Charles Veidt asked:


I’m not referring to any individual health care bill or idea for reform. I’m talking only about the concept of health care itself.

Do you believe a society that considers itself advanced has any moral obligations to care for the sick?

Do you believe everyone should fend for themselves? If so, are you comfortable with the fact that while that means some abusers of the system (whatever that may be) will die, so too will some who are innocent?

Paula
December 30th, 2009

all i know is that i dont want to give my hard earned money for free healthcare so some poor loser too lazy to work wont have to buy health insurance.

Jcfmoose
January 1st, 2010

Everyone in the USA had access to health care. In all communities there is a hospital that must take the uninsured and indigent patients and give them health care whether they can afford it or not.

dlk
January 1st, 2010

Yes but GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE THE PROVIDER, especially when push comes to shove, there WILL be rationing, and they WILL not let seniors get the types of procedures they need to survive. So, you tell me HOW “MORAL” WILL that be???

John_Dempst
January 1st, 2010

What is the use of keeping grandma around in a coma just to feed the emotional needs of her survivers that are actually living and ENJOYING there lives. Emotions need to stay out of the health care system.

There should be a defined quality of life, anything below that, insurance should not cover.

There is no reason to pay for someone who isn’t enjoying a quality life. It’s not only a poor use of money, it’s cruel and demeaning to those who have led a good life to see them lying there incapacitated.

Where is the morality in that. Even animals are put out of their suffering when thier life is no longer worth living.

ss_brakey
January 4th, 2010

Morally speaking, yes we should, as a society, take care of those less fortunate. Isn’t it something that we should do morally or not?

Yes hospitals will give everyone care in emergency rooms, but you have to pay that bill. If you don’t have insurance, those bills can bankrupt a person. How does tht help? When the hospitals have to write it off, we all end up paying in the end anyway with higher costs.

BO#44
January 6th, 2010

I would think that the most powerful, wealhtiest, and medically advanced nation in the world would also have the healthiest inhabitants….and that everybody should be cared for seeing as how we provide relief and aid across the globe, shouldn’t we be able to take care of our own first?

Cut Throat *itch (2)
January 7th, 2010

When it comes to healthcare I believe I have an obligation to others who don’t have as much as I have. It doesn’t matter if their situation is from their direct actions or just poor circumstances. I want everyone to have basic healthcare.

Aegis of Freedom
January 10th, 2010

“Do you believe a society that considers itself advanced has any moral obligations to care for the sick?” — health care is not provided by a society, it is provided by individual humans that have invested time and money in the appropriate education. Those individuals are free to provide their services to anybody they choose and for whatever price they choose (even free if they want).

If you have the knowledge to heal your fellow man should you do it? Yes. Should you be forced to at gun-point by the government? No. If you have money and can pay for your neighbor’s health care, should you? Yes. Should you be forced to at gun-point by the government? No.

Help your fellow man out of love, charity, and compassion, not because the government puts a gun in your face. Ask any rape victim about the difference.

It is immoral to do nothing while your fellow man suffers. It is also immoral to force me to help my fellow man againt my will. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

…wow, people are giving love, charity, and freedom a thumbs down in favor of a government gun. America is truly doomed.

Eni
January 13th, 2010

I believe everyone should “fend for themselves” to the very best of their ability. However, is many cases, this simply isn’t enough. I wrote recently, for example, about being refused service because I could not afford to pay the entire bridge amount owed to a ob/gyn. I have excellent insurance which costs $250 per month. The doctor has been paid very well up to this point by the insurance company. I have/had a bridge to meet and they absolutely refused to work with me; rather, they demanded payment in full, and for some “if it happens services”, which the insurance wouldn’t buy in a second. When I could not pay, my daughter was refused service and she is 33 weeks pregnant! Also, for 25+ years I have NEVER used ANY type of government assistance. Recently, my daughter did sign up for State Healthcare and this doctor too would not accept this insurance. Seems to me it’s all about the money in the docs pockets and not a bit about the genuine need for care by the people. I’ve noticed too over the years that more and more prescriptions are given and I have a funny feeling their pockets (the docs) are lined by the pharmaceutical companies. We’re used as guinea pigs. Who, after all, is most upset by the potential change?

I do believe we need overhaul and this should include everyone (there are abusers of everything; this is life). Most people are honest and don’t abuse.

badjokebob
January 14th, 2010

You need to look at the other side of the issue. Is it moral to force your neighbors to pay for your health care? If you need help paying your doctor bills you can ask people for help. Their are many organizations out their that will help you pay doctor bills. Churches, local philanthropic groups. You could even put up a web page asking to help you, I have seen several that do just that. Why do you feel the need to use force?
I live near Chicago, we have Stroger community hospital, they only charge you what you can pay, for the majority of people that go their that is nothing. In an emergency you can go to whatever hospital is closest. What more do you want? Obama care will not improve health care for the poor, they already get free government care. The rich will still be rich and get rich mans heath care. The big difference will be the middle class that will see their level of care drop to the level of what the poor get now.

Mary R
January 14th, 2010

Many people are not able to fend for themselves. We are not all born with the same deck upstairs, for instance. To get good insurance, you need a good job. Are all jobs good jobs??? How ridiculous are those who expect everyone should have a good job and make good money to buy good insurance!!! Everybody NEEDS health insurance! The only way everyone GETS health insurance, is if we pull together as a nation and make sure everyone is covered. This reminds me of another question. How many people who consider themselves Christian, expect people to just “fend for themselves”?

sir_kristopher
January 16th, 2010

This is the very thing that differentiates a society from lone hunter-gatherers. The final evolutionary step that separated us from other animals was the development of agriculture. Before, it was “every primate for himself.” People hunted and gathered food for themselves and their families. Those who couldn’t, died. That’s the fundamental rule of the animal kingdom.

But the development of agriculture brought about an entirely new concept. Instead of simply feeding your family, people worked the land and shared it with the community, even those who were too weak to fend for themselves. Rather than dying, these individuals with weaker physical bodies who developed relying on their minds started developing literature, science, art, and invention.

Our society would not be where it is today if we reverted back to the primitive Darwinian mindset that many on the right (who, ironically enough, generally tend to despise Darwin’s theories) espouse. You are able to make money because you live in a SOCIETY that is stable (more or less). You don’t have to worry about roaming gangs storming into your office and stealing all your possessions. You can call the police, a social service. If your building catches fire, you can call the fire department, a social service. Your kids go to school so they can carry on the family’s success and so you can go to work every day rather than staying home to teach them.

That said, health care is the one exception in this country. Unlike every other social service, which is paid by taxes, health care is being rationed and partitioned for the most fortunate. The less fortunate, who wash the dishes and drive the cabs and put out the fires, they’re being denied access to what the rest of the civilized world regards as a basic human right.

If you don’t want to sacrifice a little to help the society, even if it brings no direct benefit to yourself, then you can always leave the society and see how successful you are without the rest of us. You can build a log cabin in Montana, hunt and gather your own food, and have the satisfaction of knowing that you’re not looking out for anyone but yourself.

We can have a valid debate over *how* universal health care should be implemented and *who* should be running it. But the question of whether or not we have both an evolutionary and a moral imperative to provide health care to all our citizens has already been settled by the rest of the modern world. If you don’t want to catch-up to them along with the rest of us, you can always go back to living in the forest.

Pedro
January 17th, 2010

Considering the facts from world wide basis this is the number one problem in USA and has big big impact on the economy.USA pays much too much for health and still come out last anyway so the money is wasted since the Medical system is intensely corrupt with emphasis on money and profits.Worse corruption is in trying to cure cancer which chemo is not designed to do but just to make profits.President Regan went to Germany for his cancer cure and got it from Dr.Hans Nieper.He used cesium chloride.In Australia I had hospital operation without insurance and it cost me nothing since I am pensioner.However I avoid Mds like the plague since they are part of a mafia called Ama.Not all Mds of course but nearly all.

Pascha
January 20th, 2010

If basic health care were reasonably affordable and accessible, this discussion would not be necessary.

Why should someone need health insurance to go to a doctor’s office? If prices were reasonable, most would be able to fend for themselves.

zoot332
January 22nd, 2010

Care is given currently to people in the US whether they can afford it or not. Yes the poor and uninsured are getting less effective care than others. The Obama plan wants to cover all in one plan and ration that care out. To boot, the cost of the plan will be underwritten through taxation to all both indirectly (the rich and small business filing as individuals ) and directly to average Americans. The latter will happen due to the enormous cost and fhe former will yield higher unemployment numbers. Why not cover those Americans that are in critical need of medical coverage only ? The Pacific Research Institute estimates this number of Americans to be less than 10 million. Creating a plan for 300 million in a fast track, no debate method or cover those that have critical need, a much smaller number at a much smaller cost ……