Maintaining human health should be a strictly not-for-profit endeavor

[TransitJohn]

and we need this to be the frame we are operating in for this fight. I cannot believe I have moralistic arguments with self-professed Christians over this, and I have to tell them that health care should be a basic human right. Also, how do we get Republicans to quit referring to "health insurance" reform? WE DON'T WANT HEALTH INSURANCE WE WANT HEALTH CARE. Time to call insurance what it is over and over and over: extortion and racketeering.

[BrklynLiberal]

1. amen.

[postulater]

2. Insure thy neighbor as thyself!

[nilram]

18. If thine insurance executive offendeth thee, pluck it out!

[kestrel91316]

3. I have maintained for decades that it is fundamentally evil for anyone other

than a health care provider (doctor, nurse, pharmacist, aide, hospital janitor, etc) to profit from health care. Insurance companies are useless middlemen who only seek to profit from DENYING care.

I want to see all hospitals NONPROFIT, and owned by the people who actually physically work in them.

[izquierdista]

5. Hospitals should be owned by the town

I grew up in a small town where there was only one hospital and I'm of the opinion that hospitals should be like schools -- publicly owned for the benefit of all the citizens of the community.

[kestrel91316]

7. Yeah, that would be fine. Just like schools. A public asset.

[lib_wit_it]

4. Yes, but it's *American* extortion and racketeering! Why do you hate America?

[moondust]

6. I think much of the world understands that

and is quite appalled by the questionable morality they see in the U.S.

[slay]

8. I totally agree

Healthcare should be a right, not a privilege for those wealthy or lucky enough to afford it.

[bvar22]

9. If you want to get the Republicans ....

...to stop calling it "Health Insurance Reform", you might get the Democrats to stop using that phrase too.

In a subtle shift in position, Obama has recently dropped the phrase "Health Care Reform", and has adopted the phrase "Health Insurance Reform".

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25312.html

[Senator]

10. Tell Them It Is Exactly Like Military Defense

Fascists -- particularly theofascists -- don't do "rights."

But health care is exactly like military defense, in that we all need it exactly the same -- which is to say we need as much as required at the time it is required.

It is not compatible with "market forces" -- buying, selling, or "insuring" -- because it is not a commodity.

A civilized society should not, and does not, force each citizen to be responsible for their own portion of national security and military protective capacity. It is just as senseless and non-capitalistic to do it with health care. They both should be provided/funded the same way.

---

[TransitJohn]

12. That's a great point.

Thanks, I'll be using it going forward.

[Flatulo]

13. This is a good argument, and one with which I agree.

A collective responsibility, a shared burden for the betterment of all.

But a human right? Ehh, not so much (see my post below).

[Flatulo]

11. I am not in favor of framing health care as a human right.

Let me preface by saying that I do believe that quality health care should be provided for all by some mechanism similar to Medicare, and that the government is the best and most cost-effective mechanism for delivering this care.

However, to declare it a human right strikes me as... bizarre. How can one claim as a human right something that requires the service of another? Human rights typically demand only the restraint of others (usually governments), not their service.

I believe that we, as humans have the right to not be dragged out of our homes and beaten and detained without charges. I believe that we have a basic human right to worship as we please, or not at all. These rights (and others) can easily be respected without demanding the service of others. It only requires restraint.

But I cannot conceive of a moral justification that allows me to demand that another human being perform a service for me without compensation. Do we make this demand under threat of force? Treat me or I will shoot you?

What about food? Shelter? A job? Straight teeth? Hair implants? Viagra? These are all demands that simply cannot be met without the implied threat of force if it is framed as a right.

Someone tell me where I am wrong here because I just don't understand this approach. I know this is a very Libertarian position, but I think they are right in this regard.

Health care should be framed as a *responsibility* of a wise government. A responsibility to maintaining a healthy, productive society that can produce goods and services that will let us compete in the global economy.

[GodlyDemocrat]

16. Food and shelter are considered to be human rights by our government

To the extent we have a food stamps program and a HUD housing program.

[Flatulo]

17. I think they're considered benefits, not rights. They assist some of the

needy in obtaining food and housing, but no one is guaranteed food or a home.

If they were, there would be no hunger or homelessness, and there seems to be quite a bit of both.

[Emit]

14. The White House refers to it as health insurance reform, too.

THE BLOG
Blog Feed SUBSCRIBE


SAT, AUGUST 8, 12:01 AM EST
Weekly Address: Necessary Reform, Absurd Attacks
Posted by Jesse Lee

The President calls health insurance reform critical to our nation's long-term economic strength and dispells the outlandish rumors being promoted by those who are defending the status quo.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/#TB_inline?height=220&width=370&inlineId=tb_external&linkId=1



From WhiteHouse.gov:

If you’ve been following the health insurance reform debate, you probably have a number of questions about how health insurance reform will help you and improve the quality of care you receive. With all the talk about health insurance reform, it can be difficult to sort out fact from fiction.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/obamaforamerica/gGMP4k

[pnwmom]

15. Does this go for doctors' and nurses' salaries, too?

That they should just be in the field for altruistic motives?

I wonder . . .