Sunday
27Dec2009
Perhaps Our Constitution Should Have Even More Rights. Maybe, Just Maybe, It Was Written In Small, Rushed, Secret Meetings and, IDK, Human Men Who Wrote It Via Divine Inspiration Left Out One or Two Things Because They Were Anxious and Nervous Because, oh, IDK, THEY COULD BE MURDERED If They Were Found Writing Such A Document. STRANGER THINGS HAVE HAPPENED.
Sunday, December 27, 2009 at 2:20AM
(I did mention that I recognized that the United States wasn’t ever going to turn into a communist/socialist USSR in my comments under my Democratic Manifesto. And that Marion G Romney’s comments are based on a USSR style socialism. I speak of socialistic principles in the kindest, most Christian way possible, people! Not in a mean way. Y'all instantly think I mean "let's turn into Russia!" YAHOO!!!! But Romney speaks of socialism in terms of it being run by an evil leader. I speak of it differently as only the good parts. Primarily in terms of health care.)
The concept here is that perhaps our Constitution should have even more rights which help others. THAT is the way we could use more socialistic principles to make things better, all around by changing the constitution to allow it to add health care as a right. Just as some believe the government should be better and just fix itself, I think people will not ever fix anything unless they come together to truly help those in need and to stop arguing.
Perhaps a constitutional amendment could be made which does not deny health care to others. Perhaps IT COULD work. Please don’t say IT WON’T. Because it DOES work in Great Britian. It DOES work in France. It DOES work in Canada. American’s don’t seem to think it will work here, but I sure know a lot of Canadians and Europeans who enjoy their "constitutional" rights to health care in other countries. And if the US is SO divinely inspired via it’s constitution, why can’t we find an EVEN BETTER way to make it work to take the best of the examples we see from other countries and make it better here? Fair question. America is supposedly the best, right? Well, it’s failing in the sense of health care.
If the constitution and our founding fathers really WERE divinely inspired, then how about the Declaration of Independence? ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. That's A FACT then, correct?
All men are equal, including but not limited to: gay men and women and babies and people who want to live and people who want to die.
If people TRULY have free agency, then BY ALL MEANS – let them use it. LET GAY PEOPLE MARRY, THEN.
And what about abortion. Don’t those embryos have a right to live? Well, why doesn’t a 20 year old have that same right to keep living? How about a 60 year old who wants to die? What about THEIR free agency? Fair question.
Has anyone ever stopped to wonder if maybe, just maybe, our constitution could be improved? Even a little? If maybe there are a few tweeks needed because just like Mormons are no longer polygamists and no longer wear thermal to the ankle style undergarments – maybe – that 1966 talk on Socialism wasn’t considering that health care could be worked into our constitution for the betterment of our nation in the year 2010?
I suppose my point is that we’re getting stuck in a rut BECAUSE of the Constitution because no one feels they could take it a step further – towards perfection or Godliness. So we stop. We stop and say things like “it infringes upon my liberties” to mandate health care. But maybe? MAYBE God is answering the prayers of millions who are asking to live. Ever thought about that? And maybe the senate is wrong and we’re all wrong by doing it THIS way – maybe it SHOULD have been done with less corruption. But maybe it's God's plan, nonetheless.
We’re not perfect, neither is our government. Yes, it’s gotten out of hand. I agree with this. But why stop there? Why not keep trying to save your liberties AND fight for MORE rights? Rights that PROTECT humans? Like health care?
Can you tell me why we shouldn’t improve the constitution, which was written in the 1700’s?
Please tell me exactly where and who says the constitution was divinely inspired and IN EXACTLY WHICH WAYS. Because when I look that up, it doesn’t say we should vote against health care and gay marriage. Sorry. If you find that, exactly, maybe I’d change my opinion a little.
But here’s the kicker…..a big point of the Book of Mormon is that Christ came to see other people in the Americas. Christ loved those people, too, and believed they were just as important as those in the the Holy Land. Correct? So, okay – another fair question: WHY IS OUR CONSTITUTION THE ONLY DIVINELY INSPIRED CONSTITUTION AROUND? And by constitution I mean “law of the land”. What about Great Britain’s law of their land? They have universal health care. What about the laws of France. Argentina? Sweden? Tonga? Some of these countries do – GASP – all right, too. Heck, some of them do BETTER. They have less crime. They have MORE freedoms. GASP. They have universal health care.
These are the types of wide eyed questions I have for God when I pray. And you know? More and more, I see that I’M NOT WRONG FOR COMING TO THESE CONCLUSIONS. When you really think about that – why is America so much better than those other countries? That’s quite a conceited thought, really. So why is our constitution the ONLY, the BEST, the ABSOLUTE. It’s not.
There are other countries with good ideas and principles (and this is what I meant by socialism – if we took the good parts of the principle and left out the bad parts).
Elder Dallin H. Oaks states that “The rule of law is the basis of liberty” in his talk about certain ways in which the constitution could have been divinely inspired. Well, LAWS CAN CHANGE. So when the government which we’ve agreed to uphold via the articles of faith make a change, such as mandating health care, well – that’s not exactly taking your liberties away. It’s just making a new law.
Here is the churches official stance:
So, I’m sorry if you do not like what I say and if we disagree because, really, I’d love it if we agreed more as a society. But I STILL don’t see this stance saying it’s taking your liberties away by our government coming up with a new law that mandates health care for all. Maybe it’s not mandating it the way you’d like it to. Maybe it’s too expensive. Maybe Senators were paid for the vote they made. But maybe – maybe it’s God’s plan. Maybe. You CAN tell me it’s not. But you cannot PROVE that it’s not. Only God can tell me it’s not. And, from what I see and read and feel via the gift of the Holy Ghost which I received, just as you did, IT’S WHAT SHOULD BE DONE. It’s the right thing to do.
The concept here is that perhaps our Constitution should have even more rights which help others. THAT is the way we could use more socialistic principles to make things better, all around by changing the constitution to allow it to add health care as a right. Just as some believe the government should be better and just fix itself, I think people will not ever fix anything unless they come together to truly help those in need and to stop arguing.
Perhaps a constitutional amendment could be made which does not deny health care to others. Perhaps IT COULD work. Please don’t say IT WON’T. Because it DOES work in Great Britian. It DOES work in France. It DOES work in Canada. American’s don’t seem to think it will work here, but I sure know a lot of Canadians and Europeans who enjoy their "constitutional" rights to health care in other countries. And if the US is SO divinely inspired via it’s constitution, why can’t we find an EVEN BETTER way to make it work to take the best of the examples we see from other countries and make it better here? Fair question. America is supposedly the best, right? Well, it’s failing in the sense of health care.
If the constitution and our founding fathers really WERE divinely inspired, then how about the Declaration of Independence? ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. That's A FACT then, correct?
All men are equal, including but not limited to: gay men and women and babies and people who want to live and people who want to die.
If people TRULY have free agency, then BY ALL MEANS – let them use it. LET GAY PEOPLE MARRY, THEN.
And what about abortion. Don’t those embryos have a right to live? Well, why doesn’t a 20 year old have that same right to keep living? How about a 60 year old who wants to die? What about THEIR free agency? Fair question.
Has anyone ever stopped to wonder if maybe, just maybe, our constitution could be improved? Even a little? If maybe there are a few tweeks needed because just like Mormons are no longer polygamists and no longer wear thermal to the ankle style undergarments – maybe – that 1966 talk on Socialism wasn’t considering that health care could be worked into our constitution for the betterment of our nation in the year 2010?
I suppose my point is that we’re getting stuck in a rut BECAUSE of the Constitution because no one feels they could take it a step further – towards perfection or Godliness. So we stop. We stop and say things like “it infringes upon my liberties” to mandate health care. But maybe? MAYBE God is answering the prayers of millions who are asking to live. Ever thought about that? And maybe the senate is wrong and we’re all wrong by doing it THIS way – maybe it SHOULD have been done with less corruption. But maybe it's God's plan, nonetheless.
We’re not perfect, neither is our government. Yes, it’s gotten out of hand. I agree with this. But why stop there? Why not keep trying to save your liberties AND fight for MORE rights? Rights that PROTECT humans? Like health care?
Can you tell me why we shouldn’t improve the constitution, which was written in the 1700’s?
Please tell me exactly where and who says the constitution was divinely inspired and IN EXACTLY WHICH WAYS. Because when I look that up, it doesn’t say we should vote against health care and gay marriage. Sorry. If you find that, exactly, maybe I’d change my opinion a little.
But here’s the kicker…..a big point of the Book of Mormon is that Christ came to see other people in the Americas. Christ loved those people, too, and believed they were just as important as those in the the Holy Land. Correct? So, okay – another fair question: WHY IS OUR CONSTITUTION THE ONLY DIVINELY INSPIRED CONSTITUTION AROUND? And by constitution I mean “law of the land”. What about Great Britain’s law of their land? They have universal health care. What about the laws of France. Argentina? Sweden? Tonga? Some of these countries do – GASP – all right, too. Heck, some of them do BETTER. They have less crime. They have MORE freedoms. GASP. They have universal health care.
These are the types of wide eyed questions I have for God when I pray. And you know? More and more, I see that I’M NOT WRONG FOR COMING TO THESE CONCLUSIONS. When you really think about that – why is America so much better than those other countries? That’s quite a conceited thought, really. So why is our constitution the ONLY, the BEST, the ABSOLUTE. It’s not.
There are other countries with good ideas and principles (and this is what I meant by socialism – if we took the good parts of the principle and left out the bad parts).
Elder Dallin H. Oaks states that “The rule of law is the basis of liberty” in his talk about certain ways in which the constitution could have been divinely inspired. Well, LAWS CAN CHANGE. So when the government which we’ve agreed to uphold via the articles of faith make a change, such as mandating health care, well – that’s not exactly taking your liberties away. It’s just making a new law.
Here is the churches official stance:
“We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them. …
“We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside.” (D&C 134:1, 5.)
So, I’m sorry if you do not like what I say and if we disagree because, really, I’d love it if we agreed more as a society. But I STILL don’t see this stance saying it’s taking your liberties away by our government coming up with a new law that mandates health care for all. Maybe it’s not mandating it the way you’d like it to. Maybe it’s too expensive. Maybe Senators were paid for the vote they made. But maybe – maybe it’s God’s plan. Maybe. You CAN tell me it’s not. But you cannot PROVE that it’s not. Only God can tell me it’s not. And, from what I see and read and feel via the gift of the Holy Ghost which I received, just as you did, IT’S WHAT SHOULD BE DONE. It’s the right thing to do.
Reader Comments (9)
You are right in pointing out that there definitely were things written into the constitution (or not) back in those days that were fundamentally wrong. And even Glenn Beck continues to defend those things as divine in some attempt to prove that those who wrote the constitution did so as if they were prophets of God. He almost goes so far as to deify them. How about the 3/5ths Laws that were put into the constitution by divinely inspired men, the laws that said black people only counted as 3/5ths of a man?? How can anyone consider that divinely inspired, yet Beck defends it as though not only was it divinely inspired but it was the right thing to do, using a mix of his own interpretation of history that is as wacked out as his interpretation of the present.
So the problem that I have with the idea that the constitution SHOULD have to include every right is that it shouldnt. The constitution was set out to determine the responsibility of the Government, as well as the job that it was to do and what it could and could not do to its people. A government (our government) cannot take away our right to peaceably assemble, or to bear arms or to practice religion. These were fundamental rights established by the constitution because of the way the colonies were treated by the British government. It established ways for CHANGING the constitution (why do you think perfect men would do this??? Could it be because they knew there would be a need for change over time??) They established a system for interpreting and enforcing the constitution and other laws. All of this was part of creating the constitution. They created a way for a court (The supreme court) to interpret the law, thus making their interpretation, part of the constitution.
So does that mean if they "left" something out... that it isnt a right we should have?? They admit themselves that it wouldnt be perfect or that it may need changing just by providing a system for changing it.
When the colonies first formed into the USA they originally had a constitution that was really strict, that called for a perfect society, and provide an IMPOSSIBLE way for changing the constitution. It didnt work. So several years later the ELECTED officials that ran the government went back and CHANGED the constitution to what we have today. They created the base constitution and added in a way to change or update it as needed. Then through that process they created the Bill of Rights. A separate document which constitutes the first 10 amendments to the constitution designed to a list of rights that the government could not take away.
This document was never designed to be a.. you have these rights and these rights only. Nor did they ever say that if it isnt in this document, you dont have a right to it. Infact, quite the opposite. The founding fathers believed that as human beings we had certain fundamental rights. The right to pee whenever you needed to! The right to Privacy (yes this is not as clearly defined but becomes more clearly defined when the supreme court interpreted it) The right to breathe air. The right to health! Instead of being so concerned with the concept that if the constitution doesnt say it, then you dont get it, people should be MORE concerned with thinking about how we as humans can help each other out! Help them to gain fundamental HUMAN rights!!
Over the years Republicans have been on the WRONG side of the isle for EVERY SINGLE important piece of legislation this country has passed since the republicans became "conservative"... Constitutional amendments included. And being on the wrong side of the isle includes the principle that they were on the wrong side of righteousness as well. This issue is no different. We are not taught through religion that if the constitution doesnt include it, then poor people dont deserve it. Yet that is what we are practicing!
The mormon argument that we shouldnt support it because its not in the constitution is even more ridiculous. What about abortion?? We don't support abortion, or a woman's right to chose! Yet the constitution says (through interpretation) that a woman DOES have that right to chose. You can't have it both ways, either you support the constitution to the letter of the law, or you dont!!
Health care is a FUNDAMENTAL human right! One that should NOT have to be defined in the constitution. Why did the founding fathers not include it?? Could it have been that we didnt have "health care" during their days? There were no health insurance companies scamming the public, Hospitals, no hospitals at all at that time. There were doctors and you paid them or you didnt. Whether or not that was the right way to do it, there was no health care in that day. And whether or not the 3/5ths laws were good to have at that time, the point was we changed it! It is bad for today so we changed it. And the founding fathers would not have included a system for changing it had they not KNOWN the importance to do so!
TO buy into the argument that if it is not in the constitution as written by the inspired, God like, founding fathers is absolutely Ridiculous! It is time we put this argument to rest because it is the sign of completely uneducated republicans!
Thanks Gabby for your well thought out statements. You do a good job pointing out the flaws in their argument!
.-= Paul B. Yorke´s last blog ..http://viddle.me/57?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=my-obsession-with-food" rel="nofollow">My Obsession with Food =-.
I would like to see a better examination of the principles that make up your argument for "universal healthcare". You speak of a need for more "rights". In terms of logical reasoning, what is a "right", and how many of them are there? It would be helpful to better understand what you see these "rights" are and a more comprehensive inclusion of what should have been included in the original Constitution or at least should be added to it now.
Next, you speak of the Christianity of government mandated charity. Could these same ends be accomplished without the force of government? Meaning, could private citizens theoretically give voluntarily and enough that all those who were unable to afford healthcare, received it by the giving of others? Is it possible? Would it be more "Christ-like" to focus efforts on voluntary donations of time and money for others, or is force just as good and just as "Christ-like"?
Thank you Edward. Force was Satan's plan, not God's. Free agency was God's plan, and when your money is taken from you in the name of the"common good" through taxes to be redistributed to the needy, it does more common evil than common good because we can't use our own free agency to do good when we are not in control of our own resources.
"What Is Wrong With A "Little" Socialism? In reply to the argument that a little bit of socialism is good so long as it doesn't go too far, it is tempting to say that, in like fashion, just a little bit of theft or a little bit of cancer is all right, too! History proves that the growth of the welfare state is difficult to check before it comes to its full flower of dictatorship." - Ezra Taft Benson
Edward and Sophie, and others who defy me (teasing! - I know you have the right to your opinion, too) ; )
Free agency WAS God's plan, yes. What I don't understand is then how you can talk about free agency and at the same time support that our God
A) inspired the US government (all governments use force in some aspects)
and then
B) say that "force" is of Satan.
If force is of Satan, then our Government is of Satan. Right? How can it be inspired of God when force is of Satan? Yet many of you make that very argument.
I don't know that its ALL one way or the other. There are some good things about your points and some good things about mine. I suppose here it is good to insert the "good fruit/bad fruit" example. You know a tree is good by it's fruits. Well, I'm a good person. I think health care is good for people. It's a good fruit. How can saving someone's life be "bad fruit"?
But if you DON'T force people to do it - GREED gets in the way. So the government steps in FOR THE GREATER GOOD OF THE PEOPLE (because its FOR the people and, as I've heard many of you say, INSPIRED OF GOD...RIGHT? If government is not for the good of the people, then how can you say it's inspired of God?).
Look, people should have access to health care. I DON'T KNOW HOW IT NEEDS TO GET DONE EXACTLY - BUT IT:
A) needs to be fair
B) needs to be accessable and affordable and
C) cannot simply be a system where it's hung out there via the classifieds and craigslist as in "help, I need $50,000 for my upcoming surgery or I'll die!". Because not enough people will help! There are too many people that need help and not enough people will be kind enough to give. And I'm sorry if you AND *I* might have to pay more taxes but THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A "God-inspired" government. TO KEEP MEN HONEST.
You can't use free agency as an argument and then discriminate against people. Like gay people. Or illegal aliens. Or, going back in time: slavery, women's rights, the right to vote, prohibition.
All men were created equal. So we ALL get free agency to make our choices. And if our "God-inspired" government is run by a majority of liberal democrats and the majority of the nation is composed of liberal democrats (that's a fact) THEN MAJORITY RULES. Just like, to date, majority rules on several other things *I* don't agree with. Gay Marriage has not passed in many states but it has in some. It's not taking MY liberties away. It's just a new law in another state where the majority voted to do it that way.
Is it okay in your eyes to force a gay person to not get married and take his or her free agency away but say that you deserve your free agency in not having to uphold a law (such as health care being mandated)? See, I don't think that's right.
People have still not convinced me that it's okay to deny these things and then ask for the things you want and expect them but discriminate against others.
If you REALLY think charity will BE the support for health care and that we shouldn't have to pitch in for a universal health care system then - do you realize how much charity is needed, across the world? Can YOU support the $50,000 emergency surgery I had last year? Will you pay for the $5,000 colonoscopy I needed recently? Would enough people really pitch in and pay for everyone's health care? NO. Absolutely not. And to take it away and even attempt a system would be illegal - there would be major court battles over it.
We vow to uphold our government (if we're speaking in "Mormon" terms). Our government is about to make a new law for the betterment of the majority of the nation. Majority rules. That's not taking your rights away. It's JUST making a new law. Several of you have mentioned that a "TRUE" Mormon like I should not believe in any aspects of Socialism. Well, I ask how you can not support your government making new laws, then, and still call yourselves Mormon? It goes BOTH ways. Not just yours.
It will never be perfect. There are too many conflicting ideas and opinions and too many problems. But the constitution is a living, changing document. Otherwise, you, dear blog reader, might never be able to vote or hold equalities to another dear blog reader because of your race or gender or religion. And if any one of us were/are of a different race we'd have only 3/5th of the rights of a white man. In hindsight, we can look back and say that slavery and discrimination are not "of God". They are of man. Pray tell how a loving, just God would approve of a man of a different race being only 3/5th of a man or "inspire" that?
Free agency is a God-given right. I agree with you. And my free agency is that I want to have universal health care. That's my choice. It's also the choice of millions within the Democratic Party. So when we all vote for it, we're just exercising our God-given rights and supporting a government we (if Mormon) vow to be subject of. I suppose if we don't like it, then you should move to a country with more laws in line with your feelings, and I should move to Great Britain or Canada where I can have access to what I want and need. (teasing. But its a sensible thing to say to your arguments.)
After pondering this nearly 24/7 and chiming in on your blogs and doing a lot of reading and soul searching I just don't see how I'm incorrect in what I said above. However, some of you have asked what *I'm* doing about it. Writing, for one. Voicing my opinion. But there is certainly more I can do and even YOU on the flip side, if you don't agree with me. Let's all do more to support the changes we seek. I suppose that's the only way to ever make one.
Love Gabby
Just a few thoughts.
* First, to address the issue of the cost of health care: no I don't have the answer. But these are questions I ask before assuming the government is anywhere near doing something good.
Is it possible that health insurance in and of itself is the problem? Or at least a big part of it? Why has healthcare become so astronomically expensive such that you would need insurance to be able to afford healthcare?
Health insurance as a concept makes sense to me to protect against catastrophic health events, just as car insurance protects us should we have a major accident. But the mere fact that health insurance is seen as a necessity to be able to afford most all forms of health care signals to me that there is a problem. Perhaps both with how well we take care of ourselves and with the cost itself being unnaturally inflated.
It seems like what's going on now is just the government getting in bed with the health insurance industry in some fashion-- that won't lower the actual cost of healthcare at all. I think it'll do greater harm than good in the long term, and I think it does little if nothing to address the root problem, but rather aims to treat a symptom (gee... not unlike a lot of the "healthcare that goes on today, huh?)
* Next, the word "right". People use the term "right" so loosely these days. For many it now means "things I'm entitled to" rather than "freedom from the tyranny of others". The only "right" to healthcare I can support is the right to purchase it should it be available. To be guaranteed healthcare is not a right-- it requires someone else to provide it whether or not that is their will.
I just don't believe we're entitled to any material or immaterial blessing-- I believe we are at God's mercy. I believe the only thing we outright have claim to is our own free will-- that is what God has given us. The rest we are mere stewards over. We are to do the best with what God has given each of us as individuals (and not usurp unrighteously our neighbor's blessings that he alone is accountable for his use and abuse of).
* Lastly, I just want to address the whole agency / force / greed-gets-in-the-way thing.
You're right-- life and all its choices is not simple-- it can be very complex. We are faced with good, better, and best, and it's given to us to make choices. But it sounds as if, in your value system, material comfort and physical well-being are near the top of the list in importance. It sounds like these are worth violating the rights of others to attain.
First, human rights are God-given, not determined by man.
You say that greed gets in the way. Firstly, does God force any of us not to be greedy? No. Can he take away our material wealth if we abuse it? He can. Does he always? Not in the short term, at least not as far as I'm aware of. So given that God governs our rights and our blessings, is it really our place to do something that God will not? Force people to do what is right?
Why was the freedom to choose whether to do what is right so important? Satan said "hey, I'll make sure everyone does what's right. I'll make sure no one suffers." Why didn't that fly? Why not just force everyone to do what is right? If saving a life were of the highest moral importance, wouldn't it supersede the importance of choice in God's eyes?
I submit that to believe that saving a life is of higher moral importance than freedom is to truly miss the mark where love and purpose in life is concerned. Our mistaken belief is that out of love we should prevent evil from ever happening. We should not allow a child to experience pain, we should not allow a child to commit a sin. We mean well, but in doing so we prevent growth, we damn the child, we prevent true joy.
I have a deep sense of the sacredness of freedom. It is fundamental to our progression as children of God, it is absolutely essential to learn to love like God loves. The minute the government "forces" me by making the choice for me... well I've lost a portion of the stewardship God has given me to use to bless his children according to my own faith. God could certainly prevent all suffering if he wanted to and so the question is why doesn't he? And why doesn't he force us to do what is right? And if it's not something we should do, why should we believe it's something we should do if God wouldn't do it?
No amount of politics and / or government will ever unite the hearts of God's children in love, and this is what the world is so desperately in need of. It can only happen one person, one family, and one community at a time. It is an individual choice that must be made and one that we must influence and persuade people to make-- not one that we can force upon them.
We suffer because we are not united-- not because a government isn't providing entitlements for us. To demand that others serve us, or even to demand that others serve others, is a form of pride that we should be careful of. It is contrary to that unity we should be striving for.
minor correction to that third to last paragraph, doesn't seem to read right-- the end should say
"And if it’s not something (forcing his children to do what's right) HE would do, why should we believe it’s something we should do if God wouldn’t do it?"
Carry on :)
And thanks for having the discussion and for being civil.
Okay, so far, you've made the best sense from the "other side". Lol. Because it's NOT about sides! You see this, I see.
Your points seem fair enough. I think many people, like me, get upset when they cannot even get the ACKNOWLEDGEMENT that our health care system is messed up in the first place. Instead, people like myself, or those who are sick with cancer but can't afford to get treatment are told by Conservatives that we shouldn't even HAVE health insurance in the first place, that it's not even a right, and that should just be on a charity basis.
Well, fine - but it's NOT on a charity basis. So now what? You just stop trying to make it better? But they can't even agree that it needs fixed. So we Liberals start looking to the government to fix the system because the doctors won't. The Conservatives won't. So the Government steps in. And people freak out. But they weren't willing to do anything (like charity) to fix it before the Government stepped in. Lots of them talk about it. Think about these free clinics they've done in several towns. Just as some lawyers do work pro bono, maybe MORE doctors SHOULD. Doctors take an oath to first do no harm. Well, I see a lot of harm. Look at all the visits I had to make to get a diagnonsis and a colonoscopy! 7 VISITS!!! And several gave me medicine which did nothing for the actual problem. So the system is broken. But Conservatives aren't willing to fix it. They think it shouldn't even be a right! Sure, it should be charity based but they don't want to be taxed for it, so how can I trust these people to give the charity needed to help me? How can they then argue that all their liberties are being removed and that it should be based on charity when many wouldn't give the difference they'd save in taxes to save my life?!
Something needs changed. Like you say: Why has healthcare become so astronomically expensive such that you would need insurance to be able to afford healthcare? The mere fact that health insurance is seen as a necessity to be able to afford most all forms of health care signals to me that there is a problem. On a state level, we must have car insurance or we get a ticket. So, there are SOME solutions and regulations that could happen to help the problem but many Conservatives still don't think anything should be done.
I think so many liberals fight over this with Republicans because those people won't even admit there is a problem. They simply say well, there shouldn't even be insurance in the first place, people should just make do and stay healthy and the list goes on and on. I've heard some bizarre things where they cannot even acknowledge that we DO have a health care system that needs changed, they just think it's instantly wrong and support THAT instead of what can be done to help fix it, then. And I've been speaking to many online and in my town, ward, stake. I cannot tell you the number of times I've been called communist, insane, weird, that I need help, that I'm even ANTI-MORMON because I have these opinions or maybe not even opinions - maybe I'm just trying to grasp it and figure it out. But hey, people. There's STILL a person over there, dying of cancer who can't afford health care. What are YOU going to do about it BESIDES call me names and tell me I'm wrong?!
I hope this shows another side to how frustrating it can get to even try to bring attention to it.
So they don't want to be taxed more. Well, what ELSE could be done? There IS a solution. If we can send men into outer space, we can figure this out in a united way. Other countries have, is what I'm saying. Why can't we? Whether it's universal or not - you are correct then - WHY are the prices so high? Why not set limits, then, on how much can be charged for "promot(ing) the general Welfare" as is stated in the Declaration of Independence.
I think the reason I get so irked about it is that so many people can't even admit that it COULD be done, they just instantly argue that it's wrong and not a human right, etc. We have the means, so let's work together to make it better, I guess. If more people could agree on that concept then I don't think there would be such a huge push for a public option in the first place. Instead it would be on working to fix the problem of the costs and the neglect or the facilities, etc.
As you say, there are too many people which are not united. It's hard to be united around some of the closed minded people I've tried to express this to who won't even admit to a problem.
Yeah-- it annoys the h out of me that so-called "conservatives" will argue against government intervention but then have no solutions to bring to the table for an OBVIOUS problem. Newsflash: they're NOT HELPING by not offering real solutions. They throw "charity" out there as this catch-all and then stick their heads back in the sand. They haven't tried to come up with an alternative to a *real* problem, instead they spend their energy simply trying to argue with people they disagree with.
*sigh* I am not a fan of modern medicine. Most times I've visited a doctor I've felt like I wasted both my time and money, not to mention whatever resources the insurance company had to pitch in as part of a co-pay.
I read a story not long ago about a doctor who set up his practice so that his patients could pay a flat, affordable monthly fee that would cover any and all procedures they might have done-- and he could do this because it circumvented the time and expense of processing insurance and what not. The government wanted to tell him he couldn't do it because it was outside their regulations for health insurance... wth? Doesn't make sense.
I dunno. The whole health insurance thing just stinks to me. If people will go see a doctor because he's the only one their insurance will pay for, what incentive does that doctor have to really excel? Where is the choice there? What about malpractice suits? How many of those are just moochers trying to make a buck by exploiting the system, where's the accountability? Can we sue people with bogus malpractice claims so that only those with legit claims will do pursue it?
I mean, logic would say that we, as the consumers of health care, should be able to influence the "market", as it were. But how?
You have to understand that while I see the needs I also see a lot of corruption and violation of principle in the government. I don't trust them to do the job right, nor to do it efficiently or effectively (read: sustainably). The only way the recent bill was passed in the senate was to BUY votes. From DEMOCRATS, no less. I worry that the ultimate cost will be far greater than the benefit we receive. I worry that our congress does not represent the interests of the people as much as they do private entities that stand to benefit from government (our) money. I'm concerned that many of them put on the "help the needy" face while privately are only concerned about their own money, power and agenda. I'm concerned about their actions being without accountability. I mean, being voted out of office can't come close to compensating for the damage a group of politicians can do (think about the debt they rack up for things most people will never even realize are tucked away in these bills that are unrelated to the primary purpose of the bill?). I'm concerned that whether you're talking about republicans or democrats in government, their deceit is one and the same. (I don't feel like much has changed since the previous administration. Ugh.)
Oi...
To say that conservatives haven't offered any solutions is a lie. I don't like most of their solutions either, but I do like them a lot more than socialist mandates. Ron Paul has a few bills, totaling only 40-50 pages (yeah, compare that to 2000-3000!!!!) that would do WONDERS for our health care costs. THERE ARE OTHER SOLUTIONS, just because we don't like your solution doesn't mean we don't recognize a problem or are not prepared to deal with it some other way. And I'm not really a 'conservative' either, more like a libertarian but not 100% that either. Like you say it's not about sides, it's about solutions, and government mandating 'charity' is NOT a solution IMHO.