Then it is a good thing that no one is making anyone make that choice. It is also a good thing that not a single person in this country is without health care.
You're wrong. Many people are without health care, although (thanks to the
EMTALA act) emergency care is, by law, provided in MOST hospitals. However, that act has exensive limitations such as:
Some hospitals (those not receiving any medicare/medicaid funds) are exempt.
The emergency care that is, by law, require is limited to "stabilization," not on going care, even in the case of a heart attack or cancer.
The law itself doesn't provide for proper oversight, and only imposes fines on hospitals that consistently still demonstrates that they practice "patients dumping." So the trend of patients dumping continues.
In addition, that act only takes into account "emergency" care, so most "emergencies" which would have easily been prevented by a routine doctor visit are more comments and cost more to the whole system.
Why?
What is wrong with working for the things one wants to buy?
Additionally, I would add that it is a good thing no one is forcing anyone to work at wal-mart.
You didn't quite understand: It is not about "working for the things you WANT to buy," it is working at menial jobs, while you may already be sick, to purchse things that you NEED to maintain your (already) poor health, so you can keep working. . .etc. . .
There is nothing wrong with working to be able to buy that new TV or those extra candy bars. Healthcare is not a "want." It is a "need."
I disagree. And since the constitution disagrees with you too that is that.
The Constitution was written at a time when "healthcare" was limited to the principle that a superficial wound on one's hand which, for lack of care and hygiene had turned gangrenous, would lead to cutting the whole arm off!
A women in labor whose baby was too large to come out naturally would die in child labor. A slightly premature newborn had pratically no chance for survival. And some old, sick people were left to die with minimal food and no care.
Our forefathers, for all their praised wisdoms, had NO WAY of foreseeing the progress in the medical profession. What was and wasn't included in the Constitution should not be the only way to determine one's rights.
I am pretty certain that, as most our forefathers were Christians, they would have a very difficult time TODAY denying that healthcare is not a right, although "pursuit of happiness" is! How can one "pursue happiness" when one has a child terminally ill?
Once again, the Constitution is much like the Bible. Those who take it literally have a very narrow, and very limited view of what the whole message met. Neither documents is worth much (except as historical documents) if they are not LIVING documents.
I care enough about both to want them to be more than outdated pieces of papers written by limited in time, culture, and vision people.
Yes, I think people should work for what they want and that if they fail then you and I can help them with donations. You are free to help anyone you meet who does not have health care. There are none so it won't cost you much. But obamacare will cost you personally a lot in many hidden ways.
You're wrong again. The fact is that the current system of "go to the emergency room" cost a LOT MORE to society, both in terms of human cost and economics than any universal system would.
It's simple, look at the statistics of costs among all world health care. Ours is by far the most expensive, and doesn't even make it to the top three in terms of quality!
