Effect of Presidential debates?

[GoPackGo]

When Obama said health care was a right I wish McCain said that everyone felt home ownership is a right

Health care should be guaranteed to all citizens. Home ownership is a luxury.

I agree

[HowardRoark]

When Obama said health care was a right I wish McCain said that everyone felt home ownership is a right

Health care should be guaranteed to all citizens. Home ownership is a luxury.

In a civilized society, I think all citizens should be able to have access to healthcare. How best to accomplish this is the core of the debate. To say that the Federal Government should come guarantee this “Right” is Pollyanna reasoning.

[Patler]

Question: Is health care a responsibility or a right? Your answer is the future of this country.

I admit to missing this part of the "debate".

Is there a difference in saying on one hand that it is a right of all people, and on the other hand saying it is the responsibility of all of us to see that it is available to everyone? Is that even what was meant?

I suppose if it is a right, it should be bestowed on us by the Federal government, form where we all know it will have no cost for any of us. ( )

If its a responsibility we all have to accept our fair share of its burdens.

Rights tend to cost exorbitantly, with little control and little to no competition. Responsibilities are subject to normal market pressures.

I guess I vote for responsibility..

[hoosier]

When Obama said health care was a right I wish McCain said that everyone felt home ownership is a right and look at the mess we are in right now. There were a few times McCain could've had better answers.

Yeah, some people just don't deserve to have health care.

[retailguy]

When Obama said health care was a right I wish McCain said that everyone felt home ownership is a right and look at the mess we are in right now. There were a few times McCain could've had better answers.

Yeah, some people just don't deserve to have health care.

Ok, hoosier, so what do you do with the ppl who are content to work a minimum wage job their entire life and don't strive to do better? Are they "entitled" to health care, or has "their decision" to be content where they are in life impacted their ability to afford it?

What about the ppl who are content to sit home and subside year after year on welfare. Are they entitled to health care, or have "their choices" impacted their ability to provide for themselves and their families the basic necessities they should have to work for?

Existence is a right. Health care? Not so much. It comes with responsibilities too. When are those responsibilities greater than the cost of "free health care"?

[hoosier]

I admit to missing this part of the "debate".

Is there a difference in saying on one hand that it is a right of all people, and on the other hand saying it is the responsibility of all of us to see that it is available to everyone? Is that even what was meant?

I suppose if it is a right, it should be bestowed on us by the Federal government, form where we all know it will have no cost for any of us. ( )

If its a responsibility we all have to accept our fair share of its burdens.

Rights tend to cost exorbitantly, with little control and little to no competition. Responsibilities are subject to normal market pressures.

I guess I vote for responsibility..

So let's cut to the chase: What do you do with a family of four where the parents, both of whom work full-time, have jobs that don't provide health care benefits and they can't afford to buy health insurance. Are they (A) out of luck because the rest of us didn't make them poor and shouldn't be expected to shoulder the burden for them? Or (B) should the two children get health insurance for free while the parents go without? Or (C) should all four of them have access to decent health coverage (i.e. NOT be forced to use the ER as primary care, and be covered for both emergency and non-emergency procedures), even though none of them will be able to pay full premiums? I think if you answer (C) then you've said it's a right, if you answer (A) then you're saying it's a privilege, and responsibility is somewhere in between (maybe B but not necessarily limited to B).

My answer is C.

[mraynrand]

When Obama said health care was a right I wish McCain said that everyone felt home ownership is a right and look at the mess we are in right now. There were a few times McCain could've had better answers.

Yeah, some people just don't deserve to have health care.

No one deserves to have 'health care' just as no one deserves to have anything that is provided by someone else. Health Care is a huge concern that involves doctors and nurses becoming skilled at their profession and many scientists and engineers in different fields providing medicines and devices necessary to actually provide health care. IF no one bothered to learn to become a physician or scientist or engineer, what health care would there be? What would you do? Put a gun to the heads of intelligent Americans and force them to go to medical school for your 'right?'

Hoosier, explain to me how you or anyone else deserve health care.

[Cheesehead Craig]

One could make the argument that if we are indeed living in a Christian society in America, that it would be our Christian duty to help the less fortunate. If the poor cannot afford health care, we should then strive to assist them in obtaining it.

[hoosier]

When Obama said health care was a right I wish McCain said that everyone felt home ownership is a right and look at the mess we are in right now. There were a few times McCain could've had better answers.

Yeah, some people just don't deserve to have health care.

Ok, hoosier, so what do you do with the ppl who are content to work a minimum wage job their entire life and don't strive to do better? Are they "entitled" to health care, or has "their decision" to be content where they are in life impacted their ability to afford it?

What about the ppl who are content to sit home and subside year after year on welfare. Are they entitled to health care, or have "their choices" impacted their ability to provide for themselves and their families the basic necessities they should have to work for?

Existence is a right. Health care? Not so much. It comes with responsibilities too. When are those responsibilities greater than the cost of "free health care"?

Frankly I think the "people content to sit on their asses all day" image is a red herring concocted by Reagan that doesn't fit reality. Are there people like that? Of course, and they can be found in all classes and walks of life. But that extremely patronizing image doesn't fit the majority of poor and lower-middle class people/families any more than the companion image of the poor as the salt of the earth.

I don't think you can hold a meaningful, intelligent national debate over something this fundamental with positions that are based on extremely superficial stereotypes like yours.

[mraynrand]

One could make the argument that if we are indeed living in a Christian society in America, that it would be our Christian duty to help the less fortunate. If the poor cannot afford health care, we should then strive to assist them in obtaining it.

Yes, that is the Christian thing to do. I implore every Christian and every other citizen to help provide for the poor, the sick, for the people who really need help.

[HowardRoark]

One could make the argument that if we are indeed living in a Christian society in America, that it would be our Christian duty to help the less fortunate. If the poor cannot afford health care, we should then strive to assist them in obtaining it.

I agree. But without the Government taking over. Notice the names of most of the hospitals in your city. Who started them?

[mraynrand]

I admit to missing this part of the "debate".

Is there a difference in saying on one hand that it is a right of all people, and on the other hand saying it is the responsibility of all of us to see that it is available to everyone? Is that even what was meant?

I suppose if it is a right, it should be bestowed on us by the Federal government, form where we all know it will have no cost for any of us. ( )

If its a responsibility we all have to accept our fair share of its burdens.

Rights tend to cost exorbitantly, with little control and little to no competition. Responsibilities are subject to normal market pressures.

I guess I vote for responsibility..

So let's cut to the chase: What do you do with a family of four where the parents, both of whom work full-time, have jobs that don't provide health care benefits and they can't afford to buy health insurance. Are they (A) out of luck because the rest of us didn't make them poor and shouldn't be expected to shoulder the burden for them? Or (B) should the two children get health insurance for free while the parents go without? Or (C) should all four of them have access to decent health coverage (i.e. NOT be forced to use the ER as primary care, and be covered for both emergency and non-emergency procedures), even though none of them will be able to pay full premiums? I think if you answer (C) then you've said it's a right, if you answer (A) then you're saying it's a privilege, and responsibility is somewhere in between (maybe B but not necessarily limited to B).

My answer is C.

It would surprise me to find that family you describe unable to afford health care. But if they cannot, then the family you cite is already covered. All children are already covered by existing programs, as are most adults. Those who think they have no coverage actually get enrolled when they go into the hospital. Those who earn more than the lower limit are typically put into an 'economic triage' by the hospitals they go to, where they are put on a schedule to pay as much as they can afford. People who go into the ER for basic care are being rescheduled for clinical visits in many hospitals, and then undergo economic triage, etc.

[hoosier]

When Obama said health care was a right I wish McCain said that everyone felt home ownership is a right and look at the mess we are in right now. There were a few times McCain could've had better answers.

Yeah, some people just don't deserve to have health care.

No one deserves to have 'health care' just as no one deserves to have anything that is provided by someone else. Health Care is a huge concern that involves doctors and nurses becoming skilled at their profession and many scientists and engineers in different fields providing medicines and devices necessary to actually provide health care. IF no one bothered to learn to become a physician or scientist or engineer, what health care would there be? What would you do? Put a gun to the heads of intelligent Americans and force them to go to medical school for your 'right?'

Hoosier, explain to me how you or anyone else deserve health care.

If that is really your position--"no one deserves to have anything that is provded by someone else"--then you've just declared yourself to be opposed to any modern idea of government based on the principle of right. Even the purest of libertarians believe in right to the extent that they want government to protect borders, police the streets and deliver the mail. My position is that health care ought to be a fundamental right in our society, just like education, security, liberty and free expression. What's so confusing about that?

[Patler]

I admit to missing this part of the "debate".

Is there a difference in saying on one hand that it is a right of all people, and on the other hand saying it is the responsibility of all of us to see that it is available to everyone? Is that even what was meant?

I suppose if it is a right, it should be bestowed on us by the Federal government, form where we all know it will have no cost for any of us. ( )

If its a responsibility we all have to accept our fair share of its burdens.

Rights tend to cost exorbitantly, with little control and little to no competition. Responsibilities are subject to normal market pressures.

I guess I vote for responsibility..

So let's cut to the chase: What do you do with a family of four where the parents, both of whom work full-time, have jobs that don't provide health care benefits and they can't afford to buy health insurance. Are they (A) out of luck because the rest of us didn't make them poor and shouldn't be expected to shoulder the burden for them? Or (B) should the two children get health insurance for free while the parents go without? Or (C) should all four of them have access to decent health coverage (i.e. NOT be forced to use the ER as primary care, and be covered for both emergency and non-emergency procedures), even though none of them will be able to pay full premiums? I think if you answer (C) then you've said it's a right, if you answer (A) then you're saying it's a privilege, and responsibility is somewhere in between (maybe B but not necessarily limited to B).

My answer is C.

I think you and I are looking at "responsibility" somewhat differently. You are looking at it as the responsibility of the individual to provide it for themselves. I questioned whether what was meant was that it was the responsibility of all people to provide it for everyone. A collective responsibility as opposed to an individual responsibility. We have lots of collective responsibilities now, for things like schools, police and fire protection, etc. It allows for local variations with some minimum standards.

Under my definition, A and B are not options because everyone should be entitled to some level of basic care. The problem becomes, what level of care? If you expect everyone to have the right to whatever they need, regardless of cost, it's unworkable. There is a reason that euthanasia is an accepted practice in some socialized medicine programs.

[HowardRoark]

When Obama said health care was a right I wish McCain said that everyone felt home ownership is a right and look at the mess we are in right now. There were a few times McCain could've had better answers.

Yeah, some people just don't deserve to have health care.

No one deserves to have 'health care' just as no one deserves to have anything that is provided by someone else. Health Care is a huge concern that involves doctors and nurses becoming skilled at their profession and many scientists and engineers in different fields providing medicines and devices necessary to actually provide health care. IF no one bothered to learn to become a physician or scientist or engineer, what health care would there be? What would you do? Put a gun to the heads of intelligent Americans and force them to go to medical school for your 'right?'

Hoosier, explain to me how you or anyone else deserve health care.

If that is really your position--"no one deserves to have anything that is provded by someone else"--then you've just declared yourself to be opposed to any modern idea of government based on the principle of right. Even the purest of libertarians believe in right to the extent that they want government to protect borders, police the streets and deliver the mail. My position is that health care ought to be a fundamental right in our society, just like education, security, liberty and free expression. What's so confusing about that?

What happens if all the Doctors move to Galt's Gulch?