It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

One simple argument against Healthcare as a fundamental right!

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Why are people claiming that healthcare is a natural right? The government doesn't provide food for us why should they provide healthcare? Food is much more necessary to life than healthcare yet I fail to see even those strong proponents of government sponsored healthcare embracing the idea of government providing food for all of us? You can manage to live for years without healthcare. Yet you can only go two weeks without food. Is it not fair that some citizens can eat filet mignon and fresh vegetables every night and shop at Whole Foods while others are relegated to eating frozen dinners and shopping at Safeway? After all should we all have the same access to nourishment and the same quality of food?




posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   
The government does provide food to people who can't afford it. In the USA, roughly 10% of the population is on food stamps.

www.fns.usda.gov...

[edit on 10-8-2009 by theWCH]



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Nobody should be refused life-saving medical care. But we already have that covered with the Emergency Rooms. They already have a mandate to stabilize a patient.

Beyond that, however, we cannot be expected to provide cradle to grave care.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by theWCH
 


And they also provide healthcare to those who can't afford it. And those that are on food stamps are hardly eating filet mignon and fresh vegetables every night like I pointed out. Why should every American in the US have the same level of coverage as everyone else hence healthcare as a human right.

Good point none the less



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by theWCH
The government does provide food to people who can't afford it. In the USA, roughly 10% of the population is on food stamps.

www.fns.usda.gov...

[edit on 10-8-2009 by theWCH]


We throw away so much food, and even subsidize farmers to not grow more crops, that there is nothing wrong with making use of the food with food stamps, etc.

Healt care, however, is a different can of worms.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   
I don't understand the opposition to a government provided healthcare plan.


Do not those opposed to the plan, generally the wealthy (or their lackies), understand that a Healthy Slave is a Productive Slave?

And a Productive Slave Improves the Bottom Line!



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   
by the way has anyone read The Innovator's Prescription........

www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249921154&sr=1-1

Not one negative review on Amazon. Every other book I've researched seems to be biased one way or the other.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Nobody should be refused life-saving medical care. But we already have that covered with the Emergency Rooms. They already have a mandate to stabilize a patient.

Beyond that, however, we cannot be expected to provide cradle to grave care.


Uhm no, only for those that are very poor, or who have insurance, or those who do not mind having to go bankrupt for an ER visit.

Stabilizing a patient is not "health care", that is just keeping you from dying on their doorstep and then sending you on your way.

It just so happens that many of us make too much to receive "free care" but not enough to "buy health insurance". Meaning? We can't afford that ER visit you are talking about.

HARM NONE
Peace



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Simply put the General Welfare Clause of the constitution allows for government to provide the basic necessities to ensure citizens welfare. Whether this be in the form of dictating business fraud regulations (ie anti-trust, or price fixing) or providing food so people don't starve. The constitution also provides for a common defense. Maybe we should give away our military and just provide a gun to everyone would be the equivalent of applying general welfare issues to common defense issues.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Bhadhidar
 


Ok if we must have a government run healthcare system why does it HAVE to be at the Federal level. Why can't it be at the state or dare I say it LOCAL level? Why does everything have to stem from Washington DC. Can the Federal Government honestly tell Montana how to serve it's population vs. say Florida? Two ENTIRELY different demographics?

Answer = POWER AND CONTROL!



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Zosynspiracy
 


For the same reason that State-administered General Assistance (welfare) programs are as mis-managered as they are: The States that provide more benefits (resulting in higher taxes to their citizens) suddenly find themselves swamped with a disproportionate number of applicants.


Case in point: California.


Lots of Federally-mandated assistance programs, lots more Voter-mandated social welfare programs.

Lots and lots and lots of applicants for said programs.
Result: Ever increasing costs for those programs.


As the State's revenues decline, and those revenues are Not off-set by increased taxation, the State tumbles into near- (if not actual, eventual) bankruptcy.



States, unlike the Federal government, can't just print more money to cover their...Losses, you know.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
Why are people claiming that healthcare is a natural right? The government doesn't provide food for us why should they provide healthcare? Food is much more necessary to life than healthcare yet I fail to see even those strong proponents of government sponsored healthcare embracing the idea of government providing food for all of us? You can manage to live for years without healthcare. Yet you can only go two weeks without food. Is it not fair that some citizens can eat filet mignon and fresh vegetables every night and shop at Whole Foods while others are relegated to eating frozen dinners and shopping at Safeway? After all should we all have the same access to nourishment and the same quality of food?



First of all, I am no fan of Obama's heathcare reforms. But that being said, I think there is a good case for a 'right' because one can hardly live Life, enjoy Liberty or Pursue Happiness and not be healthy... or have access to some degree of health care.

So strictly along those lines, I think that there is a case. Not an undeniable one, mind you, but one surely worth debate.

...



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   
if everyone has healthcare insurance, everybody pays a certain amount each month and the insurance company administrates these charges so that everybodies health care expenses are covered.

this essentially makes it a privately opperated tax.

the only difference is, the government can use averages and scale to drive down the overall cost for everyone.

it means that in reality, it is cheaper for the government to provide high quality health care for everybody than it is for the people to provide high quality health care for 70% of themselves.

so, to be against public health care really means that you want to pay more so that poor people can't access decent health care.......um, nice.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by amazed
 


My point was that you cannot be turned away from the ER for inability to pay.

That, and to dispel the myth that people are dying in the streets because they can't get emergency care.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   
It's probably just me, but I was/am all for the $5000 tax credit for medical expenses (or more!). I mean they are already giving $4500 just for buying a stupid car! That would provide someone with $375 a month to pay medical bills or buy insurance premiums. I have a family of 4 and I am paying much less than $375 a month.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Bhadhidar
 


You're wrong about California. A huge chunk of the public money spent on medicaid and other government assistance programs goes to cover illegal immigrants or dare I say it third world immigrants with little education and job skills.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 



Originally posted by pieman
if everyone has healthcare insurance, everybody pays a certain amount each month and the insurance company administrates these charges so that everybodies health care expenses are covered.

this essentially makes it a privately opperated tax.

the only difference is, the government can use averages and scale to drive down the overall cost for everyone.


There is another big difference. The federal gov't adds a layer of bureaucracy that costs hundred os billions of dollars, causes inefficiencies, and takes away control from the people.


it means that in reality, it is cheaper for the government to provide high quality health care for everybody than it is for the people to provide high quality health care for 70% of themselves.


The federal gov't has never done anything more efficiently than the private sector, from Amtrak to the postal service, to anything.


so, to be against public health care really means that you want to pay more so that poor people can't access decent health care.......um, nice.


What a mistatement of facts.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
The federal gov't has never done anything more efficiently than the private sector, from Amtrak to the postal service, to anything.


weather high efficiencies are good or bad depends entirely on your point of view and what you mean by efficiency.

the primary function of the health care system, at the moment, is to make a profit. they do this very efficiently. patient care is only as important from the perspective of how it effects profit margin. if it is more profitable to give a patient a lower level of care, the current system says a lower level of care is efficient.

a federal system creates a situation where level of care and profit are no longer linked. it would be more efficient at looking after patients than the current system but less efficient at making a profit.....which is good for the patient.

[edit on 10/8/09 by pieman]



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 


You are so wrong on SO MANY levels. Incentive is what drives an economy. Incentive is what drives innovation. Innovation is what drives down costs and increases the quality of care. With your logic no company is going to invest the time, energy or research in making health care more affordable. No doctors or nurses are going to enter the field. No more healthcare facilities are going to open up. If you take away incentive or the ability to make money which is exactly what government will do, you decrease quality and many other things like efficiency. Government control will stifle innovation, it already does.

Competition increases quality as well. Government run health insurance will stifle competition and produce mediocrity.


[edit on 10-8-2009 by Zosynspiracy]



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   
True health care needs fixed but this version is way too invasive and the fixing should go to those who cant get insured.Also illegal aliens should not be included!My grandparents came here the legal way like most and breaking the law shouldn't come with a REWARD!



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join