[Big Mac]

What defines a right in America? Is health care a right? Barack Obama says it is (or at least will be should he win next month).

I'll give you my view of rights in America. At the highest and essential level our Constitution defines rights held by the people as negations of rights government could otherwise attempt to assume or impinge on. "Congress shall make no law" is the first and key delimiting clause of the Bill of Rights that guarantees us our basic rights and liberties. We are guaranteed freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition because Congress (government) is barred from limiting those rights. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by government. The right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures by government is another right. Go down the line. These are rights and liberties gained by restraining the government.

Nowhere in the Constitution are we guaranteed rights to be given to us by the government to essentials like food, shelter, clothing or a livelihood. These are all things that we agree are necessary for people to survive, and even more necessary than health care coverage most of the time (unless someone is really ill). Yet, the Constitution never guarantees these things to the people living under it. Of course, we have over the years put into law many things that government wants people to have. We have statutes guaranteeing that people receive retirement benefits, and we have statutes guaranteeing income to those deemed impaired. We have a whole host of Entitlements. However, we still usually don't have laws guaranteeing the basics like food and shelter. Should we change what I view as the foundation of our system of government and create rights that previously did not exist, like a right to health care? If so, a whole new class of rights probably should be created because again, there are higher survival priorities for most people than whether or not they get an annual check-up at the doctor's office paid for by Uncle Sam. But if we're going to do all of that, perhaps it's time for to create and pass some Constitutional amendments so that these new rights can be legally enshrined in our system of laws. Personally, while I'd love for everyone to have the basics of life, I don't think it's the proper role of the federal government to provide those things.

[RAILhead]

No, health care should NOT be a right, any more than owning a car should be right. Or a TV, or a toothbrush, or a bar of soap, or a house, etc., etc.

IF you need health care, then you pay for it -- simple as that. What if you can't afford it? Get insurance. What if that's too expensive? Send it to the free market and find the least expensive provider. Don't have any money? Get a job -- or get a better one, get a second one. What about my kids? You had kids while you were financially unprepared, huh? Why is that Big Brother's -- or MY -- problem?

and so on and so on...

[Big Mac]

Aww, RAILhead, don't you have compassion? Don't you want government to swoop in and give everyone everything they want? Uncle Sam Santa Claus, anyone?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

What defines a right in America? Is health care a right? Barack Obama says it is (or at least will be should he win next month).

I'll give you my view of rights in America. At the highest and essential level our Constitution defines rights held by the people as negations of rights government could otherwise attempt to assume or impinge on. "Congress shall make no law" is the first and key delimiting clause of the Bill of Rights that guarantees us our basic rights and liberties. We are guaranteed freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition because Congress (government) is barred from limiting those rights. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by government. The right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures by government is another right. Go down the line. These are rights and liberties gained by restraining the government.

Nowhere in the Constitution are we guaranteed rights to be given to us by the government to essentials like food, shelter, clothing or a livelihood. These are all things that we agree are necessary for people to survive, and even more necessary than health care coverage most of the time (unless someone is really ill). Yet, the Constitution never guarantees these things to the people living under it. Of course, we have over the years put into law many things that government wants people to have. We have statutes guaranteeing that people receive retirement benefits, and we have statutes guaranteeing income to those deemed impaired. We have a whole host of Entitlements. However, we still usually don't have laws guaranteeing the basics like food and shelter. Should we change what I view as the foundation of our system of government and create rights that previously did not exist, like a right to health care? If so, a whole new class of rights probably should be created because again, there are higher survival priorities for most people than whether or not they get an annual check-up at the doctor's office paid for by Uncle Sam. But if we're going to do all of that, perhaps it's time for to create and pass some Constitutional amendments so that these new rights can be legally enshrined in our system of laws. Personally, while I'd love for everyone to have the basics of life, I don't think it's the proper role of the federal government to provide those things.

Excellent break down.

Here's my take as a "rich Republican" who started off on Medicaid, food stamps, WIC, etc... If you're not insured in this country, you're not trying. Period. I know first hand.

There are literally millions of people eligible for Medicaid/Medicare coverage yet remain unenrolled. Why? Because the government simply cannot afford to care more for you than you.

Some may ask; "ebuddy, why doesn't the 'health care crisis' draw a tear from your eye like it does mine?"
I answer with the following stats from the Bureau of Labor Statistics 2006;

Average Annual Expenditures
- Food; $3,417 at home, $2,694 away from home.
- Entertainment; $2,376
- Transportation; $8,508
- Housing; $16,366
- Healthcare; $2,766

The answer is simple. Most could quadruple their health care coverage by eating in, staying home more often, getting a less expensive vehicle, and smaller house. Is entertainment a right? Transportation? McDonald's? It is a right not to have health care. People hate that, but there's a lot you can do to take care of yourself should you choose to.

[RAILhead]

Please guys, let's not make this more logical than necessary -- peoples' heads will aspolde.

[Paco500]

I don't think health care is a right, however I think providing quality, universal healthcare would be good for the Country. As an ideal anyway, no idea how you would implement it effectively, the NHS over here doesn't have it right.

But to sum up, no, I don't think, at least in the US, it's a right. But like the goal of providing universal access to a quality education, universal heath care is something we should aspire to. It would make us a stronger country.

[andi*pandi]

I wonder on those healthcare costs ebuddy. That might be what it costs out of pocket if your employer picks up the rest, but actual costs of healthcare is more along the lines of $12000 per year.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMp0806563

To counter these side effects, McCain will offer a $2,500 tax credit for individuals and a $5,000 tax credit for families to help them purchase health insurance. But consider the math. The average family policy in the United States now costs about $12,000, of which the average employer contributes about 75% ($9,000). Thus, if they could find comparable insurance in the individual market, that coverage would cost families losing employer-sponsored insurance $4,000 more than they previously paid ($9,000 minus $5,000). Many of these families will enter the ranks of the uninsured.

I pay $2016 per year, my employer picks up $16264 per year for family health, dental, and life.

I have excellent health insurance.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

I don't think health care is a right, however I think providing quality, universal healthcare would be good for the Country. As an ideal anyway, no idea how you would implement it effectively, the NHS over here doesn't have it right.

But to sum up, no, I don't think, at least in the US, it's a right. But like the goal of providing universal access to a quality education, universal heath care is something we should aspire to. It would make us a stronger country.

No, people finally coming to understand what PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY is -- THAT'S what will make us a stronger country.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

No, people finally coming to understand what PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY is -- THAT'S what will make us a stronger country.

Do you provide health care for your employees? If so, why? Does that not rob them of their PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITIES?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

No, people finally coming to understand what PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY is -- THAT'S what will make us a stronger country.

You mean, like the personal responsibility to make sure you get paid 400 times what your workers do, and then when you screw the company up, and lay people off, you get a bonus as well? I hear golden parachutes are now becoming cliche; they're moving to platinum ones.

[dcmacdaddy]

@RAILhead

Like Paco, I too am curious as to whether or not you offer your employees health insurance? By your line of reasoning that people should take responsibility for their own health-care and not have it provided for them, and the arguments ebuddy made about average annual expenditures, it would seem the act of you offering your employees health care coverage runs counter to your arguments in this thread. So, do yo offer your employees health care coverage and if so, why? You seem to be denying them the ability to practice personal responsibility by offering them health care coverage through your business.

[andi*pandi]

Railhead, how does it effect the workplace when a worker is sick? Is there lost productivity? Is the schedule delayed? What if it's a long-term illness, you have to find coverage, do more training...

Is there a benefit to employers to have insured workers? Healthy workers? Happy workers? Is there greater retention? Fewer hiring/training costs?

Just trying to think of practical reasons for healthcare here.

[Paco500]

As I stated above, I have issues with the NHS, however there is one aspect of a Universal Heath Care system that could likely appeal to even Republicans. In the states, I though about taking the leap and starting my own company on several occasions. One of the factors in deciding not to do so was my concerns about being able to afford a health plan for me and my family.

Obviously, there's more to it than just that, but having the safety net of universal coverage may actually lead to greater entrepreneurship.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Railhead, how does it effect the workplace when a worker is sick? Is there lost productivity? Is the schedule delayed? What if it's a long-term illness, you have to find coverage, do more training...

Is there a benefit to employers to have insured workers? Healthy workers? Happy workers? Is there greater retention? Fewer hiring/training costs?

Just trying to think of practical reasons for healthcare here.

I think the answers to this are pretty obvious. Now imagine if those benefits were expanded to the whole of society?

[BRussell]

Big Mac I agree that constitutional rights are limits on government power. That's why I don't understand why people would want to be overly strict in their interpretation of the constitution, but that's probably best left for another thread...

But Obama wasn't asked if health care should be a constitutional right. There are other rights that we've agreed upon that are not constitutional rights and are not just limits on government power. A good example is public education. We've decided that we want people to have a right to public/free primary education. That's not a constitutional right, but it's a right that we've decided is beneficial to society. I personally believe (and most countries in the world believe) that health care should be the same kind of right.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

But Obama wasn't asked if health care should be a constitutional right. There are other rights that we've agreed upon that are not constitutional rights and are not just limits on government power. A good example is public education. We've decided that we want people to have a right to public/free primary education. That's not a constitutional right, but it's a right that we've decided is beneficial to society. I personally believe (and most countries in the world believe) that health care should be the same kind of right.

You are correct - public education is a good example. It's another "right" that has no basis in the Constitution, but people do generally agree it should be a right. But how much of a right should it be? Should everyone be guaranteed a free college education? Graduate school? Where does the right to education end?

And again, fundamentally, where do we draw the line on these entitlement-type rights (entitlement to a public education, entitlement to a retirement pension, entitlement to health care)? An entitlement food, clothing, shelter, electricity? Automobiles? Computers? iPods? When we start deciding that people should have A, B, and C, why not X, Y, and Z? Where do the entitlements end? And if it's the proper role of government to give people all sorts of goodies, why wasn't that originally built into our Constitution?

[Eug]

I do think fair access to basic health care should be a right. The question is what constitutes "basic".

However, whether or not you agree with this, I think there is still a huge separate but linked issue that needs to be addressed in the current US health care system. One major problem with the US system is the extremely high overhead cost. Because the financial aspects of the US system are so complex, it has the highest administrative costs in the world, by a large margin.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And if it's the proper role of government to give people all sorts of goodies, why wasn't that originally built into our Constitution?

Maybe because the Founding Fathers foresaw that people's needs change over time. Or else they would have written a religious testament instead of a constitution.

[vmarks]

A right is anything you can do which imposes or requires no action on anyone else.

I can speak or use a printing press, and no one else is required to do anything.

But for healthcare to be provided universally, it requires someone else to pay for it, stealing money that is the result of their labor - essentially enslaving them to pay for my healthcare.

Government provided healthcare is a wish, not a right.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

Maybe because the Founding Fathers foresaw that people's needs change over time. Or else they would have written a religious testament instead of a constitution.

The authors of the constitution provided a means for changing the document. It's called the amendment process.

If you want to implement a "right" to government funded healthcare, you need a constitutional amendment. Absent that, you can't do it legally.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And again, fundamentally, where do we draw the line on these entitlement-type rights (entitlement to a public education, entitlement to a retirement pension, entitlement to health care)? An entitlement food, clothing, shelter, electricity? Automobiles? Computers? iPods? When we start deciding that people should have A, B, and C, why not X, Y, and Z? Where do the entitlements end? And if it's the proper role of government to give people all sorts of goodies, why wasn't that originally built into our Constitution?

I think it stops when the entitlement is no longer a net benefit to society. I would hope we can agree that if a mechanism could be found to provide quality, universal healthcare without it being a net drain on the economy, we should. I'm not sure I can see the universal societal benefit of free iPods, but if a case was made, the people agreed- why not?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Government provided healthcare is a wish, not a right.

So, is it safe to assume that you are an advocate for eliminating public education in our country? And if not, why not?

Or, in other words, Why is it that you feel it is a right to guarantee all citizens a public education but not public health care?


I for one am in favor of both government-provided education (through high school) and government-provided/arranged/subsidized health care (through high school as well).

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Big Mac I agree that constitutional rights are limits on government power. That's why I don't understand why people would want to be overly strict in their interpretation of the constitution, but that's probably best left for another thread...

But Obama wasn't asked if health care should be a constitutional right. There are other rights that we've agreed upon that are not constitutional rights and are not just limits on government power. A good example is public education. We've decided that we want people to have a right to public/free primary education. That's not a constitutional right, but it's a right that we've decided is beneficial to society. I personally believe (and most countries in the world believe) that health care should be the same kind of right.

Public education is not a right guaranteed by the Federal government. It's a right of the states and local governments. Constitutionally, the Federal government has no authority to even be involved in education.

Public education is a wish that we've collectively agreed to, but it cannot be a right, because it requires an obligation from other people.

A right confers no obligation on another person. I have a right to travel freely. That right imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference. I have the right to speak freely.

Bogus "Rights" to education, housing, and healthcare all impose an obligation on other Americans. If we apply this bogus framework to free speech, my free speech rights would confer financial obligations on others to supply me with an auditorium, microphone and audience. My right to travel freely would require that others provide me with airplane tickets and hotel accommodations.

Of the rights we possess, we have a right to delegate to government. For example, we all have a right to defend ourselves against predators. Since we possess that right, we can delegate it to government. In other words, we can say to government, "We have the right to defend ourselves, but for a more orderly society, we give you the authority to defend us."

By contrast, I don't possess the right to take your earnings for any reason. Since I have no such right, I cannot delegate it to government.

And that's why public education, housing, and healthcare are not now and can never be rights.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

The authors of the constitution provided a means for changing the document. It's called the amendment process.

If you want to implement a "right" to government funded healthcare, you need a constitutional amendment. Absent that, you can't do it legally.

We have a right to government-funded education. Are you in favor of eliminating that right as it was not granted by a Constitutional amendment?

On a personal note, do you have kids? If so, are they attending public schools for free? (i.e.: you don't reimburse your school district for the cost of your children's education via tuition fees)
And if they are, why are you accepting of such a service form the government when you oppose government providing such services?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

And that's why public education, housing, and healthcare are not now and can never be rights.

OK. Please come out and state that you oppose public education and do not have any of your children (if you have children) in public schools. Thanks!

[Zeeb]

Often its said that the cost of a universal healthcare system in the U.S. would be prohibitively expensive, yet $700 billion comes flying out of nowhwere when our banker friends find out they've made a few mistakes. I'm sure they'll suddenly be trillions for any future wars as well. They then take my tax money and spend $400,000 of it at a trip to a fancy resort (AIG) Where's the personal responsiblity there? Oh, I get it, is it that personal responsibility *only* applies to middle class and poor people but not wealthy Americans?

I don't disagree with the bailout package btw, because its good for the country--the same is true for universal healthcare. Now that Americans know that there are billions and billions available for corporate parachutes, they aren't going to buy the BS that a healthcare program would be too expensive.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Public education is a wish that we've collectively agreed to, but it cannot be a right, because it requires an obligation from other people.

Does your community have a mechanism for those members that do not agree to provide public education to not pay for public education? If not, why not?

If you are arguing that it is a collective wish then there must be some mechanism for the members of the community who do not agree with the wish to not participate in it. Otherwise, the majority of the community is actually taking money from the minority of the community who do not agree with the collective desire to fund public education.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

We have a right to government-funded education. Are you in favor of eliminating that right as it was not granted by a Constitutional amendment?

On a personal note, do you have kids? If so, are they attending public schools for free? (i.e.: you don't reimburse your school district for the cost of your children's education via tuition fees)
And if they are, why are you accepting of such a service form the government when you oppose government providing such services?

Where is the federal authority for education?









There is none. It's a state and local government authority.

One of my twins attends a government school which my property and vehicle taxes go to pay for. It is a county school, under the supervision of the state department of public instruction, which is legal. Public education is not a right, it's a wish granted legally under the authority of the state.

Of course, it's funded by people who have no children and have no desire to fund government schools, and the government has no right to take their money. It's the usual taxation-as-theft that's run in every state in the US.

Furthermore, even if I removed my one child from the government school, my earnings would still be stolen through taxation to fund the government school.

Go back, re-read the part about how I can't delegate taking your money to the government.

[ort888]

Are roads a right? Shouldn't we have special roads for the wealthy people? Are the police a right? Shouldn't I be free to call the law enforcement professional of my choice? Shouldn't I be free to call an even better team of fire fighters?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Go back, re-read the part about how I can't delegate taking your money to the government.

Ahh, but if I am a member of your community without kids and wish to opt out of paying into the public funding of education there is no mechanism for me to do so. As you are a member of the collective that wishes to have free public education you would be in effect forcing me to give up my money against my wishes. So, you are delegating to the government the power to take *my* money (in the hypothetical sense).

This is the same argument we have all the time over roads. People who don't drive as much those who drive a lot don't like paying taxes for upkeep of the roads but there is no method for them to opt out of paying the full amount the government says they owe. How is this any different than your education example? Again, members of the community have collectively decided that the whole community will pay for the maintenance of the roads *regardless* of how much the individual members of the community use the roads. So again, we have some members of a community delegating to the government how much money the other members of the community must spend to maintain the roads.

Tell me again how this is not one individual acting as part of a community telling another individual what they can do with their money?

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Of course, it's funded by people who have no children and have no desire to fund government schools, and the government has no right to take their money. It's the usual taxation-as-theft that's run in every state in the US.

Furthermore, even if I removed my one child from the government school, my earnings would still be stolen through taxation to fund the government school.

Do you think society would be improved if we completely eliminated publicly funded education?

[OreoCookie]

First question: a right is something that is granted by law -- which doesn't have to be the Constitution.

Second question: If Congress (or state legislature) passes a law that gives the people certain rights (universal health care could be one of them), then the people would have that right. (Ditto for driving (cars), it's not a constitutionally protected right. I'm not talking about freedom of movement.)

Neither one of them answers, of course, whether health care should a right.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Do you think society would be improved if we completely eliminated publicly funded education?

It's not about improving society. It is about making sure the state doesn't take any of an individual's money they don't want to give up.

Except, at some point a majority of the individuals in a state decided they wanted publicly funded schools and forced everyone in the state to pay for it whether or not they wanted to pay for it.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Do you think society would be improved if we completely eliminated publicly funded education?

Vmarks is a libertarian, this is a long long discussion that merits its own thread.

As it stands, if he's paying for the system he may as well use it...

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Do you think society would be improved if we completely eliminated publicly funded education?

Duh! Of course only children whose parents can afford education should have it. That way, we can guarantee an army of low paid servants and prostitutes for vmarks.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Do you provide health care for your employees? If so, why? Does that not rob them of their PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITIES?

Yes, as an employer we do because we choose to. What's the confusion? Our COMPANY elects to do this for our EMPLOYEES. This isn't Big Brother deciding to do it for the American populace -- at the "rich's" expense.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

You mean, like the personal responsibility to make sure you get paid 400 times what your workers do, and then when you screw the company up, and lay people off, you get a bonus as well? I hear golden parachutes are now becoming cliche; they're moving to platinum ones.

I get paid "400 times" more than the people that work under me because if I wasn't there to provide the job for them, they wouldn't be working for me. Add to that the whole "it's my idea" and my company and I'm the one with the ass on the line with the bank, billion dollar clients, yaddah yaddah yaddah. So yeah, I get more money because I have a MUCH higher stake in the business than the gal answering phones at the front desk.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Railhead, how does it effect the workplace when a worker is sick? Is there lost productivity? Is the schedule delayed? What if it's a long-term illness, you have to find coverage, do more training...

Is there a benefit to employers to have insured workers? Healthy workers? Happy workers? Is there greater retention? Fewer hiring/training costs?

Just trying to think of practical reasons for healthcare here.

You'r emissing the point. I'm not talking about a company ELECTING to provide insurance for their employees -- I'm saying "UUUUUUUUNIVERSAAAAAL Health Care For EVERYONE!!1!™" is idiocy.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

A right is anything you can do which imposes or requires no action on anyone else.

I can speak or use a printing press, and no one else is required to do anything.

But for healthcare to be provided universally, it requires someone else to pay for it, stealing money that is the result of their labor - essentially enslaving them to pay for my healthcare.

Government provided healthcare is a wish, not a right.

By that definition, we don't have a right to a trial before a jury of our peers.

[ort888]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

I get paid "400 times" more than the people that work under me because if I wasn't there to provide the job for them, they wouldn't be working for me. Add to that the whole "it's my idea" and my company and I'm the one with the ass on the line with the bank, billion dollar clients, yaddah yaddah yaddah. So yeah, I get more money because I have a MUCH higher stake in the business than the gal answering phones at the front desk.

That's all well and good. But we all get one vote.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

a right is anything you can do which imposes or requires no action on anyone else.

I can speak or use a printing press, and no one else is required to do anything.

But for healthcare to be provided universally, it requires someone else to pay for it, stealing money that is the result of their labor - essentially enslaving them to pay for my healthcare.

government provided healthcare is a wish, not a right.

qft

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by ort888 

That's all well and good. But we all get one vote.

Yeah, so?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Do you provide health care for your employees? If so, why? Does that not rob them of their PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITIES?

That's like saying because you give to the poor, you'd also be OK with somebody stealing your car. Voluntarily doing something nice is much different than being forced to do it.

[ort888]

I don't know what my point is. I guess I'm saying that you may be top dog at your company... but the people of the world are going to elect the person that will best look out for their interests. So when it comes to electing officials, your one vote is offset by their 400.

Anyway, the problem as I see it is this. You can say "If you want health care make something of yourself and go get a job that gives you health care like I did" all we want, but the economic realities of the world are such that there will never be enough jobs that provide health care for the entire populace. No matter what we do. So what happens to the bottom 25%? Do we just leave them to rot? Do we let them suffer?

I'm not educated enough to begin to pretend that I know what the best answer is. But I'm sympathetic enough that I know deep down in my heart that we should be providing health care to everybody. We need to find a way to make it work, because it should be a right. People deserve to get health care. EVERYBODY deserves to get health care.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by ort888 

I don't know what my point is. I guess I'm saying that you may be top dog at your company... but the people of the world are going to elect the person that will best look out for their interests. So when it comes to electing officials, your one vote is offset by their 400.

That's the beauty -- and horror -- of our governmental system. I'm fine with it, even if it means I'll have to potentially deal with commie or socialist one of the cycles.

Anyway, the problem as I see it is this. You can say "If you want health care make something of yourself and go get a job that gives you health care like I did" all we want, but the economic realities of the world are such that there will never be enough jobs that provide health care for the entire populace. No matter what we do. So what happens to the bottom 25%? Do we just leave them to rot? Do we let them suffer?

Why should part of my paychack -- anyone's paycheck -- go to providing anyone else any kind of personal service? Part of my check goes to pay for roads and crap like that, and that's because I use them, too. When I go tot he Doc or hospital, it's because *I* need to. When you go tot he Doc or hospital, it should be when YOU need to -- and since you're getting the service, you should pay, not me. OR, you work some place provides insurance. Crap, even McDonalds will provide health insurance nowadays.

I'm not educated enough to begin to pretend that I know what the best answer is. But I'm sympathetic enough that I know deep down in my heart that we should be providing health care to everybody. We need to find a way to make it work, because it should be a right. People deserve to get health care. EVERYBODY deserves to get health care.

So the fat slob that drinks 2 cases of beer and smokes 6 packs of cigarettes every weekend ought to have his/her medical expenses paid for out of my pocket? The family that has a kid with diabetes -- but bought a $300k home when they should have rented -- should get their expenses paid by me? And so on and so on.

But of course, I give roughly 25% of my before-tax income to charity to help those in need -- but I guess that's not quite good enough to some people.

And what if people can't afford to do that? Then yank it from their paycheck and force them to -- because Big Brother has a right to take my money? Piss.

[ort888]

The same thing can be said for the education system, or the police force, or the roads, or the military, or government grants for the arts. Our money goes to pay for all sorts of things.

I'm just a big softie. In the end, I'm concerned about people, not money. I want to live in a society that takes care of it's citizens. It's important to me. Universal health care is important to me, even though I have a good job and a good health care plan.

[RAILhead]

I understand that desire -- but it's just not practical. And this plan Obama/Biden want? I earn a FRACTION of what they do every year, yet I've made more charitable contributions in the fiscal year than both of them COMBINED.

Anyone that thinks they're looking out for the little guy is asking for a reaming.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ort888 

The same thing can be said for the education system, or the police force, or the roads, or the military, or government grants for the arts. Our money goes to pay for all sorts of things.

I'm just a big softie. In the end, I'm concerned about people, not money. I want to live in a society that takes care of it's citizens. It's important to me. Universal health care is important to me, even though I have a good job and a good health care plan.

Do you want to live in a society where I can take your money whenever I want something?

It's nice to talk about providing for everybody and not caring about money and all that, but when it comes down to it, would you be OK with me using you as a loose change jar the way you want to use business owners? The right to own property seems pretty fundamental to me.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Do you want to live in a society where I can take your money whenever I want something?

Would that be a society that doesn't tax its members to pay for a police?

[ort888]

It's all about give and take and where we draw the line. You want to draw it here and I want it there.

Right now hospitals have to give care to everyone, and are then left with a big bill. Should they just leave people to die if the have no money?

What happens when a person comes in with a gunshot wound and is broke and has no insurance? Should he be dumped on the street to die? Isn't this, in essence, the same as denying cancer treatment to someone who is poor?

What happens when the gunshot victim doesn't pay his bill? We all end up paying for it anyway because it causes insurance rates to go up.