Topic: Health Care
How to Get Universal Health Care Americans deserve to get the constitutional right to affordable universal health care.by Joel S. Hirschhorn
(centrist liberal libertarian)
Friday, May 2, 2008
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama say they believe in giving Americans universal health care. I don't believe them. Anyone who takes the time to understand universal health care should conclude that only a simple single payer system will reform the current outrageous system that benefits the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.
The contorted plans from Clinton and Obama are not sufficient reforms. And what John McCain has proposed is sheer nonsense and by itself should cause any conscious American to avoid voting for him.
Fights for health care system reform are centered in Congress, as if legislators will do what they have never done before: achieve true, major and systemic reforms that only serve the public interest, not lobbyists and campaign contributors from business sectors.
Both Clinton and Obama believe that Americans have a moral right to universal health care. If this is correct and if this is what you believe, then achieving universal health care that covers absolutely everyone by making health care affordable to absolutely everyone, as it is in many other nations, requires a different kind of government action. What exactly?
We must expand the Bill of Rights as embodied in the US Constitution to include the right to affordable universal health care. The time has come for the public to conclude that the right to universal health care is as important and necessary as the right to free speech and all the other beloved constitutional rights. Common sense says that health care is a right, not a privilege.
After all, what good are our current constitutional rights if you are ill or dying prematurely because of a lack of good health insurance? Certainly the pursuit of happiness cannot be successful when individuals are suffering from poor health because of inadequate health care.
Why would sensible, caring Americans be against a constitutional right to universal health care? Are there people who would stand up and publicly condemn the right of all Americans to have first rate health care? The only ones I can imagine doing this are those now benefitting financially from the current unjust system, those blocking necessary congressional actions.
What Obama and Clinton should explicitly and loudly advocate is a constitutional amendment that makes universal health care a nonnegotiable right of all Americans.
Why has no member of Congress submitted legislation to get Congress to propose such an amendment for ratification by the states? Clearly, the only rational answer are the many business interests that have corrupted Congress and that benefit from the current system. The Constitution provides an alternative.
Article V provides an option never used in the entire history of the US, because Congress has refused to obey the Constitution and respect state requests. The Article V convention option was put in the Constitution because the Founders and Framers believed that one day Americans would lose trust and confidence in the federal government. With 81 percent of Americans believing the nation is on the wrong track and with so many millions of Americans lacking good health insurance and care, that day has surely arrived. And with abysmally low levels of confidence in Congress and the president, an Article V convention – a temporary fourth branch of the federal government – is clearly the right path to obtaining a universal health care amendment. A convention of state delegates could debate such an amendment and if they agreed to propose it, then the standard ratification by three-quarters of the states would still be necessary.
Yes, this would probably take a few years. But it would be worth it. The prospect of Congress, even with Clinton or Obama as president, achieving universal health care without business-friendly loopholes faster than the amendment approach is not good. The process of pursuing such an amendment, moreover, would help keep pressure on Congress to do the right thing.
If this sounds reasonable and necessary, then learn the truth about the Article V option at www.foavc.org and start talking up a universal health care amendment that Hillary and Obama should support.
[Contact Joel S. Hirschhorn through www.delusionaldemocracy.com; he is a co-founder of Friends of the Article V Convention.]
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 4 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Joel S. Hirschhorn only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Joel S. Hirschhorn is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I'm not in total agreement with this statement from your article "Common sense says that health care is a right, not a privilege."
However, people suffering from treatable illness and injury who aren't able to afford or get that treatment is a tragedy. No doubt about that. When I am made aware of a child dying from dysentery from a lack of a simple and inexpensive antibiotic it troubles me. If treatment is available then treatment should be accessible. Healthy people make for a healthy economy and society in general.
I pay for my own insurance and it is a major expense. I would welcome a system that could offset my costs for "basic" health care and accident insurance.
I believe what is sorely lacking in this country is a "Bill of Responsibilities". It should be written in tandem to the Bill of Rights and providing you adhere to both of these bills you should be afforded the benefits they would assure.
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-05-02 09:36:45
The problem with exspensive health care in this country stems from over governmental regulation, mandating that 3rd, 4th and 5th party establishments get their peice of the pie at the patients economic exspense. Only true free markets will allow American to afford their health care, while also encouraging them to live healthy life styles. For example, if being overweight is causing my knees to give out and caused my diabetes, paying for prevention iby leading a healthy lifestyle is much more effective and responsible than having others fix your self induced problems.
Find dysentary in this country and I am willing to bet the CDC will be beating your door down with "help". Should the taxpayer that is barely keeping his/her head above water really have to pay for someone who got lung cancer for voluntarily smoking 3 paks of cigarettes a day for 30 years? If your knees give out because you cant push away from the table and you weigh 400 lbs, should I have to pay for the fixing of your self inflicted health problem? So then do we argue that we wont pay for any self inflicted illnesses or injuries, then what beurocracy should decide which are self inflicted and which arent?
I am totally opposed to mandating health care, this is governmental control of production and distribution of services. What you advocate is just what the Dems want, yet another move toward further socialism. Stop advocating that the benevolent government take care of the people and start advocating personal responsibility and free markets.
When you get something from the government it is always equated to taking something away from someone else and usually without their consent.
The altruism of free health care seems very apealing to most, me included it cost my family over $400 a month for ok insurance, but the REALITY is who will pay for it? You cannot say we can afford it as we are the richest country in the world, as that is very far from the truth, we already face almost 60 TRILLION dollars of debt when you include entitlements. Where will the money come from? It will come from the middle class taxpayer as usual, and we will pay 48% tax rates like other socialist countries in Europe.
Let FREE markets rule the economy and free men rule themselves.
Yes, and it is also my right to have Universal Homeownership even if I can't afford a house, Universal Car ownership even if I can not afford it, Universal Food Distribution because I don't want to work to eat, Universal water provided because I can't afford the bill, Universal Electricity, Universal Natural gas/heating oil, Universal Air conditioning, Universal HD Television, Universal video games, Universal clothing, universal........
My, my, my...I am finally in agreement with something Kempson said...on that Kempson, I can give you a hearty bravo!
There is a vast difference between Natural Rights which, by tradition, are far more ancient than our own Constitution, and are enumerated as a reiteration in that document instead of a grant by government. This government doesn't grant our Rights, for that reason they are considered inalienable. To "create" a Right, granted not by the Laws of Natural Rights, is not, nor could it be considered inalienable since it would be contingent upon a great number of corresponding issues, such as the economy and other ancillary regulations involving say health care.
If such an Amendment were added to the Constitution, how would that make it anymore functional then it is now with the massive load of government regulations and programs that add massive expenses to medical care?
Okay, sure...but..as long as I have to pay taxes ..I would rather my taxes go to health care than many other things they are going to now, including the war in Iraq, bailing out large investment firms like Bear Stearns, farm subsidies, National Endowment For the Arts, ....or how about this?.....we tax the FOUNDATIONS and churches and use that revenue to pay for national health care.
Jim, your taxes, that you slave half a year to pay, doesn't go to a single operation within this government, the vast majority of those taxes are consumed each and every year by the periodic interest payment on the debt. All operational funds are borrowed. The borrowed trillions for this latest little venture in Iraq will likely create the biggest government credit crunch in history and thus a collapse. "Universal Health Care" is one of the emptiest promises made by the two democratic candidates. Think VA Hospital, now that is a glimpse into "Universal Health Care" for you.
When will American society awaken to the fact that there is no "free lunch" where medical care is concerned?
My German relatives laugh at us for wanting to explore socialized medicine. Their best doctors long ago opted out of the government-run system and are in private practice. Just as in the USA, Germans must pay for good healthcare out of their pockets. The inferior government-run system is accessible by all, but does not provide adequate care for people with complex health issues.
My Canadian relatives also think that we Americans are nuts. They must come across the border and pay for cancer care in the USA, because cutting-edge therapies and highly competent physicians are not easily accessed in their country.
If Americans want to adopt a system of triage-based socialized medicine, as in Europe and Canada, those with money will still receive the best care--outside the system. Those without the means to pay will continue to receive the same substandard care as now.
This may not want to be what you'd like to hear. However, it is the truth, without respect to whether you like it. Medical problems, including therapeutic access, are not resolved with poorly reasoned rhetoric. This only adds to the problem by making an emotional appeal that brings nothing useful to the debate.
I have spent nearly 20 years helping cancer patients around the world to receive an acceptable level of care. Where is this universally available? Only in the USA, where a majority are wise enough to accept the fact that one gets what one is willing to pay for.
The basic problem with health care in America is that its too expensive. The reason its too expensive is that it is not a competitive free market. Nearly half of every health care dollar spent in America is spent by government so on that basis you could say it is already halfway socialist. But even the part which is not government run is not a free market. Its controlled by the insurance and pharmaceutical companies, so I suppose you could call that part fascist.
For a free market to work, the person receiving the goods and services has to be the one who pays for them. That causes them to be good shoppers and that puts competitive pressure on the providers so they have to keep their prices down. But that doesn't usually happen in our health care system. Usually the bill is sent to the insurance company or medicare/medicaid and the patient doesn't even know what the cost is, at least not until much later when the copay bill shows up. Imagine how that would work if you were buying a car that way. The dealer would not tell you what the car cost. You would get the car and the dealer would sent the bill to your "car purchase insurance" company. You would end up buying a volkswagon for the price of a Rolls Royce and you would end up paying for it through your "car purchase insurance" premiums, which would be sky high. But That's the kind of psychotic system we have for most of our health care.
One area of health care that still operates as a free market is vision correction surgery. Neither the government run health care systems nor private insurance cover that procedure so if you want it you have to pay out of pocket. Most people will shop for the best deals. The result is that costs have dropped from about $3000 per eye 20 years ago to less than $1000 per eye today. That's a huge drop and it happened when other health care costs were going up like a rocket.
Free market capitalism works. Its the best system for delivering quality goods and services at the lowest prices. Look what it has done for PCs. Every time I buy a new PC it is better, faster, has more memory and a bigger hard drive and more features than the last one and it costs less!
Yup, and food should be a constitutional right, too. By the same logic, what good are your constitutional rights if you're starving?
Oh, and money, too, of course. What good are your constitutional rights if you don't have any money? We need a constitutional amendment giving all Americans a guaranteed income.
The second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, but does not obligate anyone to purchase the arms for you.
You are proposing an amendment that guarantees heath care as a right , and also obligates other citizens to pay for it.
The Bill of Rights protects your "inalienable" rights from intrusion from the government, it does not obligate the government(or other citizens) to provide the service or right for you
"The second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, but does not obligate anyone to purchase the arms for you."
Well of course you're right but then again I kind of like the idea of government giving me free guns. :-) Let me put in my order now. I'd like a Ruger LCP, a Kimber .45ACP and a Glock .45 ACP with a laser sight. HMMM, maybe I'll use my stimulus check to buy one. That's about the same as having government give me one.
The best use of a "stimulus" check I've heard. Especially in this conversation-use it for your coup de grace to avoid the dank hell of government health care.
Interesting that you think Health Care is a right and not a priviledge. Could we cure cancer 50 years ago? No. Could we "cure" an amputee to the point were he runs only 1 second slower than an able-bodied olympiad 20 years ago? No. Could we enable a quadrapalegic to lift a cup 10 years ago? No. All of these developments came at the privilege of the times we live in and the hard work of people. A right is something that you can achieve absent other people. A priviledge is something that requires the input from others. Here is where you demonstrate a lack of understanding of basic concepts.
The rights defined in the constitution are all things you can have living on a deserted island. Our founding fathers never believed that anyone had a right to the labor of others, that's a part of what they were fighting for. Common Sense was in part a critique on nobility's claim to the labor of its people. Read Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine. Read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.
http://www.friesian.com/rights.htm is a highly suggested reading for everyone here.
Yes, it is a complete tragedy that in these days people can't afford even basic medicine. The short time that I was without insurance it cost me $5,000 just to get a catscan to insure I didn't reopen my hernia. My mistake was we went without an apointment to the ER. I agree, it's pathetic. But individuals are forced to compete with what government and corperations can afford to spend, not what other individuals are able to spend.
As a person above pointed out, the trend in medical care that isn't covered by insurance is continually better service, falling prices, and improving quality. Quite the inverse in the insurable area, isn't it? The real lesson should be that we need less insurance, not more, that way prices fall to what individuals can afford, not just what corperations and government can afford.
Posted By: Michael P. Weinheimer
Date: 2008-06-08 13:32:16
The problem with health care as a right that none of the pro-Universal Health Care people are talking about is that the health care isn't always good. Do we have the right to a misdiagnosis? Do we have the right to be prescribe medicines that may cause adverse and or fatal reactions?
I am also against it because throwing money at a problem leads to corruption. The debt would not be nearly as large if we made Congress more accountable for the monies they allocate.
Dr. Benjamin Rush strongly urged the delgates to include medical rights and medical freedom in the Bill of Rights. His fellow delegates felt no such urgency, most likely because they never dreamed that government would insinuate themselves into such a private and personal matter as health care. Alas...
It was government meddling that caused this so-called "health care crisis." Adding more government and expecting them to fix what they screwed up exemplifies Einstein's definition of insanity -- “... doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Thanks but no thanks. You can leave me out of your socialist health care schemes. Implementing this madness is far too costly in dollars and quality of care, and privacy and personal liberties will once again take a back seat to "the greater good."
The meek have already inherited the Earth, thanks to the Democrats' socialist platforms.
There should be no Universal Health Care on the Federal level in the United States at all. It is not the responsibility of the Federal Government to provide health care. If an individual state wants to vote for it and pay for it out of their own taxes, then go for it. I don't understand why people go to the Federal level for everything...have they forgotten the role of the individual states? Education, health care, etc. are all STATE ISSUES!!!
Health care is not a right. While I don't want to stand and watch someone die because they couldn't afford something that shouldn't be expensive, universal health care is not the answer. Read my article "classroom discussions on health care". It'll be up soon.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
