@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
It establishes an obligation to provide for a situation in which people can reasonably attain those things. Which is exactly what we have, when it comes to food and shelter - there are a wide variety of programs available to help those who cannot provide those things for themselves, but in general, the vast, overwhelming majority of people can afford basic food and shelter.
Well, we already have the equivalent of the programs you cite for health care. It's called Medicaid. In addition there are separate Federal payments to hospitals for required emergency services to the indigent. With that in mind, there is no way the complete overhaul of our medical treatment system and the attendant infringement of the individual liberties of everyone else can be rationalized by this "moral" argument.
I'll readily concede that both Medicaid and payments to hospitals have been badly managed and politicized by the government. Indeed it is the arbitrarily capped payments and the underfunding of these and other government health programs that have driven up billings for clinical and hospital services for those who don't hasve insurance and the buyers leverage of insurance programs. I would welcome a reengineered version of Medicaid, particularly if it was accompanied by more level and predictable funding; the prohibition of Federal mandates without funds to achieve them; and subsidized programs to increase the suppluy of doctors and operate public health clinics.
If you think that would be hard to do then why do you believe the already inept hand of government will do any better managing everything for everyone?
Cycloptichorn wrote:
We are simply extending this to health care. Currently, an environment does not exist in which the same can be said: not everyone has access to proper (if basic) health care, not everyone has the opportunity to have access to it, and not everyone is treated equally and humanely by our society in terms of this issue.
I would also note that Deb is 100% correct, however, when she notes that the moral issue is the secondary issue, behind the practical benefits of extending coverage to all.
Cycloptichorn
In ther first place it isn't inevitable that this will pass. Are you sticking by your earlier prediction? Time is running out and the public option you forecast looking very uncertain.
Are you now arguing for "equal access" for all to health care? That's profoundly different from what was argued above. I note that the late Senator Kennedy enjoyed far more than equal access to health care in his various illnesses.
Finally, using the President's own statistic for the number of uninsured (30 million), I note that this is about 9% of the population, and that includes a large number of healthy, young people who have ready access to insurance, but who choose not to buy it, even at a price subsidized by employers. Deduct those additional people under Medicaid and you have an even smaller number. Does extending "coverage" to the resulting small fraction population rationalize a wall to wall overhaul of health care system in this country ? This is a particularly relevant question given the likely potential of government management to reduce investment, innovation and improvements in standards of care. This country has been a leader in these areas and there is the potential here for something important and good to be lost.
