Comments on: Universal Coverage: Not a Right, Nor a Conservative Obligation

By: Why Talking To Conservatives is Difficult « blueollie

Why Talking To Conservatives is Difficult « blueollie — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 20:39:37 +0000

[...] There is truth here as well: In general, the GOP is the party of liberty; the Democrats are, more or less, the party of equality. Freedom is our alpha value, fairness is theirs. It is the conservative movement’s deep commitment to human freedom and the conditions that preserve it that animates and binds Republicans. Thus, we wholeheartedly endorse the idea of equality of opportunity as strongly as we oppose forced equality of outcome. [...]

By: Bette

Bette — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:54:33 +0000

lasulasu; Yes, you are right about the Declaration of Independence but our Constitution is what guarantees our rights, so that is the spirit in which I wrote those words. My rights must stop at your door. Which means to me that I can have no “right” which requires infringement of another’s rights. A federal subsidy requires that the government step in as the policeman and force compliance as well as use tax dollars to “subsidize” the activity. Laws protecting us from harm are laws that enforce all of our rights (to life) against someone else’s pursuit of happiness (or wealth). Such as; your right to farm your land as opposed to my right not to drink pesticides.( You can farm using different and safer methods.) I don’t believe enforcing food and water safety implies a right to health care.
Yes, others do get health care supplied by the Federal govt. and it creates exactly the type of argument one would expect. Which is, that the people next in line want to be subsidized. The president was asked recently if he thought it was fair to tax the rich to pay for others’ health care and he said: “we have to pay for it somehow”. The government believes it is okay to take away our rights to the fruits of our labor to pay for someone else’s health care.
I believe, strongly, that we need free market solutions. Individuals are always the best judges of what they need. A health care market freed of the government restrictions which are presently imposed upon it combined with free market ingenuity (with, of course, legal safeguards) would bring about many of the needed changes.
Your last line was interesting. Yes, government tax law favors large corporations over smaller ones simply because of the write off of employee health insurance benefits. How about we change that so as to tax employees for that benefit? It is a part of their compensation package. Current tax law also favors about 40% of the US population with no tax liability at all. Current tax law goes so far as to give people who earn below a certain amount who also have children “earned income credit” which means they might get money from the feds which they did not pay in the first place. Nice system, unless you are someone who has to pay taxes but has no children. Whenever the government uses it’s tax laws to “favor” one subset of the population over another it creates a situation of winners and losers. More people will want to be on the “winning” side. In the health care package now being discussed, ” winning” will mean more people going on the government” option” and more tax dollars needed to subsidize it.

By: brutus1791

brutus1791 — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:48:45 +0000

Ottovbvs: this little masterpiece of obfuscation is a joy to behold

Well Otto, if you enjoyed this, you’ll certainly enjoy the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. May try reading them. Both do a fine job of eschewing obfuscation…

By: lasulasu

lasulasu — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 17:59:01 +0000

Bette, not sure if your comments are directed at my query on how Health Care is not a right, but I’ll take it as such. The quote “right to; life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is derived from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Don’t think that document holds relevance, but note that health care can directly impact life and pursuit of happiness. Your examples are a bit over dramatic, so I guess you have strong beliefs on the issue. I wouldn’t hold a gun to a Doctor to force treatment for myself (though I could see doing it to force treatment of my child). I also wouldn’t hold a gun to the head of a radio station manager to force my right to free speech. I would reasonably expect to be arrested for such actions. I don’t have to force anyone to pay for my pursuit of health. That is covered by employer supplied insurance, which is subsidized by Federal tax laws. Others get health care supplied by the Federal govt. through Medicare and Medicade. Therein lies my philosophical and ethical question. A persons health is a basic right, as evidenced by laws protecting health from harm (food and water safety and sanitation laws, pollution regulations …). Obviously, you can’t legislate or guarantee equal health for individuals, but you can legislate equality of access under the law. Current law favors a subset of the population (government tax law, those w/o pre-existing conditions…) in pursuit of a basic necessity.

By: Bette

Bette — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 05:04:42 +0000

The Constitution of The United States of America guarantees you the right to; life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution does not guarantee “equality of opportunity” . There is no way to ensure such a right. Simply being born with great intelligence or with a superior talent or with a physical ailment rules out “equality of opportunity”. You are equal under the law. You own your life. No one can take away your liberty without just cause. You have the right to pursue your own personal happiness in any way you wish (barring infringement upon another’s rights). You do not have the right to force another to pay for your pursuit of happiness or your pursuit of health. Would you make slaves of your fellow Americans to keep yourself secure? Will you hold a gun to head of a doctor who does not agree that you have a” right” to health care? You have the right to purchase health care on the open market. You have no right to enforce a demand for such a service.
Answer to debs query: Veterans get their health care paid for, by a grateful nation, as part of a compensation package (which, let’s face it, has a pretty poor pay scale) for services rendered.

By: lasulasu

lasulasu — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:45:08 +0000

I would like to see your argument laying out how access to health care is not a right, as well as how unequal access to health care demonstrates “equality of opportunity”. Certainly, as far as minors go, I would think access to health care should be a right. If you have the misfortune of being borne to an uninsured family, your ability to pay for your health status is in no way related to any of your actions as an individual. If a child’s family does not feed, clothe, shelter, or follow medical advice to treat serious health problems, they an be charged with abuse, and the child becomes a ward of the state. Why should less serious health care issues be ignored? A child’s mental and physical development can be seriously impacted by unnoticed and/or poorly treated health problems. As for adults, why should some individuals be given special federal dispensation in form of employer supplied insurance, merely as a reward for working for a large corporation? It seems some have rights, and some don’t. This may seem like an equality argument, but I am not sure, as not everyone realistically has equal opportunity to be employed by a large corporation.

By: ottovbvs

ottovbvs — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:50:59 +0000

……Yep you have the liberty to die if you can’t pay the insurance company premiums…..the double talk in this this little masterpiece of obfuscation is a joy to behold

By: haloagain

haloagain — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:40:21 +0000

and of course, I meant “your.”

By: haloagain

haloagain — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:37:16 +0000

haha, this is rich. NM is really on the upswing.

you meant “inevitable,” right? because if democrats were admitting the public option was an “evitable” road to a single payer system, you’re scare-mongering really loses some of its veracity.

By: Should Republicans Endorse Universal Health Coverage?

Should Republicans Endorse Universal Health Coverage? — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:01:44 +0000

[...] Qualtere, Universal Coverage: Not a Right, Nor a Conservative Obligation To insist upon guaranteed universal healthcare for every living person in America is to insist that [...]