View Single Post
Old 01-28-2008, 06:04 PM   #13
philabramoff
Exiled Packerfan in SoCal
 
philabramoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 537
philabramoff is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CKFresh View Post
No citizen should have to worry about any plan... It should be a birth right... If you are born in the US, you have access to the same hospitals and procedures that the president and Bill Gates have access to...
I challenge this also. Without getting too deep into the trap of
trying to "define terms", I do need to know what you mean by
"birthright".

Firstly, what do you mean by having the same care as the president and
Bill Gates? Do you mean that every person should be assigned their own
personal physician? You can't mean UHC that's that enxtreme, it would
be impossible. How about assuring the basic care for the people at the
bottom who really can't afford it, and not get too bunged up at the
fact that some ultra-wealthy people happen to pay personal valets to
wipe their butts whenever they bend over?

Secondly, I have an issue with "birthright". On a philosophical level,
as you don't believe in God (ie, we're all just a bunch of molecules),
the concept of "birthright" does not exist. However, in fairness, I
think you are referring to a "right before the law". My interpretation
of a "right" is this...
We have a right to "food". We don't have a right to force someone
else to go out and get it for us.
We have a right to "housing". We don't have a right to force someone
else to build our house for us free of charge.
We have a right to "health care". We don't have a right to force
someone else to spend ten years in medical school, and then treat
us for our illness free of charge, and take on the liability for our
condition, too.
I AM NOT SAYING THAT WE SHOULD IGNORE PEOPLE WHO CANNOT
AFFORD THEIR OWN HEALTH CARE...I just object to this idea that a
person simply has an inherent "right" to receive the outstanding
medical care we have in this country, with ALL its expenses and
all the resources and work behind its development, simply free of
charge (especially if that person CAN afford it, like 90-95% of the
population can).

My conclusion...UHC may work in smaller countries, especially those
that piggy-back off of what the United States has put into medical
development and advancement. It would be a disaster here.

So, CK, why is it not reasonable to go with MY idea of tightening up
the system for the lowest 5-10 % of the population who really CANNOT
afford health care, and assure that they do...and then require everyone
else who CAN afford it, to take responsibility and take care of it
themselves? Why must we go the extreme route of turning over the
whole system to the government?

PS: We can also bring down health care costs with some serious
tort reform.
philabramoff is offline   Reply With Quote