"Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let's start over'. If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right. When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough'. When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn't quite right. When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). I have been watching a lot of the health care debate this summer first hand and have witnessed a lack of bi-partisan approach to health care reform.
During August we heard from the media and Democrats that public radio and Republicans were using scare tactics to sway public opinion. When average Americans showed up at the town hall debates, they were marginalized by the media as a fringe group. Now, Sen. Reid is likening the debate on health care reform to slavery. WHAT!!!! Sen. Reid needs a history lesson as it was under a Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, that the country went to war in an effort to end slavery. I do not see how going to war with one's own citizens is a "slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough" approach; rather it says quite the opposite. Where is the deal, how can anyone, let alone the Senate Majority Leader, assert that health care reform debate equates to emancipation, suffrage, or civil rights is pathetic at best.
The words spoke; see above, by Sen. Reid marginalizes emancipation, suffrage, and civil rights. Health care is not a right nor does the current health care system restrict the rights of others. Health care costs are skyrocketing and premiums continue to rise thus making it difficult for all in America to afford health care insurance but health care is not a right. Does it make sense for a society to succeed that a robust health care system is required; yes. Does the current form of health care reform really reform health care; no. Not only that, Sen. Reid and House Speaker Pelosi do not need the support of one Republican in Congress to pass health care reform. So it begs the question: Who is really digging in their heels?
Those digging in their heels are one-issue Democrats. Sen. Nelson (D-Neb.) amendment to deny taxpayer funds to pay for abortion was killed on the Senate floor yesterday to which the Senator warned that he will filibuster the bill if strict abortion language is not put in the final version. On the other side of the issue, many in the House of Representatives vow not to support a bill unless a public option exists. Moderate Democrats are at odds with their more Liberal brethren. Yes, Republicans are not in favor of the type of reform being proposed but their votes are not warranted to pass "reform". But I digress.
The assertion made by Sen. Reid that health care reform ranks in the annuals of history with emancipation, suffrage, and civil rights just proves the lunacy that exists in the leadership of the Democrat party. Even though I am a white male, I feel outraged by the marginalized comments by Sen. Reid as it belittles those that gave their lives to emancipation, suffrage, and civil rights. We all agree that reform is needed in health care but Sen. Reid's statement trumps any fear mongering alleged during the August research. Or am I missing something? Is health care reform on the same level of emancipation, suffrage, and civil rights?
Aside from this nonsense of what politician said what to who-remind me again why healthcare is not a right.
ReplyDeleteI mean, the ability to seek professional help for a sickness.
I mean, we are all given the right to seek professional counsel when we are arrested for something.
We're not entitled to get treated when we are injured or sick?
You mean to tell me in your deep down beliefs, visiting a doctor for care is a previlege only for those who pay dearly for it? Really?
Right now, if I want to see a doctor for this severe pain in my lower-right abdomen, but I've been laid off and have no insurance, I have to go to the emergency room to get treated. Where the bill for the ER and the surgery plus hospital costs put it in the $5000 range, and they gladly send me this bill which I can not pay, so I declare bankruptcy.
I guess I'll take the "rationing" and "long wait times" for hip replacements. At least I won't get another bill that I have to pay.
Anon...While it makes sense in a civil society for all people to have access to health care, it is not a right of society. No one is entitled to health care.
ReplyDeleteAs for as when one is arrested, one has the right, established by the US Constitution, to defend oneself without incriminating oneself. It is the Miranda Warning that provides for legal counsel because of the lawyer tricks that can be played to prosecute the innocent and/or defend the guilty.
But I digress. The central tenet to the my entry is the vile comparison of health care reform to emancipation, suffrage, and civil rights. The kicker is that Republicans did more in Congress to pass or advance all three historical inequities than the Democrats. Health Care is not a right; yet it does need reform but the reform being proposed at Capitol Hill is a farce.
To boot, the Democrats do not need one single Republican vote to pass reform; so I ask why has it not been done yet?
First, Democrates just don't all vote how they are told. You know, they have differing opinions, too. It's not like we get a pamphlet int he mail telling us everything we should believe and say.
ReplyDeleteSecond, Miranda protects against abuses by the police during interrogation, not against lawyer tricks. Lawyers have no desire to prosecute the innoncent. Ask any DA and they will tell you that one of their greatest fears is putting an innocent person in prison.
Finally, the guilty deserve defending to ensure their rights are protected. If a guilty party gets set free, blame the police and DA for not bringing enough evidence or conducting their investigation in a constitutional manner. Or blame the jury that voted that way.
Miranda Warning: You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense. (http://www.usconstitution.net/miranda.html)
ReplyDeleteWe are getting off topic though. As i said, the words by Sen. Reid's marginalized other historical inequities in American society in comparing the 'slow down' approach by the Republican Party on healthcare reform.
I agree with you that all Democrats vote along party lines especially since many of them are up for re-election. But the fact remains that the Democrats do not need one single Republican vote to pass their version of reform. Health care reform is needed but it does not carry the same historical waterpale that emancipation, suffrage or civil rights carried. Not even in the same zip code.
Actually Viper-The Sixth Amendment provides those rights. The Miranda warning must be applied to those arrested to be informed of those rights
ReplyDeleteI am not against you on this, however, I just wanted to ask why you don't believe that healthcare is a right. I think we as responsible voting adults in this society can differentiate between what should be a right and what isn't
I do not see why my poor or good health should have any bearing on anyone elses and vice versa. We are blessed to live in a society that has running water and sanitation while offering places for people who are not feeling well to go to in order to get better. It is not a right though.
ReplyDeleteIf someone chooses to not have health insurance or to have insurance is their choose and a freedom we all enjoy. Just because you are injured,sick, or afflicated in another way - even in a civil society - you do not have a right to health care.
Does it make sense? Is it a moral obligation? What about Darwin?
What do you consider rights and why? Your poor health bears on mine by driving up the price of health care and reducing my access to affordable care. I think you vastly under estimate the lack of sanitation in much of the country, especially the inner city.
ReplyDeleteThis is all I ask. If you don't want health insurance and it's being offered. Fine. Just don't expect health care if you show up at the hospital. Isn't that fair? Then those who want it, can have it, those that don't, bear the risk. I currently pay for those that don't have health insurance when they go to the ER. By providing some coverage, at least we can identify the true cost and offer preventive care.
What about Darwin? You think this is natural selection? Those who can't afford health care deserve to get sick while those who are fortunate have the right to survive? Please explain how Darwin has bearing. Maybe I'm missing something.
I believe that in a civil society that everyone has the right to pursue life, liberty, and property without inflicted undue harm on another. To assist in assuring of that right, the society must give up certain aspects to allow for a judicial, military, police and fire segments to protect our property and ability to pursue liberty.
ReplyDeleteA misconception to the health care debate is that by me not having insurance affects your coverage and/or premiums. If I choose not to have coverage, it is upon me to find means to pay for any services I receive from a hospital or clinic. Not having insurance does not negate one from obtaining medical assistance or advice.
As I stated in a previous blog entry, of which I verified with the Mayo Clinic's comptroller, they lost in excess of $800M last year for opening their doors to Medicare patients. As it sits now, clinics and hospitals can choose which insurance programs they will take. Right now the Gov't, based on a statement made on the Senate Floor yesterday, reimburses - on average - less than the procedure costs by at least 25%.
Now Sen. Reid has come up with a compromise for the liberal and moderate Dem's to open up Medicare to 55 and older. What do you think will happen to your premiums? As for Darwin, I just threw that in to see what kind of reaction I'd get. I have a number of Darwin followers that read the blog and sort of expected one or two of them to retort and/or expand.
But it does affect my premiums when people who can't afford medical care get it at the ER and don't pay the bill. How do you think the hospital covers that loss? They pass it on. They can't deny coverage so I do end up paying for those that don't have insurance.
ReplyDeleteYou still didn't specify which rights? I could easily argue that medical care is an aspect of the right to pursue life, or the liberty to live free of preventable disease.
Illness, sickness, disease, and death are part of the natural life cycle; a life cycle that all organisms share. Specific rights I see available to Americans are those established by our Founding Fathers. The Bill of Rights are the rights required for a civil society.
ReplyDeleteThe trouble with a number of our social ills is due to people not applying the Bill of Rights in a liberal fashion and allowing our Government to grow into the beast it is now. A prime example is the entire marriage debate. Everyone ought to be able to "marry" who they want and to ensure that we need to remove Government from the equation. I understand that many will argue the legal and medical aspect.
The reason we must address the legal and medical aspect is because we, as a society, have allowed our Government to place controls and establish a tax code around it. The issue of marriage is a religious one and needs to revert back to it.
As for premiums. Depending on reports the burden of medical care for the unisured ranges from 1% to 3% of all medical expenses in the United States. That being said, it is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of dollars spent on government programs, i.e. Medicare, to provide health care. Again I revert back to the Mayo clinic who reported over $800M in loss from Medicare patient coverage. While you are right to say the unisured or unpaid health care bill will be passed along the pipeline, the percentage is insignificant (sp?) to the government run programs reimbursement rate affect.
Plus, there is nothing that says a hospital or clinic cannot deny coverage. Turfing takes place a lot. Will the hospital or clinic get a black eye if caught turfing; yes but it will be temporary. I am not aware of any law that mandates a hospital or clinic see patients without insurance or means of paying for it. In fact, both facilities get to decide which insurances they will and will not take. Not every facility takes medicare by the way. I don't blame them either. Please point do not point the Hypocritical Oath either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act Here you go.
ReplyDeleteWhile wikipedia is a great jumping off site, I do not take what that site states as gospel since anyone can make changes to any of the webpages. Is there another site you'd like to introduce to the debate?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cms.hhs.gov/emtala/
ReplyDeletehttp://www.emtala.com/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1305897/
http://www.medlaw.com/healthlaw/EMTALA/statute/emergency-medical-treatme.shtml
Are these to your liking?
Please don't take my last comment the wrong way. It is just that you, me, or anyone else can edit postings on wikipedia. While the majority of the information is factual, there is still the chance of misinformation. Thank you though for the other sites. Will be taking a look at them.
ReplyDeleteThis is exactly the time of data sharing and debate I want to achieve on this blog site. Thanks.