Yeah...phuk evolution.

Ernie,

I don't consider health care a right of any citizen. It is as Dan said, not in the Constitution. All citizens already have the right to buy health insurance. What is the next Right going to be? To raise taxes so everyone can live in $150K plus homes. Driving isn't a right, but I they will have a paradox there as they can't take cars off the road and make people buy them at the same time. Just fix the system with some tweaks and don't destroy the country with this over laden pork bill.

Ron :confused:

It is an ancient question, one that Aristotle contemplated as well. Is humanity entitled to health care? In this country, are our citizens entitled? We, as a country, will not deny emergency health care to someone seriously injured. By doing so we have established their "right" to health care already.

Now the debate hinges on "how much" health care are they entitled to? What if they can't afford coverage? Do we wait for them to be at deaths door before extending a hand? Does the 80 year old lady qualify for a liver transplant? When does life begin and plenty of other ethical considerations with no easy answer.

This bill does not cover everyone, it covers more than are presently covered. The system needs more than a few "tweaks" in my opinion. The current bill leaves out a number of items that were proposed, like a Government run option among other things. As the debate continues compromises are being made, questions are being answered. Many people don't like the answers. Some want MORE, some less.

It is my belief that the citizens of this Nation do in fact have a right to health care. It's an inalienable right, one that doesn't need to be spelled out, it's self evident. We as a country have already acknowledged that.

The 9th amendmant covers "rights" that are not expressed specifically within the constitution. It allows for "future rights" to be enacted by law as circumstances and time's change. The concept of National Health Care didn't even exist when the Constitution was written.

Ernie,

It is my belief that the citizens of this Nation do in fact have a right to health care. It's an inalienable right, one that doesn't need to be spelled out, it's self evident. We as a country have already acknowledged that.

Your belief or my belief or anyone else's for that matter are not what make something so. I do not believe it is an inalienable right for the Govt. to force people to buy something they may not want. But since the Govt. no longer cares what the people want, this is all a moot point. This is an issue that is never going to have every one's approval. If you want to pay more taxes for the Govt. to waste, I would be happy to let you pay mine for me.

Ron :)

The Government forces us to do all kinds of things we may not want or support or even believe in, but they still do it. For the good of the larger body of the people. Laws are based on moral and ethical considerations that reflect the people. Times change, laws change accordingly. It's just another proposed law for the good of the people. Some believe it is not legal within the Constitution, some believe it is. I believe it will stand a constitutional challenge and is therefore just another law. Like any other law that deals with tax issues.

Ok Ernie, you win. I give up. Obama is the savior of the world and can do no wrong. I don't know the answers for all the problems for sure.

Ron :)

:) I don't "win" either Ron, I don't have all the answers, nor does Obama or Congress. Perhaps the bill won't even pass? If it does, can it survive a constitutional law suit?

I offer only my take on the issue, I could be wrong.

"Death Squads" by Obama. I was disappointed to see this part of the debate die such an early death (there's a pun in there some where). :)

It quickly became such a hot political issue and was so over hyped by Republican's it never got the time the subject deserves. It is a VERY relevant question when you consider our aging population. DOES the 80 year old lady qualify for a liver transplant? At who's expense? In terms of money AND in terms of someone else's life.

We absolutely need to talk about hospice care, end of life counseling, limiting extraordinary measures to preserve life "at all costs" and provisions for a more natural path toward death.

MOST people when asked if they would prefer to die at home would answer yes. Fact is FEW people actually get the chance to do that. They WILL be "forced" in most cases to an ambulance, taken to a hospital and given "extraordinary" treatment to preserve their life.

That "living will" or "trust" you got that specifices "no extraordinary actions to revive"? Good luck with that, it's a crap shoot if the doctors/hospital acknowledge it or not. The doctor may well revive anyway, just to CYA. Such papers (Trust, Wills) offer little more than "hope" in reality.

Ex,

More food for thought: I don't think anyone, regardless of party affliliation, would deny the uninsured health care, all other things equal. I personally wouldn't mind if everyone was insured, lived in a mansion, didn't have to work, etc. Unfortunately, that is just not reality - the country/government simply cannot afford to give everyone everything that they need to live without worries. We are not that advanced/"civilized"/rich; we are just not.

You think that raising taxes is the solution to the problems; take more from the rich and give to the poor. In theory, that may work, but in practice, it does not. All of these public policy actions have consequences. What has made everyone "better off" in the country is not better social policy, but better business policy.

We currently have between 40-45% of the population that does not pay any Federal Taxes - that number is going to more than 50%. Politicians realize that they can get elected by promising those who do not pay any taxes more and more benefits (out of the pockets of those who do pay). How long do you think that can last? Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are likely to bankrupt this country; what kind of health care do you think everyone will have when the government goes bankrupt. Laugh if you will that this is far-fetched conspiracy theory; but it has happened to every other democracy that has ever existed!

The Constitution was built by people who understood this; it is supposed to protect us from our own demise. But, if people are willing to throw those protections away in the name of the poor, the children, the minorities, etc. we (our children) will all pay a big price for it; everyone, including the poor, will be worse off.

Hypothetically, if you're wife was giving all your money away to charity; so much so that you could not afford your Cobra, your house, your food, clothes for your own kids, a reasonable person would do something about it.

Liberals, conservatives, the middle, can argue all day long about the merits of public policy; but when it comes to the demise/bankruptcy of our country, they ought to figure out how to get on the same page. For those who think that bankruptcy is not a possibility: how many people thought we would come so close to a financial meltdown over the last 24 months?

Couple of thoughts on paying for this mess.

We can't "tax" our way out of it. We HAVE to figure out how to reduce costs along with a well thought out tax structure. It looks to me like this dual approach may be effective in reaching that goal.

If we don't take action to reduce medical costs in some way only the very wealthy will be able to afford care. I see it as a damed if you do and damed if you don't situation. In either case we may be headed for "bankruptcy" or a substantially reduced standard of living for the typical American. Gotta do something, that part is well understood by both sides.

Very sensible response; however, given that, I don't know how you can so strongly support the current health care proposals as they don't reduce medical costs, increase taxes, and work to further bankrupt the government...???

This is where you and most on this thread disagree........I DON'T believe ANYONE is entitled to health care (free of course)....Citizens are entitled to get a job and buy what they can afford as for as health care or anything else goes..........

When almost 50% of the population does not pay one single cent in taxes, but yet collect thousands every year with the "earned income credit", I don't think they are entitled to anything,health care or otherwise........

This country has raised numerous generations of welfare familys that do nothing but take/take/take from the goverment (me and you) and they will never better themselves no matter what you do for them, that's a proven fact..... I also think the working,voting population is fed up with this and you will see the results come the next election!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

David (tax paying, small businees owner/operater)

Well I don't know about the "strongly support" part of that, I offer an opposing view. At times a STRONG opposing view to counter the even STRONGER opposing view from across the aisle. Just trying to bring some balance into the midst of chaos.

I do believe this will have a positive impact on reducing over all health care costs. When the pressure is on American business sharpens their pencil, cut's the waste and figures out a way to stay in business. I'm confident the insurance industry will not only overcome future obstacles but will thrive because of them!

Now, the value to the country as a whole is worth investing in by raising taxes on a select and targeted group(s). In conjunction with cost savings and more efficient operation of existing programs. I don't automatically assume the Government will fail in this endeavor and the costs will soar as a result. Quite the opposite in fact! I see private industry stepping up to the plate, adapting and finding new ways to control the ever increasing costs of health care. I see Governments roll in that as a carrot and a stick. Figure it out or get out. If we don't figure out how to reduce health care costs we are doomed whether we do this bill or not.

Want lower health CARE costs? Outlaw Health insurance policies. Health CARE costs would drop like a Haitian building.

Then you believe in health care rationing based on one's ability to pay, regardless of the reason they can or can't pay. A classic I've got mine, screw the rest mentality. That worked well for the cave man, it is unreasonable and ethically just plain wrong in a civilized society. Need a liver transplant? If you have enough money there is a way to get to the front of the line. We don't like to admit it, but it's true. Your money means you live, someone else dies. OK, evolution at work I guess. Were better than that, morals and ethics have a place in all this.

Dan, interesting idea. Would that mean we would be left with a plan similiar to many other countries with universal health care? I'd consider that alternative...

Well, to be argumentative for its own sake or to represent the opposite of strongly held views as strongly, i.e. fight right-wing partisan rhetoric with equally left-wing partisan rhetoric is a total waste of time, isn't it? If all your doing is trying to push people's buttons, it doesn't really elevate the discourse or achieve anything but masochistic satisfaction. Geez, that's not very nice if that's what's going on.

In my opinion my posts simply present an alternative view. If that causes people to THINK before they post the same old tired views we see over and over again, then my work here is going well.

But, guilty as charged, sometimes pushing buttons works as well as logic and reason. Personally I like a spirited discourse and want to hear alternative views. In many cases my ideas are fluid, I don't just follow some party line on any given issue. In some areas my personal beliefs are unbending, written in stone, they are "absolute" like an anchor.

Arguing? Eh, don't care for that, I tend to get to upset when it starts to get personal. I think of my position here as tenuous rather than tenured as a result. :)

Nope, the American Way. You get the health care you EARN!