We have moral duty to provide medical care to all
We have a moral duty to take care of those in need. All religions and belief systems have such a connectedness and responsibility in their foundation.
Moral people who may not affiliate with religion, organized beliefs or groups that have similar values, should consider the social contract that most developed countries maintain for all its citizens. Many unaffiliated people do hold these values and actively work towards a more equitable distribution of medical care.
Our tools of war will no longer maintain our status in the world. How we treat the most vulnerable among us will be the measurement.
Enormous economic reasons loom for the USA to move to a single payer, which will level the trade playing field.
Personal obligation to all should be our bottom line regardless of the cost. However, I do believe that all businesses could stand to be relieved of the cost of medical benefits. As for those voices that decry the government bureaucracy as a weight on a medical system, they should consider the ultimate cost for medical care, the insurance bureaucracy which tyrannically seeks profits and the current quality of care in our country.
One way or another, we will all pay for medical care. It should be considered as a public safety issue, as are police and fire departments. That paradigm shift is important for the basis of good medical treatment for all.
Donna F. Roth Ann Arbor
Comments
larry
Fri, Dec 4, 2009 : 1:43 p.m.
Why stop at health care? Why not free houses, cars, TV's etc? And kids' college tuitions. That way, I woudn't have to work. It would be great. In fact, no one would have to work, we could all party! Unfortunately, this type of thinking did not work for the people ruled by Mao or Lenin or Stalin. Millions of innocent people were killed as a consequence, and their economies eventually went bankrupt or had mass poverty levels. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with our health care system. We already provide subsidized health care to the poor (Medicare) and elderly (Medicaid). There are some people who want to push us into Marxism, but it's not for me. I prefer the US just the way it is.
stunhsif
Thu, Dec 3, 2009 : 7:58 a.m.
Jason, Keep up the good work. Your taking the other side really points out how out of line they are with their thinking. Yes, a 2% profit margin for the health insurance industry is "scandalous".It should be no more than 2 tenths of 1%, or better yet they should all be non-profit.
Jason
Wed, Dec 2, 2009 : 11:58 a.m.
Rebba and Donna are right again. Why should we scoff at paying $5,000 per individual (1 Trillion Dollars divided by 200 Million tax paying citizens) to implement Congress's version of health reform? It's the rich who will have to pay it right? They won't demand higher compensation to offset the new tax imposed on them and pass along the increase to consumers in the form of higher prices for goods and services. Also we know the Chinese are willing to finance us at a nice low interest rate so why not impose an extra $5,000 on every tax paying US citizen? We can totally afford it right now. I'm willing to make the bet that if my significant other and I spend $10,000 now Congress will totally enact a plan that will pay us back and more.
stunhsif
Tue, Dec 1, 2009 : 7:15 p.m.
Jason, appreciate your "taking the other side on steroids" and how it points out how wrong Donna is. John, could not agree more. It is good to see there are actually a few "clear headed" thinkers in Ann Arbor.
Rork Kuick
Tue, Dec 1, 2009 : 2:20 p.m.
I appreciate John's take, but other factors could make such theft worthwhile, the first of which is that we get to pay something either way. Investment can be a good idea sometimes. Universal health care can reduce per person costs - it appears to in europe. The "utopia" is not really crumbling there I think. It can free companies from worrying about it, making it cheaper for them to hire when times are good, and frees workers from worrying, so we can switch jobs more easily. These are indirect effects, but they are part of computing whether it is really in my personal interests or not. With no such considerations, we might never build roads, and think that paying for the education of other people's kids was crazy, no matter how much we win later by these measures. PS: Such "theft" is common in a democracy. My labor has supported lots of things I was strongly against. My fellow citizens didn't care about my (illusory) "rights" it seems.
John Hritz
Tue, Dec 1, 2009 : 2:08 p.m.
This argument refers to a theological principle, that calls for individuals to voluntarily care for the sick. That is limited by skill and training and commitment. The social contract is also an individual voluntary notion. A government mandate doesn't remove the requirement. Two points that seem to get missed are that folks that prefer not to participate in universal health care (whatever that ends up being defined to be) because they have means to self-insure are distinct from people that want coverage but can't afford it. There's a third (hopefully small) group that are unwilling to accept taxes to pay for others health care, but would be happy to have the government pay for their health care if the need arises (sounds like the AIG bailout). And frame it how you like, but taxation is not theft (although it might be unjust).
Jason
Tue, Dec 1, 2009 : 1:26 p.m.
You're only right if you use logic and reason Mr. Galt. What about those poor people that aren't as fortunate as you? How would you feel if you were in there shoes? Don't they deserve their fair share of your wealth because they need it?
John Galt
Tue, Dec 1, 2009 : 12:48 p.m.
It is immoral to steal the property and wages of others to pay for your conscience. What next? Must we pay the food, lodging, cars, houses, healthcare, and everything else for every person on the face of the earth (we already are buing cars and houses to some extent)? You have the right to work for the benefit of yourself and your family. This socialist utopia is starting to crumble around our ears. We cannot afford to pay for the programs that already were promised (Social Security and Meeicare). There is no "right" to the labor and property of others. It is merely theft.
Jason
Tue, Dec 1, 2009 : 12:36 p.m.
I couldn't agree more. I think doctors should be allowed to make outrageous profits on performing a job that is essentially their moral duty. Why don't they just cap their wages at $40,000 a year nobody needs to make more than that. The evil profiteering insurance companies and their enormous 2% profit margins are even worse. Shame on their shareholders for demanding such profits. They all have blood on their hands as far as I'm concerned. In fact I think we should donate all profits in our 401k's and pensions to providing heath care to those not so lucky.
Rork Kuick
Tue, Dec 1, 2009 : 10:43 a.m.
"All religions and belief systems have such a connectedness and responsibility in their foundation." I don't think the antis will agree with that - they figure the poor or unemployed deserve their lot. I think we'd do better to argue that a modest single-payer plan really can make economic sense by freeing employers from involvement, letting people switch jobs more readily, and reducing costs (I'm not saying current proposed legislation does that). That might be achievable with private insurance, it'll just be messy, more easily gamed, and more secret.