A Question of Health-Care to my Brothers and Sisters

[The Cobalt Sieg]

I have this question to pose to any and all members who read this post - is the socializing of medicine truly just and right?
My view is thus - health and life are the responsibilities of the parties involved therein. I do not believe that any taxpayer should have to give even a penny to pay for any visit I make to the doctor or the hospital. Like-wise, I would be suitably enraged for any fraction of a penny I paid in taxes to be used to perform an abortion on then next generation's prom queens because of their football-playing boyfriend. (Yeah, I know. Stereotype. Simply using a common one as an example, please take no offense)
I also would be displeased to have to pay for a lung transplant for a person who has chain smoked all their life, even as everyone they knew told them not to and the dangers inherent in their lifestyles.
My question is thus - do the personal lifestyle choices of any person fall under the jurisdiction of any government, and, should any form of aid or charity be taken by force and by law from those unwilling?
ALSO, PLEASE READ THIS - I AM NOT IN ANY WAY INSINUATING THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, OR THE CONGRESS THEREIN, IS ATTEMPTING TO SOCIALIZE MEDICINE. DO NOT TURN THIS MORAL POLL INTO A POLITICAL ONE.

[Alecto]

Ok, so you give examples of what you think isn't fair about providing certain people healthcare: what about the folks who aren't smokers or drinkers or having gratuitous or unprotected sex? What about folks who have to decide whether they're going to continue to provide for their families or else get that super-expensive cancer / hiv / whatever else kind of treatment.

What about the people who aren't "at fault" for being sick?

"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". As far as I'm concerned, healthcare is covered under "life".

[Emproph]

Is the socializing of health care and medication morally and ethically just?

I chose number #2, within the context of #1

1) Yes - the welfare of all humans should be protected by all humans.

2) Yes - with certain restrictions, restraints, and understandings

As a matter of ethics, I think the welfare of all humans should be protected by those humans who are wealthiest and/or most capable of doing so.
--
I can support this about what you said:

I would be suitably enraged for any fraction of a penny I paid in taxes to be used to perform an abortion on then next generation's prom queens because of their football-playing boyfriend. …I also would be displeased to have to pay for a lung transplant for a person who has chain smoked all their life

I can understand the perspective that these lifestyle choices should be dealt with by those who brought them on themselves. But that list goes on and on and on, including complications of obesity, like diabetes and heartfailure, etc.

I have this question to pose to any and all members who read this post - is the socializing of medicine truly just and right?

My question is thus - do the personal lifestyle choices of any person fall under the jurisdiction of any government, and, should any form of aid or charity be taken by force and by law from those unwilling?

Are you against the governmental socialization of all things, if that person cannot afford it, or just when it comes to health care?

If it is just about health care, are you also against Medicare, veteran’s benefits, and the health care that members of Congress now enjoy?

Or are you against all governmental socialization, like mail delivery, garbage pick up, firefighting, police protection, etc.?

I hear no complaints coming from the right about those socialized services, which leads me to believe that the complaints about so called socialized medicine are disingenuous.

Have you considered the tangent benefits of “socialized” medicine? Fewer trips to the ER, which would benefit us all--cost wise.

The last time I ended up in the ER I was faced with a $1700 bill for a few tests in a scant several hour visit. Fortunately my HC provider paid for most of it, but I was still responsible for about $400.

I look at that part of it like I look at shoplifting, we all end up paying higher prices for the same goods.

And what about the PREVENTABLE 45 thousand deaths every year due to lack of health insurance, and the costs surrounding those deaths, as per loss of breadwinner, toll on businesses for work lost, bankruptcies, emotional toll--requiring further medical care, etc. How much of a toll do you think taxpayers have to pick up for all that?

Unfortunately that’s one monetary equation that I haven’t seen yet as far as taxpayer savings go.

Access to health care is a moral issue that is being politicized, which I consider to be immoral, given that lives and quality of life are at stake--as well as $billions of taxpayer money that is being wasted by not addressing these issues.

As Alecto said:

Originally Posted by Alecto

"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". As far as I'm concerned, healthcare is covered under "life".

When quality of life, and lives themselves are disregarded for the sake of those of us who can afford insurance, we ALL pay the difference in one way or another.

If you are making the case that all taxpayer government services (mail delivery, garbage pick up, firefighting, police, Medicare, Social Security, Veteran‘s benefits, Congressional health care, Defense funding) should be done away with (at least for those who don't deserve it), then make it. I’ll disagree with it, but at least I can respect the consistency of your position.

[Pablo Rafael]

I believe that some things are necessary for a healthy society to function. Education, protection by our military and police forces, a fair judicial system, and health care should be three of those things. These things should be free and accessible to all regardless of a person's income.

Also being a Christian, I think society as a whole has an obligation to look after its poorer members.

What health care system I would prefer is a totally private system like Germany has. There all people have insurance; no one can be denied. The government pays the premiums of the lower-income people. The government sets the prices that are charged for drugs or services.

[The Cobalt Sieg]

I thank you all for your votes and comments. I appreciate all views, even if I do not agree. To hear each person's take on an issue is an enlightening experience indeed.
To be honest, I feel I am too de-humanized to respond with the correct emotions for the situation of the poor and the destitute. While I certainly understand people's enragement at the separation and power of personal wealth, I also feel a great deal of sympathy for the upper class.
I keep in mind these three things - in most cases, the poor are poor because of their own choices. Dropping out of highschool, bad work ethics, wasted money... I understand that a great deal of our lower class is comprised of people who had no choice in their status - those who were simply unlucky enough to lose everything they had. These people I have the utmost sympathy for, but I believe they are the minority in the lower class.
As far as the upper class goes, people like to generalize and say that all rich people are vicious snobs that grew up rich and just got richer. Over privileged pigs, in short. I do not believe this is true. I believe that there are a number of people in the upper class like this, but how many more people are wealthy because they worked as hard as they could, all through their lives? How many of the upper class truly contribute to the economy by making such billions of dollars that trickle down to their employees.

This all said, Id happily mow down every mansion in the world. Such excess is absolutely despicable. But, again, who I am to judge these people? If they wish to live like this, that is their choice - and they should be left to it. Will they not pay for it eventually?

That is the crux of my argument - choices. I believe that most people are in their situations, be they health, wealth, or sin because of the choices they have made in life. I short, I hold most people accountable for their own situations. While I may feel sympathy for them, I believe it to be a fundamental wrongness to force the care of all people upon those who do not wish to care for them. It doesnt make the rich right, and it doesnt bode well in my heart. Poetic justice, though it may be, it is still a form of vindication and revenge, when all vengeance is the Lords.

I beg you all to please keep your anger in check, after reading my post. I understand I may seem a monster lacking in compassion, but I beg you to understand that my beliefs and my heart are simply... Different.
I wish you all the happiest of Thanksgivings, and I will return shortly - Saturday, most likely. Please continue to peaceably comment and leave your views.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by The Cobalt Sieg

I thank you all for your votes and comments. I appreciate all views, even if I do not agree. To hear each person's take on an issue is an enlightening experience indeed.
To be honest, I feel I am too de-humanized to respond with the correct emotions for the situation of the poor and the destitute. While I certainly understand people's enragement at the separation and power of personal wealth, I also feel a great deal of sympathy for the upper class.
I keep in mind these three things - in most cases, the poor are poor because of their own choices. Dropping out of highschool, bad work ethics, wasted money... I understand that a great deal of our lower class is comprised of people who had no choice in their status - those who were simply unlucky enough to lose everything they had. These people I have the utmost sympathy for, but I believe they are the minority in the lower class.
As far as the upper class goes, people like to generalize and say that all rich people are vicious snobs that grew up rich and just got richer. Over privileged pigs, in short. I do not believe this is true. I believe that there are a number of people in the upper class like this, but how many more people are wealthy because they worked as hard as they could, all through their lives? How many of the upper class truly contribute to the economy by making such billions of dollars that trickle down to their employees.

This all said, Id happily mow down every mansion in the world. Such excess is absolutely despicable. But, again, who I am to judge these people? If they wish to live like this, that is their choice - and they should be left to it. Will they not pay for it eventually?

That is the crux of my argument - choices. I believe that most people are in their situations, be they health, wealth, or sin because of the choices they have made in life. I short, I hold most people accountable for their own situations. While I may feel sympathy for them, I believe it to be a fundamental wrongness to force the care of all people upon those who do not wish to care for them. It doesnt make the rich right, and it doesnt bode well in my heart. Poetic justice, though it may be, it is still a form of vindication and revenge, when all vengeance is the Lords.

I beg you all to please keep your anger in check, after reading my post. I understand I may seem a monster lacking in compassion, but I beg you to understand that my beliefs and my heart are simply... Different.
I wish you all the happiest of Thanksgivings, and I will return shortly - Saturday, most likely. Please continue to peaceably comment and leave your views.

The refrain seemed appropriate...

[Pablo Rafael]

Originally Posted by The Cobalt Sieg

I keep in mind these three things - in most cases, the poor are poor because of their own choices. Dropping out of highschool, bad work ethics, wasted money... I understand that a great deal of our lower class is comprised of people who had no choice in their status - those who were simply unlucky enough to lose everything they had. These people I have the utmost sympathy for, but I believe they are the minority in the lower class.

Do you have any statistics to back up this opinion? It seems to me that most people are poor because their parents were poor. In the year 2000 blacks made 58% as much as whites and hispanics made something like 67% as much. (I don't exactly remember the latter figure.) Are blacks and hispanics more prone to bad choices?

I take my case as an example. I live in a cute little house in the mountains. I chose to live here on purpose even though the economic opportunities are dismal. How can I afford to live here with a 28 hour-per-week job? It is because my grandparents left me an inheritance that paid off my mortgage. Others do not have that opportunity. Not because they make bad choices, but because their circumstances dictate it.

Even those who have made bad choices in their lives, should we just let them die?

Are you also opposed to public schools? Would you rather the private sector totally take over education?

Following are just some random thoughts and semi-rhetorical quesrtions:

Should we eliminate taxes that go to road construction and maintenance and instead just have all roads be toll roads?

Should police protection be pay-for-service?

[Matt Algren]

Originally Posted by The Cobalt Sieg

To be honest, I feel I am too de-humanized to respond with the correct emotions for the situation of the poor and the destitute.

I'm an expert hyperboligist and even I think that's a bit over the line. You're "dehumanized" because poor people will get to go to the doctor's? Seriously?

I keep in mind these three things - in most cases, the poor are poor because of their own choices. Dropping out of highschool, bad work ethics, wasted money...

For the sake of argument, let's assume you're right. The next question is this: So what?

Why should someone's bad choices earlier in life mean that they shouldn't be able to go to the doctor without bankrupting themselves? Why should anyone have to choose between medication and food? And why should being born into a relatively wealthy family mean that you get better doctors and better treatment?

The rest of your argument is just propping up and knocking down strawmen, so I'll leave it at that.

[RedneckDyke]

I am a libertarian on most things but I do think we should have single payer health care. Whe people are well and healthy that is better for everyone. I also think that immigrants with no green card should get health care. There are too many epidemic diseases that people could bring in from other countries to let people go untreated and spread stuff around. These arguments don't even go into a christian or moral perpective, only a practical one.

[K-Dog]

I think everyone should have to pay for it, but should get a form allowing them to isolate certain things that their own money won't go to.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by K-Dog

I think everyone should have to pay for it, but should get a form allowing them to isolate certain things that their own money won't go to.

If everyone had a form stipulating where the money would and would not go, there would be a great many things that would go unfunded. And what happens if you are one of those people who needs a procedure you can't get and can't afford? What do you do? Die?

[K-Dog]

Originally Posted by Daniel

If everyone had a form stipulating where the money would and would not go, there would be a great many things that would go unfunded. And what happens if you are one of those people who needs a procedure you can't get and can't afford? What do you do? Die?

The procedures I would see as being optional to pay or not would not be life saving procedures. It would be vanity or questionable procedures which many normal insurance companies currently refuse to pay for even if you are insured.

There is a difference between covering universal health care and paying for any medical procedure just because someone wants to have it done.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by K-Dog

The procedures I would see as being optional to pay or not would not be life saving procedures. It would be vanity or questionable procedures which many normal insurance companies currently refuse to pay for even if you are insured.

There is a difference between covering universal health care and paying for any medical procedure just because someone wants to have it done.

Does insurance pay for vanity procedures like botox and getting your eyes down? No!

So what procedures are you talking about that medicare pays for now?

If you are talking about ABORTION, then have the courage of your convictions. However, my response to you will be exactly the same as my first post on this thread: abortion can be a life-saving procedure.

The bottom line for me is this: once you take away a woman's ability to have an abortion (even though I wish they didn't happen), you have a situation where the quacks are performing them in backrooms with coat hangers.

Do you really want that?

[Matt Algren]

Originally Posted by Daniel

Does insurance pay for vanity procedures like botox and getting your eyes down? No!

So what procedures are you talking about that medicare pays for now?

If you are talking about ABORTION, then have the courage of your convictions. However, my response to you will be exactly the same as my first post on this thread: abortion can be a life-saving procedure.

The bottom line for me is this: once you take away a woman's ability to have an abortion (even though I wish they didn't happen), you have a situation where the quacks are performing them in backrooms with coat hangers.

Do you really want that?

Interesting bit of information following the Rush Limbaugh incident in Hawaii: They've had a form of near-universal health care since 1974.

Although its Pacific Island location makes the costs of everything--from gasoline to milk to ice cream to housing--the highest in the nation, health care premiums in Hawaii, for comprehensive care with small co-pays and deductibles, are nearly the lowest and their costs per medicare beneficiary are the lowest in the nation.

Why? There are a variety of reasons, most traceable to universality. With everyone covered by primary care, emergency room visits tend to be for real emergencies, not the non-emergent care mainland ERs dispense for people without coverage. That reduces the costs of ERs and the costs of non-emergent medicine since patients can be handled less expensively and more effectively by their primary docs. Hospitals have not overbuilt, acquiring expensive machines to compete with their neighbors for patients. Insurance companies have instituted screening and other measures to improve wellness among their covered populations.

Now, of course, Rush does not live in Hawaii and so his costs are not covered by the Hawaiian insurance system, but having that "socialist" system for more than 3 decades has not reduced the quality of the care he received. Who would have thunk it!

[K-Dog]

Originally Posted by Daniel

Does insurance pay for vanity procedures like botox and getting your eyes down? No!

So what procedures are you talking about that medicare pays for now?

If you are talking about ABORTION, then have the courage of your convictions. However, my response to you will be exactly the same as my first post on this thread: abortion can be a life-saving procedure.

The bottom line for me is this: once you take away a woman's ability to have an abortion (even though I wish they didn't happen), you have a situation where the quacks are performing them in backrooms with coat hangers.

Do you really want that?

My post does involve abortion, but is not limited to it. I don't see Rowe V Wade as a moral issue, I see it as more of a public health issue. The problem my idea is attempting to put aside is there are things like abortion that people find highly undesirable. Making them pay for it will only cause outrage and an increased opposition to the bill. I'm pretty sure that abortions are not that expensive collectively, and enough people are pro choice that they would be picking up the tab. I don't think it would prevent abortions from happening, it would just make some people feel better about it that it isn't coming out of their pocket.