A Moral Question on UHC

[midcan5]

This is a simple thought experiment. The basic assumptions are fact.

If universal healthcare is passed, your taxes will go up 5%. If UHC is not passed 35 million Americans will die each year because they will not have access to healthcare.

What is your vote and why? Please yes or no, why, and no BS.

 

[hboats]

This is a simple thought experiment. The basic assumptions are fact.

If universal healthcare is passed, your taxes will go up 5%. If UHC is not passed 35 million Americans will die each year because they will not have access to healthcare.

What is your vote and why? Please yes or no, why, and no BS.

35 million Americans will die each year? So, you're saying that EVERY person who doesn't have health insurance (and that 35 million number is suspect) will die each year and be replaced by another 35 million?

Please prove that "fact"

Rick

 

[uscitizen]

Money has nothing at all to do with morals.

 

[xsited1]

This is a simple thought experiment. The basic assumptions are fact.

If universal healthcare is passed, your taxes will go up 5%. If UHC is not passed 35 million Americans will die each year because they will not have access to healthcare.

What is your vote and why? Please yes or no, why, and no BS.

Sacrifices must be made for the good of Mother Earth. There are already too many people on this planet. The more people, the more damage that will be done to Earth. Pretty soon, the damage will be irreparable. We need to bring back survival of the fittest. Obviously these 35 million Americans are not good enough or smart enough to get access to healthcare, so for the good of Mother Earth we must let them die.

 

[Bern80]

This is a simple thought experiment. The basic assumptions are fact.

If universal healthcare is passed, your taxes will go up 5%. If UHC is not passed 35 million Americans will die each year because they will not have access to healthcare.

What is your vote and why? Please yes or no, why, and no BS.

I'll get to the heart of what you're asking in a second but the assumptions you call fact simply are not fact. 35 million people a year dieing? Think about that for second. Or are you just asking us to assume it as fact for sake of the argument? Then you have another faulty presumption; that if we simply solve the cost problem for those peope they will have access. Inexpensive or free health care does not equal ACCESS to health care.

But I get the crux of your question. Unfortunately calling not raising taxes to fund that, immoral rests on another assumption. That the 35 million people you assume will die (which again is completely nonsensical) are blameless in their own deaths. The more general assumption of that would be that you aren't responsible for your health. Of course I understand that people can get sick through no fault of their own, but even if I get cancer (which I did) through no fault of my own, as an adult I'm not sure how that makes the cost of it someone elses problem.

There is no straight answer to that question as it rests on too many variables and assumptions. I am inclined to so no it is not immoral however because for it be immoral would depend on some rather unrealistic assumptions.

 

[midcan5]

A thought exercise is self contained. It stands as is, the answer has to be within its logic. You are blind to all else and the answer is based on your moral framework.

So far no answers.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/88682-a-conservative-wakes-up.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/100438-which-is-which.html

 

[boedicca]

This is a simple thought experiment. The basic assumptions are fact.

If universal healthcare is passed, your taxes will go up 5%. If UHC is not passed 35 million Americans will die each year because they will not have access to healthcare.

What is your vote and why? Please yes or no, why, and no BS.

Are you really saying that over 10% of the American Population will die each year without UHC?

Sorry to disappoint, but I am not going to answer a question that is based on hysterical nonsense..

 

[Valerie]

This is a simple thought experiment. The basic assumptions are fact.


If universal healthcare is passed, your taxes will go up 5%

...

If not 35 million Americans will die each year

 

[hboats]

This is a simple thought experiment. The basic assumptions are fact.

If universal healthcare is passed, your taxes will go up 5%. If UHC is not passed 35 million Americans will die each year because they will not have access to healthcare.

What is your vote and why? Please yes or no, why, and no BS.

Ok, I understand your "thought experiment" now. Here's my answer:

I would vote No. My reasoning? If there are 35 million Americans who aren't taking advantage of the free health care that is already available to them, they will probably still die under UHC. There is no reason for someone who is sick right now not to go to either a County Hospital (which are supported by tax payers and if you can't pay they still give you health care) or a free clinic somewhere in their area. If they aren't taking advantage of these and other options currently then who is to say that they will go to the doctor even after they have UHC? Let's face it, there are a lot of Americans who are just flat out afraid of doctors and hospitals, and wouldn't go even if it didn't cost them a dime.

I'd also need to know, of those 35 million Americans who will die each year, how many have access to heath care now and CHOOSE not to use it?

Rick

 

[Valerie]

This is a simple thought experiment. The basic assumptions are fact.

If universal healthcare is passed, your taxes will go up 5%. If UHC is not passed 35 million Americans will die each year because they will not have access to healthcare.

What is your vote and why? Please yes or no, why, and no BS.

Ok, I understand your "thought experiment" now. Here's my answer:

I would vote No. My reasoning? If there are 35 million Americans who aren't taking advantage of the free health care that is already available to them, they will probably still die under UHC. There is no reason for someone who is sick right now not to go to either a County Hospital (which are supported by tax payers and if you can't pay they still give you health care) or a free clinic somewhere in their area. If they aren't taking advantage of these and other options currently then who is to say that they will go to the doctor even after they have UHC? Let's face it, there are a lot of Americans who are just flat out afraid of doctors and hospitals, and wouldn't go even if it didn't cost them a dime.

I'd also need to know, of those 35 million Americans who will die each year, how many have access to heath care now and CHOOSE not to use it?

Rick

Yes, tax money is not necessarily the solution to all societies problems.

 

[Valerie]

What is your vote and why? Please yes or no, why, and no BS.

>>

ADVANCING THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELL-BEING OF OUR PEOPLE

The Department of Health and Human Services enhances the health and well-being of Americans by providing for effective health and human services and by fostering sound, sustained advances in the sciences underlying medicine, public health, and social services.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Budget, consistent with the President’s goals, invests in health care, disease prevention, social services, and scientific research. These investments will enable HHS to protect the health of all Americans and provide essential human services, especially for those who are least able to help themselves. The President’s FY 2011 Budget totals $911 billion in outlays, an increase of $51 billion over FY 2010. The Budget proposes $81 billion in discretionary budget authority, an increase of $2.3 billion over FY 2010 on a comparable basis. HHS’s portion of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) addresses and responds to critical challenges in our health care and human services systems through investments that immediately impact the lives of Americans. To fulfill the President’s health care vision, the Budget builds on Recovery Act investments and continues on the path to health insurance reform in key HHS priority areas.
http://www.hhs.gov/asrt/ob/docbudget/2011budgetinbrief.pdf

FY 2011 President's Budget for HHS

 

[Valerie]

How much is ENOUGH!?

When you're injured and in the emergency room, the last thing you want to have to do is fight for treatment. Fortunately, a federal law passed in 1986 to prohibit a practice commonly known as "patient dumping" gives you the right to emergency care regardless of your ability to pay. The federal law applies to hospitals that participate in Medicare -- and that includes most hospitals in the United States. However, the patient-dumping law does not give you carte blanche.

What you're entitled to

In a nutshell, the federal patient-dumping law entitles you to three things: screening, emergency care and appropriate transfers. A hospital must provide "stabilizing care" for a patient with an emergency medical condition. The hospital must screen for the emergency and provide the care without inquiring about your ability to pay.

...

Know your emergency room rights - MSN Money

>>

State by state

Individual state regulations also have a bearing on the way you're treated in an emergency room, and upon your health insurer's decision to pay for that treatment.

The federal law allows you basic rights, and your state laws may provide you with some additional rights. If you feel that you have been treated unfairly, either by the hospital or by your insurance company, try calling your state's department of health. If you feel that your insurance company is unjustly denying payment, try your state's insurance department.

Some states also have a regulation that requires insurance companies to pay for emergency room care if a "prudent layperson, acting reasonably," would have considered the situation a medical emergency.



What is considered an emergency situation?

According to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), an emergency medical condition means:

(A) a medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in:

* placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy

* serious impairment to bodily functions, or

* serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part; or

(B) with respect to a pregnant woman who is having contractions:

* that there is inadequate time to make a safe transfer to another hospital before delivery, or

* that transfer may pose a threat to the health or safety of the woman or the unborn child.

 

[Si modo]

Why bother responding to a question based on assumptions that are hyperbole?

 

[Bern80]

A thought exercise is self contained. It stands as is, the answer has to be within its logic. You are blind to all else and the answer is based on your moral framework.

So far no answers.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/88682-a-conservative-wakes-up.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/100438-which-is-which.html

Don't be coy mid. You're after something else. If we simply assume as fact your completely ridiculous numbers and scenario we still don't have enough information to make a moral judgement one way or the other.

Should we assume that the ONLY way to save those 35 million people is to raise everyones taxes?

Should we assume that once this tax is in effect these people will miraculously have immediate ACCESS to the care they need?

Should we assume that these 35 million people are completely blameless in the conditions that will supposedly lead to their done?

See mid the reason you aren't getting any logical answers is because that is hard to do with incredibly illogical scenarios like yours. Which is why it would be better if you just got to the point.

 

[midcan5]

Glad to see some answered even if I disagree with the reasoning.

The question is a moral question, not sure how many here have ever read Derek Parfit but it falls into the area of how we should live and how we want our world to be. If it were our child in need, we would willingly pay much more than 5% percent for good healthcare. Well most of us would.

I think the golden rule answer would be 'yes' as I would expect the same treatment as any American would get. Karen Armstrong: Let's revive the Golden Rule | Video on TED.com Would the modern American libertarian answer be 'no?' And please emergency room service is not healthcare, we need to be honest here. Any answers?


"It is not enough to ask, ‘Will my act harm other people?’ Even if the answer is No, my act may still be wrong, because of its effects on other people. I should ask, ‘Will my act be one of a set of acts that will together harm other people?’ The answer may be Yes. And the harm to others may be great." Derek Parfit


"Acts are not made right or wrong simply by people believing that they are right or wrong. ... Relativists think that moral absolutism is a bad view, encouraging intolerance and so on. But I ask them: Is absolutism only bad in a relative way -- only wrong for them and not necessarily for others? If so, then it might not be wrong for me. I can believe in it and act on it. On the other hand, if it is wrong for everybody, then it is absolutely wrong, which contradicts the relativist’s [own] position. So moral relativism is either self-refuting or it has no claim on my moral beliefs." Colin McGinn

 

[saveliberty]

The author wants honest answers on a dishonest question. If 35 million are to die without health insurance this year, virtually all those without coverage will be gone and the rest of us are covered. Problem solved.

Interesting that we are MORE important than the future generations that have to pay for our plans layed today. How is that moral? If we are to pay as we go, then what are ALL of us going to do to pay for it? Are the poor going to find more work and get an education to help? Will the old return to work and forgo some of their social security? Can we eliminate sports in schools so the young can help?

 

[del]

This is a simple thought experiment. The basic assumptions are fact.

If universal healthcare is passed, your taxes will go up 5%. If UHC is not passed 35 million Americans will die each year because they will not have access to healthcare.

What is your vote and why? Please yes or no, why, and no BS.

i can't vote due to the fact that someone has altered your post and removed all the facts. sorry.

 

[Barb]

This is a simple thought experiment. The basic assumptions are fact.

If universal healthcare is passed, your taxes will go up 5%. If UHC is not passed 35 million Americans will die each year because they will not have access to healthcare.

What is your vote and why? Please yes or no, why, and no BS.

Yes, but it always was yes.

Inequality is markedly reduced in countries that offer greater social benefits. Income inequality does not cause as much social stratification where there is broad opportunity to advance academically, access to health care is universal, and where market incomes are not precedent to social status, civic activity, political participation, education, or health.

Schiller, Bradley R. The Economics of Poverty and Discrimination, 14-16

 

[Dr.House]

This is a simple thought experiment. The basic assumptions are fact.

If universal healthcare is passed, your taxes will go up 5%. If UHC is not passed 35 million Americans will die each year because they will not have access to healthcare.

What is your vote and why? Please yes or no, why, and no BS.

i can't vote due to the fact that someone has altered your post and removed all the facts. sorry.

^ Best response thus far.....

 

[Bern80]

since Midcan is MIA in his own thread (probably because it has been pointed out by many what a ridiculous premise he has made), I'm thinking perhaps we should try a different 'thought exercise'.

Taxing everyone for the benefit of the few. That's essentially what mid says we should do. Still Mid's rules though. Only thoughtful, logical answers allowed;

Why did the framers feel it necessary to include the general welfare clause? Why was it important to them that if the federal government was going to tax everyone, the benefit must be for everyone? What are the repercussions of not having this clause?