An example of why a public option would be nice in the United States

[Growler]

Originally Posted by August

See my post #11 in this thread.

I'm not sure, August. Are you suggesting that health "as a right" exists in the US because the Bill of Rights suggests that, since someone says its' so, it is? I'm not trying to be truculent; I'm just not following your train of thought on the Tenth Amendment.

The way I read that, if the Fed doesn't call it a right, nor deny it as a right, then the States (individually) may decide to enforce a right on their own, pursuant to the wishes of their people; further, that the people themselves may decide what is a right.

Now, my need for amplification is this: Is the Amendment suggesting that, because the Constitution doesn't enumerate or deny the right of health, it is therefore an allowed right because an individual calls it so?

I really am not trying to be contrary; I am just trying to understand.

[Kaye T. Bai]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Wall o'text.

This. ^

[gimpy117]

well we do have the right to: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
One could say that part of protecting ones right to life is to offer affordable and fair health care. I'm not saying that the bill of rights says the government is supposed to give people universal health care, but it is supposed to do things to help make sure these things are affordable.

[August]

Originally Posted by Growler

I really am not trying to be contrary; I am just trying to understand.

Don't worry, I understand.

What the 10th Amendment basically says is that Americans have a right to anything unless the Constitution specifically gives their government the power to regulate or deny it.

Some of the framers were worried that some day someone would try to attempt to limit the freedom of the American people to what is listed in the Bill of Rights.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Freiwillige

Not bashing just curious where the concept of Rights that aren't federally listed come from.

The concept of the Framers was that government has no rights at all. They were used to (and tired of) the background they came from, which said that the Government has all the rights, the Government owns you, you are a subject. They created the National Government because they had to, not because they wanted one. And they created that government to accomplish two things - arbitrate disputes between the States and deal with foreign policy. The first was because the States couldn't always agree on everything, and they needed some way to keep each other in line. The second was because foreign governments refused to deal with thirteen separate little nations severally and insisted that they would deal only with The United States, since that was what we had chosen to call ourselves.

Everything beyond that is outside the pervue of the Constitution, which specifies how the Government is to be run and then lists certain things that it is not allowed to touch. To hedge his bets, author James Madison made sure the Ninth and Tenth amendments were in there. The People have ALL the rights, the Government has none.

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

The concept of the Framers was that government has no rights at all. They were used to (and tired of) the background they came from, which said that the Government has all the rights, the Government owns you, you are a subject. They created the National Government because they had to, not because they wanted one. And they created that government to accomplish two things - arbitrate disputes between the States and deal with foreign policy. The first was because the States couldn't always agree on everything, and they needed some way to keep each other in line. The second was because foreign governments refused to deal with thirteen separate little nations severally and insisted that they would deal only with The United States, since that was what we had chosen to call ourselves.

Everything beyond that is outside the pervue of the Constitution, which specifies how the Government is to be run and then lists certain things that it is not allowed to touch. To hedge his bets, author James Madison made sure the Ninth and Tenth amendments were in there. The People have ALL the rights, the Government has none.

You said it far better than I did Steve.

[Kaye T. Bai]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

One could say that part of protecting ones right to life is to offer affordable and fair health care.

Maybe. But is it really within the government's purview to ensure that?

Originally Posted by gimpy117

I'm not saying that the bill of rights [sic] says the government is supposed to give people universal health care, but it is supposed to do things to help make sure these things are affordable.

Where exactly?

Originally Posted by gimpy117

well we do have the right to: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I'd hate to rain on your parade, but the phrase "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is taken from the United States' Declaration of Independence, which has no legal weight or bearing on how business is conducted in the country. That'd be the United States Constitution.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by Kaye T. Bai

Maybe. But is it really within the government's purview to ensure that?

It's the governments job to make sure this right isn't being denied by things like extreme medical costs.

[Growler]

Originally Posted by August

Don't worry, I understand.

What the 10th Amendment basically says is that Americans have a right to anything unless the Constitution specifically gives their government the power to regulate or deny it.

Some of the framers were worried that some day someone would try to attempt to limit the freedom of the American people to what is listed in the Bill of Rights.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

The concept of the Framers was that government has no rights at all. They were used to (and tired of) the background they came from, which said that the Government has all the rights, the Government owns you, you are a subject. They created the National Government because they had to, not because they wanted one. And they created that government to accomplish two things - arbitrate disputes between the States and deal with foreign policy. The first was because the States couldn't always agree on everything, and they needed some way to keep each other in line. The second was because foreign governments refused to deal with thirteen separate little nations severally and insisted that they would deal only with The United States, since that was what we had chosen to call ourselves.

Everything beyond that is outside the pervue of the Constitution, which specifies how the Government is to be run and then lists certain things that it is not allowed to touch. To hedge his bets, author James Madison made sure the Ninth and Tenth amendments were in there. The People have ALL the rights, the Government has none.

Thank you, gentlemen - that clarifies beautifully.

Curious how many laws we have on the books - and how open to interpretation many of them are over the years.

Health is a condition, not a right. What bothers me about socialized health care (in the US) is the slippery slope it starts the nation down; specifically, around the abortion issue. It's a clear cause of one party to outlaw the practice, and the other party to allow it. Both parties could sue - and win - a case based on the "right" to health, were it such a right. One wins on the basis of woman's health, while the other wins on the basis of fetus health. Every time Congress (more likely, the leanings of the SCOTUS) changed in dominant party, the law would be enforced differently. This is not the way to do business.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Growler

Curious. I'd like to know as well; the concept is intriguing.

It is the responsibility of a company to provide the service paid for. It is the responsibility of the consumer to pay the company for services rendered. Simple economics.

You'd be surprised what they don't pay for, so read all the fine print. It's also a matter of policy to deny many bills the first time even if it's covered, although after calls from you or your Doctor they will pay up, but this tactic works, 28% don't follow up, get the bill and either pay it or not. They leave many areas gray on purpose. They should make fine unreadable print on some back page against the law. Think how corrupt that is, why, because it works and screws millions up every year. Whatever is written in fine print now should be changed to large print with a large "WARNING", read this, hire an attorney to understand it...or you could die. The profit is in the fine print.

The bigger question is health a right. The government already deems we have the right to life, the bill of rights protects the right to life, one reason ER rooms don't deny life threatening conditions, criminals in jail get good health care as do terrorist.

Yes, this right has to be paid for, like we all pay for prisions, education, ect..Why, if we didn't it would cost society as a whole. We all together pay cops and firefighters to protect life. We ban together to do so.
When one is denied or can't afford health care, all studies show it cost us all more in the long run, so we all suffer as a society, hospital charge more, Insurance goe's up, medicare 60 trillion in debt.

I have no problem with all making profit, but the medical industry as a whole has become a corporate monopoly based on mass profits. On this one area of health, ask yourself this...do you want people to act based on how they can help you the most or do you want them to act based on how much profit..? This is an affront to our right to life.

Today Doctor mistakes are the 3rd leading cause of death, 40,000 die every year from lack of care, millions do without meds, live in pain, so they can feed their kids instead. These get worse and usually cost us all more.
Many in pain just kill themselves.

All studies show one thing, no changes, in 10 years 40% of us could be without medical insurance. Recent studies show corporations are providing less and less options with insurance. All studies show the nice government care will have to be cut...I've met many a GOP member that got ill, lost his job, insurance and forced into pain and poverty changed their mind about a public option.

You have to ask yourself, public option or corporate control for mass profits....which is worse? We know both have bankrupted this country, but no CEO will get a 20 million dollar bonus at the end of the year at the expense of someone elses pain or death.

What we need is a properly regulated medical industry, I myself don't trust the government, but I trust corporations less...course they run the GOP, so would be a win win for them either way.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

And you're mis-characterizing the argument so as to create a strawman. No one said that health care professionals should work for free or even a pittance. What is being argued is that health insurance should be nationalized and taken away as a profit-making enterprise. The interests of health insurance company shareholders and the insureds are irreparably at odds. Scrap the for-profit model.

If you believe that, you must have a serious moral quandary when you pay your insurance premiums each month. You're paying for the bad decisions of your fellow policyholders.

Two points here mookie. First - if something is not for profit - then it can't make a profit. Meaning it cannot GROW. So the local doctor, with just him on staff - cannot afford to hire another physician or nurse - because he has no margin for it. The local small hospital that really SHOULD have an MRI machine because its servicing a fairly large area, can't purchase it because it has no profit to reinvest and grow.

Take profit out of the equation, and your reduced to the old west, one doctor in the whole town and hope he carries what you need in his little black bag when you see him. How exactly is that improving health care?

Secondly - the issue of insurance. I have the CHOICE of paying insurance premiums with everyone else that has my policy or provider. There is no moral quandry - its my CHOICE. The "public option" - as we see steps to put it in place using the existing health care bill - means EVERYONE pays - either through their own insurance premiums, non-coverage "fees" or just outright taxes. No choices given.

You want a public option? Fix it where my tax dollars, my private insurance payments and such don't fund it. Institute it to where only those who use it pay for it. Then fine. But you can't do that - there won't be enough money to pay the bills, so the difference gets lumped on everybody, without any of us having a choice.

So no - there is a big difference in me choosing my insurer and choosing to pay the premium and share the load with others - and having the government MAKE me.

Edit: Yes, its true that right now we are all paying for the care of the uninsured via higher premiums, exorbitant hospital bills and general taxes. However, that doesn't mean the "fix" is to formalize the high costs by recognizing the existing de facto problems and permanticizing them into law. Better to change the equation all the way around.

#1) Change how health care is delivered: disallow hospital emergency room care to non-emergency patients. Yes, allow hospitals to turn away non paying patients who are not in need of immediate emergency care.
#2) Repeal the insurance industry;s anti-trust exemption.
#3) Tort Reform
#4) Rework how Medicare and Medicaid payments are dealt with - paying doctors properly while dramatically reducing fraud.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

It's the governments job to make sure this right isn't being denied by things like extreme medical costs.

No. Not even close. The Right To Life means that no one has the right to take your life, unless you forfeit that right through some crime. It does not mean that you have the right to force someone else to pay for your problems. You can argue that people should do so, and that it's a moral obligation, but a Right is something you are born with, not something the government assigns to you.

Since it was Jefferson who enumerated those Rights in the Declaration, let's look at another of his quotes to see what he really felt:

"Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities."
-Thomas Jefferson; first inaugural address, March 4, 1801

And another:

"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits."
—Thomas Jefferson to M. L'Hommande, 1787

Two points here mookie. First - if something is not for profit - then it can't make a profit. Meaning it cannot GROW.

CAPS LOCK strikes.
Reinvestment and growth is an element which must always be factored into the business model, so those "profits" are inbuilt.
Somone doesn't undeerstand the basic differences just like their earlier ridiculous claim that non profit means no wages.

Secondly - the issue of insurance. I have the CHOICE of paying insurance premiums with everyone else that has my policy or provider. There is no moral quandry - its my CHOICE. The "public option" - as we see steps to put it in place using the existing health care bill - means EVERYONE pays - either through their own insurance premiums, non-coverage "fees" or just outright taxes. No choices given.

CAPS LOCK really is a good indicator, everyone pays through both systems, there is no actual choice, you paid under the old healthcare bil just as you pay under the existing bill and will pay under any further bills and paid under all the previous bills.
If you don't want to pay move to Somalia.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

CAPS LOCK strikes.
Reinvestment and growth is an element which must always be factored into the business model, so those "profits" are inbuilt.
Somone doesn't undeerstand the basic differences just like their earlier ridiculous claim that non profit means no wages.


CAPS LOCK really is a good indicator, everyone pays through both systems, there is no actual choice, you paid under the old healthcare bil just as you pay under the existing bill and will pay under any further bills and paid under all the previous bills.
If you don't want to pay move to Somalia.

C'mon, man. There's no need to strike a condescending tone. Your arguments are good, they usually are; why start with the gratuitous laughing emoticons? All that will accomplish is needlessly pissing people off.

C'mon, man. There's no need to strike a condescending tone.

The view expressed was ridiculous. The emphasis that was put on with BIG LETTERS were the elements which were most incorrect.

why start with the gratuitous laughing emoticons?

It refelects the hilarity of the claims that had been made, especially when Haplo raises a mention of "morals" for good measure

As for good arguements?
How about them charities eh, not for profit by definition so how on earth do they grow?