Health Care Is Not A Right"

[joe hx]

question

is the government ensuring everyone has health insurance an attempt to "promote the general welfare" as stated by the preamble of the US Constitution?

just a thought

[BlaqueKatt]

The world's changed, your document hasn't.

Amendments to add or subtract certain things as they arise isn't that great a method.

you just kinda contradicted yourself there-either it hasn't changed or amendments have changed it-which is it hon?

What would you suggest? Rewrite the entire basis for our government every few years?

Before an amendment can take effect, it must be proposed to the states by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress, and ratified by three-quarters of the states-

Which is better than the five different ways the Canadian constitution can be amended


Until 1982 your country did not even have a bill of rights of any kind-it was a Judicial Theory otherwise referred to as the "implied bill of rights" or the federal law-Canadian bill of rights from oh let's see how far that one goes back...Wow all the way to 1960-and was actually based on the US constitution bill of rights......what was that you were saying dear?

The ineffectiveness of the(1960 federal law) Bill of Rights was the main reason that it was thought necessary to adopt a Canadian Charter of Rights entrenched in the constitution.

Which we have always had thank you very little.

and the British "bill of rights"(which is similar) is from 1689 and hasn't changed much either.......and I seem to remember Canada suspending it's people's rights for a time(sometime around 9/11)-which would not be allowed to happen here.

[BroomJockey]

you just kinda contradicted yourself there-either it hasn't changed or amendments have changed it-which is it hon?

It's BOTH. Easy enough. It's not a paradox or a conundrum even. Base document is the same, you just tack on a crappy revision to fix a hole. To make a software analogy, you're still patching version 1 of software, rather than making version 2.0.

What would you suggest? Rewrite the entire basis for our government every few years?

No. This is more of the "all or nothing" I continually associate with Americans. Very little middle ground. Write up a new document, with the protections of the old one, but new protections for today's world. That way, it wouldn't be the "Second Amendment," or "Fifth Amendment." It'd be part of the core document. And make it so it's necessitated to every few years (maybe once a decade or so) evaluate the rights contained in, and see if anything needs bolstering, or if new rights need to be added. Also make it so any rights given cannot be suspended or removed without a majority yes/no vote. No PATRIOT Acts, or anything like that. I only suggest that since so many Americans take the tack of "If it's not in the Constitution, it's not part of my country." This would take the opportunity to shift and expand protections for citizens as the world changes. You still keep the basics, but there's some flexibility and expansion possibilities.

[Nyoibo]

Looks like it IS a right to keep and bear arms.

The full wording of the 2nd amendment "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" As there is no need for a well regulated militia anymore the 2nd amendment is kind of out dated.

As to health care being a right, why, people are talking about the right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness, well getting sick is part of life, so you have a right to get sick, you don't have a right to get healthy, that's up to your body. But I have a strange view on rights given I believe we have no rights but what we can claim and enforce for ourselves.

[joe hx]

It's BOTH. Easy enough. It's not a paradox or a conundrum even. Base document is the same, you just tack on a crappy revision to fix a hole. To make a software analogy, you're still patching version 1 of software, rather than making version 2.0.

well actually the constitution would be 2.0, since it replaced the Articles of Confederation...

(this is a bad attempt at humor... sort of)

[Nyoibo]

Constitution V2.1836?

[smileyeagle1021]

Also, as we advanced west, we had to defend ourselves from force out the Native Americans.

there, fixed it for you... sorry, pet peeve of mine. We were the intruders, the Native Americans were the defenders.

[AFPheonix]

question

is the government ensuring everyone has health insurance an attempt to "promote the general welfare" as stated by the preamble of the US Constitution?

just a thought

Yes, thank you, you beat me to it. The government has a responsibility to the people, to ensure our well being. We can provide this for ourselves without having to go through a private party that makes money off our sick asses.

[DrFaroohk]

Or the medical people could stop charging extreme prices.

"but...but..they have education bills and stuff....!"

The same friend who said the original statement also bitches at people on government assistance to "live within their means". The same should apply to everyone. AWwww....you can't afford your 80 acre piece of land, 5 story house and brand new mercedes? Awww, its cuz of your student loans? Well live within your means!@

[Pedersen]

Or the medical people could stop charging extreme prices.

Which will also require still further health care reforms, since medical issues are basically a lottery for too many people. You want to talk about extreme bills? Here, check out what a doctor with an office will have to deal with:

• rent for office space (or taxes if land/building is owned)
• utilities, which includes running high power draw medical instruments more than the average person and paying people to come clean the office on a regular basis, more water than normal (to assist with cleanliness), etc
• upkeep on the aforementioned tools, especially the high end ones (you know, the ones that have spent the last 10 years in R&D, gone through FDA trials, etc, and could not be legally sold until last week once the FDA gave their approval, so their cost is obscene, too)
• non-nurse office staff to maintain appointments, keep records organized, and the like
• RN or PA, at least one, to accommodate the demands of an ever growing patient list
• whatever regular insurance (liability, fire, etc.)
• malpractice insurance

Care to guess what all of that has in common? Hint: These things are not cheap.

Get a decent RN, and you're talking total expenditure of around $70K/yr (total expenditure, not just salary, don't forget benefits!). A decent PA? Going to cost more, though I don't know how much (let's go low, and say $75K/yr). Utilities are going to be higher, too (let's go low here, and say a mere $500/month, so $6K/yr). Rent? Let's make it dirt cheap for medical space, and call that $1000/month ($12K/yr). Office staff are going to run $40K/yr total, too. Non-malpractice insurance? Let's only double the cost of homeowner's, and call that $2K/yr.

So, at this point, we're talking about someone having to pay out $205,000/yr just to pay everybody else that's associated with the practice.

Now, let's add in malpractice insurance, which is jacked up to astronomical levels by the lottery that is the legal system (after all, what have you got to lose, and what have you got to gain, by suing a doctor when something, however minor, goes wrong?). Cheap medical malpractice is another $30K/yr (going by the numbers I've heard where OB/Gyns who do deliveries have found themselves getting hit with $100K/yr insurance premiums, I'm chopping down to less than 1/3).

The doctor is paying $235,000/yr, and still hasn't paid himself one single dime. He can't even afford a single cup of cheap coffee yet.

Now, consider his working conditions: Long hours (12 hour days are not at all uncommon), need for continuous (expensive) training so as to always know the latest techniques, relentless demands on the doctor to never make mistakes, ruthless demands on his family life and social life, extensive (for some specialties, you will be working for well past a decade after graduating high school before you are able to even get your license for that specialty). For that sort of life, he should be making (personally) $100K/yr. He's earned it. However, let's knock him way down, and say that he's only earned $30K/yr.

He still has to come up with $265,000/yr just to reach that point. For point of reference, that translates to him having to charge about $133/hr (using a 40 hour work week) to reach that level.

If you accept that he should be at $100,000/yr, then he has to make $335, which comes out to about $163/hr.

In other words, his expenses are so much higher than yours and mine that he has to charge a lot. And don't forget that almost all of those numbers are lowballed. Actual expenses are likely much higher. If you want them to charge less, then attack something else first, so that they can charge less and still manage to make a living.

[BlaqueKatt]

In other words, his expenses are so much higher than yours and mine that he has to charge a lot. And don't forget that almost all of those numbers are lowballed. Actual expenses are likely much higher. If you want them to charge less, then attack something else first, so that they can charge less and still manage to make a living.

Add in the fact that a percentage of patients don't pay their bills, and insurance companies negotiate lower prices in exchange for sending more patients. Sort of a "buying a doctor's time in bulk" the same way big box retailers get lower prices from their suppliers than a mom-n-pop store.

for example:
insurance company A agrees to pay doctor Smith $50 per visit, dr Smith usually charges $85. In order to get as many of insurance company A's patients he has to agree to this amount of payment(to be put on their "approved provider list"), in order to make up the difference in what he's losing he charges the uninsured/self-pay patients more than $85.

My husband and I both have insurance through our jobs-I have a standard insurance company, my husband has his through a "not-for-profit" co-operative company-guess which one is more expensive/has better coverage and more options for doctors? Hint my work pays in full my premiums, and those for spouse/dependants.

[joe hx]

there, fixed it for you... sorry, pet peeve of mine. We were the intruders, the Native Americans were the defenders.

I know smiley but I was getting enough off-topic with guns and stuff...

Which will also require still further health care reforms, since medical issues are basically a lottery for too many people. You want to talk about extreme bills? Here, check out what a doctor with an office will have to deal with:

brilliant, Pedersen. hell, for some doctors, it's a 24/7 job. gotta go in the middle of the night to reattach a hand.

[crashhelmet]

Whether or not it's a "right" is a battle of semantics that could be waged forever and then some. You'll find arguments for and against it from the extreme opposites of the spectrum and all points in between. Some are driven by opinion and others by agenda. Gotta love politics.

Let's look at the bigger picture as far as healthcare is concerned though. A lot of companies don't offer healthcare to their employees. These employees can't afford to take time off of work to goto a doctor, let alone afford to pay the doctor for their services.

One of the largest, if not the largest, industries that has the lowest amount of employees with healthcare is the food and beverage industry. These people without healthcare, having who knows what kind of illness, malady, or ailment are coming into work and spreading their germs to customers through their food, their drinks, or common contact. Thus causing problems for innocent bystanders, if you will.

It's my opinion that there should be some sort of health care system for anyone that has a valid job. Pay taxes/SSI/Social Security/etc but your employer doesn't provide you with medical coverage? You qualify. Not responsible enough to keep a job? Let Darwinism run rampant.

CH

[Fashion Lad!]

Thomas Jefferson:
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

The general welfare clause... hmm... typically in a sense that we need to be safe. we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That does not mean the government has to buy me a gun, nor does it mean they have to give me things to make me happy. It just means that they cannot hinder my ability to do so without due process of law. In fact, it would be unconstitutional for the government to take over the health care system.

The people that wrote our constitution generally wanted as little government intervention as possible. So why people think the government should just take care of them is beyond me.

Health care is a need, not a right. Life as the constitution states it is if you're breathing, you have life. No one can take life away from you (murder) without due process of law.

[BroomJockey]

So why people think the government should just take care of them is beyond me.

Why you believe society has no responsibilities to each other as a whole is beyond me. Again, your whole "It's my money, don't use it to benefit others" stance completely baffles me.