When did luxury items become a right?

ETWolverine · Jul 3, 2009, 12:47 PM

There was a time in the USA not that long ago when people paid for their own medical care. If they couldn't pay for a doctor, they either went into debt or they had to rely on the generosity of the medical professionals.

Over time, some bright person came up with the idea of medical insurance: I'll collect a few dollars from lot's of different people and put it into a pool, to be used to cover the medical costs of people in the pool as it is needed. Since statistically speaking not everyone gets sick all at the same time, the funds collected from a bunch of people can be used to pay for the expenses of a few. For managing this service, I will collect a fee, and I will invest the money that is in the pool so as to maximize both my profitability and the amount of money available in the pool. And since I represent a lot of patients, I will also have the ability to negotiate for better prices of medical care for my clients. Patients lay out small amounts of money to cover their very large medical expenses. Doctors get guaranteed business fed to them by the insurance company. The insurance company gets a cut of whatever they collect from patients.

Good idea.

Then someone got a bright idea to start offering to pay for a portion of the cost of medical insurance as an emplyment benefit. Especially in industries where compensation was either very competitive or highly regulated, it made sense for companies to offer medical coverage (or a portion thereof) as a relatively low-cost benefit, a perk for employment.

Note that word... "BENEFIT". As in "a luxury item", something offered to sweeten a deal.

As time went on, more and more people asked for this particular benefit until most companies were offering it as a matter of course. Anyone employed by a company of 10 people or more just naturally came to expect this benefit as part of their employment package. If you worked, you expected to get medical benefits.

This continued until now... until suddenly this benefit, this perk, this luxury item, is suddenly being seen as a RIGHT that everyone should have as a matter of law.

When did something that started out as a luxury item, a benefit, become a right that the government has to guarantee us under the law?

Elliot

excon · Jul 20, 2009, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Yes, yes. Just like they never "conceived of any type of firearm with greater capacity for damage than a muzzle loader". So what? Is that a reason to give up the 2nd Amendment?Constitution

Hello again, El:

Nahhh, you got me mixed up with YOU. I don't wanna take rights away. I want everybody to have 'em. Look, I think you should be able to own a bazooka, because the Second Amendment says to.

Unlike YOU, I don't pick and choose which Amendment I support.

excon

ETWolverine · Jul 20, 2009, 01:06 PM

Neither do I. I fully support the 9th Amendment... as it was intended by Madison and the other Framers. I just don't support what YOU THINK it says, and actually doesn't.

galveston · Jul 20, 2009, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, gal:

We're close. As discussed before, the Ninth Amendment says the RIGHTS not listed belong to the people. The TENTH Amendment, though, says that POWERS not given to the federal government shall remain with the states..

One deals with right's. The other deals with power. They ain't the same thing. In fact, they are polar opposites.

excon

Same argument as about 9. If the power is not spelled out in the Constitution, then Washington doesn't legally have the power. Whatever is not spelled out belongs to the states.

Simple, no?

tomder55 · Jul 22, 2009, 08:22 AM

The bill of rights says that I have a right to worship as I please. The bill of rights does not mandate the gvt, must build me a church . The bill of rights says I can own weapons . The bill of rights does not say the gvt. has to provide them to me.

If anything ;the health care bill being debated in the House would restrict my options regarding health care . It has already been demonstrated that private insurance will be on the fast track to oblivion and all Americans like it or not will be forced to participate in a gvt provider plan .
Also it has been revealed ,as Steve documented on another posting that Seniors will be obliged to regularily attend counceling to discuss 'end of life ' options. By definition this would appear to be a restricting of any right to health care the individual can make a claim to. Wouldn't a denial of treatment be the equivalent of an infringement of a right ?

excon · Jul 22, 2009, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Wouldn't a denial of treatment be the equivalent of an infringement of a right ?

Hello tom:

IF we deemed health care a RIGHT, then it would.... But, don't confuse ME with the congress. They ain't about to declare health care a right, even though that's absolutely what it is. Maybe in time...

But, I'm willing to have a REAL conversation about health care with you guys... But, you can't be doing any of this winking stuff. We gotta start on a equal playing field.... It starts with TRUTH.

So, until you admit that your health care IS being rationed by the health insurance industry, we can't have any discussion about government rationing... Cause you can't argue with people who are pretending.

excon

tomder55 · Jul 22, 2009, 09:27 AM

I don't buy the premise because of the rest of what I stated before the last line . Even if health care is a 'right' ,that does not mean the goverment must provide it .

Or perhaps you are a person ,like the President ,who bemoaned that the Constitution is a document of 'negative liberties' describing what the goverment is prohibitted from doing to the people ;and is lacking in what the government should be doing for the people .
YouTube - Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered

excon · Jul 22, 2009, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

I don't buy the premise because of the rest of what I stated before the last line . Even if health care is a 'right' ,that does not mean the goverment must provide it .

Hello again, tom:

We're getting closer... It's just semantics now...

I dunno. Do you think the government provides you with nice roads, or is it the paving contractor? Me??? I think the contractor "provides" you with nice roads and the government "pays" for it. Then it collects from you.

excon

tomder55 · Jul 22, 2009, 10:11 AM

But I don't think it is my right to drive on roads at all. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to designate post roads and claims some power under the commerce clause.Art 1 sec 8

Other than that there were clear questions of federalism associated with the construction of roads . More often than not they are property of local authority and yes to ride on them I have to pay for that service . I also would have to pay for the service of driving on someone's private road .

Other than that I don't see a connection . My "right " to travel on either public or private roads are contingent on many restrictive rules ;among them my ability to pay . That sounds more like a privilage than a right to me.

speechlesstx · Jul 22, 2009, 10:12 AM

Ok ex, the truth is insurance companies do engage in rationing what they will PAY for. Pharmaceutical companies influence doctors to prescribe expensive new medicines when old ones may be just fine or even better and safer. Some things are broken, but the TRUTH is it doesn't require government bureaucrats reinventing the wheel to fix things.

The TRUTH is the cost of Obamacare is unsustainable.

The TRUTH is government will ration health care far more than insurance companies.

The TRUTH is Obama doesn't even know what's in this monstrous, unsustainable, spooky bill that not even he and Congres will commit to using themselves.

The TRUTH is Obama wants this bill passed NOW, before the bad news of his now delayed July budget bad news is released, even though he admits it needs work.

The TRUTH is Obama is too busy pushing this unsustainable bill he isn't familiar with that needs work, and punishing dissenters in his own party to actually lead on the issue.

The TRUTH is when Obama says it's not about him you can bet that it's ALL about him.

Quote:

"Let's just lay everything on the table," Grassley said. "A Democrat congressman last week told me after a conversation with the president that the president had trouble in the House of Representatives, and it wasn't going to pass if there weren't some changes made ... and the president says, 'You're going to destroy my presidency.' "

Not "you need to fix health care in America," but "You're going to destroy my presidency." Yeah, it's all about him...at all cost.

NeedKarma · Jul 22, 2009, 10:32 AM

So I googled "You're going to destroy my presidency" and guess what I found? Hearsay. Never does the name of that congressman EVER show up. In fact it's the exact same text that shows up everywhere...on neocon blogs everywhere. They even cal it a talking point. And some of the terms they use are the same as you just used here.

Nice try...again.