would be. Life doesn't come with guarantees. If are ever to make this world a better place, then it is up to us to do it, each doing what we can and are willing to do on our own, alone or together and stop waiting for the government to do it for us. And then maybe, recipients will begin to see these things, that they can not procure for themselves, for what they truly are, gifts of humanity instead of rights they are entitled to.

Edited September 14, 2009 by KidsHappen

[IsabelC]

It looks as though there are two separate issues here. One is whether it is a human right to be able to access medical care; the other is how this access should be made available. (I hope I'm not wrong in assuming that nobody actually wants people to be dying in the street because basic health care isn't available?) If somebody is capable of working but chooses to remain unemployed, it could be argued that the person has healthcare available, and simply needs to get a job in order to have health insurance and avail himself of the quality healthcare on offer. So should the state be obliged to look after people who do not make any effort to take care of themselves? Some people would say no to that. Should more money be spent on people whose problems are self inflicted, for example due to drug abuse, or is it right that those much needed resources are directed to people who are ill through no fault of their own?

 

Here is an example on housing. Not long ago I saw a newspaper article about an older couple who were living in their car. They said they could not afford to eat because their pension only provided enough money to put petrol in the car (so they could use the heater) and as they had no cooking facilities they had to buy takeout food. They were homeless because they had apparently been declined state subsidized housing. It did not mention them being disabled or incapacitated in any way.

 

Obviously you can't judge without knowing all the details, but from what I read it seemed that they were not so much poor as bad money managers. You can make about four healthy meals from scratch for the price of one fast food meal. There are plenty of things that don't require cooking or complex preparation, but if they wanted to cook they could have bought some cheap saucepans and utensils and used one of the many free public barbecue facilities available. Better still, they could have sold their car and used the money as a deposit on normal rental accommodation. (The age pension here is ample to live on if you budget carefully and don't expect to gamble, smoke, drink heaps or live in luxury.)

 

In contrast to this couple, my grandparents, when they were alive, also lived on the pension. They bought their own house and lived a good lifestyle with no extra assistance. Not only that, but they saved enough to give money and presents to all their children and grandchildren and make donations to charity. So it isn't just what a person is given that determines their quality of life!

 

What would be the most efficient way of improving health? More hospital beds and doctors? More cheap medicine? More promotion of exercise and healthier eating? More focus on reducing stress? People becoming more literate so that they can find out about what services are available to them?

[StephanieZ]

I'm just curious ...

 

If you believe the government should ensure all receive adequate health care because it is a right, what about food and shelter?

 

I mean this honestly. Do we have a right to food and shelter? It seems to me that these two things are more important to the lives of Americans than health care (lack of either for a prolonged period of time will kill you before lack of health care will). I've heard many say they feel health care is a right (referencing the "life, liberty, pursuit ...).

 

We do have charities and small federal programs that aim to provide these things (especially food) to those less fortunate, but there is no all-encompassing government program that guarantees food and shelter to all Americans.

 

Why then is it most important to overhaul health care right now instead of making sure all are fed and sheltered adequately?

 

I don't know if I'd call these things "rights" but I do believe that as a modern, affluent, society, it is our responsibility to provide all our citizens (and the illegals, too, as a matter of fact), with the basic sustenance of life. It is just the decent thing to do, and I believe we can't afford NOT to do these things, as the detriment to society of not providing basics outweighs the greedy cost savings to us fortunate few.

 

I belive we can and should provide every person here with:

 

• basic decent health care (including dental, eye, ear, mental)

• basic food (already mostly do this with food stamps, WIC, etc)

• basic housing (already do this somewhat with welfare, subsidized housing, but we should do more & do it better)

• basic education (free through HS, affordable loans OK for college, etc)

That's my 2 cents. I, personally, think Jesus would have agreed with me.

[IsabelC]

From the perspective of someone inside the US, not all of us believe that the UN declaring something makes it so.

 

Yes, I've noticed that!

[Stacy in NJ]

The Constitution doesn't give us rights; it prevents government from acting to restrict certain natural rights. The government shall make no law that restricts......

 

So, no, we don't have a "right" to healthcare, food or shelter.

[FO4UR]

I don't know if I'd call these things "rights" but I do believe that as a modern, affluent, society, it is our responsibility to provide all our citizens (and the illegals, too, as a matter of fact), with the basic sustenance of life. It is just the decent thing to do, and I believe we can't afford NOT to do these things, as the detriment to society of not providing basics outweighs the greedy cost savings to us fortunate few.

 

 

I belive we can and should provide every person here with:

 

• basic decent health care (including dental, eye, ear, mental)

• basic food (already mostly do this with food stamps, WIC, etc)

• basic housing (already do this somewhat with welfare, subsidized housing, but we should do more & do it better)

• basic education (free through HS, affordable loans OK for college, etc)

That's my 2 cents. I, personally, think Jesus would have agreed with me.

 

I would agree that these are all important things, but I disagree with the sentiment that those who oppose a *gov't* program for these things do so out of greed! I also disagree that we *can* provide all these things for every American, esp if it's organized through the fed gov't. The fable about killing the golden goose comes to mind...

 

If we look at the example of Jesus, giving is out of one's own heart and choice. Forced giving isn't giving.

[IsabelC]

The Constitution doesn't give us rights; it prevents government from acting to restrict certain natural rights. The government shall make no law that restricts......

 

So, no, we don't have a "right" to healthcare, food or shelter.

 

Ah well, at least the First Amendment gives you the Constitutional right to complain about not having those rights.

[Stacy in NJ]

Ah well, at least the First Amendment gives you the Constitutional right to complain about not having those rights.

 

Actually the First Amendment doesn't give me any rights. That's the point of my original post. The First Amendment limits the right of government to pass laws restricting my speech. All of the rights in the Constitution are negative rights, meaning they restrict government; they don't give anything.

 

Positive rights tell citizens what they can have, as if the government were their daddy providing them with an allowance.

[Stacy in NJ]

The UN Declaration of Human Rights lists all of those things (and a great many others) as fundamental human rights. (I know this because my kids have been looking at human rights lol) From the perspective of someone outside of the US, I think it is a great pity that the richest country in the world does not provide a particularly good example to the rest of the world in taking care of its citizens.

 

It's really a great pity that about 90% of the nations that are signed on to the Declaration of Human Rights are incapable or unwilling to satisfy most of the "right" provided in that document, rights that cost nothing in terms of dollars; such as, the freedom of speech or assembly. As an aspirational document, it's very inspirational. As a governing document it's a joke.

 

ETA: Well, to some it's not a joke, but rather a tool of Western imperialism. Or, at least that's what I've been told.

Edited September 14, 2009 by Stacy in NJ
more

[Karen in CO]

Actually the First Amendment doesn't give me any rights. That's the point of my original post. The First Amendment limits the right of government to pass laws restricting my speech. All of the rights in the Constitution are negative rights, meaning they restrict government; they don't give anything.

 

Positive rights tell citizens what they can have, as if the government were their daddy providing them with an allowance.

:hurray: Nice to see somebody else who read it.

[IsabelC]

Actually the First Amendment doesn't give me any rights. That's the point of my original post. The First Amendment limits the right of government to pass laws restricting my speech. All of the rights in the Constitution are negative rights, meaning they restrict government; they don't give anything.

 

Positive rights tell citizens what they can have, as if the government were their daddy providing them with an allowance.

 

Ah, good point! I shoulda read the fine print. (Maybe you'll excuse me, seeing I'm an ignorant foreigner who has only formally studied my own Constitution.) But, don't laws saying the government is not supposed restrict your right to bear arms, follow your religion, etc kinda imply that those rights are there to start with? Or is it more of an attitude that you're talking about, viz, that people shouldn't have an overinflated sense of entitlement?

 

 

 

As an aspirational document, it's very inspirational. As a governing document it's a joke.

Very true. You can't have a governing document unless you have the means to enforce it. But I like to quote the bit that says parents have the right to choose how their children are educated :)

Edited September 14, 2009 by Hotdrink

[Slartibartfast]

I do believe health care should be a right

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR2007022702116.html

 

Twelve-year-old Deamonte Driver died of a toothache Sunday.

A routine, $80 tooth extraction might have saved him.

If his mother had been insured.

If his family had not lost its Medicaid.

If Medicaid dentists weren't so hard to find.

This is shameful. Everyone should be ashamed that this could possibly occur in this nation.

 

In spite of such modern innovations as the fluoridation of drinking water, tooth decay is still the single most common childhood disease nationwide, five times as common as asthma, experts say. Poor children are more than twice as likely to have cavities as their more affluent peers, research shows, but far less likely to get treatment.

 

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/04/09/research.shows.sharp.rise.hospital.admissions.childrens.dental.care

 

One key finding of the research was the huge difference in instances of dental caries and disease in children from different socioeconomic backgrounds. Twice as many treatments were provided to children in the most deprived sector of society compared with those from the most affluent. Children in more affluent areas were 33 per cent less likely to present as a dental care emergency than those living in more deprived areas, and they were 75 per cent less likely to develop caries than their less well-off counterparts.

http://www.annfammed.org/cgi/reprint/5/6/511.pdf

 

Barriers to health care can be insurmountable for low-income

families, even those with insurance coverage. Patients who do not seek care in a

family medicine clinic are not necessarily getting their care elsewhere.

I do believe at the very least children should have access to food and shelter.

 

 

http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/who.html

 

In 2003, children under the age of 18 accounted for 39% of the homeless population; 42% of these children were under the age of five

Research indicates that 40% of homeless men have served in the armed forces

Approximately 16% of the single adult homeless population suffers from some form of severe and persistent mental illness

Edited September 14, 2009 by Sis

[mominbc]

IMHO, it is not a question of one being more important than another.

 

I would agree that food, shelter and health care are ALL fundamental human rights. The government has put much attention into homelessness issues (remember in the 1980's that was a big focus) and it is very rare that you ever hear of people starving to death in the US. To the contrary, those families living in poverty tend to have higher levels of obesity because of the types of food promoted by government programs - so lack of food is not as critical an issue in the US.

 

Healthcare has been left out in the cold as far as issues are concerned because of the oppostion to meddling with the current system from those groups that most benefit from the current system. It is a shame that other Western developed countries have managed to figure out systems that work very well and that don't have the problems of our system. It is time for this issue to get the time and attention is deserves. Again, this should not be in isolation from other issues - of course the government has to focus on many issues all at the same time in order to function.

 

I find the topic of healthcare confusing, especially living in Canada and hearing how we are used as an example of universal healthcare. (There are some big drawbacks, it seems to me that if you have insurance you are better off in the US but if you don't you are better off in Canada.) I suppose I believe in emergency situations no one should be turned away. I think it should be a right as citizens if you are dying and can be saved you should be taken care of. Here in Canada no one is turned away from medical care but it's not free, and dental is not covered, unless you are very low income. Anything over 30,000 a year you have to pay out of pocket for all dental unless your employer has health insurance and here in BC you pay $108 per month for medical (and if you don't pay you are sent to collections and they will garnish your wages). Prescriptions are not covered either and neither is eye exams for adults (children can have one exam per year). I have to say I am thankful I didn't have to pay more than that to have a baby or when my baby was sick I didn't come home to a big hospital bill. It's heartbreaking to hear of the stories in the US who have huge medical bills. But the problem arises with wait times for things like CAT scans and MRI. They only allow a certain amount per year. Our doctor friend was worried he had stomach cancer and he had to wait 2 months to get a CAT scan. Also it can take months to see a specialist when referred. My son needs to see a cardiologist and it is a 2-3 month wait and some have to wait up to a year for a specialist. So if healthcare is a right, should it be in a timely manner as well and should there be a cap as to how many diagnostic procedures are completed a year? :confused:

Edited September 14, 2009 by mominbc

[Slartibartfast]

It can take months to see a specialist in the US as well. IME our waiting period isn't any better for certain specialists.

[Erica in PA]

I do believe health care should be a right

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR2007022702116.html

 

This is shameful. Everyone should be ashamed that this could possibly occur in this nation.

 

 

 

While of course any unnecessary death is tragic, I think that article is extremely biased. It sounds as though *many* things unfortunately went badly in that situation-- I think it's unreasonable to say that lack of dental insurance is what caused this boy's death. If this mother was unable to obtain $80 from friends, family, etc. to have this tooth extracted, most dentists will treat uninsured patients and bill them, especially for such a small amount.

[Renee in NC]

Aren't a lot of people already getting food and shelter free from the state? Maybe that's why it's not being pushed as much right now.

 

Food stamps are available to all who meet the guidelines.

 

Housing is another matter all together - right now in my county, the people at the top of the waiting list for Section 8 housing vouchers (rent subsidy) applied in April 2004. I looked it up after hearing that the school system started the year with around 2000 homeless students.:001_huh: (The definition of homeless is broad enough that we would be considered homeless because we are living with my mother temporarily - I don't consider us homeless.)

[Renee in NC]

It can take months to see a specialist in the US as well. IME our waiting period isn't any better for certain specialists.

 

This is true - when my now 8yo was a baby, we had to wait 5 months to see the ped GI. We did, discussed what we wanted to do, but when I called back to move forward with the plans, there was no longer a ped GI. This was at a major teaching hospital in NC.

[Renee in NC]

While of course any unnecessary death is tragic, I think that article is extremely biased. It sounds as though *many* things unfortunately went badly in that situation-- I think it's unreasonable to say that lack of dental insurance is what caused this boy's death. If this mother was unable to obtain $80 from friends, family, etc. to have this tooth extracted, most dentists will treat uninsured patients and bill them, especially for such a small amount.

 

As far as the dentist treating and billing later, this has never been my experience. Doctors, yes, dentists, no. And really, the tooth couldn't have been pulled for $80. There would have been the exam fee, and the x-ray fee, and then possibly the pulling fee. However, it seems the standard of care is to *not* pull teeth anymore, even baby one, but rather to put a crown on them!

 

The current standard of care is a little high sometimes!

[petepie2]

I don't think healthcare, food and shelter are fundamental human rights. I don't see how something can be a right that demands or requires the services, time, and property of another individual. Healthcare is an obvious example of this. A right to food would say "I know you worked for this food. You grew this food. However, I don't have food and because I have a right to food, I'm going to take yours." We are not entitled to the services, time and property of another individual.

 

Now that being said, it doesn't mean that we don't do anything about the problem of poverty and lack of access to healthcare. But this is an issue of compassion and love, not one of rights.

[Peela]

Interesting ... I hadn't thought of that. Of course, one might say that the US is the richest country in the world because its systems are what they are. Many would argue that were the US to provide enormous social systems like many European countries, it wouldn't take too much time for it to lose that status.

 

So the status of being the richest country is more important than the care of each and every one of its citizens? What good is all that wealth in the hands of a minority if so many are suffering?

[Peela]

I think it is a basic human right but I dont think it is anyone's responsibility to provide it, in particular. I just think its a jolly good idea, thats all. I dont buy the sense of entitlement. We are all in this together. Taking care of our fellows is humanity, its just kindness, it's a non issue for me. However, its up to the people how they choose to do that. Government is not Daddy but it seems like it's a good use of government, to provide a structure that provides for everyone.

 

I live in a country with what seems to be called "universal health care" and it works well enough, and I am glad for it. The U.S. has 10 times our population. I just dont know how it would work, but I do think it's worth discussion considering it does work in other countries. I dont understand the point of all that wealth just for the sake of it.

[justamouse]

These conversations floor me.

 

I was very happy to read in the Sunday paper that there are leaders of various faiths fighting for what I believe is our moral obligation.

 

"God of grace and God of glory," prayed the Rev. Cynthia Hale during a national conference call Aug. 19 on health care reform, "... We believe that it is your will that every man, woman, boy and girl receive quality health care in America."

 

On that point, no religious leader would contest Hale, pastor at Ray of Hope Christian Church in Decatur, Ga., who offered the prayer at the kickoff of an effort by the faith community to mobilize religious support for the ideals of health care reform favored by President Obama.

 

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/09/religious_leaders_weigh_in_on.html

[HRAAB]

I do believe that access to basic health care, housing and food are basic human necessities. I also believe that those of us who have enough have a responsibility to ensure that those who do not receive those basic necessities. You could say it's part of my religious belief. I'm not sure how far I want to see the government involved, though. If we (the citizens) aren't getting it done on our own - through charities, etc. - then I might want to see more government intervention such as we have with food stamps, WIC, etc. I do support health care reform; I'm just not sure what that reform looks like exactly. If I see it, then I'll know.

 

I do not like big government. But I like even less seeing human beings going without the very basic needs necessary to human lie.

 

Janet

[mirth]

 

If you believe the government should ensure all receive adequate health care because it is a right, what about food and shelter?

 

I mean this honestly. Do we have a right to food and shelter? It seems to me that these two things are more important to the lives of Americans than health care (lack of either for a prolonged period of time will kill you before lack of health care will). I've heard many say they feel health care is a right (referencing the "life, liberty, pursuit ...)

 

Why then is it most important to overhaul health care right now instead of making sure all are fed and sheltered adequately?

 

Yes I see your point. If hc or hc insurance were a right, then I agree: more vital things should be standing in front of hc for Federal subsidy, such as in the following order.

 

Emergency Healthcare

Water

Food

Clothing, including shoes

Toilets and Toilet paper

Shelter

Protection from physical harm/danger

Non-emergency Health care

Education

Transportation to polls for any election you are qualified to vote

Transportation to place of worship

 

 

Actually hc insurance is already subsidized. It's just that the Fed govt decides to pass the subsidy on to employers instead of the populace.

Edited September 14, 2009 by mirth

[ma23peas]

It can take months to see a specialist in the US as well. IME our waiting period isn't any better for certain specialists.

 

I have to disagree in our case...my daughter was able to see specialists in less than 2 days....(8 of them)...the only one she has had to wait for is the Mayo Clinic and I can understand why, they have a team approach and they have to clear the schedules of 5-8 physicians for a week's time so that she can be seen by each one of them...but even then, the wait is 3 months...I was told she would have to wait weeks for surgery, but I called everyday (2 days) and said we'd take first cancellation and we were in to have her tonsils out in 5 days....I don't mind making those calls for cancellations..but if she had to wait months for any of the specialists she had seen, it would have been unbearable...in our case the specialists are still stumped..but at least they've ruled out many diagnoses. We saw cardiologists/rheumatologists/neurologists/infectious disease/ENT...we we hit several types!

 

Tara

[sagira]

Access is key here. Everyone should have free access to clean drinking water, food, shelter, healthcare, clean air.

 

To the PP who said that the richest country in the world doesn't provide for its citizens.. yes, and maybe that's why it's the richest. Not to stir up trouble, but if you read in the Bible there are many references that being rich is not as important as loving your neighbor, in other words, taking care of your country. Jesus fed the poor, healed the sick.. an example of all that. Why do many people it's such a bad thing to be taken care of?

 

For those of you who are Christians (like me), do you really think that God would disapprove of a nation that takes care of its citizens by providing good healthcare for all, and food for its poor, and shelter for its less fortunate? Regardless of who works and who doesn't?

 

I'm a bit apprehensive of people's reactions when I wrote this piece, but his country is based on free speech and the above is truly my opinion.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

My belief is that your God given rights are those that would come with you if God himself plopped you down in the middle of the mountains in, say, Idaho. So unless you happen to believe God is like the tornado in The Wizard of Oz that is going to plop you down house and all, which I don't, then no I do not believe food, shelter and health care are God given natural rights. I believe as humans we showed up on this planet butt naked, and hungry and had to learn to provide out own clothing, food and health care. It wasn't a right, we weren't entitled to it and no one gave it to us. It's not easy, it doesn't feel good and sometimes it's not fair but unfortunately no one ever said it would be. Life doesn't come with guarantees. If are ever to make this world a better place, then it is up to us to do it, each doing what we can and are willing to do on our own, alone or together and stop waiting for the government to do it for us. And then maybe, recipients will begin to see these things, that they can not procure for themselves, for what they truly are, gifts of humanity instead of rights they are entitled to.

 

So do we let them starve, go hungry, live in the streets, and die in order to teach them a lesson or to be grateful? My question is sincere. I do believe in personal responsibility, hard work, frugality, gratefulness, and charity. Our country has a lot of charity and still millions of people are falling through the cracks. I do not think charity is capable of solving this healthcare mess alone. I think our government should also model our values and morals. I do think that there should be strong incentives to work hard and better yourself with government assistance to help prevent abuses of the system. However, I do not believe that the abusers are the majority and I do not think it is a good idea to punish the whole class for a few bad apples.

 

P.S. I also think it is up to us to help each other but there are still many falling through the cracks and that is unacceptable IMHO. Also, our government is composed of "us" meaning our brothers and sisters and fellow Americans IMO.

Edited September 14, 2009 by priscilla
clarify

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I have to disagree in our case...my daughter was able to see specialists in less than 2 days....(8 of them)...the only one she has had to wait for is the Mayo Clinic and I can understand why, they have a team approach and they have to clear the schedules of 5-8 physicians for a week's time so that she can be seen by each one of them...but even then, the wait is 3 months...I was told she would have to wait weeks for surgery, but I called everyday (2 days) and said we'd take first cancellation and we were in to have her tonsils out in 5 days....I don't mind making those calls for cancellations..but if she had to wait months for any of the specialists she had seen, it would have been unbearable...in our case the specialists are still stumped..but at least they've ruled out many diagnoses. We saw cardiologists/rheumatologists/neurologists/infectious disease/ENT...we we hit several types!

 

Tara

 

 

That may have been your case to be seen quickly. However, I am not sure that is the norm. I live in a medium size city with 3 hospitals and hundreds of doctors. It usually does take months in my experience to get an appointment with specialists. It often takes weeks to get an appointment withmy primary doctor. Also, in the emergency rooms it is usual to have to wait hours to be seen and hours to even overnight to get a room. In fact, it is not unheard of to say the least to spend a couple of days in the ER waiting for a room:001_huh:.

[ma23peas]

The last couple of posts are on to a very unique situation that is playing out in countries that are trying to provide it all..Take Holland for example, it was well known that it would provide for anyone who came in and needed shelter/food/ etc....so naturally, many came in (Moroccans for example)..they got free food/shelter/and they had NO desire to work for it, they didn't have to..they were living off the state...

 

http://www.rferl.org/content/Article/1067418.html

 

They tried it, now they're trying to reverse their policies because a "you're welcome here' approach backfired. There are cases of many living off the state in UK/our own country who have no problem lying about trying to find a job and just contintuing their lifestyle..I honestly believe there are more people out there like that than there are who are in dire circumstances and can't help themself. There has to be a reason to EARN the basic necessities..if you can't honestly, then charity and brothers/sisters creating opportunities pops up, I volunteered as a Big Sister for several years...I helped with Angel Flight...I've served at food pantries for the homelesss....I give to help others....I put humanity above government...too many flaws in government than humanity.

 

Tara

[mommyrooch]

Interesting ... I hadn't thought of that. Of course, one might say that the US is the richest country in the world because its systems are what they are. Many would argue that were the US to provide enormous social systems like many European countries, it wouldn't take too much time for it to lose that status.

 

Yep, that's what I'm worried about as an American. It would sure be a shame if we lost some of our status in the world because we were taking care of our people. I mean, doesn't everyone know that taking care of our status quo is more important than helping our people? ;)

 

Or maybe it would send a message out to the world that America is not only a powerhouse in the world but that it is also a country that stands up and takes action when it's people are in trouble. How about being thought of as a powerhouse AND a caring country? Now that would be a label that I wouldn't mind having. ;)

 

You know, I find it ironic that America has spent trillions of dollars on the war in Iraq when just a fraction of that money would have paid for the reform of our healthcare system. Many people were fine with spending that money but when asked to spend the money on it's own people some of those same people are in an uproar about it.

 

I just don't get it. :confused: I am all for helping other countries but don't you think we should be using that power and financial status to help the people on our own shores first? Oh, my bad. Forgive me for thinking that helping our fellow Americans when they are in trouble should be as important (if not more so) than helping out other nations when they are in trouble. How very "un-American" of me. :tongue_smilie:

[Denise in Florida]

I don't believe healthcare is a right. Nor do I believe food, shelter or even an education are rights. They're rights in the sense that no one can deprive me of them -- but not in the sense that someone else has to give them to me.

 

:iagree:

 

I also believe that we as human beings are required to help our neighbors. I was going to say as 'Christians' but I am certain other faiths share the same requirement. There is a huge jump from 'help one another' to 'take money from one group (without consent) and give it to people you pick.'

[mommyrooch]

My belief is that your God given rights are those that would come with you if God himself plopped you down in the middle of the mountains in, say, Idaho. So unless you happen to believe God is like the tornado in The Wizard of Oz that is going to plop you down house and all, which I don't, then no I do not believe food, shelter and health care are God given natural rights. I believe as humans we showed up on this planet butt naked, and hungry and had to learn to provide out own clothing, food and health care. It wasn't a right, we weren't entitled to it and no one gave it to us. It's not easy, it doesn't feel good and sometimes it's not fair but unfortunately no one ever said it would be. Life doesn't come with guarantees. If are ever to make this world a better place, then it is up to us to do it, each doing what we can and are willing to do on our own, alone or together and stop waiting for the government to do it for us. And then maybe, recipients will begin to see these things, that they can not procure for themselves, for what they truly are, gifts of humanity instead of rights they are entitled to.

 

If this is the case and we are meant to only provide for ourselves then why was it that Christ was "providing" for others in virtually everything he did? Why did he not tell them that he gave them life but the rest was up to them?

 

This idea is actually completely opposite from what Christ was doing. He was ALWAYS feeding the hungry and healing the sick. And my goodness, he gave the ultimate sacrifice. He was willing to die for me! I can't help but take all of that to mean that he thought it was VERY important to provide for others in their time of need.

 

God did not just plop us down on this earth to fend for ourselves. He absolutely expects us to give up of ourselves for each other just as he gave up of himself for us. At least this is what I believe. ;)