Is healthcare a right? why or why not?

[M14 Shooter]

Why is it welfare to give health insurance to children but not to Congress people?

Congressmen have health care while they are Congressmen like most employees have health care while they are emplyed. When they retire, they have health care from their employer like many other employees do. Their retiree health care is not "welfare" any more than any other retiree realth care is as it is given to them while they are working and while they are retires as a function of their employment. Its no differen than the mailman geting health care after he retires.

The difference between that and welfare for kids should be obvious.

 

[jillian]

Congressmen have health care while they are Congressmen like most employees have health care while they are emplyed. When they retire, they have health care from their employer like many other employees do. Their retiree health care is not "welfare" any more than any other retiree realth care is as it is given to them while they are working and while they are retires as a function of their employment. Its no differen than the mailman geting health care after he retires.

The difference between that and welfare for kids should be obvious.

What company do you suppose you could work for for only two years and get lifetime health coverage? None that I know of. Retirement presumes a certain number of years of service.

I think kids should have health insurance. I think that's obvious. I don't think any mother should have to leave her child untreated because there's no money. I am lucky enough to have health insurance with my job, including optical and dental (though out-of-network coverage sucks). However, when I worked for myself, I paid $2,100 a month for my family coverage. That is obscene. How many families do you know of who can afford to spend over $25,000 a year on health coverage? It was actually one of my considerations when I gave up my practice and decided to go to work for someone else.

There's something wrong with that, particularly now that more and more employers are either not offering health coverage or are taking contributions too large to be affordable.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What company do you suppose you could work for for only two years and get lifetime health coverage? None that I know of. Retirement presumes a certain number of years of service.

So does congressionbal retirement.

Members of Congress receive retirement and health benefits under the same plans available to other federal employees. They become vested after five years of full participation.

Members elected since 1984 are covered by the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS). Those elected prior to 1984 were covered by the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). In 1984 all members were given the option of remaining with CSRS or switching to FERS.

As it is for all other federal employees, congressional retirement is funded through taxes and the participants' contributions. Members of Congress under FERS contribute 1.3 percent of their salary into the FERS retirement plan and pay 6.2 percent of their salary in Social Security taxes.

Members of Congress are not eligible for a pension until they reach the age of 50, but only if they've completed 20 years of service. Members are eligible at any age after completing 25 years of service or after they reach the age of 62. Please also note that Member's of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to even receive a pension.

The amount of a Congressperson's pension depends on the years of service and the average of the highest 3 years of his or her salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member's retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa031200a.htm

Your mailman gets retirement benefits -- why shouldn't your congressman?

I think kids should have health insurance. I think that's obvious.

That's great.
But how does that translate into them having the right to expect somone else to pay for it?

 

[jillian]

So does congressionbal retirement.


http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa031200a.htm

Your mailman gets retirement benefits -- why shouldn't your congressman?


That's great.
But how does that translate into them having the right to expect somone else to pay for it?

Ah...ok. 5 years, not 2. That's less than one senate term. Gee... how many years do you have to work at your job to get continued health coverage?

It's about priorities. The 120 billion a year getting pissed away in Iraq troubles me. Earmarks for congressional pet projects troubles me. A comprehensive health care plan wouldn't. Also, you cut off, I notice, the last of my statement. That's the crux of the issue it seems to me.... the fact that health coverage is virtually unaffordable if you don't have a sweet government plan.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ah...ok. 5 years, not 2. That's less than one senate term. Gee... how many years do you have to work at your job to get continued health coverage?

So, your gripe is how long it is before they get vested, not that they get health care when they're wroking and after they retire. Right?

It's about priorities.

No... its about people having the right to expect others to provide them the means to exercise their rights.
Do I have the right to expect you to provide me the means to buy a gun?

That's the crux of the issue it seems to me.... the fact that health coverage is virtually unaffordable if you don't have a sweet government plan.

Mine costs $175/mo, for amazingly great insurance. Full optical, dental, $10 co-pays, etc. It's not from a government job.

The cruix of the biscuit: That it sucks to be you doesnt in any way mean that you have a right to expect me to provide the means to make it not suck to be you.

 

[jillian]

So, your gripe is how long it is before they get vested, not that they get health care when they're wroking and after they retire. Right?

Nope...my issue is that congress gives things to itself that it doesn't give to people who voted for them.

No... its about people having the right to expect others to provide them the means to exercise their rights.
Do I have the right to expect you to provide me the means to buy a gun?

You know, I've seen you make that absurd argument on other threads. Your ownership of a gun doesn't benefit society. Healthcare does. Plus, in case you haven't noticed, we aren't discussing a "constitutional right". We are discussing the right way to run our society. Most other countries take better care of their people.

Mine costs $175/mo, for amazingly great insurance. Full optical, dental, $10 co-pays, etc. It's not from a government job.

Cool... what comapny and how many people are covered? And in what state do you live? All of those things are relevant. Mine was for 3 people in NYC. I'm not sure what "amazingly great" insurance is or whether you are part of an HMO. I'm not saying those things to be snotty, but all of it is factored into cost.

The cruix of the biscuit: That it sucks to be you doesnt in any way mean that you have a right to expect me to provide the means to make it not suck for you.

Actually, I will always have health coverage either through my work or my husband's (he's a federal employee, btw). And it in no way sucks being me. It's actually a pretty good. The difference is I actually think about other people. And THAT is the crux of it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nope...my issue is that congress gives things to itself that it doesn't give to people who voted for them.

They have the same retirement benefits that all other federal employees have.
Does your 'issue' apply to your husband and his retirement benefits?

You know, I've seen you make that absurd argument on other threads. Your ownership of a gun doesn't benefit society.

Its a right that I have. You are arguing that people have the right to expect others to provide the means to exercise their rights when they cannot.
Apparently, your argument only applies to rights that you like, not all rights.

Plus, in case you haven't noticed, we aren't discussing a "constitutional right". We are discussing the right way to run our society. Most other countries take better care of their people.

The title of the topic says otherwise.
Is health care a right? You think so.
Then the question becomes: Do you have a right to espect others to provide the means to exercise your rights? Again you think so --- but, apparently, only when you like the right in question.

Cool... what comapny and how many people are covered? And in what state do you live? All of those things are relevant. Mine was for 3 people in NYC. I'm not sure what "amazingly great" insurance is or whether you are part of an HMO. I'm not saying those things to be snotty, but all of it is factored into cost.

None of this matters, as the point is that your statement that "health coverage is virtually unaffordable if you don't have a sweet government plan" is false.

The difference is I actually think about other people. And THAT is the crux of it.

Oh. So there are two cruxes, changing from one to the another when one is invalidated. Will there be a third?

 

[jillian]

Issues are neither simplistic nor necessarily have a single response.

Do I think health care is a right? No.

Do I think people should have health care? Yes.

Do I think other countries do much better than we do in this regard? Yes.

Canada, New Zealand, Australia, England, Israel, to name a few. Not perfect, but better than we're doing in terms of providing for our citizenry.

Answer your question?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Issues are neither simplistic nor necessarily have a single response.

Do I think health care is a right? No.

Do I think people should have health care? Yes.

Do I think other countries do much better than we do in this regard? Yes.

Canada, New Zealand, Australia, England, Israel, to name a few. Not perfect, but better than we're doing in terms of providing for our citizenry.

Answer your question?

No. It doesnt address any of my questions, and it eliminates any soundness to the argument that I should be forced to provide health care to anyone that cannot afford it -- for if health care isnt a right, then there's no way to argue that someone has a right to expect me to pay for theirs.

 

[jillian]

No. It doesnt address any of my questions, and it eliminates any soundness to the argument that I should be forced to provide health care to anyone that cannot afford it -- for if health care isnt a right, then there's no way to argue that someone has a right to expect me to pay for it.

Tell you what, you get to check the box on your tax return saying "don't use this money for health coverage" if I get to check the box saying "don't use a penny of this for Iraq".

 

[M14 Shooter]

Tell you what, you get to check the box on your tax return saying "don't use this money for health coverage" if I get to check the box saying "don't use a penny of this for Iraq".

And there's absolutely no sense in asking you to explain how these things are even remotely similar.

And you didn't answer if you have an issue with your husband's federal retirement benefits...

 

[jillian]

And there's absolutely no sense in asking you to explain how these things are even remotely similar.

And you didn't answer if you have an issue with your husband's federal retirement benefits...

They are similar because your objection is to your money being spent on things that are not a right. I figure fair's fair.

I thought it was a rhetorical question.

 

[M14 Shooter]

They are similar because your objection is to your money being spent on things that are not a right. I figure fair's fair.

As I said -- there's no sense in trying to explain it to you.

I thought it was a rhetorical question.

Given your positon -- that you have an "issue" with congress giving itself a retirement plan that it doesn't give to people who voted for them, while your husband has the same retiremen plan(s) available to him, its a perfectly sound question.

Do you have an issue with his plan? If not, why not?

 

[jillian]

As I said -- there's no sense in trying to explain it to you.

Actually, I don't need you to explain it to me.

Given your positon -- that you have an "issue" with congress giving itself a retirement plan that it doesn't give to people who voted for them, while your husband has the same retiremen plan(s) available to him, its a perfectly sound question.

Do you have an issue with his plan? If not, why not?

You know I don't have a problem with it. Hence my thinking other people should have access to health coverage, too. Actually, though, I really shouldn't blame Congress, Bush was the one who used his little veto pen.

If you actually want to discuss this issue, I think there are arguments for and against universal health coverage and I think there's something in between that might be positive for us.

If you only want to discuss whether it's a Constitutional Right and whether your guns should be paid for by the government, then really there's not a lot to discuss.

Is health care a constitutional right? No.

Should I have to pay for your guns? No.

And I think it's you who is avoiding the questions that come from this... can we do better for the people that live here. I posted examples of country which do provide for their citizens. Your response was that I moved the goal posts. I simply expanded the conversation since the one-word answer that you seem to want is only part of the issue.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually, I don't need you to explain it to me.

The fact that you think you're comparing apples to apples, and won't accept that your comparing apples to oranges means you do -- and that any attempt to do so would be futile.

You know I don't have a problem with it.

He has the same plans available to him that your congressmen do.
Why do you have an issue with their plan, but not your husband's?

 

[jillian]

Dude, you're not listening... so I'm out.

Cheers.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Dude, you're not listening... so I'm out.

Cheers.

On the contrary -- I'm addressing your "issue" and you're refusing to answer questions about it.

 

[Bern80]

Canada, New Zealand, Australia, England, Israel, to name a few. Not perfect, but better than we're doing in terms of providing for our citizenry.

Answer your question?

This is not accurate in the least. There is a certain factor of time thatis invovled with providign people with care. Those countries do a good job of providing affordable healthcare to people. Is it timely care? In many instances, no. Affordability and quality are two different things. In terms of quality of care there are few if any countries that are superior to the U.S.

 

[jillian]

This is not accurate in the least. There is a certain factor of time thatis invovled with providign people with care. Those countries do a good job of providing affordable healthcare to people. Is it timely care? In many instances, no. Affordability and quality are two different things. In terms of quality of care there are few if any countries that are superior to the U.S.

That used to be the case. I'm not sure it's quite accurate any more. As I said, people would and should still have the right to private health care if they choose and can afford to. I don't see it as an all or nothing proposition. I pay extra for health coverage that allows me to go out of network to people I think are best for my particular purposes. It was also important to me not to have to get a "referral" from a primary care physician in order to go to specialists. Others choose to make the minimum contribution and use mandated providers or HMO's.

Do you think to someone who can't afford health care at all, the fact that in some areas it may not be of the same quality is going to be their primary concern? There are people in this country using the ER of their local hospital as their primary care. That costs everybody money. They do this because they can't afford preventive care or intervention before problems become acute.

 

[Annie]

That used to be the case. I'm not sure it's quite accurate any more. As I said, people would and should still have the right to private health care if they choose and can afford to. I don't see it as an all or nothing proposition. I pay extra for health coverage that allows me to go out of network to people I think are best for my particular purposes. It was also important to me not to have to get a "referral" from a primary care physician in order to go to specialists. Others choose to make the minimum contribution and use mandated providers or HMO's.

Do you think to someone who can't afford health care at all, the fact that in some areas it may not be of the same quality is going to be their primary concern? There are people in this country using the ER of their local hospital as their primary care. That costs everybody money. They do this because they can't afford preventive care or intervention before problems become acute.

Hell, I know that my nephew needed surgery IMMEDIATELY, the 3 day delay was alot, that was only to give surgeons the changes in real time of what was happening.

If he was in any of those countries, from what I've read from the people of those countries, the surgery would not have proceeded on that time schedual. He'd be dead.