We have a right to rights we don't have, right?

[Archaeopteryx]

No. Some of us, in fact quite a few, understand that we don't have a right to take what belongs to others for our own use. We understand that the "right" to healthcare would require us to forfeit our right to keep the fruits of our own labor. We don't think that's a good trade.

You already forfeit the right to keep the fruits of your own labor to some degree... paying taxes for roads and bridges, for security, for public institutions like libraries and universities and park land. But when it comes to helping people with their healthcare, then there is a reaction nearing disgust: "I will pay for my neighbour to feel safe in his home, but I'll be damned if I'll pay for him to recover from an illness. That's Socialism!"

 

[childofGod1]

I agree.

Which is why I'd be in favor of a single payer health care plan, but only with a Constitutional Amendment that states, unequivocably, that the government only pays the bills, it does not involve itself in any medical decisions: it cannot and will not mandate any specific procedures or medications nor prohibit any. All those decisions are to be left to doctors and medical institutions.

That, it seems to me, would not only provide all persons in the US with access to health care (an obvious case of promoting the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity), but not controlling it.

-- A2SG, who's with me?

That's a pretty utopian idea. If the government is unable to control costs (only possible through limiting access to care) then there is no way to control OUR personal costs in the form of taxes. I would be forced to pay for every unnecessary, frivolous procedure any patient could convince an unscrupulous doctor to perform at whatever price they demanded.

 

[childofGod1]

Only if it's medically mandated or okayed by a doctor......

LOL!!!!! How many plastic surgeons wouldn't provide whatever service a patient desires when they know they'll be paid.

Maybe, maybe not. We won't know unless we try, right?.....

Or we could just use our noodles and figure out that if you jump off a skyscraper, you go splat when you hit the ground. I'll pass on the "give it a try" thing, thanks.

-- A2SG, certainly the GOP will try to stop it, they're the party most interested in controlling all aspects of life these days.....

Thanks for repeating that mindlessly inane talking point. My day just wouldn't be complete without it.

 

[childofGod1]

You already forfeit the right to keep the fruits of your own labor to some degree... paying taxes for roads and bridges, for security, for public institutions like libraries and universities and park land. But when it comes to helping people with their healthcare, then there is a reaction nearing disgust: "I will pay for my neighbour to feel safe in his home, but I'll be damned if I'll pay for him to recover from an illness. That's Socialism!"

OK, let me get this straight. SOME taxation is good, therefore MORE taxation is better, just like a little Vicodin is good, so swallowing the whole bottle must be so much better!

 

[Archaeopteryx]

OK, let me get this straight. SOME taxation is good, therefore MORE taxation is better, just like a little Vicodin is good, so swallowing the whole bottle must be so much better!

No one is suggesting that.

 

[jayem]

That would make Obama's signature achievement as president an act of plagiarism. Impressive.

Obama flip-flopped on this. He opposed the mandate as a candidate. But I'll give him credit for recognizing a good idea belatedly.

 

[stiggywiggy]

Rights come to be in a variety of ways. Depends on the right, really.

I see. What were our idiot founding fathers thinking by calling them "inalienable," since after all they can indeed be taken away, simply by changing the law.

Some are, some aren't. Property rights, for example, are transferred all the time, parental rights can be given up, you can also lose them.

Yep, the very antithesis of inalienable. Maybe Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and Hamilton were smoking hemp when they made that ridiculous assertion.

If the government passed a law saying that everyone is entitled to a free beenie cap, then yeah, you'd have a right to a free beanie cap.

Sorry, such tautological statements don't help here. I guess you forgot the original post in this thread. In fact, let's go back to it and reflect on your tautological comment:

(1). You tell us that a right is a right because it's in the lawbooks.

(2). There is currently no law in the statutes enumerating "free birth control" as a right.

(3). So why do people today keep parroting that " people have a RIGHT to free birth control?"

That was my original question, and no one seems to want to tackle it. Take a shot, Artie.

Who said anything about free?

The people who say we have a right to free birth control. Sorry, awfully presumptuous of me to assume you read my post. Were you unaware that that is the position being taken by those in favor of Obama's latest health care edict?

How do you figure that? Is there a law that says you're entitled to a free fire extinguisher (along with that beanie, presumably)?

No, which is precisely my point. There is also no law saying we are entitled to free heath insurance. Yet people are not claiming rights to free beanie caps, as they are free health care.

Best I can tell, your insurance requires you have a fire extinguisher, so you're obligated to get one.

Yep.

How you assume that constitutes a right in any sense is a mystery to me.

I assume just the opposite, so looks like your mystery is cleared up.

Yup, exactly. Rights are not limited to those enumerated in the Constitution. So if there is a law that says insurance companies are required to cover birth control, then women have a right to birth control.

Again, you're really missing it here. Let me simplify it for you:

BEFORE Obama's edict about the insurance companies, people were saying free birth control is a basic right. But according to you, rights are not rights until they are codified. So it looks like we both agree that all these lefties who claimed a right to birth control BEFORE the law even states it, are all wet.

-- A2SG, most of us understood it back in grade school, but better late than never, I suppose....

Well, you're a grown man and you seem to be struggling mightily here.

 

[jayem]

This is true. The free market doesn't exist in some alternate reality - and no, it's absurd to think the free market can't provide affordable and dependable health care. I realize this is the liberal mantra, which is probably why it gets repeated ad nauseum, but it's simply not true.

I'm from Missouri. Show me any place in the world where technologically advanced care is delivered across the board through an unregulated free market system. Honestly, I'd love to see an example of how this can work for a large, diverse population.

Where do you get this nonsense? What do you mean "it never did in the past" or that "it certainly won't in the future?" If you want to talk about "alternate realities" I'd say that right there is a perfect example of one.

Well again, show me how charity alone has provided an adequate safety net for a large disadvantaged population. Why do you think Medicare was established in the first place? Because even back when medicine was not as sophisticated and costly, large numbers of elderly persons--who were refused health insurance by the free market--were either impoverishing themselves with medical bills, or just going without care. Don't get me wrong--charitable care is wonderful. But it's just not enough.

Look, you can't assert you support private enterprise running health care and then in the same breath assert the need for it to be government-regulated. administration is purely and plainly in the wrong.

Horsefeathers. What is your local electric utility? It's a private enterprise whose rates and business practices are government regulated in the public interest. Let me explain what I want to see. I want all of the private insurors in a state, or maybe group of neighboring states to form a non-profit consortium that will sell a basic, high deductible, catastrophic policy to everyone in that region. It will be totally independent of employment. Like current group health plans, no one can be refused coverage, and no individual's premium can be raised because of health status. BUT--having this policy is mandated. Everyone must buy it. Individuals can then add to the basic coverage by buying supplemental policies, which the carriers can sell for-profit, and compete on price and benefits offered. These can cover the deductibles, and include all the bells and whistles a customer wants to pay for. What we will have is a modified one-payer arrangement. The only thing mandated is basic, catastrophic insurance with a high deductible. People should be responsible for their initial health care needs themselves, and leave insurance for major expenses. The optional supplements allow consumers a choice to tailor a plan to their specific needs. But mandated purchase is required for 2 reasons. 1) To keep premiums as low aspossible, it's an acturarial necessity to spread the risk as widely as possible. 2) This is the best way to approach universal health insurance. Which is needed to obviate cost-shifting. I intend that this will supplant all employer-based insurance. As a benefit of employment, businesses can give employees additional compensation which they can use to buy their basic, or supplemental policies, but the insurance always belongs to the individual, not the company. No one loses it if he changes jobs. And very importantly, it frees employers from the burden of being health insurance providers. Which will help our competitiveness vis-a-vis businesses in other countries with national health plans. This framework can also incorporate Medicare and Medicaid through vouchers. And it provides the perfect niche where charity could be effective. Since charity will only have to cover someone's deductible, or other incidentals.

This is not socialized medicine in the least. It's private health insurance that is systematically organized. Government does regulate the basic benefit package, and oversees the carriers' payment policies. State insurance commissions do that now. But the mandate is essential. I agree the federal government may not have authority to enact this, but the states do. That's why I said that state and federal governments act together. It will take time--probably 10 years or more to phase in reform like this.

I asked you for examples, and I'll furnish one for you. What I'm suggesting is a variation of Switzerland's health insurance system. It's not the cheapest in the world, but it delivers high-quality care with near-universal coverage. This post is long enough, so you can read about it.

Why Switzerland Has the World's Best Health Care System - Forbes

 

[Ishraqiyun]

You should have the freedom to pay whatever you feel that people's time is worth to you.

That's a legitimate argument but you have to admit that it has nothing to do with "free exercise of religion." It's more a philosophical argument regarding the proper role of government. I see the same thing here only folks are trying press "freedom of religion" into service because they think others might be more likely to sympathize with that rather than the more extreme (and probably less popular) argument that government has no right to regulate insurance.

 

[jayem]

No. Some of us, in fact quite a few, understand that we don't have a right to take what belongs to others for our own use. We understand that the "right" to healthcare would require us to forfeit our right to keep the fruits of our own labor. We don't think that's a good trade.

Did I ever say health care was a right? I said it was a common interest.

You actually make an argument for mandated health insurance. Because if you are paying for health insurance now, the fruits of your labor are paying for the care of people who are uninsured. Their costs are shifted onto you, and your employer. Our laws require hospitals to at least evaluate and stabilize everyone who hits their ERs. Why shouldn't we also require everyone to have at least some level of insurance to pay for it? That's not a desire to control people. It's fundamental, conservative economics. It was the right approach when Newt, and Mitt, and the Republicans supported it, and it still is.

 

[Jase]

Mount Soledad Cross
Bloomfield Ten Commandments

There's more though, if you desire to look.

There's lots of court cases out there where people stretch the meaning of the word Congress to all sorts of bizarre things, but yet none of those people who support so called separation of church and state, but when Congress does it, its ok.

Who has stretched the meaning of "Congress"? The Supreme Court incorporated the Bill of Rights to apply to all levels of government. They didn't change the meaning of Congress. You can't apply all laws equally if the states can break them.

 

[[serious]]

Who has stretched the meaning of "Congress"? The Supreme Court incorporated the Bill of Rights to apply to all levels of government. They didn't change the meaning of Congress. You can't apply all laws equally if the states can break them.

It wasn't the court, it was the 14th amendment. Hence, congress and the states changed it.

 

[Jase]

It wasn't the court, it was the 14th amendment. Hence, congress and the states changed it.

The Supreme Court incorporated the Bill of Rights based on the 14th. The 14th Amendment is not a person or entity. It cannot do anything on its own without the interpretation of 9 Judges. Congress and the States passing the 14th, does not define how it applies to the law. Only the Supreme Court can do that.

 

[childofGod1]

No one is suggesting that.

That was your argument...

 

[childofGod1]

Did I ever say health care was a right? I said it was a common interest.

You actually make an argument for mandated health insurance. Because if you are paying for health insurance now, the fruits of your labor are paying for the care of people who are uninsured. Their costs are shifted onto you, and your employer. Our laws require hospitals to at least evaluate and stabilize everyone who hits their ERs. Why shouldn't we also require everyone to have at least some level of insurance to pay for it? That's not a desire to control people. It's fundamental, conservative economics. It was the right approach when Newt, and Mitt, and the Republicans supported it, and it still is.

Nope, I don't make an argument for mandated healthcare. Just because the law requires that I pay for others healthcare doesn't mean that I support those laws or that I want more of the same. I may not want to buy health insurance, but am forced to do so by laws that require employers to provide it. I have long argued that insurance needs to be untied from employment so we can choose whether to purchase it or not, and we can choose the plan that suits our own needs if we do choose to make that purchase. Instead, part of almost every employee's wages are taken to pay for insurance as a requirement of employment. I would rather have the money employers spend on insurance and make my own choice.

 

[jayem]

I may not want to buy health insurance, but am forced to do so by laws that require employers to provide it.

As far as I know, the only time an employer must offer health insurance is when it's a contract obligation as part of a CBA or similar agreement.
I'm not aware of any laws that require employers to offer a health plan. Even PPACA doesn't absolutely require it (though employers over a certain size will be assessed a fee in some circumstances if employees must buy it independently.)

As I said in my earlier post, I'm 100% behind separating health insurance from employment. The big advantage to employees of being in a group health plan (aside from the tax benefit) is that the insuror must cover everyone in the group regardless of health status without a premium differential. This is required by law. If employer-provided plans were eliminated, would you support requiring insurance companies to cover everybody, and regulating how much they can charge for higher risk customers? And if not, how would you propose that people with pre-existing medical conditions get the insurance they need?

 

[childofGod1]

As far as I know, the only time an employer must offer health insurance is when it's a contract obligation as part of a CBA or similar agreement.
I'm not aware of any laws that require employers to offer a health plan. Even PPACA doesn't absolutely require it (though employers over a certain size will be assessed a fee in some circumstances if employees must buy it independently.)

As I said in my earlier post, I'm 100% behind separating health insurance from employment. The big advantage to employees of being in a group health plan (aside from the tax benefit) is that the insuror must cover everyone in the group regardless of health status without a premium differential. This is required by law. If employer-provided plans were eliminated, would you support requiring insurance companies to cover everybody, and regulating how much they can charge for higher risk customers? And if not, how would you propose that people with pre-existing medical conditions get the insurance they need?

If you have pre-existing health issues, and I have several that are likely to be very expensive, you should pay more. I don't want anyone else to pay for my care. I just want MY money so I can pay for my own care. I don't support requiring insurance companies to cover everyone. I support a free choice for each person to choose the coverage that suits them. That may be a group or individual plan, savings or major medical or a comprehensive preventative plan, or some other variation. Insurance doesn't create care, it protects assets, and we would be wise to remember that. I think charity is a great way to help those who are unable to pay for their own care, and I give when I see a need.

 

[Schroeder]

Actually, there is. The line may be fuzzy sometimes, but it's there. There are literally tons of precedent for it in all manner of court cases, up to and including the Supreme Court.



Nope, it goes beyond that:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

so your against this health care bil that prohibits the FREE exercise thereof. Of course the line is fuzzy becasue its not in there. Tons of precedents are unconstitutional.

The first amendment most definitely IS a fundamental principle of the US government. I'd even go so far as to say it's about as fundamental as it gets.

-- A2SG, doesn't get much fundamentaller, being the FIRST amendment and all....

Yes the first amendment is. but thats not what you said. you said seperation of church and state.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Who has stretched the meaning of "Congress"? The Supreme Court incorporated the Bill of Rights to apply to all levels of government. They didn't change the meaning of Congress. You can't apply all laws equally if the states can break them.

The first Amendment specifically refers to "Congress."

 

[A2SG]

That's a pretty utopian idea.

Yeah, probably. But for single payer to work, it's needed. Health care is too much of a political football as it stands, I can only imagine how hard it would get if the government were to guarantee it for everyone!

If the government is unable to control costs (only possible through limiting access to care) then there is no way to control OUR personal costs in the form of taxes.

I'm not so sure. The main reason health care costs are so high, I believe, is insurance. Eliminate the entire insurance industry, and that will drive costs waaay down. That way, you'd pay only what an X-ray costs, without needing to subsidize skyscrapers. (Ever notice, the largest buildings in most major cities are insurance companies? Empire State, John Hancock, etc.)

I would be forced to pay for every unnecessary, frivolous procedure any patient could convince an unscrupulous doctor to perform at whatever price they demanded.

Not necessarily. A single payer plan could cover necessary care while still keeping elective procedures separate.

-- A2SG, either way, I'd be okay with it if DOCTORS decided what is medically necessary, not politicians or insurance companies.