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.

 

Why Isn't Healthcare a Right not a Commodity Debate

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Well, lets have a nice debate now. I wanna know your thoughts.

The topic is of course healthcare. I want to make the first couple of points, 1 for each side of the debate and we can move on from there.

Against :
Healthcare is expensive, and if people don't want it why should we force them to get it. Why should I have to pay taxes for someone elses healthcare, this is unconstitutional and unfair to me and my family. The government never does things efficiently or correctly and should keep their hands off of healthcare. Our doctors are the best in the world and decreasing their wages by forcing a government controlled system would provide similar results to what we see in the UK and Canada.

Healthcare should fail if for no other reason than the bills have to be over 1000 pages not counting the references to the other 1000 page bills with references to more 1000 page bills etc.

For :
Why is healthcare any different than the Fire Department or Police Department. I am glad we have those. Sure, we can argue that private fire departments can be paid for and a market could emerge, but I don't want the guy next door not buying fire service and his house catching mine on fire! Why should I have to risk damage to my home because of my neighbors negligence. Law suits cannot recover lost items such as paintings done by your great grandmother, so the courts cannot protect me. Fire is no different than an epidemic.

Healthcare requires reform, should be a service not a commodity(After all the rest of the world thinks it is a right not a commodity so why are we so arrogant to think we are right and they are wrong?). How can we live with ourselves to say I deserve to be unhealthy or to die b/c I cannot or will not pay for the outrageous price of health insurance?


I will not provide my opinion as I am still on the fence. I am leaning toward one of these, but I wanna see some good arguments in both directions. Please use facts and sources when possible.




posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by memarf1
 


Against: Every version of a heathcare plan with a "public option" has "no brainer" clauses that prove it will be cheaper for employers to convert their employees over to the "public option" than buy private insurance plans (thus pretty much forced)

The same politicians who want to stick us all on this "public option" refuse to take it for themselves. They have voted overwhelmingly against "partaking" of the healthcare that they want to enforce upon us. (RED FLAG!! THINK ABOUT IT)

Real or perceived, all the "public option" plans appear to be a large steaming turd... Do you think we actually trust these guys?

For: Great, but we have to pay for it.... wait, who pays for it... the 100 million of us that work... (don't count Federal Employees, their pay and benefits already come out of our tax money).

Care will be rationed to make up the cost.. we all know this. It is a no brainer.

DO WE NEED Reform.. hell yes we do.

Now: Solution - Let's all "share" in the Federal Employee Insurance Program... You know, the good one that our Federal Employee's have.

Oh Wait...Can WE buy into the current / existing FEDERAL Employee Insurance Program that our esteemed politicians buy into at their cost???

NO... why is that??? , why isn't this the "public option"???

YOU know why... It is to good for us... the working people who pay for it.

Sorry... Hippocrates Stink!



[edit on 24-9-2009 by infolurker]



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 12:04 AM
link   
Well from what I have heard others say or argue is it's a human right because the basics of the Constitution was that people have the right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The same debate goes for abortion, which I find quite ironic the liberals think Health Care applies as a right to life, but a fetus (a human in the making) doesn't. Not to offend anyone of course


Now the question is, is Health Care really a GOD (or nature, some higher power) given right? Let's look at our rights shall we.

Free Speech- anyone who can speak has the ability to speak their mind, so it is a right.

Freedom of Religion- Anyone who has a mind can believe in anything they want, so it is a right.

Protest, Petition, Privacy etc. All something you can do yourself if capable.
The right to a speedy trial by jury, all that is to protect you from corrupt politics, & bias so it's more of the fact that people should be treated equally under the Government.

The right to live I think was intended for a different purpose, being that Governments or anyone cannot take your life away from you, by living you are entitled to your life.

Now Health Care where does this all fit into here? Most of the rights are ones given to by birth am I correct? Is someone given by birth perfect health or the ability to heal oneself, or a big sign attached saying I need this type of health care? No.

Were people worried about universal health care 100 years ago? Did your grandparents have health insurance? No, they typically just paid out of their pockets what they owed the doctor for the visit, sometimes it wasn't always money if you go back far enough.

Health care is in my opinion is not a right, it is a privilege. Is it unfortunate that it costs so much? Yes, but I bet if one dug deep enough they'd find a reason. We should not just take the expenses of health care and not even try to figure out why they are so high in the first place.

If one considers health care a right to life, then Abortion is morally wrong too. If a person who has already lived has a right to get the help needed at a fair cost to keep on living then doesn't a fetus who hasn't lived in the outside world have the right to just live? The Libs need to think about that before they pass any healthcare bill.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   
The sad thing about healthcare is that it can be afforded by the government and the people if the government actually apply the gains from taxes to help the American people instead of being wasteful with a pretty high percentage of it that could indeed help Americans with affordable healthcare. And taxes will steadily increased but the problems of society will not be reduced by any stretch of the imagination because no problem equals no profit. I am not a guy who understand the tax codes that well but I have done research enough to know that the government does take a lot out of our hard-earned paychecks including other taxes that really has done nothing to help America as proven by what is going on today economically. Universal healthcare could be applied in America but because the government is a mob as is the corporations, we suffer due to the government need to make a profit on anything and everything. I would not mind if the government did take a percentage of paychecks to benefit healthcare in exchange for health coverage, however, it should be a choice nevertheless as some people still can't afford that obligation. My point being if the tax revenues were spent more wisely then yes - might be a stretch - but the American people would be able to have healthcare coverage for everyone.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by memarf1
 


im with you dude...on the fence...

i say we stick with the constution, but dont want to see the guy that is out of work with cancer and will die because he cant pay a large deductible because he doesnt have the money...

heres an idea...

they already write off when someone enters the emergency room and doesnt pay..whats wrong with doing that for people who need continuous treatment? maybe its more money, but that measn less taxes the company has to pay...right?

or...

why cant they offer a payment plan once the patient is better? and if they dont pay, it goes on their credit...but obviously the payment plan must be reasonable...

healthcare system remains in private hands and people get the help they need...government pitches in to provide a loan to the patient maybe?...

they have educational loans, why not a "save your life" loan?

then they even make a dollar or two with a low interest rate of like 2% over 30-50 years or somethin... obviously it may be a different case if the patient is already 75...

you will still have competition...more people using the services and therefore prices will come down...obviously there are things to that that would take a beauracracy, but i think it would be more acceptable than a completely government ran system...



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by asmall89
 


The governments primary job, I think we can all agree, is to provide safety, protect our rights, and defend against outside threats. How can anyone argue that health concerns are not an outside threat? If they are not, then how can anyone argue that health concerns are not about our safety, after all, I can kill a burglar, why not a virus? If it is not about our safety then why not our rights as humans?

If we argue that we have the right to LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, then refuse to pay for someones cancer treatment(LIFE), prosthetic limbs(LIBERTY that mobility provides), or general welfare(PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS).

I don't know about you, but I'm never happy when I'm sick, I wouldn't feel free if I were paralyzed, and I would want to live, so if these rights are guaranteed by our government for other purposes such as police(Protection), fire(Safety), and military(Outside Threats), then why not here?

Isn't this the primary job of any government?



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by memarf1
 


Heres and Eye opener:



Wow, if we could just fix the costs of medication by making it legal to have competition from the ones who will benefit from development of cures for diseases, there wouldn't be a H.C. debate!



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Because we have no border.
If an illegal alien from whatever country can scratch together the X-thousand to get here and need very very expensive medical help the hospitals will do whatever proceedures are needed.
Uninsured withh no assets to sieze is a free ride.
If you are a citizen and your health insurance runs out well... Box under the freeway and Alpo helper for dinner.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ..5..
Because we have no border.
If an illegal alien from whatever country can scratch together the X-thousand to get here and need very very expensive medical help the hospitals will do whatever proceedures are needed.
Uninsured withh no assets to sieze is a free ride.
If you are a citizen and your health insurance runs out well... Box under the freeway and Alpo helper for dinner.


haha, yeah, I agree there are problems. However you should realize that you too can go to the ER and get fixed up for free. They cannot ask you if you can pay for it, and you can simply ignore the bills. Yes this is bad for your credit, yes they can sue you or send you to collections, but fortunately for us they cannot take our stuff without a lien. Don't sign any paperwork giving them your assets and you are fine. lol.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join