- Joined
- Nov 24, 2018
- Messages
- 13,199
- Reaction score
- 2,896
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
Yes. Everyone is free to seek medical attention. That doesn't, however, mean that it's free; paid for by the tax payers.
Does every human being have a right to the latest high tech medical interventions? No matter how expensive?
What is the limit, and is there any limit?
...
Not everyone believes in mainstream modern medicine.
That is one of the great political questions. If folks have a right to be provided with food, clothing, shelter, utility service and medical care then why does anyone have to work in order to pay for providing those "basic human needs" for themselves and their dependents?
Of course, in order for the state (i.e. government) to provide those things to everybody, then quite a few somebodies must work to provide them directly or to pay taxation to provide them indirectly. Yet if work is required only to add personal luxuries (all needs being furnished automagically by the state) then there would be no tax base large enough to tap to provide for those universal needs.
You are right. It should be available only to those who get all their vaccines.
(Those that read your other threads will understand.)
If you were really interested, you'd know the answer - just see what rest of the world is doing.
Yeah.
I doubt the Scandinavian countries have our rates of obesity and smoking.
“46 per cent of all deaths before the age of 70 in Norway can be explained by behavioural factors such as unhealthy diet, obesity, low physical activity and the use of alcohol, tobacco and drugs” says Professor Stein Emil Vollset, Director of the newly established Centre for Burden of Disease at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health.
I guess it depends on how much human life is worth. So what is the going rate for a human being? According to insurance companies, people in their prime working years are worth more than the elderly or children.
Look at it this way...the more people that pay into the insurance pool...the cheaper the insurance becomes. So if the whole country participated in the health insurance pool then we could all afford our own health insurance.
So it's kinda like the difference of paying $6,000 a year for Medicare for All....or paying $24,000 a year for private insurance. I think I prefer the former to the latter.
What is "healthcare," first of all?
Modern medicine becomes increasingly technological, and increasingly expensive. Does every human being have a right to the latest high tech medical interventions? No matter how expensive?
What is the limit, and is there any limit?
If we are going to have universal health care, it should be basic emergency interventions. That's all I want. Not everyone believes in mainstream modern medicine. We should NOT all be forced to pay for it. I would rather not pay high taxes so all Americans, no matter how irresponsible they are about their own health, can have expensive mainstream interventions.
If we ever get universal healthcare, I hope it will include health education.
Yes. Everyone is free to seek medical attention. That doesn't, however, mean that it's free; paid for by the tax payers.
Nobody has the right to demand services from someone else. We call that "slavery," and it most certainly is not a right, although many Democrats still think it should be.
It is also unconstitutional for the federal government to create any kind of universal healthcare. That is a constitutional power only the States have.
Nobody has the right to demand services from someone else. We call that "slavery," and it most certainly is not a right, although many Democrats still think it should be.
It is also unconstitutional for the federal government to create any kind of universal healthcare. That is a constitutional power only the States have.
Do we have a right to police and fire protection, as well as due process in courts?
The existance of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid says that you are wrong about the constitutional ability of the federal government to create a national healthcare system.
It is not constitutional. Most police and fire protection is at the state level. Healthcare should be also. States can do what they want. The constitution limits the federal government. And there is a reason for that!
Do we have a right to police and fire protection, as well as due process in courts?
The existance of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid says that you are wrong about the constitutional ability of the federal government to create a national healthcare system.
--- Tenth Amendment to the US ConstitutionThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Do we have a right to police and fire protection, as well as due process in courts?
The existance of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid says that you are wrong about the constitutional ability of the federal government to create a national healthcare system.
Right. It should be done by the states. Like Romney did in MA.
Except paying that $6K/year ($500/month) is for each person - so a family of 4 would be paying $24K/year or ($2K/month) for that wondrous M4A deal.
Last year the typical working family paid an average of $5,277 in premiums to private health insurance companies. Under this option, a typical family of four earning $50,000, after taking the standard deduction, would pay a 4 percent income-based premium to fund Medicare for All – just $844 a year – saving that family over $4,400 a year. Because of the standard deduction, families of four making less than $29,000 a year would not pay this premium.
Where is the constitutional limit of the federal government that prohibits universal healthcare? The SCOTUS ruled on this with the ACA and said that there was not a prohibition, nor is there a ban of creating a tax to pay for it. National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius
The federal government has more power than the states. We have a strong federal government with 50 states that are jurisdictions. Those 50 states are not independent of the federal government. This is the difference between the Articles of Confederation and the US Constitution.
That is like saying everyone is free to buy a very nice house to live in, all they need is enough household income to do so.
Everyone is free to own a gun, but they have to come up with the money to do so.
Everyone is free to go to college, they have to come up with the money to do so.
Everyone is free to start a business, they have to come up with the money to do so.
I should've checked my figures before posting. How does this sound?....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?