Do people 'deserve' universal health care?

[MMI]

I think it's incredible that an ordinary family with three incomes still has to struggle to make ends meet, and still feel the need to apply for social benefits such as Medicaid and food stamps. It seems to me that the poorer you are, the harder you have to work, just to stop going under.

When I was young, my wife and I had two incomes - both relatively low, but enough to get by on. Had we had to put a significant monthly payment aside to cover our medical needs, we would probably have elected not to do so. We would probably, as a consequence, have had to forego medical treatment, if the need ever arose. We would have made a critical choice for purely economic reasons.

And if we had needed medical treatment, we would have become a burden on society.

However, in the UK, an employee has deductions made from his salary/wages according to the size of his income. These deductions entitle that person to receive any medical attention he needs. OK, no-one likes paying taxes, but if it's a choice between paying a health care tax or an insurance premium, where's the difference?

The difference is that you can't opt out, and later become a freeloader.

(Now I've put it that way, I'm surprised there's so much right-wing resistance to the idea)

[steelish]

(Now I've put it that way, I'm surprised there's so much right-wing resistance to the idea)

It has nothing to do with right-wing/left-wing. I am slightly to the right of center on my views. It has to do with my belief that the health care bill is a trojan horse of sorts.

Progressives have been taking baby steps in changing America for years. Oliver Wendell Holmes (during his time as a Supreme Court Justice) wrote an opinion for the Court upholding Virginia's compulsory sterilization law in Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), where he found no constitutional bar to state-ordered compulsory sterilization of an institutionalized, allegedly "feeble-minded" woman. Holmes wrote, "We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. ... three generations of imbeciles are enough." While his detractors point to this case as an extreme example of his moral relativism, other legal observers argue that this was a consistent extension of his own version of strict utilitarianism, which weighed the morality of policies according to their overall measurable consequences in society and not according to their own normative worth. Needless to say, Holmes was admired by the Progressives of his day.

I've italicized and made bold the text that applies to my viewpoint. He used one thing to EXPAND UPON and try to introduce another thing. He was trying to use that case to introduce PERMANENT sterilization. Who is to say that the health care bill won't open the door for Progressives to impose restrictions and/or penalties upon the public? They might not, but chances are very likely that SOMEONE will. The people in power today that are assuring us that this will not happen are not the same people that will be in power when our children and grandchildren are older.

Those who insist that this will not happen and pish-posh the naysayers, can you with 100% CERTAINTY, guarantee that it will not happen? If you can't, why are you taking a chance with the future?

[Losalt]

Hum, I have several pages worth that I'd like to say, but looking at my previous posts and my current time (in this timezone) I think I better head for bed and come back later with more constructive comments..

[oww-that-hurt]

an employee has deductions made from his salary/wages according to the size of his income.

First, I am hoping this works.... I've never successfully done the quote thing.

Our illustrious Montana Senator has decided that if we don't buy insurance we will be fined what averages to about $300 per month. There is a bunch of us middle-class folks that make too much money for assistance (wouldn't take it anyway) but not enough for insurance. So where is the logic in fining us, which after that, we still won't have insurance anyway? To quell any naysayers, we don't have high-speed internet, or cell phones, or smoke, or have fancy cars, or go to movies, or any of the other stuff folks think they need. We butcher our own meat, too. The $ just aren't there for over $1,000 per month for insurance. We can cover the $300 if push comes to shove, such as no longer donating 400-600 pounds of food to the food bank each year. I like the idea of health-care tax, based on income. We would have insurance and the food bank would get donations (dropped off 37.4 pounds today).

[MMI]

[Holmes] used one thing to EXPAND UPON and try to introduce another thing.

Aren't you doing something very similar here?

First, I am hoping this works.... I've never successfully done the quote thing.

You have now!

Our illustrious Montana Senator has decided that if we don't buy insurance we will be fined what averages to about $300 per month. There is a bunch of us middle-class folks that make too much money for assistance (wouldn't take it anyway) but not enough for insurance. So where is the logic in fining us, which after that, we still won't have insurance anyway?

No clue ... unless he feels that, if everyone does buy insurance, he won't have to fine anybody. I guess that comes down to an economic calculation: which is cheaper, the fine plus any emergency health bills you might have to meet, or the insurance premium.

I think he's taking entirely the wrong approach. There's no point in forcing your opinions on people who are that unwilling ... I mean, look what happens when I post here!!!

[Thorne]

[INDENT]There's no point in forcing your opinions on people who are that unwilling ... I mean, look what happens when I post here!!!

But you aren't forcing your opinions on anyone. If someone here doesn't like your opinions they don't have to read them. After all, it's not like you can shout them down.

And it's not like your right, anyway.

[steelish]

Aren't you doing something very similar here?

I am? How so. Please explain.

[MMI]

I am? How so. Please explain.

My brief study of Holmes's Opinion in Buck v Bell leads me to believe that his intention was to uphold the practice of eugenics in the US as constitutional, rather than to validate the methods used in particular instances. I don't think that by approving permanent sterilisation in this case he was doing anything new. I have not seen any reference to the exclusive use of temporary sterilisation methods prior to this case.

But accepting, for the sake of argument, that he did legitimise permanent sterilisation for the first time by extending the meaning of "vaccination", I do not see how this demonstrates that the passage of the health bill will enable "Progressives" (who or what are they when they're at home?) to impose different and unintended penalties on the public at some time in the future? By the same logic, should we all not fear some progressive movement in the future declaring that Magna Carta made all forms of imprisonment unlawful, and so all gaols should be emptied forthwith?

[steelish]

By the same logic, should we all not fear some progressive movement in the future declaring that Magna Carta made all forms of imprisonment unlawful, and so all gaols should be emptied forthwith?

Magna Carta is an English legal charter, and not something that effects me in the states...so nope, I'm not worried about it.

Progressives are already making noises that show us they will use the health care bill as a trojan horse. They've even said as much. I am trying to find the video clip of a Senator talking to the press and all but stating that very fact, but I am having difficulty finding it. Maybe the progressives have pulled it off the internet - on that, I'm not sure.