Is it an American Moral imperative to care for elderly and sick?

[rareboy]

It's not the government's responsibility, it's our responsibility as family members.

This is all well and good for those who have family to do it.

As a very wise man once said:

" Government is only the things we decide to do together"

Your Ayn Rand approach is what is sapping the strength from your country.

In a secular world, only the community can ensure that the weak and sick are cared for in a way that enriches rather than impoverishes their civil society.

Which we seem to be able to do without much trouble here in Canada and in other truly civilized nations around the globe.

 

[BostonPirate]

The Constitution is, as Obama correctly pointed out some years ago, a list of negative rights. If it isn't specifically enumerated as a permissible enterprise for the Federal Government to be involved in, it is expressly forbidden or reserved for the States and the people.

You might try arguing from the "general welfare" portion of the Constitution, but that wasn't the founder's intent.

where does the constitution forbid the citizens the ability to make laws to care for indigent elders and disabled.

The morality of the question is obvious... if we all sit around and say its someone elses problem, there are going to be alot of sick old people dying due to selfishness and greed.

That is not a good thing

 

[nurseboy269]

I think if its NOT the governments responsibility we have lost our moral way as a nation.

We have lost our moral way...we have become so fixated on "self" that we forgot our responsibilities to our families, friends, and fellow humans in general. We are too ready to dismiss others to focus on self.

I think the government has an obligation to care for those that have no other means, but I think that, that obligation should only be tapped when there is no family, and no other means, certainly not in lieu of our responsibility to our families.

 

[BostonPirate]

We have lost our moral way...we have become so fixated on "self" that we forgot our responsibilities to our families, friends, and fellow humans in general. We are too ready to dismiss others to focus on self.

I think the government has an obligation to care for those that have no other means, but I think that, that obligation should only be tapped when there is no family, and no other means, certainly not in lieu of our responsibility to our families.

and thats whY I believe the best solution to fixing medicare and medicaid is to make it an insurance program based on need, not an entitlement. Perhaps there can be some things, like discounted medication, that we all should have once we retire, but by and large, I think that it needs to be needs based.

 

[nurseboy269]

and thats whY I believe the best solution to fixing medicare and medicaid is to make it an insurance program based on need, not an entitlement. Perhaps there can be some things, like discounted medication, that we all should have once we retire, but by and large, I think that it needs to be needs based.

I was actually okay with the idea of "government" option for health insurance. Have it based on income. Everyone (that opts to use it) pays for it depending on their financial need. There will still be those that go for private insurance no matter what, and insurance companies can have "government option supplemental insurance" as they do for Medicare currently. Insurance lobbyist will always fight the ideal of public option insurance, but look at it this way. If a family cannot afford the $500 (or whatever it is) for family insurance, the insurance company makes no money...if the same family opted for government option insurance, plus the supplement, the insurance companies make money on the supplemental policy, as well as from the decreased cost of healthcare since more would be insured...but that's just my thinking.

 

[BostonPirate]

I was actually okay with the idea of "government" option for health insurance. Have it based on income. Everyone (that opts to use it) pays for it depending on their financial need. There will still be those that go for private insurance no matter what, and insurance companies can have "government option supplemental insurance" as they do for Medicare currently. Insurance lobbyist will always fight the ideal of public option insurance, but look at it this way. If a family cannot afford the $500 (or whatever it is) for family insurance, the insurance company makes no money...if the same family opted for government option insurance, plus the supplement, the insurance companies make money on the supplemental policy, as well as from the decreased cost of healthcare since more would be insured...but that's just my thinking.

medicaid in romneycare is split into two programs.... Mass health and Common care.

Mass health is for indigent people that cannot afford to insure themselves. Common care is a program that people can buy into that covers partial payments based on a sliding scale of income, for low earners who earn enough to not get full free coverage, but still can't afford private insurance payments.

it is VERY effective.

 

[bankside]

These American doctors think so, but some of their patients do not.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life...iscovers-canadian-health-care/article1984796/

How about your patients? Do they seem in favour of a single-payer system?

I go on about it to my patients, saying, “We should have what Canada has and they say, ‘You mean we have to cover the illegal immigrants? What about that person over there, he’s fat and he smokes, I should pay for his health insurance?” Things happen to people, it’s insurance and the only way we will be able to afford health care is if everybody chips in.

 

[chrisrobin]

These American doctors think so, but some of their patients do not.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life...iscovers-canadian-health-care/article1984796/

If we would have universal health care, it would have to be universal. Theoretically, fat people or smokers should not be covered, but we can't sustain a policy based on theory. Where do you draw the line? If I break my leg doing silly things on a ski slope, should I not be covered?

 

[BostonPirate]

If we would have universal health care, it would have to be universal. Theoretically, fat people or smokers should not be covered, but we can't sustain a policy based on theory. Where do you draw the line? If I break my leg doing silly things on a ski slope, should I not be covered?

heart patients, cancer patients aids patients... the list goes on.

Medicine can have no moral judgement to be effective. Thats what ails the republican view of healthcare, IMO. It implies that if you have made wrong moral choices, the gov't can stop you from getting open advice from your doctor.

 

[Kulindahr]

lol

We all know the Bible is an optional document for Republicans and conservatives. Its only good for tellingothers what to do, not to guide your own behavior.

I'd love to see someone propose an actual Christian system for taking care of the poor. The bill would begin, "Go, sell all you have...."

Looking at the number of the supposedly Christian among the filthy rich of the country, one would have to think there would be no homelessness, no hunger, and no lack of mental care in the country -- for certainly Christians wouldn't be sitting on such wealth if any of those needs existed!

It's not the government's responsibility, it's our responsibility as family members. I'm fortunate enough to still have both my parents. Mom has Alzheimer's and I spend a lot of time making sure she's OK and doing things for her. Dad has trouble getting around and even though he's a long way off, I go right away when he has an issue. No questions asked.

It's what we are supposed to do as decent people. My folks gave up a lot to raise me and my siblings. We all turned out to be fairly good people. It's only fair that we give up something to make their lives more comfortable when they can't take care of themselves.

That doesn't mean that I don't support programs to help the elderly when they have no one that cares. I just think it's my responsibility and not the governments, that's all.

In theory, yes. Personally, I call it a sign of moral decay of a nation that the question should even have to be asked. A billionaire should find himself unable to sleep at night if anyone is hungry or homeless within a hundred miles.

Liberals bear guilt here, too: I've seen efforts to try to help die on the vine when they ran into regulations liberals passed to supposedly help people, but which in actuality keep people without shelter, etc. If it's not the jb of government to take care of people, it's most definitely not its job to get in the way.

Lacking a Constitutional basis to create such programs is surely a shorter road to losing our moral way.

So would you support a constitutional amendment to belatedly make Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, and the like constitutional?

where does the constitution say we can't choose to pay for indigent eldercare?

It doesn't say we can, and that's a prohibition.

I'd go with an amendment to get it in there. But I wouldn't base it on income; it would be on shares. Being a citizen would get you one share, and another when you turn 21. Becoming a legal resident would get you one share, and another when becoming a citizen (but if that's before turning 21, you get no third one). You get another share when you've put in ten thousand hours of legal labor, and another at twenty-five thousand. Five thousand hours of certified volunteer community-benefit labor would give a share, and reaching a condition of disability would give a share.

Then benefits would depend on how many shares you've gotten as a member of "Corporation America".

 

[JB3]

Funny you should mention the Bible Boston. I've been seeing a guy that's a theology student (also gives lectures on why Christianity and Jesus would never support the homophobic cretins currently masquerading as Christians, but that's another topic) and we had a discussion about that, and the Bible is actually very socially progressive, and almost radical, when it comes to it. Something that the current religiotards would never admit, but the text doesn't lie.

That being said, I don't think its right to cast it as an American moral imperative. It is a human moral imperative. While I disagree that the government should take up that role, I also recognize that there are people for whom the government is a last resort. But I think it should be just that; a last resort for people that have nowhere else to turn.

 

[jackoroe]

.
So would you support a constitutional amendment to belatedly make Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, and the like constitutional?

Yes, based on people's need. Not as an entitlement for everybody. It's about process with me. An Amendment to the Constitution is the correct way to address the issue.

 

[BostonPirate]

it seems to me that everyone is saying here that they WANT to care for their elderly family members, and that the gov't should also just get involved if the individual has no money.

SO heres the next obvious question....

When Granny's cancer treatments cost 2 mill total and she has lost her house paying for it, no family memebr has that cash, and the collection agents are swarming...

Do the collections agencies have the right to seize all of granny's family members homes to pay her medical bill?

By the logic of this whole line of thinking, people should sell their homes to take care of the medical needs of their family members.

or am I wrong? Is there one MORE condition to when people can get healthcare from the Gov't?

 

[Kulindahr]

or am I wrong? Is there one MORE condition to when people can get healthcare from the Gov't?

I'm tempted to say voting. I won't say you can't miss an election now and then, but if you've never bothered to vote at all, you shouldn't get anything.

That fits into my "America, Inc." framework. I'll note a slight clarification to my shares scheme above: those shares would guarantee a minimum level of provision, not an absolute; i.e., if your private resources are higher, you don't get the benefit.

 

[BostonPirate]

SO heres the next obvious question....

When Granny's cancer treatments cost 2 mill total and she has lost her house paying for it, no family memebr has that cash, and the collection agents are swarming...

Do the collections agencies have the right to seize all of granny's family members homes to pay her medical bill?

By the logic of this whole line of thinking, people should sell their homes to take care of the medical needs of their family members.

or am I wrong?

 

[bankside]

I think health care should be needs-based as well. Everyone needs it. Everyone gets it.

There is simply no cheaper way to give people equitable access to top-quality health care; single-payer, universal health care.

It should cover almost everything. Exceptions should be purely cosmetic surgery and related costs, and experimental or unproven treatments to extend life beyond a natural healthy lifespan. If you want to freeze your head on dry ice until they can cure you, you're on your own. Also, if you can figure how to get the money out of them, I'd bill criminals for victim health care costs related to the crime committed.

 

[ridgewood]

I said no because it is the responsibility of the families. America and moral are too vague. It's a GOOD thing to take care of the elderly and sick agreed but little to do with america. It's much more local and centered on the family unit rather than a country. But it's a human issue also so in that way is bigger than a country.

I'll be 65 in not so many years but don't expect anyone to take care of me but if I am sick and unable to do it I would ask my family for help. And yes I feel they would have a moral obligation to help. But I would have to be in bad shape. Minor ailments I can handle.

But if you are asking if someone else outside my family has a moral obligation - then no - obviously not.
I mean - I wouldn't ask my neighbour or or John Q. Anyone of Anytown Kansas to help me. Any reasonable person might show sympathy or some form of compassion but then say "what about your family"

That's the first thing they would say. Of course they would.

They are not going to say "Try the Federal Reserve Bank at xyz address in Washington DC (what is their address - I dunno offhand....) and knock twice to get the window open for what you need"

ROFL

You're a lucky man indeed to have all the money in the world to handle any kind of illness and extended hospital stay. From your remarks about your family they must be at least as wealthy as you to be able to foot your bills if you can't. Unfortunately, not everyone has the nest egg that you obviously do. So when seniors have run out of money, and the family members for whatever reasons have no money, where do they go for medical care? Remember, hospitals will take emergency cases and that is the most expensive care possible. Who pays for it? You do through higher premiums from your insurance company. So whether you think it's right or not, you are paying for indigent senior care.