If you believe healthcare to be a right ...

[mommyrooch]

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...

 

Then I guess America is a whole lot dumber than every other industrialized nation. Canada comes to mind. They have had a government run healthcare system for years. Somehow they were able to do it. I guess they're just a lot brighter than us. ;)

 

I happen to believe that we "can" do these things. There is a big difference between ability and desire. America absolutely "can" provide these things. It just has "chosen" not to.

[lmrich]

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.

 

 

 

 

Could not agree more - a right to food and shelter and healthcare? NO we have the right to attain it!

[Debbie in OR]

Then I guess America is a whole lot dumber than every other industrialized nation. Canada comes to mind. They have had a government run healthcare system for years. Somehow they were able to do it. I guess they're just a lot brighter than us. ;)

 

I happen to believe that we "can" do these things. There is a big difference between ability and desire. America absolutely "can" provide these things. It just has "chosen" not to.

 

 

Canada has not figured it out. A quick search for Canada health care problems brings up pages of links. And their equivalent (roughly) of our Surgeon General just released his own assessment of the Canadian health care system: many problems and not sustainable.

[Snickerdoodle]

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?

 

You mean he took personal responsibility to help others. I'm just not seeing the government mandated part of that. Perhaps I'm missing something as I'm not exactly well versed in biblical terms.

[MomLovesClassics]

I know someone who worked for social services. People who are not citizens of this country, are able to obtain free housing, food stamps, utilities, a monthly check, and free medical care by having medicaid. So these services are provided to those who are not citizens of this country. When it comes to citizens of this country, sometimes it can be difficult to qualify for services. There are people who are able to get free housing, food stamps, medicaid, and those type benefits. On the same token, one can have a job not have health insurance, and go in debt from medical bills alone, and ruin one's credit to the point they can not even qualify for a cell phone without a huge deposit. Yet the person living off the government can get a cell phone without any problems. Around here government housing is high crime areas, and not considered safe. It is sad these programs are available, but people take advantage of them. Things are very off balance. I don't wish to see more crime infested government housing.

[mommyrooch]

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.

 

Please don't be apprehensive. I agree with you 100%

 

I personally believe that we should be healing the sick, feeding the hungry, caring for the orphans and widows, loving our fellow man and giving up of ourselves as Christ gave himself up for us.

 

The only "physical" example we have been given is seen in the life that Christ led while he was here. The Bible is filled with case after case of Christ helping others. He was feeding the hungry. He was healing the sick and the lame. He also wasn't picking and choosing who was "worthy" of it. He helped the prostitute just as he helped his disciples. It didn't matter to him if the person had "earned" it. He just saw a need and met that need.

 

This is the life that I aspire to lead. I can't even imagine complaining about my taxes going up in order to help other families in need. Helping other people so completely overshadows my personal finances that I can't imagine NOT wanting to pay them.

 

I guess I take that whole love my neighbor as myself thing pretty seriously. If I am hungry I will feed myself. If I am sick I will try to heal myself. If I am homeless I'm going to try to get a home. If I truly believe that I am to love my neighbor as myself then I will help provide those things to them too if they need it.

 

This is truly my opinion as well. I realize that not everyone believes this way but I sure do.

[Orthodox6]

I would agree that safe food, clean water, shelter, clothing, basic education, personal safety (against war, rape, and other violence) and basic health care are human rights.

 

This is a fallen world, however, (Christian truth underpinning my words), so human selfishness and greed always will prevent the universal distribution of these basic rights.

[muffinmom]

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

 

 

:iagree:

[HRAAB]

I would agree that safe food, clean water, shelter, clothing, basic education, personal safety (against war, rape, and other violence) and basic health care are human rights.

 

This is a fallen world, however, (Christian truth underpinning my words), so human selfishness and greed always will prevent the universal distribution of these basic rights.

 

This is where I always end up. How to make this work in a fallen world? I have seen it not work - charity - because of prejudices. This was a in a church food bank. Would the government be better at it? Providing basic needs without prejudice?

 

Janet

[mommyrooch]

You mean he took personal responsibility to help others. I'm just not seeing the government mandated part of that. Perhaps I'm missing something as I'm not exactly well versed in biblical terms.

 

If everyone took "personal" responsiblity then this would be a moot point. This is not the case though. There are not enough people taking on that "personal" responsibility and millions are suffering as a result.

 

I see it as picking the worst of two evils. It is a shame that other people would have to be "forced" by government to help others but I find it extremely more disturbing that millions of Americans are falling through the current cracks and dying from lack of proper care or no care at all. I find it more disturbing that families are forced to give up everything they ever worked for in order to try to save the life of their loved one. I find it unacceptable that Americans are starving or homeless.

 

For me, their guaranteed access to food, shelter, medical care and a home FAR outweighs someones guarantee that they will be able to keep all of their income. It is a shame that a choice like this even exists but it does. There are simply not enough people taking on the "personal" responsibility to fix this. There are millions of Americans suffering as a result of these things and that is much more "shameful" than requireing fellow Americans to "share the wealth"

 

Sure I think that others should be able to keep what they earn but not at the expense of anothers life. It is either let these people die from starvation, sickness, or exposure or "require" other Americans to step up and do their part. Since I'm having to choose I would choose the latter anyday.

[Snickerdoodle]

If everyone took "personal" responsiblity then this would be a moot point.

So this is more of a statement of the degradation of personal morals than it is a question of who should be distributing charitable funds.

 

I see it as picking the worst of two evils. It is a shame that other people would have to be "forced" by government to help others

 

So this is more of a personal interpretation of how charity should be distributed?

[theresatwist]

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.

 

I think your comment is really interesting because I'm quite liberal and I support a government plan. However, if I thought that the private sector was solving the problem I'd be fine with that! But as I see it, our health care system has been in crisis since the 1990s and it has only gotten worse. The private sector has had over ten years to step in and help to improve the situation. I'm not saying the private sector hasn't made any contribution in that time. I know they have. However, at this point I think this problem has gotten so urgent that it need to be tackled ASAP in a coordinated fashion and the private sector has not shown the capacity to do that as far as I can tell. The private sector is very good at making incremental changes at the local level. I don't think we can afford to wait for that. At the very least, I don't think we can depend on the private sector alone to solve this issue in the time frame we have.

[Orthodox6]

Governments are LOADED with prejudices !

 

Your example of the church food bank is a reminder that Christianity is holy -- but the Church is administered by sinful people.

 

This is where I always end up. How to make this work in a fallen world? I have seen it not work - charity - because of prejudices. This was a in a church food bank. Would the government be better at it? Providing basic needs without prejudice?

 

Janet

[HRAAB]

Governments are LOADED with prejudices !

 

Your example of the church food bank is a reminder that the Christianity is holy -- but the Church is administered by sinful people.

 

That was actually my point, more less. Just didn't say it. Government is administered by people, the same people with prejudices. I actually believe churches do a much better job in distributing to the needy, and the very few times I saw it not being done right is truly the minority. I also know that churches don't reach everyone. Also, churches can't solve the health care problem we have.

 

I agree with your above comment.

 

Janet

[Denise in Florida]

Could not agree more - a right to food and shelter and healthcare? NO we have the right to attain it!

 

:iagree: We do not have the right to take a basic necessity away from one person to give it to another. Food, homes, healthcare, etc. are not simply running around free and everyone should share. They come from someplace; farmers, builders, doctors provide services, people decide which service they want most.

 

On the other hand, as a Christian (and I know this is true of other faiths) I am required to help my neighbor (which I do). I don't have the authority to force everyone else to chip in and help the people I pick to help.

[mommyrooch]

So this is more of a statement of the degradation of personal morals than it is a question of who should be distributing charitable funds.

 

This is not a degradation of personal morals. Many peoples personal morals have always been lacking. That's how we got into this mess in the first place.

 

Now that's not to say that evenyone has lacking morals. There are a LOT of people that have amazing morals. My point is that they can't fix this problem alone. There simply aren't enough people giving out of the goodness of their own hearts. It's a statement of supply verses demand. Not a statement of the degradation of morals.

 

In reply to your statement about this being a question of who should be distributing charitable funds. I didn't even ask that question. I stated that since there weren't enough individuals "willingly" giving to the problem then I would support it being made a requirement that they give. The biggest problem is the lack of availability. If the resources aren't there in the first place thay can't be distrubuted. I am supporting making sure that the resources are there.

 

 

 

 

So this is more of a personal interpretation of how charity should be distributed?

 

Yep! I made it very clear that this was my "personal" opinion. I also stated that I realized that not everyone thinks this way.

 

I wholeheartedly believe in "sharing the wealth" :thumbup: The rich should help take care of the poor. The strong should take care of the weak. The fed should help feed the hungry. The healthy should help heal the sick.

 

This is the way that I believe. I don't expect anyone to change their views based on my beliefs. I do however hope that by sharing my views someone might get the chance to see and think about another perspective.

[PineFarmMom]

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. ;)

 

The scripture "Everyone should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly and not under compulsion" comes to mind. Yes, Christ gave. He did not come and encourage it to be forced on us to give...it's a heart issue. I give. I give from my heart. I give to organizations that I trust to do the very best with my $$ and make it go to the charities I agree with and to be handled responsibly. The govt. is not one of those charities. The govt. is NOT a charity. The govt. is not an entity that I trust to handle that type of thing because I think they are frivolous and unwise with our $$, and handing them one more thing to get control of is a very. bad. idea. Roads, defense, a judicial system, education (and sometimes I doubt their ability with that) those are the things I think the govt. should be in charge of...there are a very few things more than that that I think they should have their greedy, irresponsible hands on. I honestly say that across-the-board, republican or democrat leaders. They've proven themselves to have an unwise, we're-smarter-and-better-than-the-peasants way of handling our $$, over and over, administration after administration. And govt. forcing us to give to others is not the type of giving Christ was about. It's laughable to think of Him encouraging the type of frivolous nonsense that goes on and would likely go on with our govt. in charge of one more thing, especially our health care!!!:lol::lol:

[mommyrooch]

The scripture "Everyone should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly and not under compulsion" comes to mind. Yes, Christ gave. He did not come and encourage it to be forced on us to give...it's a heart issue. I give. I give from my heart. I give to organizations that I trust to do the very best with my $$ and make it go to the charities I agree with and to be handled responsibly. The govt. is not one of those charities. The govt. is NOT a charity. The govt. is not an entity that I trust to handle that type of thing because I think they are frivolous and unwise with our $$, and handing them one more thing to get control of is a very. bad. idea. Roads, defense, a judicial system, education (and sometimes I doubt their ability with that) those are the things I think the govt. should be in charge of...there are a very few things more than that that I think they should have their greedy, irresponsible hands on. I honestly say that across-the-board, republican or democrat leaders. They've proven themselves to have an unwise, we're-smarter-and-better-than-the-peasants way of handling our $$, over and over, administration after administration. And govt. forcing us to give to others is not the type of giving Christ was about. It's laughable to think of Him encouraging the type of frivolous nonsense that goes on and would likely go on with our govt. in charge of one more thing, especially our health care!!!:lol::lol:

 

I agree that we "should" give. I even said that it's a shame that this is even an issue. I know that there are a lot of good people out there trying to help. There just aren't enough of them. It boils down to supply versus demand. If millions of Americans are suffering as a result of not having guaranteed access to things like food and healthcare then something has to be done to help them.

 

Like I said, I am personally picking the worst of the two evils. It is unfortunate that this crisis has become so great that we would need to require everyone to help but it is much worse in my eyes to allow these people to continually suffer.

[Mama Bear]

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.

 

I'm struggling with this: "because I have a right to food, I'm going to take yours."

 

Arguing for a right to healthcare (or food, etc.) would not indicate that therefore any individual has a right to take it from another. The right to "life, liberty, etc." does not give someone the right to walk over and take another's life, liberty, etc. because he/she wants what that person has.

 

I think the problem comes in when thinking about any sort of redistribution of resources. By being citizens of a particular country (free country) we've consented to living under the laws of that country and benefitting from them. We also benefit from the infrastructure of that country. Infrastructure requires money for it's creation and renewal, in order that citizens might continue to benefit from it -- thus taxes. Some form of taxation is necessary to continue to exist as a profitable society, lest the bridges fall in and import/export activities cease. It seems to me that the argument here is really this: how far do we wish to carry our agreed upon commitment to infrastructure?

 

People may be, coldly, considered a resource as well. A prosperous nation has an interest in it's population maintaining basic health levels, preventing plagues and anything else that could fairly easily be prevented/treated and therefore contribute to keeping productivity up. Coldly, managing resources is a serious consideration.

 

Thankfully, it is not the only possible POV. I've been thinking about Matt 25:32 lately. Wondering things...

[Orthodox6]

(1) You have food.

(2) You have a right to food.

(3) I do not have food.

(4) I have a right to food.

(5) NON-SEQUITUR: Therefore I am going to take yours.

 

Unbridgeable chasm between #4 and #5.

 

Shifting gears, now, I understand very well that I cannot speak for the viewpoints of non-Christians. I can, however, address Christian believers with the reminder that Nothing belongs to an individual. Everything belongs to God, and is placed in our hands for stewardship. This includes food, water, clothing, shelter, and every material item. Our very lives do not "belong" to us.

 

I'm always convicted by the writings of the saints and other wise people. Quoting now from St. Basil the Great:

 

 

When someone steals another's

 

Clothes, we call them a thief.

 

 

 

Should we not give the same name

 

 

 

to one who could clothe the naked

 

 

 

And does not?

 

 

 

( St. Basil the Great)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"The bread in your cupboard

Belongs to the hungry; the coat

Hanging unused in your closet

Belongs to the one who needs it;

The shoes rotting in your closet

Belong to the one who has no

Shoes; the money which you hoard

Belongs to the Poor"

( St. Basil the Great )

 

 

"

Edited September 14, 2009 by Orthodox6

[Meriwether]

I agree that we "should" give. I even said that it's a shame that this is even an issue. I know that there are a lot of good people out there trying to help. There just aren't enough of them. It boils down to supply versus demand. If millions of Americans are suffering as a result of not having guaranteed access to things like food and healthcare then something has to be done to help them.

 

Like I said, I am personally picking the worst of the two evils. It is unfortunate that this crisis has become so great that we would need to require everyone to help but it is much worse in my eyes to allow these people to continually suffer.

 

 

 

I believe that many people want to help people in need. Some want to do it with big government programs. Others don't. It seems like liberals tend to criticize conservatives who believe in both small governments and personal responsibility. Oddly enough, those stingy, mean conservatives give more, statistically, of their own money to charity.

 

If health care is a concern for you, buy a plan for someone who needs it or donate to a charity that provides it. Requiring everyone to help would take money from my family that we use to support charities we want to support and help people we have chosen to help. My husband and I give a minimum of 12-15% of his GROSS income to charity. We are a single income middle (of the middle) class family. If we see someone who needs help, we give extra. Last month, my husband gave away his CAR.

 

I have to say it makes me angry when people act like we don't care about people just because we don't support big government programs. Oh, and my dad worked three jobs and my mom cleaned houses to support us growing up. We qualified for free lunch programs but wouldn't take them. When I say we don't believe in government programs, I mean it. And as little as my parents had, they always managed to give. That being said, I would never vote to force someone else to support a charity that I liked. That isn't giving anymore, it is stealing.

[Orthodox6]

Pretty clear that no simple answer exists. I have not noticed, at any rate, that anybody here proposes a "one size fits all" solution.

 

I dislike a great deal of what the U.S. government does with its money -- which is not "its" money anyway, but is money taxed from U.S. citizens. (Other revenue streams exist, I imagine; however, forced taxation accounts for a great deal, along with interest on loans repaid from other countries, and "rubber money" -- currency created for the purpose, such as that pulled from thin air for the banks bailout.)

 

Once the tax man has been paid, we lose ALL legal control over how that money is spent. By voluntarily living in this country as a legal resident, and as a citizen (with the rights appertaining thereto), I surrender many, many freedoms. Civilization carries a hefty price tag for the individual person.

[petepie2]

(1) You have food.

(2) You have a right to food.

(3) I do not have food.

(4) I have a right to food.

(5) NON-SEQUITUR: Therefore I am going to take yours.

 

Unbridgeable chasm between #4 and #5.

 

Shifting gears, now, I understand very well that I cannot speak for the viewpoints of non-Christians. I can, however, address Christian believers with the reminder that Nothing belongs to an individual. Everything belongs to God, and is placed in our hands for stewardship. This includes food, water, clothing, shelter, and every material item. Our very lives do not "belong" to us.

 

"

 

There is a difference between our duty as Christians to assist those who are in need and a needy person having a fundamental right to receive assistance. They are two different issues. And while I fully understand that everything we have is from God and we are to be good stewards of it, the Bible also says "Thou shalt not steal" and therefore establishes personal property rights. Whether or not I choose to give food, etc to someone who needs it, is different than someone taking it because they think they have a right or a just claim to it. And there is a difference between me cheerfully giving of my resources to help someone and the government taking those resources by force.

 

There is not an unbridgeable chasm between 4 and 5. That is exactly what our government wants to do in the case of healthcare. That's why the politicians keep mentioning a right to healthcare. It's because if healthcare is a fundamental human right, then it is justifiable to take resources by force from people who have earned them and give them to people who don't have nor have earned those resources. It is true that a society is better off if people aren't starving and dying in the streets. Therefore, just from a government standpoint, we have to do something. (Note: this is separate from our duties as Christians to help others out of love for Christ and love for others.) However, one thing that is lacking in the endowment of rights such as the ones we're discussing here is the expectation of responsibility. 2 Thess 3:10 says "if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either." This concept is completely lost in an "entitlement, I have a right or just claim to____, regardless" culture.

 

ETA: When I mentioned above about society being better off, that could be taken as cold in and of itself. I mentioned that specifically because a previous poster brought up the point. I don't want people to not suffer just because it's good for society and I don't intend for that statement to be taken that way.

Edited September 14, 2009 by petepie2
spelling

[mommyrooch]

I believe that many people want to help people in need. Some want to do it with big government programs. Others don't. It seems like liberals tend to criticize conservatives who believe in both small governments and personal responsibility. Oddly enough, those stingy, mean conservatives give more, statistically, of their own money to charity.

 

If health care is a concern for you, buy a plan for someone who needs it or donate to a charity that provides it. Requiring everyone to help would take money from my family that we use to support charities we want to support and help people we have chosen to help. My husband and I give a minimum of 12-15% of his GROSS income to charity. We are a single income middle (of the middle) class family. If we see someone who needs help, we give extra. Last month, my husband gave away his CAR.

 

I have to say it makes me angry when people act like we don't care about people just because we don't support big government programs. Oh, and my dad worked three jobs and my mom cleaned houses to support us growing up. We qualified for free lunch programs but wouldn't take them. When I say we don't believe in government programs, I mean it. And as little as my parents had, they always managed to give. That being said, I would never vote to force someone else to support a charity that I liked. That isn't giving anymore, it is stealing.

 

Oh for goodnesss sakes! No one said that you and your family don't do their part. I am so tired of people putting words into others mouths.

 

Read back through my posts (if you even care) and you will clearly see that I stated that a LOT of great people are already helping. I even emphasized LOT just as I did here.

 

I stated that even though a LOT were giving it simply was not enough on a national level.

 

I think that it's great that your family already helps. If everyone was like you then our world would be a better place. However, everyone is not like you and millions are suffering on a national level.

 

Supply verses demand. There are not enough "you's" out there to meet the demand. That is why I support everyone pitching in.

 

Now, if someone could come up with a plan that would protect those like you then I would be all for that. Perhaps a plan that would offer you exempt if you could show that you were already "giving". I'm afraid that this would be quickly shot down too though because some might think "how dare I have to "prove" myself to anyone.

 

I find it ironic that so many that are so against healthcare reform supported the war in Iraq. I'm not saying you did so don't put words in my mouth. I'm making a general observation.

 

We as a country spent trillions of dollars of taxpayers money on this but we aren't willing to invest the same money for our own people. This just seems so skewed to me. :confused:

 

By using just a fraction of what we paid for that war we could have reformed healthcare. I just can't wrap my mind around how some people (again, not saying you) gauge their priorities.

[ekarl2]

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?

 

That's not my point. What I meant was that when I hear, "The US can do it, it's RICH," I can't help but think that one of the reasons we're able to come to the aide of so many other across the globe is BECAUSE of our system of government. The US gives an astronomical amount of aide and charity (both government and personal) to countries and disaster the world over. It really seems as if many countries depend on us to come to the rescue. If we start paying through the nose and raising taxes (like other countries with universal health care), I can see our money going that way and not to others around the world. Just because we're rich now, doesn't mean we always will be. I guess it's a chicken v the egg argument. Many say wer SHOULD do it because we're rich. Others say we're rich because we don't do it.

[LMA]

I think we agree that there are limits imposed by insurance companies on lifetime coverage. So, are people advocating that the universal health care program not have a limit for all diseases and conditions? How will we pay for all of this? Where do you draw the line on health care? Everything costs money. And most of us don't have the money to pay for our neighbor's health care or health policy.

 

Louise

[HRAAB]

 

I have to say it makes me angry when people act like we don't care about people just because we don't support big government programs. Oh, and my dad worked three jobs and my mom cleaned houses to support us growing up. We qualified for free lunch programs but wouldn't take them. When I say we don't believe in government programs, I mean it. And as little as my parents had, they always managed to give. That being said, I would never vote to force someone else to support a charity that I liked. That isn't giving anymore, it is stealing.

 

 

I really need to understand something here. Using the 'free lunch program' as mentioned above as an example: how is that different than using government run public education, fire and police protection, public libraries, driving on roads maintained by the government all funded by tax dollars. I think many of you make a distinction between different types of government programs (certain programs are okay and certain programs overstep what the government ought to be doing), and I would like to understand that.

 

Janet

[Orthodox6]

Prices are artificial, arbitrary constructs. In a fully free market, one sells at the price someone else is willing to pay. The price charged, however, bears no relationship to the quality or innate value of the good or service exchanged for the money. This is why, for example, an actor or a sports figure can earn such astronomical incomes. Person A is willing to pay for the tickets to support such a salary, Person B cannot detect any "innate value" of the product (athletic ability) to justify the ticket cost, so refuses to shell out the money and attend the game. Person A, however, characterizes the free market in action.

 

Health care is not a fully free market. A spiderweb of intertwined self-interest interferes: insurance companies, doctors, lawyers, pharmaceutical companies, and more. The efforts of one group effects a change in another group.

 

Meanwhile, the "just value" of any given medical procedure or medical product remains undetermined.

 

A person who holds a group medical insurance policy benefits from "wholesale" prices negotiated by an insurance company. An uninsured person must pay "retail" pricing for the identical product or service.

 

In either case, because there is no agreed-upon "just value" of the product or service, the fee levied is arbitrary. In the case of health care, the patient no longer can barter or negotiate directly with the health care provider. I cannot pay a few dozen eggs from my hens in exchange for a well-baby visit with the pediatrician. Rather, I am forced into a "take it or leave it" position, when faced with a medical cost that may -- or may not -- be exorbitant, yet which I have no way of paying, even if it be just.

 

Thus, two distinct sets of influences play on relentlessly.

 

 

Everything costs money.

 

Louise

Edited September 14, 2009 by Orthodox6

[Mrs Mungo]

Meanwhile, the "just value" of any given medical procedure or medical product remains undetermined.

 

Not only that but it's extremely hard for the consumer to actually *know* what they do or don't need. They are almost totally reliant on the person providing the service. Health care and car/home repairs are about the only industries where this is true.

[Meriwether]

I really need to understand something here. Using the 'free lunch program' as mentioned above as an example: how is that different than using government run public education, fire and police protection, public libraries, driving on roads maintained by the government all funded by tax dollars. I think many of you make a distinction between different types of government programs (certain programs are okay and certain programs overstep what the government ought to be doing), and I would like to understand that.

 

Janet

 

 

For me the difference is that services like fire stations, police, libraries, etc. are more local programs taxed more locally and decided on more locally. More local control and decision making generally mean less waste and abuse of power. This used to be true of education, but that isn't so much anymore. Where my parents live, the first responders are volunteer rural firefighters. My dad donates $500 a year because he values that service a lot (every year every farm in the area burns off the grass in the spring).

 

And yes, I agree that some government programs are okay - standing army, judicial system, road system to provide infrastructure. Others should be regulated state by state.

 

My parents considered it their responsibility to feed their children. Taxing someone else to feed their children when they could work - any kind of work - was not an option for them.

[Mrs Mungo]

For me the difference is that services like fire stations, police, libraries, etc. are more local programs taxed more locally and decided on more locally.

 

Many fire stations and police forces do receive federal money, mostly through the Department of Homeland Security, I believe.

 

Some local libraries also receive federal funds. I know that some libraries turned down federal money when a law was passed requiring libraries who received federal funds to install internet filters.

 

Maybe a big part of the disconnect here is that most people don't realize what all the federal government subsidizes already?

[Meriwether]

That's why I said "more". Although some do accept federal money, those types of programs do have more local control than big federal programs.

[Mrs Mungo]

That's why I said "more". Although some do accept federal money, those types of programs do have more local control than big federal programs.

 

I do agree that, for the most part, local governments tend to work better. A small business is easier to run than a large one. The bigger it gets, the more complicated it gets. I don't disagree there.

 

That's one of the things I see as a problem here in Hawaii. Hawaii's constitution doesn't allow for city governments. Many decisions are made at the state level that have a terrible impact on particular areas because those at the state level aren't the ones having to cope with the problem.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

For me the difference is that services like fire stations, police, libraries, etc. are more local programs taxed more locally and decided on more locally. More local control and decision making generally mean less waste and abuse of power. This used to be true of education, but that isn't so much anymore. Where my parents live, the first responders are volunteer rural firefighters. My dad donates $500 a year because he values that service a lot (every year every farm in the area burns off the grass in the spring).

 

My parents considered it their responsibility to feed their children. Taxing someone else to feed their children when they could work - any kind of work - was not an option for them.

 

Actually from where we live I suspect the waste and abuse of power is the same or more than the federal government:tongue_smilie:.

 

I suspect that it is more widespread than I ever wanted to believe. OTOH I believe that there are still many good people in the local, state, and federal levels of government as well. After all these people are our fellow Americans and in many cases our family members. I know in my family there are several who work very hard for the government:). I also believe that most in government are good and those who abuse are not the majority.

Edited September 14, 2009 by priscilla
clarify

[Mrs Mungo]

Re: tort reform-how are people protected when financial reparations become limited?

 

Example: I have a good friend who recently changed law firms. She quit her old law firm because she cried every day after work. Her law firm was working hard to not pay for damages done by a particular company. Pretty much everyone *knows*, in reality (even according to common, public knowledge), that it's true. Proving it in court when you are old, sick and poor is another. How do we protect people from these situations? It doesn't work very well *now*.

[TXMary2]

I don't believe it is a right. Nor do I think food or shelter is a right. No one has the right to take food and shelter from me, but they aren't olbigated to provide it to me unless I am paying for it.

 

I don't believe it is the federal government's job to "take care of its citizens" in a daily micro managing way.

 

That said, health "care" isn't the problem here. Health INSURANCE reform is needed. Since according to most polls upwards of 75% of the American people are happy with their healthcare insurance coverage it isn't necessary for the government to take over the health insurance industry.

 

Anyone in this country, legal or illegal, can access healthCARE. You or I could walk into any emergency room and get treatment at the taxpayer expense. The ER's are not turning people away. This is part of WHY health care services cost so much.

[lynn]

I don't believe it is a right. Nor do I think food or shelter is a right. No one has the right to take food and shelter from me, but they aren't olbigated to provide it to me unless I am paying for it.

 

I don't believe it is the federal government's job to "take care of its citizens" in a daily micro managing way.

 

That said, health "care" isn't the problem here. Health INSURANCE reform is needed. Since according to most polls upwards of 75% of the American people are happy with their healthcare insurance coverage it isn't necessary for the government to take over the health insurance industry.

 

Anyone in this country, legal or illegal, can access healthCARE. You or I could walk into any emergency room and get treatment at the taxpayer expense. The ER's are not turning people away. This is part of WHY health care services cost so much.

 

Now that's a misconception of many. People are turned away from some ER's if they don't have insurance or cash and set to the local hospital that take people who can't pay. This is directly from my mom who works in the hospital that people are sent to. This is in S Fl, I dont' know if it's the same all over.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

 

Anyone in this country, legal or illegal, can access healthCARE. You or I could walk into any emergency room and get treatment at the taxpayer expense. The ER's are not turning people away. This is part of WHY health care services cost so much.

 

ERs do not provide chemotherapy and radiation treatments nor do they fill needed prescriptions which can be astronomical in price. So if you do not have the money then tough luck I guess:001_huh:. Ers do not provide speech therapy, occupational therapy, nor physical therapy.

[Jen500]

Anyone in this country, legal or illegal, can access healthCARE. You or I could walk into any emergency room and get treatment at the taxpayer expense. The ER's are not turning people away. This is part of WHY health care services cost so much.

 

I guess it depends on your definition of Healthcare. ERs patch you up and send you home. No treatment plan, no ongoing meds if needed. I don't consider that healthcare.

[texascamps]

I'm amazed at everyone's responses....

 

 

If everyone has a right to all of these things, then who is going to provide them? There are limited funds, limited food, limited shelter......

 

 

If you keep taking money from the people making the money then the people with the money will stop making money......

 

I'm dumbfounded

 

 

I have one friend, just one who made $152,000 last year...because the husband got a performance bonus....they couldn't take their tithing deduction, their college student tuition deduction, etc. etc....... They didn't get to take hardly any deductions.

 

They came to borrow my Taxcut program because they thought their tax program was broken....

 

I couldn't believe how much they paid in taxes.....

 

Is he trying to be productive this year? Heck no. Why? He's never had to pay so much in taxes....

 

And the truth to those out there with businesses......

 

My family doesn't make enough to shop at small businesses... we stimulate the economy of China with our Wal-mart shopping and we pay little in taxes. Our friends who are supposedly rich spend their extra money at small businesses. They go to scrapbooking stores, bicycle shops, florists. THey are just the folks that keep small businesses going....not me.

 

Since he knows he's not going to get a bonus this year because he refuses to excel this year since most of it will go to taxes.... they've cut back on ....small business excursions and she's shopping at Wal-mart and Costco. Its all going to China.

 

Yes you may hat rich people, but they employ the rest of us....Stop trying to take their money!!!!!!!!!!!! Its really scary!

 

What happens when all the rich people are gone? Ack!

 

I don't know any really POOR people who don't have Cable.......

[Orthodox6]

I'm puzzled by reading the same disjunction over and over.

 

One issue is whether a human being, by virtue of being a human being, has an in-born "right" to food, water, clothing, and shelter. (and, in the extended question, health care). The answer to the question is "Yes" or "No". One then can assign the basis on which the answer was chosen. (For example, I say "yes" because of my Christian worldview. Someone else readily might say "no" and have her own basis for that.)

 

I keep reading here the confusion of this with another, completely separate, claim: If something is my "right" to have, then I will have to steal (or appropriate, or wrest, or whatever) it from another person. This is a possible "effect" of the "cause", where "cause" is the existence (or absence) in a human being of the listed rights.

 

Why are these two issues being jumbled together ? A possible "consequence" is being joined to the initial "cause" as if it were inseparable from the cause.

 

When I wrote earlier about an "unbridgeable chasm between #4 and #5", this is precisely what I meant. My "right" to possess something does not at all require that claiming possession entails stealing from someone else. I could purchase. I could beg. I could file a law suit. I could go without. I even could elect to steal or swindle. The eventual possession of that which is my "right" to possess, however, does not automatically mean that I shall have gained possession by means of stealing.

 

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

 

I understood that the question assumed that these "rights" were inherent to the state of being a human person.

 

(I did not understand the question to assume that these "rights" are to be created and labeled as "rights" by the government.) (Even if the government arrogates to itself the task of creating and labeling what it wants to call "rights", it still would be a fully separate issue to consider whether or not the government should take responsibility for fulfilling what it has chosen to call "rights.")

 

I am taking this thread very seriously, I am not just typing for some idle pleasure of self-expression. If anyone wishes to take time to reply carefully to what I have sought to write carefully, I really would be glad to read and learn from that person's response.

Edited September 14, 2009 by Orthodox6

[PineFarmMom]

What happens when all the rich people are gone? Ack!

 

I don't know any really POOR people who don't have Cable.......

 

You are so right!! Well-spoken, all of it. If one guy is working his tail off and paying mega bucks in taxes, and joe shmoe next door isn't working but is getting health care and food and shelter from the govt., then why would the other guy continue to slave like that. The natural human tendency will be, like in socialistic countries in general, to kick back and take. It's human nature! I don't get the logic of the idea that handouts are good for our country. They lead to feelings of entitlement and laziness. I realize that's not across the board and there are people that really do need help, but I believe there are many, many that are just taking from the system because they can!

[Peela]

 

 

If everyone has a right to all of these things, then who is going to provide them? There are limited funds, limited food, limited shelter......

 

Are there? Perhaps we should be talking about population control instead then?

 

 

If you keep taking money from the people making the money then the people with the money will stop making money......

 

I don't think so.

How about reprioritising the money already collected for taxes? Less wars, more health? So many possibilities. Just needs some really creative thinking.

We have a public health system that works pretty well- still plenty of rich people. I just don't get where you get these ideas.

 

So much ungrounded fear in this debate.

[mommyrooch]

I don't think so.

How about reprioritising the money already collected for taxes? Less wars, more health? So many possibilities. Just needs some really creative thinking.

We have a public health system that works pretty well- still plenty of rich people. I just don't get where you get these ideas.

 

So much ungrounded fear in this debate.

 

:iagree:I really don't think that the rich are going to become poor just because their taxes go up. Do you know how much they are allowed to write off annually? Everything from pencils, staples, paper clips and toilet paper. They could and do easily offset the increase in taxes. That's why they have accountants. ;)

 

I'm only guessing that Canada and other industrialized countries have their fair share of "rich" people. Imagine that. :tongue_smilie: Providing healthcare for their people and still having a stable economy where their rich remain rich.

 

Just because they pay taxes into a universal healthcare option does not make their rich all of a sudden become poor. That is just such a silly concept to me. :001_huh:

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

You are so right!! Well-spoken, all of it. If one guy is working his tail off and paying mega bucks in taxes, and joe shmoe next door isn't working but is getting health care and food and shelter from the govt., then why would the other guy continue to slave like that. The natural human tendency will be, like in socialistic countries in general, to kick back and take. It's human nature! I don't get the logic of the idea that handouts are good for our country. They lead to feelings of entitlement and laziness. I realize that's not across the board and there are people that really do need help, but I believe there are many, many that are just taking from the system because they can!

 

IMHO you are making a big assumption that folks who are poor do not work as hard as the rich guy. Some people are simply rich due to being born with silver spoons in their mouths or by sheer luck of circumstance. Some are poor due to being born in poor circumstances and to sheer bad luck of circumstance. Some people are born with more talents than others as well. Yes, some can work hard and make it rich, but I truly believe that the American dream is much harder to achieve today than in days gone by.

 

As far as laziness and entitlement, I do not like these problems as well. However, I truly do not believe that most people down on their luck are not abusers of the system. Plus the system can be improved to prevent abuses and in fact many reforms were done in the Clinton administration. I think that is better than kicking people down on their luck to the wayside.

[PineFarmMom]

IMHO you are making a big assumption that folks who are poor do not work as hard as the rich guy. .

 

I didn't say that. I was pretty clear when I said that it's not across the board, and in that statement I was referring to the fact that some people ARE taking. I didn't say everyone receiving from the govt. is taking, but that quite a few are! I'm not really seeing where you're reading that in to what I said??

 

I have a good friend that she and her dh work and they make just enough $$ that their taxes are ridiculous. She's had to jump through hoops to not pay out the nose. I just don't think it's right to penalize people for their hard work like that.

 

I also know of a jobless woman (not even pursuing a job), just out of prison, who went to see her parole officer (a friend of mine). She was all proud of the new braces she was wearing, said they were free...she got the braces and some other "free" things from the govt. I guess she wasn't aware that they weren't free. We paid for a jobless ex-con to get her teeth straightened. Dh and I were remiss, I suppose, because we never got sent to prison...then maybe we could have gotten some of that for free. We blew it and paid for dd's braces out of our pocket. That's twisted, but that's what happens when our govt. says up is down and down is up.

Edited September 15, 2009 by Texas T

[ma23peas]

I stated that even though a LOT were giving it simply was not enough on a national level.

 

This is IT!! Absolutely, the public is not giving enough because of the overreaching hands of government trying to take control and tax, tax, tax...take, take, take...when they cut spending and give back to the PEOPLE, more contributions go to charity..it's a fact. I would much rather trust my neighbor than my representatives....they bicker too much and pander too much.

 

Tara

[JennC]

What I meant was that when I hear, "The US can do it, it's RICH," I can't help but think that one of the reasons we're able to come to the aide of so many other across the globe is BECAUSE of our system of government.

 

Just because we're rich now, doesn't mean we always will be.

 

 

And I don't think that people who say things like "we are the richest country in the world" remember how much money the US owes countries such as China. We are a bankrupt country who is printing money to pay itself. We cannot pay China back and in return, they are trying to get their foot in the door where it comes to world economic policy. China, a country with a dismal record of human rights violations, is telling the US how to do things.

How on earth are we going to pay for all this FREE health care?

 

And to those who enjoy bringing up the war in Iraq: What if we all agreed to agree that the war was a pointless, wrong, immoral, unjust, stupid waste of money peddled to the American people by George Bush who also conspired in the plot to attack American soil and kill 3000 people in the destruction of buildings by muslim extremist terrorists (not my stance, btw). The entire congress - democrats and republicans unanimously consented to enter the war in the first place. Why oh why oh why do you possibly believe that this same group of people who went against your wishes so grandly can run this giant healthcare mess? Do they seem to you to be answering to the people at all? Do they care what you think? They ram legislation through in the dark, with not only no time for the American public to read through it, but arrogantly stating that it is not even their job to read it. If we agree that Health Care Reform is necessary, (I believe the action in congress is about Health Insurance, not Health Care), why would this arrogant, unread group of people with a mindset of eminent domain over everyone's money be the right group to orchestrate it?

[theresatwist]

This is IT!! Absolutely, the public is not giving enough because of the overreaching hands of government trying to take control and tax, tax, tax...take, take, take...when they cut spending and give back to the PEOPLE, more contributions go to charity..it's a fact. I would much rather trust my neighbor than my representatives....they bicker too much and pander too much.

 

Tara

 

We have private charities now. We have for the past 8 years under the Bush administration and health care costs have doubled. I understand why some people oppose a government plan/ government mandates, although I disagree. However, private charities alone have not met the need. We've tried that!

 

Also, I believe most healthcare related organizations and charities are focused on a certain disease. That's great and they do wonderful work. But, one of the reasons we have such high medical costs in this country is because people cannot afford preventative care and I do not know of any charities that are helping people to receive preventative care on a large scale. (Scattered individual doctors/clinics being generous is wonderful, but it's just not enough.)

[petepie2]

 

When I wrote earlier about an "unbridgeable chasm between #4 and #5", this is precisely what I meant. My "right" to possess something does not at all require that claiming possession entails stealing from someone else. I could purchase. I could beg. I could file a law suit. I could go without. I even could elect to steal or swindle. The eventual possession of that which is my "right" to possess, however, does not automatically mean that I shall have gained possession by means of stealing.

 

 

 

Ultimately, if someone doesn't have a basic necessity for life (such as food..which is a necessity to live whether or not we think access to food is a right) and they don't have the means to procure it for themselves (they can't go buy it because they have no money, nor can they grow it), then either someone gives it to them out of compassion OR they take it from someone else who does have it. If they choose to go without, then they die. Taking it from someone else doesn't necessarily mean going into their backyard and stealing the apples off the tree. They could instead go to the government and ask for assistance and then the government, so to speak, can then take the apples off the neighbor's tree via force (tax law) and give them to the person without.

 

The example about the law suit involves other factors. When you sue someone you are claiming that the other person is responsible for some wrong in your life. The courts are there to see that you get some restitution and that the other person restores to you in some way what you lost.

 

Now, in my opinion, this is how this relates to a fundamental human right. A right means "something to which one has a just claim". If the person has a fundamental human right to food, then in some sense it becomes justifiable to take it if they are not able to procure it in another way BECAUSE they have a just claim to it. And this is where a problem arises. How can someone automatically have a just claim to another person's possessions (or time or abilities) for the sole reason that they don't have what the other person has? That's why I don't think healthcare, food, and shelter are fundamental human rights. All three of those are tangible things, that either you procure for yourself through labor, you choose not to procure them and you die, someone out of compassion gives them to you, or you take them directly or indirectly from someone else. If these things are something to which you have a just claim, then the latter is justifiable.