BLUE VIEWPOINT
Health care is not a right.
Like welfare, with a population of about 300 million people, many do not think about health care in a reasonable manner. With billions being paid in taxes to the federal and state governments each year, the pot seems unlimited and the Left seems to think that there is plenty to throw around for the poor and non-citizens to have the same benefits as those who earn theirs. Look at this another way and see how it calculates.
When did we become responsible for everyone?
Up until now, each family is responsible for its own health care costs. Some have good jobs and the employer helps with the cost, some employers pay it all. Others must find their own health insurance and pay the premiums themselves, which vary, depending on the level of coverage they want. This is much like car insurance, but it is not mandated. This situation exists because some people take care of themselves and others do not. Those responsible enough to take care of themselves get better premiums than those who live more risk-filled lives. Some are young and healthy enough to be able to do without health insurance.
What happened?
Here is where the situation begins to break down. When a high-risk person (heavy drinker, smoker, drug user, reckless driver, etc.) goes to the emergency room, the law says the emergency room must treat them regardless of their ability to pay. When they cannot pay, the hospital suffers and health-care costs rise. This naturally makes health care harder to afford for those who need it and do pay the bills. There are at least two options to address this:
1) Force everyone to buy health insurance, or
2) Remove the legal requirement to provide treatment to everyone who comes in.
Big brother to the "rescue"
Now, the federal government steps in to take one of two possible positions and says "To prevent this, we require everyone to buy health insurance. If you do not, you will be fined $2,500 per year until you do."
What about the other option? What if it is not required by law to admit the patient that comes in for care? The person who has decided to take the risk of not securing health care will then suffer the consequences of the risk. THEY HAVE REAPED THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR DECISION. We did not force this on them. If then the hospital decides they want to provide the care anyway, they enter into a financial agreement with the patient and the costs go to that patient and not to others - JUST LIKE ANY OTHER BUSINESS.
Instead of making it easier for VIOLATERS (the news is calling them "freeloaders") to get treatment for FREE, why not remove the requirements that make it impossible for the hospital to function as a business? Do not be misled, hospitals are businesses, not charities.
There is an option we have not discussed. Christian charity. One of the things God expects from us is to help those in need. No, not the 23 year old buy on the street corner with a sign because he doesn't want to work. I mean those in need. You know them. You see them on your block or around town everywhere.
However, even here, you can imagine what will happen. When the government stops forcing charity from the working people, the churches will be overrun by "needy" people, just like the government has been. We must learn to force people to accept the consequences of their actions by not helping when they are able to work.
Harsh, maybe. Functional, absolutely. Otherwise, we workers will continue to support the welfare of others until we join the same welfare rolls. That is called Socialism, and it has never worked wherever it has been tried.
If someone came into your grocery store and needed free food, and you give it to them, then sent the community a bill, how long do you think you would stay in business?
What would this do to the community?
How many members of the community who received the bill do you think would pay? If the government stepped in and said you would start paying a fine of $2,500 per year if you did not pay for the groceries THE BUSINESS decided to give away, how long do you think it would take to elect government representatives who thought more like rational people?
Already I can hear those "caring" people out there saying "You heartless jerk! What about those who can't afford health care? Do we just ignore them? We need to provide them with the same care we get!"
Wrong. I know that there are those who, through no fault of their own, have a decreased ability to pay for health care. I agree that these people should not be shunned or ignored. But, at the same time, I do not feel that the government, obligated to provide for the common defense, etc., has the right to require others to pay for these people and their care. There is a fine line between caring for someone in need and paying for those who lead careless, risky lives and do nothing in preparation for their own livelihood.
Even in the Bible, God admonishes the people to help the widow and the orphan. But He also says that if the widow is young, she is to provide for herself. The orphan is to be trained in the ways of a successful life. These are accomplished by the community in ways approved by the commnunity, not by a power-hungry government that has outcome-based equality in mind.
For those of you who do not understand outcome-based equality, it is that everyone should have the same amount of everything, regardless of how hard they work or what they have earned by their work. The only way this can be accomplished is to steal the results of the labor of those who earn what they have and give it to those who will not work for it. Ours, up until recently, has been a country of equal opportunity for all, not one of guaranteed equal results for all.
For those of you who think we should provide free health care for all, go to the border, wait for the next family of illegals to come across the border, and invite them into your home. Your job is to provide for them food, clothing, articles required for school, transportation, entertainment, a job, and health care. If you think this is too much of a burden, walk next door to your neighbor, tell him what you have done and ask for him to split the burden 50/50. All you are doing when you fight for free services of any kind is to increase the burden for every citizen of this country by the number of illegal and lazy people you invite into this country. Wake up, America! We do not have to give away the country in order to help the needy among us. However, we should retain control of the measures we use when we provide help.
Disagree? Find an error? Contact us at glenjjr@gmail.com and give us your view.
