The US government is also the biggest poluter in the US if not the world.
The US government is also the biggest poluter in the US if not the world.
Since what you pay is taken little by little and hardly noticed, and you don't pay at the pump, why does this not lead to overuse and abuse, sending costs skyrocketing? --Basically the same argument as the OP, government policies have lead to unhealthy people who need and demand more health care, sending costs skyrocketing.
Call your state legislators and insist they approve the Article V convention of States to propose amendments.
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution as written and understood by this nation's founders, and to the Republic it created, an indivisible union of sovereign States, with liberty and justice for all.
Doc, my old friend, where's the constitutional basis for it? There's many good (or bad) things that we could or might do that sound good but fall outside of the constitution. If the people want it, let's amend the constitution and guarantee the right to accessible healthcare.
Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect. -- Woody Hayes
Docthehun (05-26-2017)
Here's one reason why: Lots of Americans like their private health insurance.
Another reason why: The US government is corrupt and heavily influenced by corporate lobbying, as evidenced by their promotion of excess sugar consumption. To entrust them with financing America's healthcare is kind of like asking a fox to guard your hen-house.
Yet another reason why: The USA's population is several times larger than countries with "universal healthcare", making issues of scale and efficiency unavoidable. Put another way, financing the healthcare of 24 million people is much different than financing the healthcare of 320 million people.
Lastly, there are other important variables that contribute to America's relatively high healthcare costs, as I've already demonstrated. Addressing these problems would be much easier and far more effective than trying to push through a universal healthcare system. Simply improving the average American diet and encouraging more exercise would likely decrease our healthcare costs by many billions of dollars every year. Why not try that first before we attempt a major and controversial overhaul of our entire healthcare system?
Power always thinks it has a great soul, and vast views, beyond the comprehension of the weak. And that it is doing God service when it is violating all His laws.
--John Adams
DGUtley (05-26-2017)
There would be no constitutional basis, I concur. The same could be said about much of our benefits, strictly speaking. I would go back to and old saying; "An army runs on it's stomach." In a sense, that applies to all of us and stretches beyond the notion of food. The Army tries it's best to provide food, shelter, clothing, tools and education. All those things in tandem are what maintains our World standing.
Worry most about the least among us. I believe that's exactly how you and I were raised. Was it not?
You are correct but we have to maintain our status of being a society of laws. The constitution protects the individual from the centralized government. Hence, the defined powers etc. The debate over whether other benefits are constitutional has been lost doesn't justify adding other additional unconstitutional structures. If we want to guarantee this as a right (and maybe we do), then we should put it in our structural document, IMHO.
It truly is and I have tried to live my life that way. Isn't that the age old debate of compassion versus compulsion? Should my compassion lead to someone else's compulsion, absent a constitutional structural requirement? I don't know.
Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect. -- Woody Hayes
Docthehun (05-26-2017)
Maybe, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Australia has had this system for at least the past 50 years - costs have not skyrocketed, the standard of healthcare has been judged by the WHO as better than yours, and the country has not gone broke. Perhaps because the system allows medical practitioners to make a good living, and the system also allows for collective bargaining with people like the big drug companies. Like if you are buying for a whole nation, it gives you pretty good price leverage. No system is perfect, and I'm not saying the Aussie system is, but it is better than any system which requires you to have money before you receive health care.
Oh, I wish I were a glow worm,
for a glow worm's never glum,
'cause how can you be grumpy
when the sun shines out your bum!
Docthehun (05-26-2017)
I'm sorry, but you are missing the point. Nothing need change in your health care system, except the way the doctors and hospitals are paid. The system stays the same - just the leeches in the insurance companies get the boot. Have a look at the tallest buildings in any major city - they are the insurance companies. Where do you think all that money comes from? A single payer system does away with all that profiteering.
Oh, I wish I were a glow worm,
for a glow worm's never glum,
'cause how can you be grumpy
when the sun shines out your bum!
William (05-26-2017)