Let's stop trying to use the "health care is a right" argument.

[CTyankee]

You and I may believe that it is. But it is NOT a good basis for debate with a Conservative (or with people who might be swayed by Conservative arguments against universal health care). They immediately challenge you to quote chapter and verse from the Constitution on where such a right can be found. It's a waste of our time.

I've found a more effective argument. Ask why every other industrial country in the world have universal health care for their people and "Do you think those countries see some benefit in having a healthy population? Do you think maybe they want healthy people to work in their economy? Do you think maybe they think their people will be more productive if they are healthy? And maybe happier because they don't have to face financial ruin with a catastrophic illness?"

The economic argument works better with these people, IMO. And it's one we can win pretty easily.

[Cassandra]

1. "Promote the general welfare"...

works for me but your argument is good, too.

[Zavulon]

10. I've tried that.

The answer I always get is "yes, promote, not provide." I don't have a great answer for that, and I'm not motivated enough to try. Everything I can do about the issue was already done in November when I cast my vote for our current president.

If you have a great answer to that, though, please let me know. I could really use it.

[zipplewrath]

2. Losing cause

If you think you'll convince people of that stripe, I think you're on a losing cause. One CAN make an argument to a rational person that healthcare is a 9th amendment right. One can even make the case that it is part of "securing the blessings of liberty". It's not a forgone conclusion, but in the larger context you suggest of international positions on healthcare, the fact of "reasonable access" to healthcare at the very least can be made to be a right.

[CTyankee]

6. I'd like to hear more about how the 9th amendment works here.

I have not heard it postulated in this debate. But I am open to hearing the case that can be made for it...

[zipplewrath]

34. Constitution limits powers

As most know, the purpose of the constitution was to express what limited powers they had. As it was being ratified, it was felt that the powers had not be explicit enough in expressing the limitations of those powers. So the Bill of Rights was born. However, there was concern that if one tried to list all of our rights, that in effect something would be overlooked. So the 9th amendment was added. It basically said that not all of our rights have been listed in the constitution. We have more rights than "have been enumerated". So when someone tries to demand that you point to where in the constitution for a certain right, at a bare minimum you can point to the 9th. And really you point to it to show that this whole argument is pointless. There are more rights we have than listed in the Constitution.

And piss off a right winger and call it a "right to life" and that it is a "committment to life".

[MADem]

3. I agree with you. I like the "Health care is what any first world country with an IOTA of decency

provides to their citizens" arguments, too. And when the "decency" arguments (to go along with your "productivity" arguments) don't work, there's always the "Well, gee, you're going to be the ONLY one of the countries that aren't barely scraping by who doesn't do it!" argument--peer pressure works on those dumb bastards--they don't wanna be the only kid in the school without the neatest new fad item. And sometimes they get mad if a country they view as "less than" theirs has "better stuff" than we do. They'd be shocked if they did a little travelling....

Those wingnuts are more worried about "Keeping Up With the Jonses" (or the Mitterands, Garcias, VanderHorsts, and so forth) than being compassionate, but if that's how it needs to be framed, more power!

[TankLV]

4. NO! HEALTHCARE IS A RIGHT!

Just like Education, Shelter and Food.

To do otherwise, is PLAYING INTO THE NUTJOB CONSERVATIVES HANDS!!!

We need to CONFRONT them DIRECTLY on this, or we LOSE!

NOW is the time to INCREASE THE PRESSURE, not to "moderate" or slack off...!!!

[The_Commonist]

7. I don't think you were paying attention.

You need to read more than just the headline.

[Odin2005]

9. You missed the point of the OP.

Just because WE (rightly) consider it right doesn't mean THEY do. Conservatives and Libertarians mostly reject the concept of positive rights (right TO something) and only accept negitive rights (rights AGAINST coercion).

[dysfunctional press]

19. personally, i don't give a rat's ass what conservatives and libertarians think about it...

or any other issue. why should we have to appease their sorry asses?

[CTyankee]

26. Let me ask you a question here. Did we get the School Lunch Program

for the noble purpose of not letting poor children go hungry?

No, we got it because so many of our young males in 1941 were too malnourished to fight in WW2. It was a bad reason but it got hungry children fed.

Let's get the freakin' health care already. Sooner or later the American people will like it so much THEY will be proclaiming it a right!

[alarimer]

95. No, we got school lunch because farmers grew too much food.

They had to get rid of it somehow.

[JFN1]

90. Agreed.

They still bitch and moan about Social Security and Medicare, but do any of them take their parents or grandparents or themselves off of it? Hell no.

So let them scream and yell - they do not have the numbers, or the popular support, necessary to make a difference.

Only their priorities matter, so it is of no practical use to parlay with them...

[LuvNewcastle]

5. Health care is a necessity,

just like the police and fire depts. Do we deny police and fire protection to poor people?

[CTyankee]

8. Of course. Necessity is more and more an argument that anybody can understand.

However, people can also say "But what if I get LESS health care with universal health care than I'm getting now?" I have heard this from people who near the edge of having NO health care but are desperately clinging on what they've got. Makes no sense...

[sinkingfeeling]

13. What constitutes 'less health care'? Ask them how much their insurance company pays for

preventive care. Ask them what their deductible and co-pays are. Ask them if they really think a broken arm should cost $20,000 or getting it X-rayed and set would do.

[LuvNewcastle]

14. Less health care. Ha ha. I'll take that chance.

[HughBeaumont]

11. Health Care is a HUMAN right, not a Constitutional right.

"Humans" mean "all people", including the ones that "don't wanna pay taxes for (insert racial slur here) and their nine crack babies' hospital bills!!" That's the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, drawn up in 1948 by the U.N.; which, last I checked, the United States of America is part of.

At the same time, I'd ask them the specific Constitutional Amendment that gives us a God Given Right to bomb the living hell out of sovereign nations or the one that allows our government to spy on it's own citizens.

[CTyankee]

15. Anything we signed on to with the United Nations is a nonstarter for Conservatives.

It just opens up a whole other can of worms and deflects us, we get to discussing the merits of the UN and then we're totally off topic.

Ditto with whether we can bomb our enemies or spy on people in this country. I agree with you but I'm just saying that you have to pick the best argument possible with Conservatives, something that doesn't steam their brains with hot button issues. It's in our economic interest, period. We're smarter if we're healthier and we can compete better in the world. It's the only thing they really CAN'T argue with, isn't it?

[HughBeaumont]

23. It kind of begs the question, though: why are we entertaining the opinions . . .

. . . of those who supported an economic, medical and governmental system that's been proven an absolute failure for 94% of the American people?

Do I have to bring up job creation numbers from 2001 to 2008? Statistics of wellness of other nations? Longevity rates? Income disparity? Anecdotal evidence on how people are being thrown out of their homes and losing whatever savings they have to insurance companies all for the crime of getting sick? The one-time largest employer of this nation now on the verge of bankruptcy?

These ALL relate to how badly we need UHC or single payer in this country.

See, they don't HAVE anything to bring to the table except the same failed free market crapola at best and not-so-veiled racism at worst. Their way LOST. They GET NO place at the adults table. WE do not HAVE to listen to THEM anymore.

[CTyankee]

27. Wow, I'm relieved. I guess you've convinced me.

We'll have our right to universal health care despite all the powerful people on the other side who support our members of the federal legislature. The House and the Senate will pass universal, single payer health care tomorrow...

[sutz12]

12. Yep, especially when the "right to healthcare" interferes with their right to a profit.

:shrug:

[pnutbutr]

16. free healthcare does not prevent

financial ruin or bankruptcy. In Canada about 15%-20% of bankruptcy is due to medical issues.

[AllieB]

29. But in France and other Western Civilized countries, that number is probably 0%.

I'm assuming you got the 15-20% from the Manhattan Institute article, which uses right-wing sources to support its arguments?

There are 47 million uninsured people people in the US, and people that die from being denied treatment. How do you propose we deal with them?

BTW you should watch the movie 'Sicko' for another view of how single-payer works, rather than rely on the Manhattan Institute and RW sources to support your assertions.

[pnutbutr]

35. canada bankruptcy.ca

http://www.canadabankruptcy.ca/

But the assumption was nice

[AllieB]

38. From someone who makes no bones about quoting from RW sources

and hasn't met a RW talking point he doesn't like, it was to be expected.

[pnutbutr]

39. It was one source

and the info in it is valid and verifiable. Nobody was able to dispute it.

[AllieB]

40. It was not just one link or one talking point.

[AllieB]

44. It is easily debunked. Here you go:

The original link, by Dr. David Gratzer in the journal published by the RW Manhattan Institute:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html

Some research on the dear doctor:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/10/rudy_miscalculates_cancer_surv.html

As factual support for the mayor's claim, the Giuliani campaign cited an article that appeared in the "City Journal," published by the Manhattan Institute, a conservative New York think tank, slamming the Canadian and British systems of "socialized" medicine. The article by David Gratzer provides no sources for its assertions about five-year survivability rates from prostate cancer.

Another critique of the author:

http://www.pissedonpolitics.com/2007/11/giuliani_a_case_example_of_cla.htm

"Mr Giuliani’s campaign did not give an immediate response. But a spokeswoman has previously insisted that he would continue to repeat the statistic and run the advertisement. She said the 44 per cent figure came from an article in a “highly respected intellectual journal” published by the right-wing Manhattan Institute, which he had read because “he is an intellectually engaged human being”.
The article’s author, David Gratzer who is an adviser to Mr Giuliani’s campaign, has acknowledged to The New York Times that the statistic is seven years old and “crude”.

He said that it came from the Commonwealth Fund, which specialises in health policy issues. But the same organisation has since issued a statement accusing Dr Gratzer of misusing its research."

Excerpt:

"How it works: Right wing think tank gets money from the health industry. Right wing think tank then hires 'experts' to 'research' (objectively of course) and compare 'socialized' medicine vs. 'free market' medicine. The 'experts' determine that more people die from not getting the treatment they need in countries with commie pinko medicine compared to America's system. To seal the deal they often offer up numbers which we all know has to make it true. Often the numbers offered up as 'proof' that socialized medicine doesn't work are old and outdated.

But it doesn't matter; the propaganda campaign is a success. You see, the think tank will get their research article published even if it means they have to establish their own damn journal to do it. They will then reference that research article in op-ed pieces all across America's papers. Few papers are going to do any serious fact checking. Also, being an op-ed piece gives the writer much more flexibility with the truth."

[pnutbutr]

48. 44% to 74.4%

Still below the number for the US 82% which was not in dispute and that does not invalidate anything else in the article unless you want to go looking for more.

BTW there is an interesting graph at http://info.cancerresearchuk.org that shows a significantly higher incidence of prostate cancer in the US due to vastly higher rates of early detection which also leads to the higher survival rate.

[AllieB]

49. The issue here is the credibility of the article and the author.

Nice deflection though.


http://mediamatters.org/research/200709150001

SUMMARY: Good Morning America aired a preview of John Stossel's "Whose Body is it Anyway? Sick in America," which contained an interview with one expert, David Gratzer, whom Stossel identified only as an author and "Canadian doctor." Stossel failed to note that Gratzer is a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute or that the World Health Organization ranks Canada and Great Britain -- whose nationalized health systems he criticized for their long waits -- ahead of the United States in its ranking of world health systems. At the end of Stossel's report, Diane Sawyer told him: "It is so hard to get perspective on this. Thank heaven you're doing it."

http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2007/10/policy-david-gr.html

It’s interesting to note that Giuliani who’s playing a moderate has surrounded himself with some of the most extreme wingnuts in health care, including Sally Pipes and David Gratzer. (Full disclosure, I think David is a very nice guy, but I think he massively misrepresents the facts in his book—as we discussed when I interviewed him. Also Rudy does have Mark McClellan on the list, who’s not an extremist.)

[pnutbutr]

52. Credibility seems fine to me

One number was incorrect but even when corrected doesn't change the point. I'm not sure what the Stossel link is supposed to provide.


As for the WHO findings you have to look at the factors that it used to determine ranking. The US ranked number 1 in resposivness for care and 24th for overall health which is determined by life expectancy numbers that can be skewed due to violent or accidental deaths such as murder, car accidents etc... which will bring the number down in nations with high rates of early deaths like we see in the US with it's murder rate. Where the US really lost was in it's distribution of health, fairness in payment, and per capita expenditure. Basically, the poor are unhealthy compared to the rich and the poor pay more % of their income for healthcare and we all pay more than in other nations. That distribution issue needs to be resolved but doesn't really say anything about the level of care provided to the people.

[Spazito]

58. The whole article you cited was composed of anecdotal material...

with no statistical sources, conversations with a "private medical broker" (no agenda there, lol):

"Baker isn’t a neurosurgeon or even a doctor. He’s a medical broker, one member of a private sector that is rushing in to address the inadequacies of Canada’s government care. Canadians pay him to set up surgical procedures, diagnostic tests, and specialist consultations, privately and quickly. “I don’t have a medical background. I just have some common sense,” he explains. “I don’t need to be a doctor for what I do. I’m just expediting care.”

This whole article is a rather ridiculous attempt to romanticize privatization of public health, it fails miserably which is why it is only found in such rabid right wing 'publications' as City Journal.

Continuing to defend this certainly does bring the question of credibility to the fore and not just for the article.

[pnutbutr]

65. I'm not sure

how that little part of the article discredits it. The medical broker is a guy who sets up expedited procedures for people who are on waiting lists for care. He was just explaining what he does and why as one small portion of the article. I don't believe the intention was to romanticize privatization but point out problems with public systems. To say that public systems are flawless is just as silly as saying private systems are flawless. It's a good article that presents important information that needs to be considered when the US implements a public option. If we ignore the problems seen in other nations public care how can we make ours better and avoid the same problems?

[Spazito]

66. That "little part" was merely an example, the article is full of "little parts" like that...

which, seeing as you are the one who posted it as if it were an authoritative source, would already know that. I have seen NO ONE post that any public system is flawless yet you seem to pretend you have seen this. It is NOT a good article for anyone to use for anything except to promote a private system like the US currently has.

You seem to prefer the private insurance route, or at least posting that article as being "a good article" leads me to believe you do otherwise you would see the propaganda inherent in it.

[pnutbutr]

68. Maybe

you could point out the flaws and propaganda in the article that have not been addressed already and which so far don't discredit or change anything.

[Spazito]

70. The article is merely the opinion of the author so pointing out the fallacies in his opinion...

garners nothing. He provides nothing in terms of sources to bolster his opinion, he merely writes anecdotally in order to put forward his opinion. The article has no facts to counter, that is precisely the problem with your use of his OPINION as an authoritative voice. Again, one needs to look at the following: the content of the article which is merely an opinion based on anecdotal hearsay; the background of the author which is notoriously right-wing in his beliefs and writings; the outlet that published his opinion which we know is not mainstream in the slightest but, rather, a right-wing propaganda outlet.


If one takes in the totality of the above, it is hard for anyone to give this opinion any credence but feel free to continue to do so at the risk of reducing any credibility you may have. I saw your post defending the Washington Times putting the picture of the Obama children on it's front page (btw, the WT has now removed the pic so I guess it was a problem after all) so your defense of this opinion is not at all surprising.

In case you really are interested in the facts on Canada's healthcare program, here is a link that provides REAL information:

http://www.uottawa.ca/services/markcom/news/documents/Romanow_speech-e.pdf

[pnutbutr]

72. I take it

that is a no?

As for the WT thing. I was just trying to think of anything they may have used as a reason to put it there and what I said was not intended to be supportive.

I'm curious why so many false assumptions are made in response to my posts?

[Spazito]

73. The false assumptions are within the article you keep defending...

and you keep refusing to see the opinion piece as an OPINION piece, opinion pieces can be refuted simply by another opinion, my opinion is, given my experience and those of others, his 'article' is pure crap. Canadians overwhelmingly support their healthcare system as opposed to this one person's personal opinion which, again, given his background, is consistent with the right-wing view of health care and the support of for-profit HMOs over public healthcare systems.

Please read the link I added to my previous post if you want the facts over the biased opinion of the writer in question, you will find it educational, imo.

I sense you support private over public healthcare, am I wrong in that assumption? If so, it would be helpful if you would detail what you see as the preferable system for US healthcare.

[pnutbutr]

74. It backs up claims made in the article I posted :rofl:

Holy Fing fail dude. :rofl:

"According to a survey of five countries, including the United States, done a decade ago, Canada enjoyed -- by a considerable margin -- the highest satisfaction ratings. At the time, there were few concerns about quality of care or waiting times for services.
Today, however, the situation has changed. Complaints about access to some types of surgery, specialists or advanced diagnostic tests have become commonplace.
And however bad the situation is in our cities, it has long been far worse for people in rural and remote parts of Canada." Another common fear revolves around “queue-jumping” in the public system. The idea that money or influence – rather than medical need – can give some people faster access to publicly funded services is so far more a myth than a reality.
However, MRIs and other diagnostic tests, in great measure due to a withdrawal of public investment here in the 1990s, are now becoming more available on a user-fee basis. It is therefore likely that patients who are tested sooner will also be seen sooner for surgery or follow-up care. This is a growing phenomenon and, in my view, potentially threatening.
Why?
Because it is a serious violation of a core value shared by Canadians: The notion that people should have equal access to care, and that medical need should be the only criterion governing who should be tended to first.
And so my report recommends we have an obligation to do a better job of managing waiting lists. We need to be more open with patients about the criteria for getting on and moving up the lists. We need to apply those criteria in a fair, consistent and open way. And we need to address the serious equipment and human resource shortages that have created unnecessary blockages.
Therefore, we need an integrated and comprehensive approach to timely access to care, including specific recommendations to overhaul the primary care system, measures to address mismatches in supply and demand for health professionals and specific investments to improve access to care in rural and remote areas.


The fourth and final theme of my report was that service delivery must keep pace with constantly evolving health care needs. To that end, governments must show the will and leadership to achieve what I call transformative change.
One example of transformative change is to enhance preventative care and to shift the focus from “illness” to “wellness.” The evidence is clear that the “determinants” of health, such as lifestyle, environment, education, housing and income, have a great impact on our health throughout our lifetime, and especially in our later years. So it makes sense to direct a portion of our funds and our attention to the “upstream” care as well as the “downstream,” sometimes described as “acute” care.
Another example involves the evolution of primary healthcare – people’s first point of contact with the health care system.
We need, for instance, to shift the focus away from hospitals toward a comprehensive primary health care system that is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, with providers who have long-standing and trusting relationships with patients, and who can provide a continuum of care across the boundaries of traditional medical specialties.
We need these and other transformative changes in order to attain the goal of a more seamless continuum of care. Everyone must work to transform how healthcare providers and institutions are organized within the system in order to meet today’s needs.
No question it will be difficult to achieve such transformations, because change, especially wholesale change, is always a challenge.
But ultimately, these changes will be essential if we are to preserve and sustain the Canadian health care system.

Second, with respect to the CHA, governments have not agreed to expand the publicly insured core basket of services to include home care, catastrophic drug coverage, and advanced diagnostic treatment. Moreover, a sixth principle of accountability – which Canadians repeatedly argued should be added to the CHA, has not been so included. In short, the CHA insured programs remain the same as they did back in 1984, the year the CHA was enacted. It has not been modernized, and with this decision is the likelihood of increasing costs.

[Spazito]

75. LOL, I see you went directly to only those facts that back up the right wing opinion...

and TOTALLY ignore the totality of the facts provided. You now have the answer as to why your posts generate skepticism from other posters. The fact remains the Canadian healthcare system works and works well as is pointed out in the link I provided. As opposed to your need to only focus on the negative, I am comfortable with ALL the facts on our system because it is a much better system than what you have in place.

As you did not respond to my question as what system you prefer and why, my sense must be correct in that you prefer the for-profit HMOS over a public system that covers all Americans. Usually those that prefer the private for-profit system in place are those that either work for them or have the philosophy of "I have mine, to hell with anyone else". It is quite sad.

[pnutbutr]

76. Facts

directly from the Canadian government are not right wing opinion. :rofl: The link you posted points out all the flaws in the system and says that they need to be fixed. Instead of attacking me for trying to point out exactly what the Canadian government knows and is trying to fix be glad they are trying to fix them. My link pointed out all the flaws verified in yours. So if my link is RW propaganda and whatnot, then so is yours.

I would love to see a public option in the US in conjunction with private even if the private is only for supplemental insurance. However, I would be very disappointed if the US model did not take into account the flaws with foreign public systems already in place and make an effort to correct them before implementation.

[Spazito]

79. I see you are determined to ignore that which does not FIT your...

agenda. The report in the link details ALL the facts and if you were genuinely interested in FACTS, you would have noted the report in it's totality is reflective of a healthcare system that works very well for Canadians while not shying away from pointing out areas for IMPROVEMENT. The opinion piece you keep defending did just as you have, looking only for the negative while ignoring the overwhelming positives about our system.

Had you responded honestly and noted BOTH the areas in need of improvement AND the conclusion that the system, overall, works very well, you would have shown some honesty in your position. You did not hence one can only see an agenda behind your posts.

Given your statement:

"I would love to see a public option in the US in conjunction with private even if the private is only for supplemental insurance. However, I would be very disappointed if the US model did not take into account the flaws with foreign public systems already in place and make an effort to correct them before implementation."

What would you take from the Canadian system, if anything, if you were advising the Obama administration? How do you define "supplemental", what services would you see as fitting under private "supplemental"?

[pnutbutr]

82. intention

The intention of the article I posted was to point out the flaws. Is that not allowed unless it gives equal time to the successes? I guess we can't be critical of Bush anymore unless we also provide equal attention to his successes? :eyes:

Supplemental is anything the public option does not cover. In Canada that would probably include things like the long term care etc... that was mentioned in the article. I don't think the US should model it's plan off any nation and should build it from the ground up to address the specific needs of the country. I can't think of anything specific I would pull from the Canadian system except maybe the general idea. Having the individual states as in Canada run their own systems would be an interesting thing to look at though.

[Spazito]

84. This takes us back to the original post, the one using a right-wing...

propaganda opinion piece to make your point. Your consistent refusal to acknowledge the piece as slanted toward the negative and a booster for privatization is what leads me to believe you having an agenda in posting it in the first place. Why on earth would you bring up criticism of Bush as a defense of your criticism of the Canadian healthcare system? Fascinating.

Do you like the current healthcare system in the US? What do you like/what don't you like? How would you fix it if, indeed, you feel it needs fixing? Do you feel the limitation of 'pre-existing conditions' is a legitimate cause for denying coverage? Do you believe it is legitimate that 43 million Americans have NO coverage or do you believe all Americans should be covered?

[pnutbutr]

85. OMG

are you for real? You have misconstrued everything I have said and twisted it ala O'Reilly style into what you wanted to hear. I can't correct you on those misconceptions anymore. If you think I'm a RW whatever, report me, try to get me banned but I will stand by the fact that if a moderator reads through this he will see that my intentions are not what you claim.

[Spazito]

86. LOL, I can see you do not want to discuss the merits of healthcare...

systems so I stand by my conclusions. It seems you think pointing out an agenda is a no-no, I disagree. I have stated my case and will let it be judged against yours by other posters who read this thread.

[pnutbutr]

87. The agenda you accuse of is not there n/t

Let it be judged

[AllieB]

77. "You now have the answer as to why your posts generate skepticism from other posters"

Because if there's a right-wing spin or angle to any posted story, odds are that our pal is on that side, whether it's sourcing right-wing content or cherry-picking items to back up specious arguments, rather than looking at the article as a whole.

[pnutbutr]

78. I read the whole article

I felt obliged to point out the parts that back up what was in the one I posted. There is nothing wrong with that, it shows that what it says is not RW talking points as it is backed up directly by the Canadian government.

[Spazito]

81. When one only posts the negative when they have been provided...

with a factual report that has MANY more positives than negatives, it says the poster is not looking for all the facts, only cherry-picked ones to support an agenda. I have seen nothing in your posts that would negate my supposition you post with an agenda already in mind as opposed to genuinely looking for facts about the Canadian healthcare system.

[pnutbutr]

83. I have said before

that we need to look at the problems with the foreign systems in order not to repeat them.

[Spazito]

57. The link you provided did not have anything on it's main page...

with your claimed 15 - 20% bankruptcy due to health costs. Could you please provide a link to where exactly you found that number? I know a number of Canadians who have claimed bankruptcy and NOT ONE was due to health costs so would be VERY interested in where you found your 'stats'.

[RaleighNCDUer]

32. And would that be from an inabilty to pay for treatments received,

or from an inability to work due to catastrophic illness? Being off work for a year or longer, collecting only unemployment or disability, could cause anyone to go bankrupt, even if their medical costs are 95% covered by the national healthcare plan - particularly if you had accumulated debt before falling ill.

That's still "due to medical issues", but it is hardly the same thing as suddenly being personally responsible for $150,000 in medical bills.

And 20% would be a considerable improvement over the 50% it is in this country.

[pnutbutr]

37. it's from

losing work and since that is the case, comparing the 20% for that reason with the 50% for medical bills in the US is a bit misguided.

[RaleighNCDUer]

43. If it is misguided, then why are you making that comparison?

Maybe you need to think it through before you bash single-payer on those grounds.

[pnutbutr]

50. I didn't compare them,

you did. :eyes:

[RaleighNCDUer]

51. The comparison is implicit in the post - we are talking about the

American healthcare system, and you bring up Canada. THAT is a comparison. And by your own comparison, bankruptcies due to medical causes are 50% lower in Canada than the US.

Good way to make a point.

[pnutbutr]

53. I was responding to this from the OP

"And maybe happier because they don't have to face financial ruin with a catastrophic illness?" My initial response fit perfectly with that and in no way implied a comparison to the US. It was a statement to show that catastrophic illness can cause financial ruin. That's it. Nothing more. You tried to make the comparison.

[okieinpain]

17. does it really take a catastrophic illness to get to financial ruin.

hell a couple of days in the hospital rang up a 30,000 tab for a kidney stone. which left me me with about 3500 dollars that I have to cover. I know some of you are big ballers but uh I'm on a budget, add that 3500 to the 1900 to the fed, and 800 to the state for this years taxes and I've run up a $6000 bill just for living.

[H2O Man]

18. No thank you.

It is a right. Attempting to mold reality to suit the purposes of the right wing seems a strategy sure to fail.

[CTyankee]

22. But the reality is that it IS in our economic self interest as a nation to have

accessible, affordable health care for all. It's not "molding" anything. It is simply the truth.

We've tried to appeal on the basis of a "right." Again, I would certainly agree but after all these years we haven't won the day with it.

Let's just get our health care. If it works for the people it will be hard for the RW to take it away. Just look at Medicare if you don't believe me.

[RaleighNCDUer]

30. The actual reality is that hardcore conservatives are not amenable to argument.

They will NEVER be convinced because it is not health or economics to them, it is a fucking RELIGION. They might pretend to be christian, but they actually worship the precepts of their ideology, and no amount of argument with ever sway anyone from their religion.

The only thing to do is to marginalize them, and work with those we CAN convince, and THOSE people can be brought to understand both the "rights" argument and the "reasons" arguments.

Stop giving the 20%ers so much power.

[Hepburn]

67. Totally agree....

...health care is a basic human right. To be free from suffering and pain ~~ that is NOT some employment benefit or perk ~~ it truly is a basic right.

:hi:

[dysfunctional press]

20. why worry about what conservatives think about it, and why let them frame the argument..?

in a modern industrial society such as ours, quality healthcare IS a right, and that's all there is to it.

[CTyankee]

24. They shouldn't frame the argument and they are effectively losing whatever

their argument is. After we get it, it becomes a right, de facto. People will like and won't give it up. Pretty soon we'll have a huge majority in our corner and they will come to believe it to be a right just as we do.

[Blue Meany]

21. I see it is a national security issue:

In an age of bioterrorism as well as natural pandemics, we simply cannot afford to have portions of our population outside the healthcare system. It endangers all of us to do so.

[CTyankee]

25. Yes, you are right. You can paint a very scary scenario with that argument.

The Right loves scary stuff, that's why they love Dick Cheney.

[RaleighNCDUer]

28. We hold these truths to be self evident , that all Men are created equal

and they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness - That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among men...

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inextricably tied to healthcare - the loss of life is the ultimate failure of healthcare; loss of liberty comes from either incapacitating illness or from crushing debt; and there are few things more deleterious to the pursuit of happiness and the worry over illness.

Also, there is no reason not to believe that healthcare is NOT among those unalienable rights not specified in the Declaration. The declaration clearly states that there are other unalienable rights, and it is a centuries old, maybe millennia old precept that doctors do not turn away people in need of medical care - even during the Black Death, physicians treated all who came to them even at the cost of their own lives. Only in modern America do medical establishments turn people away for an inability to pay - a natural outgrowth of the for-profit medical industry.

Once it is acknowledged that the right exists, go to the next line "to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted..." It is the government's duty to secure this right, not to leave it to the callous hands of the insurance industry.

The Declaration of Independence argues for single-payer national healthcare, provided by the government through our taxes.

[AllieB]

31. What would resonate w/Conservatives is that small business is crumbling under the weight of health

benefits. I have heard businesspeople who run small and medium-sized outfits call into Thom Hartmann and Ed Schultz saying that the costs of health insurance are preventing them from expanding and creating more jobs. If single-payer was spun from that angle, more conservatives would get behind it. Single-payer would incent entrepreneurship because a business owner wouldn't have to worry about the exorbitant costs of healthcare for his/her employees, because it would come from taxes rather than out of pocket. Yes, we're paying for it one way or another, but right now healthcare costs are impacting job creation and costing families thousands per year.

[mikeiddy]

33. I used this one the other day to good effect on a particularly conservative coworker

There are certain basic "services" that are deemed important enough that the cost is spread through taxes, and the citizens expect the government to provide the services. Examples of these basic services are national defense, fire and police protection, and transportation infrastructure. Attempts to privatize these services has proved unworkable. Why is providing health care services deemed no more important than the sale of TV's and relegated to the private marketplace. Why is health care not an "essential service" similar to those listed above, that almost no one would seriously argue would be better handled by private enterprise.

My coworker agreed fairly readily that health care was an essential service, and actually wound up suggesting retaining the existing private insurance model, with a competing public option, which I pointed out to him was the basic framework supported by the President.

While I prefer a single payer or nationalized model for health care, i was surprised how effective this argument was on a dyed in the wool conservative.

[Ms. Toad]

64. Problem is, adding a competing public option

gets us nowhere.

I don't give a rat's a** who manages the insurance if I cannot (or more to the point, my daughter cannot) afford the premiums.

The reality is, if you are wealthy you can buy insurance.
If you are healthy, even the less wealthy can afford insurance.
If you are employed and your employer offers insurance you may be able to afford insurance.
If you are a young adult who is able to maintain status as a full time student (whose parents have insurance), you may be covered by their insurance.

BUT - if you are unlucky enough to actually need health care, and don't fall into one of the other three categories, the competing public option (which has been described as competing on a level playing field - i.e. it also gets to pick and choose who it covers, and at what cost) and the decrease in the increase in costs don't do anything for you.

My daughter may not be able to carry a full time load next semester. When she stops being a full time student because her health will not permit it, she loses her insurance - and will need to purchase it at around $12,000 per year. A competing public option will not help her.

If my daughter is unable to be a student, with a high school diploma and limited ability to work chances are pretty high that whatever job she finds will not provide health insurance. A competing public option will not help her.

My daughter is not wealthy - her net worth is approximately $6000. Half a year of insurance. A competing public option will not help her.

The framework supported by Obama leaves the same people who are already unable to obtain health cares still unable to obtain health care. I'm not surprised your co-worker supports it.

For reform to have any significant impact, access to health care must be severed from health, wealth, employment, or the ability to maintain status as a full time student.

[mikeiddy]

69. I am in full agreement with you

My comment about "coming up with the same plan as the President" was just a bit of knife twisting for the benefit of my conservative coworker.

I have two children facing the insurance problems you describe. One is 24 and will not be eligible to continue to be covered by my health insurance next year, even though he is a full time student. The other has left college, and is having trouble finding employment, let alone a job with health benefits. Since she is not a student, she is not eligible to be covered by my plan either.

I do not agree with the President's position on health care, and have written to tell him so, and asked that he support single payer.

[Ms. Toad]

92. If your children are healthy, find them health insurance

and don't let them drop it (even if you have to pay the premiums).

For young healthy folks regular full coverage insurance is still relatively cheap on the open market - and if they maintain coverage with no break longer than 63 days they can never be denied health insurance. (Do find a broker who can pre-screen so they don't end up with rejections of their applications for things they don't expect to have a problem).

The other option for your kids (if they don't have health issues that require costly regular treatment) is short term insurance. It is very cheap (around $500 a year for young adults with a $2500 deductible & 20% co-pay for the next $5000), and covers catastrophic illnesses (as long as they are not pre-existing). Here's a link - there are plenty others http://www.short-termhealthinsurance.com/

It's not an option for my daughter, with her pre-existing conditions that cost between $5000 and $10,000 a year if absolutely nothing beyond routine (for her) care is needed - but for most kids her age it is stop-loss insurance that can prevent an economic catastrophe in young adult-hood when insurance may not be available through employment.

[mikeiddy]

96. Excellent advice - Thank you.(nt)

[Ms. Toad]

98. Welcome -

Unfortunately - been there, done that, since the state doesn't recognize my marriage (so my spouse's insurance wasn't available to me) and I was the stay at home mom. You do what you have to do.

[ddeclue]

36. NOPE - It's right there in the Declaration of Independence.

"the right to life" is right there in our founding document.

And how in the hell could they deny that right if they want to then argue "right to life" on abortion anyways?

Doug D.

[scheming daemons]

42. The Declaration is not our governing document... the Constitution is...

This is a common mistake people make.

[ddeclue]

54. I'm not stupid and it's NOT a mistake.

Of COURSE the Constitution is our controlling document but YOU are actually the one making the mistake not I.

The right to life is fundamental to all other rights.

A dead person has no freedom of speech, religion or any other right.

I'm sure you would agree to that statement.

Just because a right is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution doesn't mean that you do not have or are not entitled to such a right.

The construction of the Constitution is set forth in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments so as to limit to powers of government and reserve unenumerated rights to the People.

Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

TRANSLATION: IF we forgot to write it down here, you still have that right. We're sorry we forgot it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

TRANSLATION: The powers of government are limited and are on loan from the people, not the other way around.

The Declaration is a fundamental declaration of the rights of man and as such transcends even the Constitution as a definition of human rights and clearly defines some of those "unenumerated rights" - equality, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are all mentioned in the Declaration.

The Constitution is merely an attempt (the second attempt) to implement the fundamental rights declared by the Declaration in more concrete terms.

It is important to note that Lincoln did NOT quote the Constitution at Gettysburg but instead quoted the Declaration. I suggest you read the Gary Wills book on Lincoln at Gettysburg if you really want to be enlightened on the subject.

http://www.amazon.com/Lincoln-Gettysburg-Words-Remade-America/dp/0671867423

Doug D.

[scheming daemons]

55. I agree in principle with your point of view.. my point is that using the Declaration to argue it

...is a mistake.

[ddeclue]

56. NO IT IS NOT - IT HAS A STRONG CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS

The 9th and 10th Amendments.

It is a mistake to pretend like your rights are limited specifically to those written explicitly into the Bill of Rights.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[DatManFromNawlins]

80. Your argument is delusional

You are claiming a right that doesn't actually exist and using constitutional amendments that don't mean what you think they do to argue your point.

Everyone has a right to health care just like everyone has a right to own sunglasses. You don't have a right to free or public health care, and you don't have a right to free sunglasses either unless someone is willing to purchase them and give them to you. You might want to make it a right, but the fact of the matter is that it isn't one.

Go ahead, get a prostate exam, and then tell your doctor that you aren't paying because free healthcare is your right. See how fast the collection agents start calling you.

And then you can tell them that you have a right not to be called by collection agents, because collection agents aren't listed in the constitution.

See where that gets you.

[proud2BlibKansan]

41. No. Because it IS a right and they're just going to have to accept that.

I am sick and tired of letting the wingnuts frame our issues. It's time we stand up for what we believe in.

[Cleita]

45. Sorry but health care is a human right and we at the grass roots should be

trying to get an amendment to the American Constitution stating that it is a right, which every other civilized nation in the world has written into their constitutions also. Their governments have to figure out a way to deliver health care to all their citizens or be in violation of their constitution. Then it won't matter what the party of greed thinks. Also, if the economic argument works so well with these people, we should have convinced them decades ago that single payer universal health care is profitable in the long run for every one around.

[CTyankee]

46. That is my point! We've NOT been making the argument that single payer universal

health care is profitable for every one, as you yourself just stated! We've been making the "health care is a human right" argument and it hasn't worked.

I think your idea of a constitutional amendment should be discussed further. Of course, it takes a 2/3 vote in both the House and Senate and 3/4 of the states to ratify. Constitutional amendments almost always succeed when most citizens agree with it. Lowering the voting age to 18 had widespread support, coming as it did on the heels of the Vietnam War, for instance.

It would be an interesting campaign to work on. Tell me more...

[libertypirate]

47. Life is a right, without health the value of an individuals life is diminished /nt

[Thothmes]

91. How do you figure

women have the right to terminate the life she is carrying. The Federal Government and several states claim the legal right to terminate your life upon conviction and sentencing for certain crimes. If "life is a right" neither of these would be allowed.

[zalinda]

59. Why don't you try that argument with

Obama and the other dems that are stabbing us in the back with their version of health "care".

zalinda

[handmade34]

60. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 25.
•(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

if only they could respect the UN and Universal Rights...

[anonymous171]

61. Here's my argument: Health care insurance companies are a threat to American freedom.

They can decide which hospitals you can go to and which treatments you can get and you have to accept it. Y

[PufPuf23]

62. Why? We are a nation of great natural and intellectual and ..

cultural wealth that we all own equally. The control and benefit of the wealth is not enjoyed equally.
Universal health care as a citizen right is a fraction of the military budget.

[Maru Kitteh]

63. NO. Remind them that the constitution DOES guarantee you a RIGHT to a trial lawyer

And ask them which is going to kill their mom quicker, lack of access to a public lawyer or lack of access to medical care with stage III breast cancer.

Emergency rooms don't treat you for chronic disease, you just go home and die, then they bill your estate if there's anything left.

[omega minimo]

71. Fuck em. Where in the Constitution are a lot of things spelled out. That's not the point.

If you want to argue with those people. counter them with that.

Otherwise, in the 21st Century in the USA, with jobs continuing to disappear and pandemics approaching, damn straight it is a right.


Here, let Tony Benn splain it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3HyK5rB9jY

[CTyankee]

88. I am not arguing here whether health care is a right. At the end of the day, we

make a right by establishing that it is a right, unless we believe that it is handed down from God. But there is a difference as to whether that is the case with health care. I certainly believe that it SHOULD be a right.

My thesis here is that it is useless to argue that point with conservatives if we are trying to convince them that universal health care is a good thing and they should support it. My topic was choosing the right tactic to argue the case.

[omega minimo]

89. Yes and if you want to argue with conservatives, point out to them other "rights" not spelled out

in the Constitution and play that stupid game with them.

Just remember, they're always Right and the they're always right, so most likely you will never convince them.

If you refer them to the Tony Benn video in my post, they may get the concept.

If you want to convince them that there are benefits to all in having an educated and healthy population, that might work, as long as it fits their sociopathic overview.

Maybe quit trying to argue with conservatives.

Look at the gay marriage issue. They're barging on through with their "rights" argument and quit trying to build bridges long ago.

[Two Americas]

93. thanks

In other words, it is working.

Who cares if it "works" with the "conservatives" you are referring to. Nothing we are fighting for works with them. They oppose everything we stand for. It works with 80% of the every day people. Go try it if you don't believe me. You may need to get outside of the circles you travel in.

But maybe you don't agree with the statement?

Do you think health care is a fundamental human right, or do you not? what other rights should we not declare, lest we offend conservatives?


...

[CTyankee]

94. Again, I believe it is a fundamental right that we expect of our democracy.

But again, it is not the subject of this thread.

I raise the argument on whether there should be universal health care because otherwise I would have to say "I won't talk to you about health care." That seems to be the advice several posters here have advocated. I chose not to go that route, esp. with people whom the Right has persuaded that "European style socialism" is not in their best interest. Some of these people really aren't hard core Right, they just don't know any better. I'm not going to let the Right dictate the terms of the debate. Sorry.

[Individualist]

97. Screw the conservatives

and their DLC pals. I'm with Dennis. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5652950