SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!!

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Grainne who wrote (23074)6/28/1998 2:29:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen  Read Replies (3) of 108807
 
Christine, re I do think that even though it is easy to vilify the Clintons, their hearts were in the right place in believing that in a society this wealthy, everyone should be entitled to health care as a basic right, as they are in other civilized societies.

I so wish you would not describe things that cost money as a "basic right". There is no such thing as a "basic right" which costs money to provide. The US Constitution clearly outlined what our "basic rights" were: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Bill of Rights (first 10 amendements to the Constitution) further specifically defined those things. Nowhere will you find "government-managed health care" in the Bill of Rights.

Allow me to describe why health care is not a "basic (i.e. inalienable) right", besides the fact that the Constitution didn't define it as such:

1) Mainly, it costs money to provide health care. When the money dries up, so also dries up your "basic right".

2) Tell the Indonesians or Maylays or Thais that they have a "basic right" to health care. Oh, I guess maybe those aren't "civilized societies", so I guess they get exempted from this "basic right". And I noticed that you further qualified your statement saying "in a society this wealthy". Sure it sounds all warm and gushy and generous, but the reality is, when society's money dries up, there goes what the government was saying was your "basic right". You want to talk government mandated health insurance, fine, but don't call it a "basic right", because it's not a right any more than car insurance is a basic right.

3) You know what Hillary's health care program would have provided me (according to one article at that time), along with the so-called "basic right" to healthcare? A $1,200 annual bill, that's what. Why? Because at the time I wasn't covered under any health care program, nor did I have an employer who was offering me any form of one (I was self-employed).

All Hillary's program and any other country's government managed health care program does is force the uninsured to get insured. That's it. The government can't do anything more. Oh, except and add monetary penalties for non-compliance. And add another huge, wasteful, inefficient dept of government compliance administrators.

You're worried about people "falling through the cracks". Well we already have welfare laws to provide government paid health care for those people, myself included. If I fell down the Grand Canyon and got busted up beyond belief and still be alive, after my own resources were exhausted, the government's welfare programs would step into the breach.

It is already illegal for a hospital to refuse to treat tramatic injuries if you are inside the hospital. Of course hospitals are not required to go dragging the ditches looking for a reported injured person though.

And if you have cancer, which will slowly but surely waste your body, hospitals are not required to go to any length to stave off the day of reckoning if you don't have health insurance.

The bottom line is, health insurance is a good idea, and most people try to get it. Buying lottery tickets and/or spending money at a casino is not a good idea. Neither is spending your money on booze and drugs a good idea. Yet many welfare recipients spend their money on all those things and more. Should the government spend more of your money, Christine, in order to prolong the life of someone who simply didn't have the discipline or desire to provide themselves with health insurance? Keeping in mind the goverment will pay for tramatic injury care already, so we're talking about cancer and other diseases.

In summary, sometimes having the best things that society has to offer (like state-of-the-art, no-holds-barred, expenses-be-damned health care) should require, on the part of the consumer, a smidgeon of effort, discipline, and desire to procure those things.

I've ignored this thread for several months, and decided to pop back in after seeing it on the hot list tonight. This will not be an extended stay, but rather a drop-in visit, after which I'm departing. Good day.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext