Healthcare Reform: A Moral Good?

[dairygirl4u2c]

one thing we can be sure of, is if we reformed health care to single payer or something, that it'd cost less. we can still have problems in the structure, procedures that are coverered that shoudlnt be, or whatever, and im always going to be one that will see fault in the details, and will just have to accept that it will never be perfect. but at teh end of the day, if it costs less, that is something we should be rallying behind, and go from there. if we can't go from there so to speak, it still costs less, it's a major win and we can be content with that.

[dairygirl4u2c]

''excuse me while i barf at the idea of little old lady or little johnny etc trying to get their extra two shillings to help out, or whatever, figure of speech... barfing not at their good will, but at the idea that this is what we should expect from government and society.''''

especially when it's a systematic problem, of a fundamental problem, of a fundamental issue.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1323946352' post='2351572']
to a certain extent saying "people have the right to access healthcare and that is enough." is similar to saying to a starving poor man "you have access to all the food in the stores" and then walking away.
[/quote]
"For also when we were with you, this we declared to you: that, if any man will not work, neither let him eat."

Kinda harsh, no?
I understand your point and in a certain sense agree, but there's more to it than that.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1323992816' post='2351841']
"For also when we were with you, this we declared to you: that, if any man will not work, neither let him eat."

Kinda harsh, no?
I understand your point and in a certain sense agree, but there's more to it than that.
[/quote]


well, in cases where a man cannot afford to provide his children life saving medicine and healthcare, despite having one or two jobs, its not like the guy isnt trying, but either way the child is being punished merely for being born into the wrong family.

and im not sure that quote is universally applicable, either. If a guy showed up at my house and asked for a meal, and i said he could have it and a place to sleep if he helped me with some chores, but he refused out of laziness, then i would be much less inclined to help him. i might still, but i wouldnt feel obligated to. So yeah, i see it applying for stuff like that.

but if i see a poor guy on the street injured and in need of help... Its hardly the same situation.

Edited December 16, 2011 by Jesus_lol

[Nihil Obstat]

What I mean by that quote is that the 'right' to the necessities of life clearly can't be considered absolute. There are conditions attached. Most of the disagreement then lies in determining what those conditions are.

[penguin31]

I fully acknowledge that in general, I support health care reform to the point of the government providing medical services. And I'm typically not a supporter of government intervention into services. But we're talking about the preservation of human life, something I consider far more important than the profit motive, or any concerns over whether the recipient of care has done enough, in the opinion of others, to deserve care.

Whether it was meant that way or not, the fact is several people in this very thread - people who I know by fact are pro-life - have stood here and argued that if you don't meet some sort of arbitrary standard of societal contribution you no longer deserve the preservation of your life. That's absolutely ridiculous, and as someone vehemently pro-life I find it insulting. Everyone deserves the right of life, everyone has the right to live, and everyone has the right to have that live preserved. It's basic humanity.

My chief concern is that the medical needs of society be met. Private coverage has had it's chance, and then some. And the book of horror stories from privatized medicine could fill ten times more shelf space than the book of horrors from government-subsidized or government-managed care. And I'm sorry, but the rights of people to live, and to be as healthy as possible within that life, trump anyone's need or desire to make money either through the financing of medical services or through the practice of medicine. And this is coming from someone who has aspired strongly to enter that very profession.

Edited December 16, 2011 by penguin31

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='penguin31' timestamp='1324000994' post='2351893']
Whether it was meant that way or not, the fact is several people in this very thread - people who I know by fact are pro-life - have stood here and argued that if you don't meet some sort of arbitrary standard of societal contribution you no longer deserve the preservation of your life.[/quote]
I haven't seen anybody argue that.

[penguin31]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1324001112' post='2351895']
I haven't seen anybody argue that.
[/quote]
[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1324000536' post='2351889']
What I mean by that quote[b] is that the 'right' to the necessities of life clearly can't be considered absolute. There are conditions attached. Most of the disagreement then lies in determining what those conditions are.[/b]
[/quote]

They're the [u]necessities of life[/u]. By DEFINITION they're necessary for life. Implying that conditions have to be met imply some sort of required action on the part of a participant [b]in life[/b] - some sort of [i]contribution to society. [/i]Conditions and contributions being arbitrarily set by someone or some group of someones.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='penguin31' timestamp='1324001486' post='2351898']

They're the [u]necessities of life[/u]. By DEFINITION they're necessary for life. Implying that conditions have to be met imply some sort of required action on the part of a participant [b]in life[/b] - some sort of [i]contribution to society. [/i]Conditions and contributions being arbitrarily set by someone or some group of someones.
[/quote]
Is food a necessity of life?
Did St. Paul not say in that passage that there are some 'strings' attached?
If there are strings attached, then the right is not absolute.

[Nihil Obstat]

As a minor aside, I think our language needs to be further developed when speaking about rights. I'm not sure it makes logical sense to talk about a right that has restrictions. My instinct is to say that a right is something that cannot, by nature, be restricted. The right to life is the best example of this; there is no restriction, nor is restriction possible.
But then we can think about a 'right' to food. This cannot logically be absolute. Even a person in grave, grave need, a person starving to death, cannot take food from a person who is in equally grave need but happened to get his hands on a piece of bread. Clearly St. Paul also restricted this 'right', by saying that at least a person has to be willing to work for it.

So I don't think the language we're using is sufficient. We need to distinguish between something that cannot logically be restricted in any sense whatsoever, like the right to life, as opposed to 'rights' that are subject to limits and conditions.