The democrats
Trumpcare will throw people off healthcare?
- Thread starter ClimateSanity
- Start date
drbrumley
Well-known member
A commodity then? Goods and services...A plumber, electrician etc....
exminister
Well-known member
I hadn't considered whether healthcare was a service or a right. I have only heard people say either. So thanks, it is a good question for me to consider. Off the bat my gut says it is not a right to get free elective surgery. The angle I have approached this topic so far is as a Christian. The Bible says a lot about compassion. God desires mercy and not sacrifice. The Good Samaritan. The love of money is the root of all evil. I hadn't thought of a clearer example than this one now. The option to save a life or limit suffering over mammon. While we were yet sinners, impoverished if you will. Christ who could have called 10,000 angels gave his life. There are so many biblical such reference I am sure some are coming to your mind as well.
But for the Grace of God, there go I.
Actually as I slept last night my brain was working it and the obvious place for Americans to consider what is a right is the Declaration Of Independence. So I looked up Wiki this am. I see we have still have a draft copy which might be telling.
Wiki said:
Preservation Of Life. Referring to my emergency room example if a sick person shows up in dire need does he have a right to get attention and preserve his life? I want to say yes.
Who pays for that if the person does not have insurance?
exminister
Well-known member
Been talking about that through this whole thread. But will summarize.
There are two options.
1) Refuse care for those who cannot pay.
2) Provide care and therefore the taxpayer in some manner.
Option 1 shows no compassion. You can judge a society by how it treats its poor and needy. The Bible and Christ in particular even judge us on that. Sure the local news will report on such incidents.
Option 2 shows compassion over love of mammon. But the government would pay and therefore the taxpayer. Worst case for the nation's health is no preventative care and those without insurance would get all their care done by emergency room which is the most expensive way. I suggested above that a cost benefit analysis could be done on uninsured emergency room expenses and see if the government could do some limit form of preventative care to lower costs. What are the majority of emergency room cases like? Can any of those be better handled preventatively at a lower costs for those without insurance or means?
Another option just popped into my head is add a cost on everyone's insurance that is insurance for the uninsured. We have that on car insurance and you pay for it. If you are hit by an uninsured motorist your insurance company will cover your costs. This is thinking outside the box. I wouldn't defend it, but simply a stray thought.
In the end there is a cost.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
I've never seen the draft before. Thank you.
ClimateSanity
New member
The right to life refers to the right to not have your life taken from you or harmed except if you are the aggressor.
ClimateSanity
New member
The same people who demand that I pay for their bad decisions in life also demand that women have the right to take away the unborn right to life.
exminister
Well-known member
That is why I thought the original draft added an important nuance - the preservation of life. That is different than taking someone's life.
So you would be fine to let the uninsured die in the streets? They have no right to care or life-saving aid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligent_homicide
ClimateSanity
New member
No. The healthcare bill under consideration does not do that.
ClimateSanity
New member
We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government shall become destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, & to institute new government, laying it's foundation on such principles & organising it's powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety & happiness.
That's the original draft you refer to.
Preservation of life does not stand alone if you seek to understand it's meaning. Look at the clause following it....
"that whenever any form of government shall become destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, & to institute new government".
It's talking about a government being destructive to preservation of life ....not being the guarantor of it.
Still, I'm all for emergency room treatment for people dying on the street even though it isn't mandated in our founding documents.
That's the original draft you refer to.
Preservation of life does not stand alone if you seek to understand it's meaning. Look at the clause following it....
"that whenever any form of government shall become destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, & to institute new government".
It's talking about a government being destructive to preservation of life ....not being the guarantor of it.
Still, I'm all for emergency room treatment for people dying on the street even though it isn't mandated in our founding documents.
Last edited:
exminister
Well-known member
Of course because it is "Obamacare fade away past our next couple of elections" healthcare bill.
But you asked me if people had a right to health care and I answered you.
So now I ask you who I believe are saying it is not a right - Would you be fine to let the uninsured die in the street because they have no right to care or life-saving aid?
exminister
Well-known member
Thanks for the expansion. I will give the extended version some thought.
OK. Then the taxpayers will cover emergency room treatment for the sick in dire need. It is the least a compassion people can do.
exminister
Well-known member
Lindsey Graham suggested taking very sick people out of the private insurance market.
Anybody here like that idea?
Anybody here like that idea?
Sounds like a good idea
jeffblue101
New member
Democrats hate high risk pools.
Trumpcare offers some federal financing for high risk pools as well.
exminister
Well-known member
Wasn't asking about Democrats. Was asking if you like this idea?
If so how would you see it play out? The government and medical corporations would pay for and handle it sounds like. Taxpayers of course would be covering it.
Are you Trumpcare would only offer loans? How would the debt be paid back?
Interesting idea. :think:
https://www.vox.com/2016/2/3/10899790/single-payer-americare
That article talks about a public option that employers could buy into. :think: Some analysis said that most employers would switch out of private plans to save money.
