Response #1

In response to Ben's post.

Ben -

I appreciate that your opinion of my thoughts is that they aren't very deep :) but I beg to differ. I don't claim to have all the answers but I do think my thoughts on the topic are fairly mature.

I'm sorry about your personal experiences where you feel like your family has been wronged by the healthcare industry. I'm sure like anyone that's affected your views on the subject so I'll try to be as objective as possible.

To my argument about healthcare not being a provision of government per the Constitution, you argue that it is because life is mentioned as an inalienable right. But that's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Not that referring to the DoI isn't useful to understand the context of the Constitution somewhere, but healthcare isn't mention in the Constitution, even remotely.

Additionally, you take it out of context a bit. The argument that the DoI makes is that the Creator has given people these rights and since the government derives its authority from the people, not the Creator, that these inalienable rights are not things that government can ever restrict. And at least in this instance, that's true - the government has made no law restricting people's access to healthcare. There's zero support anywhere in the founding of our nation that lays the groundwork for government supported healthcare (neither in the Constitution, the DoI, the Federalist Papers, nor anywhere else that I read). You don't address this.

On your first point, you refine your argument a little bit. Initially the discussion was around "healthcare" now it's health services needed to live. Every state that I'm aware of is legally bound to provide health services to people regardless of their ability to pay (EMTALA). Now this is only for life threatening issues, not preventative care, etc. I think the official term used is "stablizing, life-saving treatment." I think this is probably appropriate and it exists today. No new legislation is required.

Both of your last two points really focus on "disaster scenarios." Again, not preventative care or regular checkups or anything like but but major stuff. I don't think your insurer should be allowed to "conjur up" reasons to cancel your coverage. If you read one of the last points from my initial post, I said I think one of the things government can and should do is "provide increased responsiblity on the providers for inappropriately denying coverage." This directly addresses your "broken promises" concern.

On your third point, you again talk about the disaster case. I agree most people - myself included - would be wrecked by a $100k medical bill but it comes down to being responsible and ensuring that insurance can't wiggle out of their responsiblity. If I had purchased the $80/month insurance rather than going to Starbucks every day then that's minimized. Even if I don't purchase insurance, but make providing for my own healthcare my personal responsiblity, I can afford to have regular physicals done and things like that where it's much more likely to detect things earlier when they're easier, cheaper, and more successful to treat.

Toward the end of your response, you note that everything isn't black and white - some things are grey. And I wholeheartedly agree. The problem with a government run program is that it has to be all black and white with reams and reams of legislation to cover every possible scenario. There's no room for grey. They can't make judgement calls about who genuinely needs help and who's gaming the system.

I'd rather have the opportunity to keep more of my own resources and make an individual decision about how to use those resources to help people that are devestated by medical catastrophes. That's what I've done in the past and what I'll continue to do in the future. Further invovling the government in healthcare only makes that more difficult.