Do people 'deserve' universal health care?

[SadisticNature]

I think the idea that health care is not a right is unique to those countries without universal medicare. Ask almost any Canadian including the vast majority of Conservatives up here and they see it as a right. This is the same in Britain and France where public systems are prevalent.

If the majority of Americans do not see public health care as a basic right then public health-care will likely fail. The current senate bill is so weak I think they'd be better off blocking it and trying again.

As for drug costs in Canada its not that the prices are regulated, its that the government can negotiate for the medications in massive quantities. If every American in the state of California was on the same drug plan and the insurance company running said plan went to the pharmaceutical companies to get a bulk rate negotiated on medications, prices would fall dramatically. The American system is made up of so many tiny pieces, none of which could get good deals and as such costs skyrocket.

My question for conservatives in the states is:

How does it make sense to tax the middle class so heavily they can't pay for health care and then leave them without medical care when they get sick in order to pay for things like Corporate Bailouts (Auto, Banking, etc..) and Foreign Wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc..)?

Social Security, Welfare and other such programs are a tiny amount of spending compared to wars and bailouts.

[VaAugusta]

Social Security, Welfare and other such programs are a tiny amount of spending compared to wars and bailouts.

According to Macroeconomics Principles and Applications by Robert E. Hall and Marc Lieberman, transfer payments are are approximately 12% of GDP, and military spending is at around 4% GDP.

This is in contrast to what I have quoted you on. Please refrain from posting about things you have no idea about.

[steelish]

I think the idea that health care is not a right is unique to those countries without universal medicare. Ask almost any Canadian including the vast majority of Conservatives up here and they see it as a right. This is the same in Britain and France where public systems are prevalent.

If the majority of Americans do not see public health care as a basic right then public health-care will likely fail. The current senate bill is so weak I think they'd be better off blocking it and trying again.

As for drug costs in Canada its not that the prices are regulated, its that the government can negotiate for the medications in massive quantities. If every American in the state of California was on the same drug plan and the insurance company running said plan went to the pharmaceutical companies to get a bulk rate negotiated on medications, prices would fall dramatically. The American system is made up of so many tiny pieces, none of which could get good deals and as such costs skyrocket.

My question for conservatives in the states is:

How does it make sense to tax the middle class so heavily they can't pay for health care and then leave them without medical care when they get sick in order to pay for things like Corporate Bailouts (Auto, Banking, etc..) and Foreign Wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc..)?

Social Security, Welfare and other such programs are a tiny amount of spending compared to wars and bailouts.

I'm not disputing how Canadians and any other country with Universal Healthcare view it. In AMERICA, healthcare is NOT A RIGHT. As per our Constitution, rights are bestowed upon us by God, NOT by the government. I personally do not care how successful and/or horrid Universal Healthcare might be for countries that have it. What I feel and what I am saying is that in America, it is not a right and is unconstitutional for the government to be involved with.

Oh, and by the way, I am "middle class" and have no problem with my healthcare (and I pay for it myself, it's not an employee benefit). In America, NO ONE can be denied medical care. All you need to do is go to a county run hospital and they have to treat you, no matter what. I know, I've done it myself when I was homeless...once upon a time.

[SadisticNature]

The constitution doesn't mention health care at all. This doesn't make dealing with health care unconstitutional. Something is unconstitutional if it is done in violation of the constitution. Plenty of legal things in the US are done by government that are not mentioned in the constitution.

Regarding the Economics textbook I refer you to:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_federal_budget

In particular note that by calling wars "Special Appropriations" their cost is not listed in the budget entirely. With special appropriations actually included military spending skyrockets.

Even without the special appropriations the following is a breakdown of expenses related to the military:

1. 481.4 Billion in DoD non appropriated spending
2. 145.2 Billion in War on Terror non appropriated spending
3. 39.4 Billion for Veterans Affairs
4. 34.3 Billion for Homeland Security

Social Security costs:

608 Billion which is more than paid for by Social Security Deductions (927.2 Billion).
386 Billion is spent on Medicare
209 Billion on Medicaid and SCHIP.
324 Billion on all Welfare, EI and other such programs.

The total is approximately 1.5 Trillion (as interest in national debt is not social security and shouldn't be included in this line item).

In comparison the government debt at the end of 2007 is 5.04 trillion en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_States_federal_budget

While the projected government debt at the end of 2008 is 10.8 trillion. As the deficit of declared items was approximately 240 billion dollars or approximately 0.25 trillion (rounded up for convenience), the total special appropriations is:

10.8 -0.25 -5.04 = 5.51 Trillion Dollars. A number which radically dwarfs
social security spending. The vast majority of this are the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

There is a point to be made that the entirety of federal level social programs is not as insignificant as I claimed, but trying to argue that military spending is only 4% of actual spending is rather erroneous.

[VaAugusta]

I would like to not respond as I can see there's no getting through to you, but since you made such a lengthy post, I don't want people to get the impression that all your numbers add up to anything.

Therefore I will post using your own sources now:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending

4.8% on defense.. my bad.

And if I may quote your source:

Figures shown in this article do not reflect the actual appropriations by Congress for Fiscal Year 2008

[DuncanONeil]

The constitution doesn't mention health care at all. This doesn't make dealing with health care unconstitutional. Something is unconstitutional if it is done in violation of the constitution.

You obviously do not understand the Constitution. The very fact that the Constitution does not mention health care is prima facie evidence that the Government involvement in this so called health care issue is unconstitutional!

As for the attempt to prove your point about Government expentitures, your numbers are plainly wrong-headed. I, however, do not have enough time to formulate the facts for you presently.

[DuncanONeil]

I think the idea that health care is not a right is unique to those countries without universal medicare. Ask almost any Canadian including the vast majority of Conservatives up here and they see it as a right. This is the same in Britain and France where public systems are prevalent.

Those in the US are granted an inalienable right to life. That being the case no one in the US can, even pre-Obama, can be denied medical care.

If the majority of Americans do not see public health care as a basic right then public health-care will likely fail. The current senate bill is so weak I think they'd be better off blocking it and trying again.

Public health care should fail. The public health care bills in the US are not about health care. They are an unconstitutional intrusion into the private life. The current Senate bill is not the least about health care it is about control, and control only! It is also something the proponents are lying about, some because they do not know and others to hide things.

As for drug costs in Canada its not that the prices are regulated, its that the government can negotiate for the medications in massive quantities. If every American in the state of California was on the same drug plan and the insurance company running said plan went to the pharmaceutical companies to get a bulk rate negotiated on medications, prices would fall dramatically. The American system is made up of so many tiny pieces, none of which could get good deals and as such costs skyrocket.

There are 1700 insurance providers in the US. Yet they can not all compete against each other. How is adding one company supposed to provide competition, especially when that new company has unfair advantages? Then there is the requirement that all "qualified" providers be in the Exchange. The Government will tell them what they must cover and how much they can charge for their product. This does nothing to control costs.

My question for conservatives in the states is:

How does it make sense to tax the middle class so heavily they can't pay for health care and then leave them without medical care when they get sick in order to pay for things like Corporate Bailouts (Auto, Banking, etc..) and Foreign Wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc..)?

That is why the people actually do want reform, but reform that accomplishes something. There are all kinds of things that can be done to make changes that will lower health costs. yet none of them are being considered.

Social Security, Welfare and other such programs are a tiny amount of spending compared to wars and bailouts.

The Social programs in the budget take up by far the largets part of the budget. Wars and bailouts are not part of the budget process!