But I think the moral principle at stake is not, does everyone have a right to quality health care but rather, do they have a right to quality health care even if it means forcing other people to pay for it?
I sympathize with those who lack health care coverage but remember, this does not mean people in the United States cannot access health care.
We can.
Great health care at that.
We just have to pay for it or rack up medical bills.
True, not the best option for anyone, even those with decent incomes, but far better than being denied the opportunity to access health care (the actual medical procedure; not insurance coverage for it) because a government agency decides someone else has a greater need for the same service.
Don’t kid yourself.
This happens in socialized medicine.
Your out of pocket cost may be minimal (either you’re paying in taxes or wealthier people are subsidizing you) but there is a trade-off: you may have to wait around until someone decides you’re “ready” for the treatment regardless of what you’re willing to pay for the service.
So when you start to think about how “broken” our medical system is remember: you will only hear the heart-rending stories.
Never the stories of satisfaction.
Those are boring.
Moreover, the effect of taking tiny amounts of money from millions of people to pay for a smaller group’s medical care is very visible.
The drop in the quality of life for the millions who, through no fault of their own, now have less money to spend on food, education, retirement, or their own medical expenses is not.
I prefer private charity, not government mandates.
I do agree with one part of the health care bill: if an insurance company writes a policy and a person pays the premiums the insurance company should not be allowed to drop the person’s coverage if he or she becomes ill just because it’s going to be expensive.[i]
Tough.
That’s called business.
If you don’t like it find something else to do.
I think many people who support this bill do so because they are afraid of one day having their health insurance revoked just when they need it the most.
I agree with those who wish to stop such practices.
I do not agree with anyone who believes it is moral to re-distributing the wealth of 90% of Americans to help subsidize the 10% who cannot afford to buy health insurance.
It’s amusing: democrats and republicans are predicting almost exact opposite outcomes if this healthcare bill passes (or inversely, doesn’t pass).
Woe to the party that is wrong on this issue.
As for the President, he’s done some good things: us Dont Tread On Me folks like the fact we can now carry guns in National Parks and that we will win the war Afghanistan.
Even on health care I think he truly believes he is doing the right thing.
Who wouldn’t want better health care for everyone?
But some of us are aware of the fundamental nature of economic reality; that anything of value must be paid for by someone.
And we think it immoral to use the power of government to take from those who have more and give to those who have less just because the former group has more.[ii]
[i] Though President Obama can claim no high ground when it comes to enforcing contracts: ask former GM bondholders.
[ii] One interesting aspect of this huge bill I found in there today: if an insurance company’s combined ratio (expenses + losses divided by premiums) is less than 100 (i.e. they have an underwriting profit) the excess below a certain benchmark set by the government, which cannot be lower than 85%, must be returned to premium holders. Translation: if you make money in the health insurance business be prepared to be punished for it.
