tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7476621888383604834.post6519582940495779682..comments2024-02-15T03:26:38.897-05:00Comments on Health Care Organizational Ethics: Case Closed on the Conservative Attack on the Health Insurance MandateJim Sabinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03087828142188534542noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7476621888383604834.post-682120436392828882011-02-23T21:15:21.569-05:002011-02-23T21:15:21.569-05:00Hello F
Thank you for your comment.
I actually ...Hello F <br /><br />Thank you for your comment.<br /><br />I actually think the Constitution, in the first sentence, by specifying the goal of "promot[ing] the general Welfare," puts forward the responsibility of our society to provide for the health of the citizenry.<br /><br />This doesn't have to be done by and through the government (though many thoughtful folks favor that approach), but the government needs to create a framework for health care to be available, just as it creates the framework within which we conduct commerce.<br /><br />The health reform law turns cartwheels in an effort to create universal access to care within a framework of employer based private insurance. This won't work unless we all take part. It might well be that having us all take part via tax supported insurance vouchers would be less offensive to our sense of autonomy than the mandate that we must purchse insurance or pay a penalty. As your comment emphasizes, that requirement goes against the American grain, even if, as I believe will happen, the Supreme Court ultimately rules that the law is constitutional.<br /><br />Best<br /><br />JimJim Sabinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03087828142188534542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7476621888383604834.post-75688362692763749802011-02-21T21:39:15.752-05:002011-02-21T21:39:15.752-05:00Mr. Sabin;
In this article you wrote:
Whatever J...Mr. Sabin;<br /><br />In this article you wrote:<br /><br /><i>Whatever Jacobson’s right to care for himself, he had none to impose risks on his fellow citizens. A healthy, young person who persists in staying out of the insurance pools imposes a burden on his fellow citizens also.</i><br /><br />This is ONLY true if you accept the premise that the government (i,e, the taxpayers) has the obligation to pay for everyone's healthcare, which, if you understand The Constitution and the intent of the founding fathers you know it does not.<br /><br />You cannot compare the threat of one individual's potential to infect his neighbors with a deadly disease, to the questionable legal or moral obligation that those same neighbors may have to pay for his healthcare if he can't afford to do so on his own. Any attempt to do so opens our society up to a never ending flood of similar illegitimate "obligations" (entitlements) that can only result in the bankruptcy and destruction of our system of government. <br /><br />By doing so, your virtually guarantee that sooner or later, some low life parasite, spurred on by some greedy and unethical lawyers, will file a suit against the state claiming that the state is obligated to buy him a decent house or a decent car since the pain of humiliation that he suffers from, by virtue of his NOT having an "equal" level of status with his neighbors, could cause him to go "postal" and inflict terrible damage on the community.<br /><br />The reason why such a far left "progressive" concept of government has always failed in the past, and will ALWAYS fail in the future, is, as Margaret Thatcher famously said, is <i>"that sooner or later you run out of other people's money!"</i><br /><br />fsF.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16669727664163791882noreply@blogger.com