the right to health

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-14-2010
the right to health
260
Thu, 08-19-2010 - 12:36pm
Question. Why do you think health care is a right? If you do, then doesn't that right extend to people in utero and to the 85 year olds? Or just to those who contribute to society?

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-19-2008
Sat, 08-21-2010 - 4:01pm

I'll also remind you that in Thomas Jefferson's time it was illegal in many states to educate black children even if you owned them.

I think you need to pick a better champion of public education for everyone. Maybe the Founding Fathers didn't have education in mind anyways, as I don't see a right to an education listed in the Bill of Rights.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-14-2010
Sat, 08-21-2010 - 5:24pm

ObamaCraft hehehe.


iVillage Member
Registered: 08-14-2010
Sat, 08-21-2010 - 5:35pm

" They may have no choice when their 401k accounts have not recovered since the 2008-2009 collapse and the values of their homes have plummeted. "


This is false claim I've often heard. People at retirement age should have healthy 401Ks even during the 2008/09 timeframe. Sure there were losses those years, but the overperformance of the market during the later 90s has compensated them handsomely.


This is only an excuse or people with unrealistic expectations.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-19-2010
Sat, 08-21-2010 - 9:37pm

<>

>>> I don't like the individual mandate either, but if you think long and hard about it, you'll come to the same realization to which many of us have come: With the advances in medicine we have today, an individual mandate is required for any insurance system to work.

I'm afraid history has proven you wrong. The US has gotten along quite well without mandating insurance, while every country and state that has tried to impose socialized medicine has seen it fail catastrophically.

>>> We NEED Medicare because many seniors are unable to work, have insufficient income to purchase full-price (without insurance discounts) health care, and for those on Medicare payments have been made into the trust fund by the recipients or their families.

That's only because we impose a retirement at age 65...originated when most people actually died at 63. The retirement age should be adjusted allowing people to work longer and be covered by company insurance longer...or set up a pool that seniors can buy into. Their health insurance doesn't have to be "free."

>>> Furthermore, many do not have retiree health care benefits, as we've become a more corporatist nation with short-term focus, with profits taking priority over all else, and with employees valued less as a means to reach profit goals.

It's pretty clear that you've been getting your information on "corporate America" from the liberal "I hate business" newsletter. In the real world, where profits have always been a priority, because without them the business would fail...employee maintenance and satisfaction are directly tied to profits and the success of the company.

>>> 2)We cannot afford the high costs required to treat the elderly, yet our society rejects euthanasia, with which many blinder-wearing conservatives equate living wills.

Yes, in a civilized society, we tend to shy away from killing our senior citizens...and stoning adulterers. But leave it to Democrats to try and bring those old traditions back.

>>> 3) The only solution is to require the young and healthy to purchase health insurance. If we were a nation of 100% private insurance it would be required, just as it is with our mixed public-private system. Even if there were no gov't programs, the private insurance premiums would skyrocket if all those senior were in private plans. The insurance lobbyists would be begging Congress to mandate individual health insurance, just as they did with the most recent reform bill.

No. The cost of insurance is dictated by the market and screwed up by government regulation. And no matter how you want to sell it, requiring someone to buy a product they either don't want or don't need so that you can give that same product to someone else for free or at a lesser cost is an affront to our personal freedom.

>>> 4)Either we dump our seniors, or we require an individual mandate.

A faux choice.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-01-2004
Sun, 08-22-2010 - 9:11am

So since I believe a nice home filled with good books/music/art/sunshine/flowers and laughter, a car to get to work,

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-25-2006
Sun, 08-22-2010 - 10:30am

<>

Too bad we can't stop time, right? Unfortunately, we have to live in the present, not the past, and plan for the future.

<>

Hmmmm...yesterday I remember a post where some conservative chided the elderly for NOT retiring, preventing the next generation from accessing those jobs at the top. You cons can't have it both ways.

Medicare is that pool that seniors can buy into, in case you didn't realize it. And those covered HAVE paid into it, just like you and I do. The gov't is giant steps ahead of you.

<< you've been getting your information on "corporate America" from the liberal "I hate business" newsletter.>>

Nope...from many news sources and workforce.com or ebri.org.

<< in a civilized society, we tend to shy away from killing our senior citizens>>

By this I think you mean it's just fine to spend $50,000 on an 85 yo's last week of life; a senior whose health status is such that at the start of that week everyone knows the chances of hanging on for more than a few months is only 10%.

I tried explaining this in a post before, but maybe you didn't see it or don't get it. We are not our physical bodies. We are our souls. No matter what we do, or how hard we try, or how much we spend, we all die. Unfortunately, too many will not let go until we've consumed resources sufficient to feed and educate 500 children.

<< The cost of insurance is dictated by the market and screwed up by government regulation>>

Sounds like tthe words of an insurance industry executive, with a nice fat compensation plan.

-----------------------------------------------
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/october/meet_the_new_health_.php

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQTBYQlQ7yM

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-14-2010
Sun, 08-22-2010 - 11:21am

<< Medicare is that pool that seniors can buy into, in case you didn't realize it. And those covered HAVE paid into it, just like you and I do. The gov't is giant steps ahead of you>>

Paying into the system and funding it are two different things. Then again comes the expectation that it is there for me ( its my money anyway) so I will use it even for a questionable benefit.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-15-2010
Sun, 08-22-2010 - 11:25am

Absolutely! I know this to be the case for myself, my husband and my mother and father.

Did we lose? Sure. But we'd made so much in the previous years we're still way ahead.

Then again we'd all actually been saving as recommended in the first place. If you waited until shortly before retiring to do that then you'd not have fared so well.


>>Luck is what you call it when preparation meets opportunity<<
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sun, 08-22-2010 - 11:56am

>Gun ownership is a basic human right as it facilitates the defense and sustenance of our unalienable rights.<

You're stretching it. Those Enlightenment philosophers who originated the ideas espoused by Jefferson and Co. in the Declaration would justifiably argue that the Social Contract transfers much of that responsibility (to provide for the Common Defense, etc.) to the government.

Sandy
Sandy
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sun, 08-22-2010 - 12:07pm

>First, you're not seriously going to claim that the majority of abortions are performed to save the life of the woman? Are you? Really? Or even make the just as ridiculous claim that most women actually make the decision to abort their children after consulting their doctors?<

Perhaps you're unaware that most states require a doctor to perform an abortion, and many states require a consultation at least 24 hours before? I'm not arguing that a woman necessarily makes the decision on "I'm gonna die" but rather weighs all the risks of pregnancy, including the increased risks of domestic violence and negative affects to career (including increased potential to lose one's job)--wow, quite similar to one's arguments for private gun ownership (protecting personal property).

>So? The right to life supersedes an imagined "right to convenience"<

In other words, you advocate that hormonal birth control (the pill, the patch, the ring, the IUC, etc.) should also be banned? Do you really feel that all married couples should abstain if they don't want/can't afford children?

May I ask if you are married? If you are, or have been, how many children do you have?

Sandy
Sandy

Pages