David Horsey of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer asks his readers to send in their answers to his weekly Burning Question "Should every American have medical care?"
If the man were a Canadian or a citizen of any country in the European Union, his health crisis would not be accompanied by a financial disaster. He would be taken care of by a national health plan. But the man is an American, one of millions in this country who -- for a variety of reasons -- do not have health coverage.Given that our economy is driven more and more by the interests of investors while providing less and less security for workers, is it time for Americans to get a little more security from each other? I won't claim to know the best design for universal health care. Still, I want to ask this Burning Question:
Should every American have the right to medical care?
The Constitution doesn't say anything about a right to medical care, although maybe it's one of those unenumerated Ninth Amendment rights. But a right to medical care wouldn't imply an entitlement to free spleenectomies any more than the right to keep and bear arms requires the government to hand out free bullets.
Nevertheless, Horsey is asking his readers to send heartstring-tugging pleas demanding an inalienable right to unlimited free healthcare. I rather wish Horsey would have rephrased his leading question, perhaps like this:
Given that our government is driven more and more by the interests of entrenched government employees while providing less and less value for citizens and given the well-documented incompetence of all levels of government, such as the failure of the FBI to act on its own warnings to prevent the 9/11 attacks; and California's $35 billion surprise budget deficit, do you really want to give the unaccountable bureaucrats even more power, especially over something as important as your own medical care?or
Given that Canada and the European Union have significantly higher unemployment rates than the United States, caused by bloated out-of-control social welfare programs such as universal healthcare, and given that government run healthcare systems don't work very well (in Canada or Britain, for example), would you really be willing to give up the right to choose your own healthcare, even if it means paying higher taxes for worse healthcare and the possibility of losing your job?Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 23, 2003 11:51 AM
I hope you forwarded this post to Mr Horsey, although, true believer that he surely is, it will be deleted after the first portion is read.
Posted by: ed on June 23, 2003 12:35 PMNo one in the US is denied emergency health care for starters. Anyone presenting to an emergency room under COBRA cannot be denied assessment and treatment because they can't pay. If your condition requires ongoing treatment and you are uninsured, most likely an attempt will be made to qualify you for Medicaid or collect the fees from an indigent fund which many communities have. I'm only stating this because leftist shills would have you believe that the health care system is allowed to withhold care.
Why should health care insurance be any different from my car or house insurance? I'm an able-bodied individual and have agreed to the rules of a capitalist system, so I arise every morning on a mission to pay my way. And, for those truly disbled, I'm willing to pitch in.
Removing any personal responsibility for procuring health care via job benefits or privately just degrades the service. Social Sercurity is a case in point. It was initially a supplement not an entitlement in old age. Yes, Bill Gates will get monthly SS checks and Medicare benefits.
Mr. Horsey is a lot better cartoonist than a political thinker, and this is just another in a series of leading questions whose answer he already has in mind.
Posted by: insufficiently sensitive on June 23, 2003 02:05 PMIf illegal aliens can pay a 'coyote' $5000 to sneak them across the border for medical care... then sue for malpractice when the lung transplant an American should have gotten goes awry... and sue in North Carolina for what Guatamala wouldn't provide eg. a chance... then the only health care crisis is that an American died waiting for a lung an illegal alien stole...
Posted by: DANEgerus on June 23, 2003 03:40 PMRegarding how terrible a nationalized medical system is, compare life expectancy rates in the US, Canada and European countries. More or less the same.
Regarding how unpopular nationalized health care is, ask yourself why the British system remains in place after 17 or so years of Maggie Thatcher and John Major.
Regarding how controlled by faceless bureaucrats such a system would be, check out how responsive indeed the United States Congress is to the wrath of seniors, and check out how we have created a rather generous Medicare benefit (soon to be made more generous) that doles out so much money that it is likely to go "bankrupt" in a few years (unless we raise taxes and premiums). The fact is that, for better or worse, social insurance programs that provide entitlements to the everyone (in contrast to welfare) are extremely popular wherever they are implemented. That is why conservatives and libertarians fight to the death to prevent them from getting started.
penny said:
"No one in the US is denied emergency health care for starters."
This is true. And of course under our "free enterprise" system, everybody else pays for that person's emergency room care, even if the visit was for a simple case of the flu.
"Why should health care insurance be any different from my car or house insurance?"
Interesting comparison. Car insurance, unlike health insurance, is MANDATORY in all 50 states. Mandatory health insurance, with subsidies for the poor, or for small businesses, is an interesting policy prescription that has been proposed as a way toward universal coverage that has might actually work in America (Sen. John Breaux, a leading conservative Democrat and Medicare privatization proponent, supports it). The New America Foundation, a self-styled "radical centrist" think tank in particular is pushing this idea. Their link is www.newamerica.net
Markus,
When you say certain entitlement systems are "popular" and "responsive", what you really mean is that they have electoral constituencies that prevent the system from being dismantled. What those systems don't have is responsiveness in the sense that individual clients of the system can obtain satisfactory service at the time they seek it.
I can understand why you might prefer a system where customer preferences are expressed through the political process instead of by individual choices. But then again you probably have more confidence in lobbyists, bureaucrats and congressional staffers than I do.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on June 24, 2003 07:49 AMThe unspoken but only issue in the healthcare debate is that the people who do not pay for their healthcare want access to the same physicians and services that those people who do pay have. To have the top heart surgeon in the country on tap instead of some fourth year resident when you have chest pains.
Universal healthcare, however, continues to demonstrate that it breeds mediocrity. The top heart surgeon in England only has private patients. NHS patients still have the fourth year resident and they have to wait to see him.
Posted by: Chuck on June 24, 2003 07:17 PMHello,
I am leading a national project called M.O.M. Mothers on Message is a national coalition of mothers whose children have died or have been maltreated because of injustice. My chief project is to make a stronger case for Universal Health Care in the United States.
I am gathering stories of nightmares people have had because they could not afford health care. Any help you can give me in getting the word out about this project would be greatly appreciated.
Please send any information or questions to:
MothersonMessage@aol.com
Thanks very, very much.
Mona Shaw
Project Director
HOW TO SOLVE THE ILLEGAL ALIEN PROBLEM.
It is simple. We don't need more laws.
Make every legal American a deputy and place a bounty on illegals.
If an American catches an illegal alien pay them anywhere from 1/4 to 1/2 of what it costs the Border Patrol to apprehend an illegal.
The closer to the border you catch the illegal alien the more money you make. Catching an illegal within 10 miles of the border should net a bonus! This would benefit the property owners near the border who have had their property destroyed by illegals.
Of course, police would be eligible too! So a routine traffic stop just might earn them some extra spending money.
I would wager the problem with illegal crossings just about ceases the minute the policy is put into place.
Posted by: jim smithe on July 11, 2004 11:52 AM