Can the government force you to exercise a "Right"?

[baldgriff]

Originally Posted by baldgriff
Heyelander -
I have been noodling on this for quite a while. I would like to give you an answer (as best I can). In order to do that I need to write it up on a separate page and paste it in - which is going to take me some time.

Let me try and get this done in the next couple days.

thanks man... take your time. I'm also not of the opinion that people need to have a solution to everything they are unhappy with. I was in full support of the kids that did the occupy wall-street thing... people criticized them for not having a solution... they were fuckin' kids! They were there to point out a problem, and it's our elected official's job to figure out how to take care of it.

At the same time... I do get sick of the thoughts and prayers thing. I'd rather someone just came out and said, hey, this is going to happen, people are going to die, it's part of the price of a free nation with the right to bear arms or whatever. I'd rather just hear, it's not fair for people to be asked to subsidize other people's health. We need to let people know, if you get sick and you don't have insurance, regardless of reason, you are shit out of luck.

So again, this all started in my brain back when ACA was being introduced and sold to us as a solution that we all have a “right” to healthcare. As I considered this, the question in my mind became - if the government is forcing me to exercise my “right” – then is it really my right to at all.

Assuming both are a right, I considered the difference between “right to healthcare” to my “right to bear arms”. One of them I get to choose how I implement, either carry or don’t carry. The other is forced positive participation of “my right” by the government to select an insurance provider or be fined for non-compliance.

I guess where I have settled is this:
If the government can fine me for not exercising my right, in the manner they see fit, it is not actually a right.

So with that said – what is the solution?? Some here have stated that there is some moral responsibility to ensure that everyone has access to “affordable medical insurance”. According to a CNBC article – the peak of uninsured adults was 3rd quarter 2013 when 18% of adults lacked health insurance (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/11/the-...rter-2017.html). It should be noted that this number dropped, specifically within the young adult population because parents can carry kids until age 26. The other reason it has dropped is that without insurance one could face a tax penalty. At the beginning of 2017 about 11% of adults were without insurance and that number has gone up.

I get that if someone has strep throat they should be able to see a doctor and get a prescription for antibiotics to help them get better. If one has allergies, they should be able to get anti-allergy medicine at a reasonable price. But if someone drinks them self silly for 25 years and requires a major medical procedure, should we be the ones to help subsidize the cure for his poor decisions? That’s where I tend to draw the line. In this case, the guy better be able to afford his own insurance or have to outright pay for the new kidney to replace the one he killed off.

So I don’t have an absolute solution for you. But at some point I do believe that people should be responsible for the decisions they make regarding their healthcare, and yes there may be times where the person is SOL because they either dont have or don’t want insurance or just don’t have the ability to pay for some extremely expensive medical procedure.

Yep, I know that may be crass, but I come from a background where I was taught there are 2 rules in life

1 – Life is not Fair
2 – Refer to rule #1 and deal with it.

[TranaGreg]

just my $0.02 - I don't think that universal health is something to pursue because people have a "right" to it; I'd suggest for your purposes, don't call it a right (you have a constitutional amendment that states that you have a right to bear arms but you have no such amendment re: health care). The fact that some might refer to it as a "right" is completely irrelevant.

however, for society, I do believe that it is the right thing to do (it doesn't have to be a "right" to be the right thing to do).

[B-Fly]

just my $0.02 - I don't think that universal health is something to pursue because people have a "right" to it; I'd suggest for your purposes, don't call it a right (you have a constitutional amendment that states that you have a right to bear arms but you have no such amendment re: health care). The fact that some might refer to it as a "right" is completely irrelevant.

however, for society, I do believe that it is the right thing to do (it doesn't have to be a "right" to be the right thing to do).

Agreed.

[baldgriff]

just my $0.02 - I don't think that universal health is something to pursue because people have a "right" to it; I'd suggest for your purposes, don't call it a right (you have a constitutional amendment that states that you have a right to bear arms but you have no such amendment re: health care). The fact that some might refer to it as a "right" is completely irrelevant.

however, for society, I do believe that it is the right thing to do (it doesn't have to be a "right" to be the right thing to do).

I would agree with you that healthcare is not a "right" - and I really wish that "healthcare is a right" hadnt been used as a selling point for ACA. I do agree that general well being is right for society as a general practice. I just think that at some point there is a line where the person is responsible for their own care and not the government. Like I said, things like strep throat, broken leg etc... yeah general health care is a good thing. I dont think that brain surgery or transplants or other things may be in the same category.

Just my .02

[Ken]

Like I said, things like strep throat, broken leg etc... yeah general health care is a good thing. I dont think that brain surgery or transplants or other things may be in the same category.

Just my .02

Interesting because some would say the opposite, perhaps the small stuff you can take care of yourself, but for large issues you need some outside help.

I don't think there's an easy answer here (which is why it's not obvious).

[B-Fly]

Interesting because some would say the opposite, perhaps the small stuff you can take care of yourself, but for large issues you need some outside help.

I don't think there's an easy answer here (which is why it's not obvious).

The economic argument for funding and promoting wellness and preventative care is stronger, particularly for the younger and healthier folks most likely to "choose" not to buy insurance, because our society's investment presumably comes back to us in heightened productivity (and tax revenues) over those folks' lifetime. The moral hazard tends to be starkest for folks requiring catastrophic care. How can we just allow someone in need of catastrophic care to die in the lobby of the emergency room because they either (1) couldn't afford, or (2) elected not to purchase, health insurance?

[baldgriff]

My wife and I have had a conversation around this. If we get to the point we dont know who the other person is, and have no ability to recover - or spend our day gazing out a window with a blank stare on our face and drool running down our chin - buy a bullet and rent a gun....

Yes this may sound crass, but we have 100's of thousands of elderly folks who dont know their own name being kept alive just because their are breathing - but are they really living?

Again I dont know the answer to all of this - but the government should not be responsible for creating systems that keep people alive so "health centers" turn a profit. Government making people "choose" to select health insurance is only a way to provide an unlimited number of customers to the insurance companies -customers that must make a purchase.

[B-Fly]

My wife and I have had a conversation around this. If we get to the point we dont know who the other person is, and have no ability to recover - or spend our day gazing out a window with a blank stare on our face and drool running down our chin - buy a bullet and rent a gun....

Yes this may sound crass, but we have 100's of thousands of elderly folks who dont know their own name being kept alive just because their are breathing - but are they really living?

Again I dont know the answer to all of this - but the government should not be responsible for creating systems that keep people alive so "health centers" turn a profit. Government making people "choose" to select health insurance is only a way to provide an unlimited number of customers to the insurance companies -customers that must make a purchase.

But we didn't make the elderly "choose" whether to have health insurance. They have Medicare. And they're the ones receiving all but a tiny fraction of the incredibly expensive care to keep people alive with no quality of life. The PPACA was ultimately about younger people. Yet one of the biggest pushbacks against the PPACA by conservatives was the idea of government "death panels" that might pull the plug on someone rather than spend millions to keep them alive in a near-vegetative state.

[baldgriff]

Government wont create death panels, because they arent profitable to the insurance companies or elder care facilities that ultimately care for these people in near vegetative states.

If someone doesnt know who they are or where they are, and spends 24 hours drooling - are they really living - or - are they just alive?? One is absolutely better in my mind.

[TranaGreg]

My wife and I have had a conversation around this. If we get to the point we dont know who the other person is, and have no ability to recover - or spend our day gazing out a window with a blank stare on our face and drool running down our chin - buy a bullet and rent a gun....

Yeah but that's the extreme scenario. The vast majority of the 13 years my father had alzheimers he was interactive and had at least the potential for happiness. The health care system has to be able to manage those 12.5 years.