Okay, the secret is out--I'm a Conservative. Now I fit nicely into the stereotype of white, male, probably in the South, Protestant, and undoubtedly financially comfortable. The only problem with this stereotype of a Conservative voter is that I [at 19 years old] have yet to live in a household with an income above the "poverty line." My father moved out when I was 6 and it hasn't exactly been smooth sailing since then.
I've definitely reaped the benefits of the Medicare/Medicaid system for most of my life. It has given me and my brothers insurance under PeachCare for a long time. LBJ did a great thing by signing Medicare/Medicaid into law--my younger brother might not be alive today had he not. I know the system works, but we're aren't average people. We were three kids living with a single mother that had that lifestyle forced upon herself after years of stability. This is an instance where public services are sound investments in the welfare of the People.
Last October, I turned 19 and I lost my insurance. I went a good six months without medical insurance until I luckily got on my father's. My brother just turned 18 in June and he's in the same pickle. My mother has been unemployed for over a year now--and she doesn't have insurance. I know what it's like to live without insurance.
She and I laugh at the idea of universal health care--or anything in between here and there. We know that anything you want badly enough, you can get. Anything. We deserve nothing we've not worked for--and even then we may not. The point I'm trying to make is not that I'm somewhat poor and have actually had to put forth an effort to find myself in a more stable lifestyle. The point I'm making is that it's a prejudiced arguement to believe that just because I believe health care isn't a right that I also proclaim "the poor deserve to die or to be forced into bankruptcy/ in debt for the rest of their lives if they fall ill." Because, you see--I would then be condemning myself to death/debt.
I just believe in getting my hands dirty to get what I want in life. I'm not alone when I say I'd rather be in debt than under Big Brother's reign.
-RichardWest
P.S. For those of you that refuse to think of health care as anything but a right, let me say this: I have the right to become a millionaire in this country. Does that mean it's the government's job to make that happen? I fear some of you may still answer "Yes..."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ok. I can understand that statement of how all conservatives aren't wealthy. That's a completely believable point because logically they all aren't. But first, to answer your question at the end of the post, I would have to say no. It is not the governments right to help you become a millionaire, but I believe an argument worth pointing out is that subjects are completely different in my view.
ReplyDeleteBecoming a millionaire is something not life or death, while healthcare is of necessary importance for life. This being the matter whenever the right to health is blocked, I feel it is necessary for the government to come and clear the path in a sense. I see the current state of healthcare being clogged because: 1. the insurance companies have such strict guides that they won't cover the particular ailment, or 2. the insurance rates are too high for an average person or family.
In both cases the families or persons involved are doing everything possible (i.e working etc.) to have access to the healthcare are being blocked by, what i feel as greed on the part of the healthcare companies. I'll concede that not everyone's working, but I believe the majority of people are working. This being the matter I see no reason why the government shouldn't step in to help to make sure their work pays off and they have the right to the health benefits.
Now I would like to pose a question to you. What's wrong with the government helping you to gain something, that is essential to your longevity, when you are blocked by forces or circumstances outside of your control?
My question for Richard West is .... So why aren't you for "socialized" healthcare? The only answers I think were articulated in the post were the following: 1) He is scared of Government bureaucracy. 2)Mr. West isn't fond of thinking he has anything coming to him that he didn't "earn."
ReplyDeleteThe first idea that Richard is scared of healthcare seems to me preposterous when he openly claims, " I've definitely reaped the benefits of the Medicare/Medicaid system for most of my life. It has given me and my brothers insurance under PeachCare for a long time. LBJ did a great thing by signing Medicare/Medicaid into law--my younger brother might not be alive today had he not. I know the system works, [...]. This is an instance where public services are sound investments in the welfare of the People."
Now onto the second argument. The most inescapable contradiction in Mr. West's argumentation is ALMOST self-evident. How can you speak praise of the socialized healthcare plans of Medicare, Medicaid, and peach-care from one side of your mouth and heap criticism from the other.
Didn't Mr West exclaim, "The point I'm making is that it's a prejudiced argument to believe that just because I believe health care isn't a right that I also proclaim "the poor deserve to die or to be forced into bankruptcy/ in debt for the rest of their lives if they fall ill." Because, you see--I would then be condemning myself to death/debt. ?"
Richard, I'm not claiming you openly say the poor deserve to die but it is your advocacy not your story that betrays you. You can't praise the fact that "socialized medicine" likely saved your brothers life and then claim that, "I laugh at the idea of universal health care--or anything in between here and there.(West)" If your 18 year old brother falls ill tomorrow... (remember he's the one in the pickle of being 18 and having no healthcare)... you have two choices (assuming he isn't a hospital dumping victim): 1)your unemployed mother will watch bills pile up and the high prices of his medical care accrue to amounts she can't afford, or, 2) allow him to die, save your money, and buy him a nice headstone.
Ahhh, thats right... "I just believe in getting my hands dirty to get what I want in life. I'm not alone when I say I'd rather be in debt than under Big Brother's reign.(West)" If you truly believe this Richard then that is your prerogative. I admire your willingness to stand up for what you believe in(and it is in complete sincerity and seriousness I say these things). Personally I would take big brother's reign over a board of executives or hospital administrators with their eyes glued to the bottom line...ANY DAY.
Now onto the more serious argument. I will say it here and now ... read carefully... I don't think Mr. West or anyone should be forced into debt or bankruptcy because (well to be blunt) their poor. Maybe your okay with being in debt but I'm not okay with this being the reality of millions of Americans who are unfortunate enough to be without healthcare.
In conclusion and for a follow up question I ask: "Mr West why don't you think healthcare is a right?"
Phew! Too much to respond to!
ReplyDeleteLet me know if I miss something, BUT...
To Scholar's Logic:
1. If you show up at a hospital, they are required by law to treat you for whatever illness you have so that you live. So, you see--medical insurance isn't a necessity for life in all cases.
2.The government helps people gain things they normally wouldn't be able to afford all the time [public education, public transit, etc...], but these things aren't so huge that they put a major dent in our political structure and/or cut away their own large portion in federal/state spending. Universal/larger health insurance programs run by the government would hinder [or maybe I should say "help"] government spending to a degree that we would see a HUGE increase in federal spending [and that either has to come from further public debt or higher taxes--neither of which are good for our country right now]. Gallup just released a poll stated "Seven in 10 Americans favor the passage of healthcare reform legislation, but less than half (41%) say a new law needs to be passed this year..." Most people don't want this to be fixed LIKE THIS and RIGHT NOW. If you want to see a change in the way insurance companies do things, then advocate changes THERE, not in our government.
J.J.:
I'm afraid of Government--period. The kind of "socialized medicine" that I received was on a much smaller level than what is being proposed today. Universal health care did not save my brother's life. A system that provides for the poor helped us. It's not the government helping me out that bothers me--it's the cost of what they are doing. It's a slippery slope.
Personally I believe the cost of making Government large enough to run the health care system in this country is too large. Why is it our Government's job to provide for us?
To answer your question, it is the Government's job to make sure justice is held. The wicked are punished and so on and so forth. Do you really think the Founders thought this kind of thing should go on in Government? We live in a country that was founded upon the principles of enabling Americans to live freely and maintain their liberties--not maintain the lives of the People, just maintain their rights. Health care is not a right because our Constitution doesn't mention it.
I know that last statement is going to spark a storm of responses, so I welcome them. I'll argue that one later. I'm typing this through a lovely migraine so my thoughts may seem jumbled or ill in their support hah...
-RichardWest
Link for the citing..
http://www.gallup.com/tag/Healthcare.aspx
1. Ok in the case that you illness is something such as a gash in your leg or a injury, then yes the emergency room can help you. The emergency room helps for injuries that well, necessitate emergency then and there, it does not account for medical conditions that require constant examinations and medical treatment. This is why the emergence room isn't the end all be all. But even if some were to buy that as an argument, this fight for healthcare is one for "affordable" healthcare. Yes, you could go to the emergency room, and probably wait for hours for help, but after you leave you are taking a huge bill with you. The bill includes the cost of what ever you have done and also an extended cost for emergency room use. This is why we need the health reform.
ReplyDelete2. Ok I can feel you being worried about the amount of money being spent currently, but according to the facts current healthcare costs millions of dollars maybe even billions. Passing this reform will cost money in the short term but will pay for itself in the long term and short cut the amount of pain in daily Americans lives who can't afford good healthcare. Another thing the insurance companies will not change. They are the ones short cutting coverage and making billions in profit per year all based upon the American citizens wallet. Currently the prospect of American insurance companies are greed they care about only one the and that's the dollars they could possibly make. Having this in mind it makes no sense to stress to the companies to make a change when they are all about profit. We must get a change through other maneuvers this being legislation to reform healthcare. Finally on your other point of the people not wanting health care now. As of july the majority of American's favor healthcare reform NOW, but also most naysayers don't want healthcare because the reason you've states cost. But, truth is that healthcare reform will pay for it self, as I've stated earlier.
Gallup Poll Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/121664/Majority-Favors-Healthcare-Reform-This-Year.aspx
Do you not understand that public health care would change things drastically? People would go to the doctor EVEN MORE than they do now. That means that when little Johnny has the slightest sniffle, he'll be taken to the doctor because his parents don't have to pick up the tab.
ReplyDeleteI have a friend in Canada, she's a mother of two and she says they go to the doctor for the smallest thing because it doesn't matter--in the end they don't pay for it. She said most Canadians are furious about that though because it makes the cost of health care skyrocket. And, I think it's well-known that the reason health care is so high here is because people go to the doctor too much already. If we're to spend money responsibly within our Government, how are we ever to think this situation will be sound at all?
1. So you are assuming that a MAJORITY of people will bring their children to the doctor for the littlest sniffle, therefore clogging and completely slowing down time in the hospital. I truly doubt this is the case and doubt this will happen. I think the argument that you are is that people would do this act, and you think for that minority we shouldn't help the millions of people that actually need it all because of the few that misuse it. That's not logical or morally right. Yes, I'll concede that some people may do this, but the majority of people will use the system properly, and just because of the people that misuse it doesn't mean we should cut it from everybody that needs it. Also I see nothing wrong with people going to a doctor more than they usually do, its better than having them not get treated and die as an end result.
ReplyDelete2. Also because your friend states that she does it all the time doesn't mean that everyone does it, making usually hospital visits slow because of little check ups. I will still defend that the majority of uses are needed and warranted. Another thing I challenge that they don't have to pay for it, according to Canada's deal they do in fact pay for through taxes, but also the face that Canada only covers 70% of the healthcare bill thus leaving them with something to actually pay. As for your argument about most canadians being furious of healthcare cost rising, why would this be so if before you said they don't have to pay for it? That's confusing, but if you are speaking of the cost government wise here's the facts. With a comparison of Canadian v.s. U.S. healthcare: Canada's healthcare GDP is 10% while US GDP 15.2%. The fact is that Healthcare spending in Canada is much less than in the USA. We are currently spending 2 trillion dollars and expected to increase all because of healthcare, this is why we need the reform in part to solve this problem.
3. Now you say that you believe healthcare is high because we go to the doctor too much this points out a contradiction. If we go to the doctor too much then why are out hospitals so empty? I really don't believe going to the doctor too much is the reason for the high cost, many Americans can't afford to even go to one , let alone go to one "too" much. I believe the issue if one of competition. The insurance companies and hospitals have the industry set and as such have little competition to motivate them to drive down prices. I believe the government stepping and providing that competition will force down prices and lead to more productivity. Also to answer your last point, I do believe spending money to address an issue regarding all Americans, especially with the issue of health, is one worth spending money for and reflect responsibility.
Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#The_beginning_of_coverage
http://open.salon.com/blog/kanuk/2009/05/15/lets_compare_public_and_private_health_care_costs_eh
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/06/15-9
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States#Health_care_spending
Someone want to explain why Obama wants this healthcare passed so quickly when it won't even go into effect until 2013? And how are we supposed to avoid rationing when no other country i the world has been able to avoid it?
ReplyDeleteTo add on to what Tyler said...
ReplyDeleteHow do you ration something that is supposedly a right? I've never had my freedom of religion or speech rationed. I'm not even sure how my right to protest could be rationed.
Well, Mr. West, you are a true Conservative. But, I agree 100% with J.J. all the way. Nobody should be forced into debt. My best friend recently was in an accident. She was thrown from a horse and hit her head. She had to be airlifted to the nearest hospital and suffered from internal bleeding, some head trauma, and busted her ear drum. She's 19 now and thirty days before her accident her insurance ran out, so she had no insurance what so ever. She lives with her grandmother because her mother is a complete failure and wants nothing to do with her. She worked for a local car dealership up until the accident and she wants to go back to work but can’t yet because of the after affects. Her total bill was $49,025; the helicopter ride alone was about $7,000. Does she deserve to be in debt? I think not.
ReplyDeleteNow Richard, you say healthcare is not a right because our Constitution doesn’t mention it, but there are many things that our constitution doesn't mention that people consider a right. Two major ones I can think of are the Air Force and Electoral College! Where would we be without those? But they’re not in our Constitution, so should we just eliminate those? No.
Also, Scholar's Logic mentions you can't say a whole country (Canada), will do what a certain few does (like your friends). And he is completely right! I honestly believe that is a ludicrous statement of you to say. Yes, some families will start to go to the doctor a little more than before, but not enough to completely put the United States in debt.
But yes Mr. West, people should work for what they get. But everybody needs somebody.
And sorry for my thoughts being everywhere, I haven’t read the blog in awhile so I was far behind, but I think I’m up to date now. :)
Kev,
ReplyDeleteYou're right, the Air Force isn't mentioned in the Constitution, but the Navy and Army are. So in that sense, the Air Force is an extrension of the overall military. Without it, we wouldn't have our country today. Like I've said before, my government's main two jobs are to defend me [from domestic and foreign foes] and to maintain my liberties.
Secondly, the Electoral College was a system pushed through by James Madison. You have to ask yourself the costs of a new system within the federal government. What fiscal costs are there for having the EC? None that I can think of. I'm sure there are a few minor ones, but overall--it's no cost. It's a more efficient system for voting. In the words of Madison, "We must fear the masses." So we do. What are the costs of health care?
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/2-Obama-officials-No-apf-2491158742.html?x=&.v=7
Too great.
Mr. West,
ReplyDeleteIt seems that you may have overlooked the implications of your argumentation. You made the statement that the Air force is Constitutional (thus arguably a right) because it is an extension of the Army and Navy; furthermore, the said serves to protect our other liberties. There seems to be a consensus on the validity of that statement. Now this statement clearly begs the question of any logic protecting liberties from one thing and not from another. Meaning, you would protect my physical security from an adversary who would deprive me of my liberty but not from a sickness or injury that would do the same. I can no more exercise the inalienable rights outlined in the constitution when held hostage in my house by an assailant than I can when held in sickness or injury. Even if perfect health is not required to act on all constitutional rights our ability to exercise rights decreases with increasing sickness. The existence of this inverse that would deprive one of their rights and arguably detract from the general welfare of a nation (as people are undeniably the most important resource of any nation so too must be their health).
All that is without consideration of the economic burden that comes with sickness and catastrophic care. Kev couldn't be more correct that his friend shouldn't be burdened by approx $46,k bill simply because she was unfortunate enough to be injured.
I'm all for the rights of corporations and drug companies because they are vital to our health care system. Nevertheless, the threshold must be drawn where "Big-Med's" rights comes at the expense of patient rights. Do not fear or misinterpret my meaning in the previous statement. I mean that the right to be treated comes before your right to be paid. Furthermore, that your right to be paid should not come before my right to economic and social well being. Again, this is to be viewed with reason because (with exceptions) everyone must pay for services at some time. However, the amount paid shouldn't be such that it has a substantial negative impact on the individual incurring charges.
This logic follows the same logic as "no cruel and unusual punishment." In medical terms I think we could list a few "Cruel and Unusual Punishments (for being sick or getting injured): 1) bankruptcy, 2) denial of service [hold your tongue Mr. West and ask if a man without insurance has the same access to, say, a heart transplant as one that does], 3) diminished quality of service because of disadvantaged socio-economic status, &c...&c...
I believe that you've misquoted James Madison to serve your ends. That is my personal opinion. One could argue that the contrary is true and that Madison's idea of "the masses" would somehow incorporate big government. Nevertheless, Madison was the mastermind behind federalism. The idea that only a strong federal government with broad regulatory powers over the collective states could truly establish and ensure liberties was uniquely Madison's. This is why I believe you've misquoted Madison to serve your ends. If you justify the statement in context-- Mr West-- I will stand corrected.
Well,
ReplyDeleteMr. West, if you are to argue that the Air Force is just an extension of the military, which IS mentioned in the Constitution, then why isn't healthcare? Welfare is mentioned in the Constitution also, couldn't healthcare be viewed as an extension of welfare?
The Preamble states, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
So, why can't you argue healthcare is a right?
And yes,
the Electoral College may have been a bad example to use because it is virtually free, but it still isn't mentioned in the Constitution directly. It is implied.. like healthcare.