Response Continued

I will just do a line by line on a secondary response to Gus:

By Dale’s counter-argument, we read that “[t]he government has no place in health care…”

Short note: I should have specified federal government.

Taking this argument further would include the abolition of medicare, medicaid, and V.A. benefits. The elderly, young, and disabled former service members who take advantage of such programs are quite a bit more prone to sickness and would most definitely not be able to get insurance under the same types of ideas that Dr. Emmanuel enumerates

Yes, we need to get rid of medicare and medicaid in a controlled way before it simply implodes. But it might be too late. The states can still have their own safety net health systems if they wish and if their state constitutions allow it, but the federal must stay out of it. As far as veterans go, if someone is wounded in the defense of our country that falls under national defense expenditures which is allowed in the constitution. The feds can pay for their care and hospitals can compete for veteran business with veteran priority centers or something like that. No more Walter Reed slumspitals.

The very things that we read above are the very things that private insurances currently consider for profit. This for profit model of health care is the very reason that we have denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

Private businesses are allowed to refuse service for any reason. The government should never discriminate for any reason, ever. Private businesses can be boycotted, government cannot. Private businessmen can go to prison much easier than government officials (Scooter, I’m looking at you) can.

Although I believe that capitalism is indeed the best way to get money to circulate, I also think that it makes a god out of money.

When the founders decided to go with capitalism this was a concern. Many of them had studied Cicero thoroughly and based on his concept of natural law they decided that God would punish those who follow greedy ways. They also wanted leaders to always impress upon the people how important giving freely to each other is in our society. With all the millionaires in congress who make 4 times what the average American makes and don’t lead by example one can see how we are doing on that.

When motivation becomes the Almighty Dollar and human lives are at stake, adding an option that is not run for profit might be a good idea. Whether it is a good idea remains to be seen, but we can see evidence both for and against single-payer systems in other developed countries, where people are generally healthier than in the U.S.

Again it comes to morals and charity. If only there was some way to teach those kinds of things????? Hmmmmm.

Of course, we are not speaking of a single-payer system. We are speaking of something which might be preliminary to such a system, but it is a choice to make, not a full governmental solution, such as single-payer would have been.
So, yes, I think that there could be boards in the government that would decide limits on certain types of care based on social and economic factors, much as doctors and nurses, in an emergency, have to decide who receives the limited resources available via a process of triage.

Again government cannot discriminate, ever. That is an essential principle. I keep thinking of an old commercial where a lady was told she had cancer and was going to die. She went to a different hospital and they helped her to live. With government care you only get the one shot with no hope for a fight anywhere else.

As a pseudo-libertarian, I agree that the government having more power might be a bad thing.

I hate the word libertarian because I hate the ‘arian’ part. Like vegetarian or aryan nation. It just rubs me the wrong way. If I didn’t hate the smell of pot so much and hate the name I might slightly consider changing my ‘unaffiliated’ status.

I think that the government should be in the business of protecting rights, not granting them. One of the most important rights that a government can protect is the right of its citizens to live, and it would seem that in today’s society the right to live is connected with one’s ability to receive health care.

The rights that the government must protect are the ones given by ‘Nature and Nature’s God’. Man is not given the right to health care or food or shelter he must work for those. He has been given life, liberty, the ability to pursue happiness and property, speech, religion, press (information), defense of self and so on and on. Our government must protect those freedoms and leave the rest to society.

All that being said, I agree with Dale that tort reform would do wonders to help replenish our ailing health care system, hopefully saving doctors from unnecessary expenses, except in cases of negligence.

We have laws about not suing when a plane crashes why not when something goes wrong when a doctor did their best? If they cut off the wrong appendage that is a clear case to sue, but if they gave you the wrong pills for a week and you felt ill, no way.