Health care a right?

[Jonathan Kovaciny]

My letter to the editor was published today "Health care is unequivocally not a right" in response to Scott Urban's "Health care is a right" letter last week.

Thank you for publishing my letter, Free Press editors, but could you explain why you added the qualifier "in my opinion" to my first paragraph, and moved all the paragraph splits around? In my opinion, your edits weakened my points while providing no improvements, grammatical or otherwise. Also in my opinion, it made the sentence rather awkward. Is it not common knowledge that everything in the LTTE section is in the opinion of the author? I do respect your right to edit submissions, as it is your paper, but perhaps I'm missing the reason for the change.

I don't mean to sound whiny ("YOU DESTROYED MY WORK!!!" ) because it is a small edit, but I was just curious. I'd rather be published and edited than not published at all, of course, and I do appreciate your publishing of my previous letters as well.

For those who care, I have the original version as I submitted it posted here.

[Bob Jentges]

Good afternoon Jonathon;

I read your letter in the print edition this morning, and read the origional you linked to your above post.

In the event you were not aware, J. Scott Urban is a social studies teacher at Mankato West High School. When I read his letter indicating health care is an "unalienable American right", even though I have been writing articles maybe too frequently in the last few weeks I felt he needed to be taken to task. People who do not understand the Declaration of Independence, the general welfare clause, the enumerated powers in the U.S. Constitution, and the 10th Ammendment could very well not be teaching social studies students correctly. So I sent a Your View letter in yesterday morning. I hope it is published soon.

Regarding editing of your letter, my last My View article included a very small edit too. I referred to the USA as a representative republic, but the article read "representative democracy".

There have been some very good conservative viewpoints from readers recently. I think it is important that like minded people (none of whom I have ever met) continue to get our message out to counter what I refer to as "the committee" i.e. the group of liberal/progressive MSU professors, retired professors, teachers, active and retired federal government employee's and Democrat Party activists.

The Free Press has been good about publishing our opinions in the past and I have no reason to expect that will not continue.

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

Jonathan. We sometimes insert the "in my opinion" phrase in letters to make it more clear to readers that it is your opinion. That usually occurs when a writer states something as a "matter of fact" that of course, cannot be determined to be a fact or not.
One can have an "opinion" that another's point of view is "totally inaccurate" but facts are not so easily arrived at. If we can clearly determine something is "inaccurate" we leave out the "in my opinion."

[Dan Conner]

Joe, If healthcare is not a right, then what if it is removed for those who have insurance? Would not the people with insurance holler about abuse of their rights? Healthcare is a right for everyone. If not then life of the unborn is not a right, nor is life a right for anyone. Denying people healthcare can only be described as selfish, uncaring and unsharing. Life is valuable, particularly to that person. Selfishly denying life by denying healthcare certainly isn't respectful of the rights of others and doesn't represent the core values of most every religion.

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

Dan. Was your last comment direct at me or "Jon"?

[Jonathan Kovaciny]

Dan, there's a difference between the right to health insurance/care and the right to own or purchase health insurance/care. Likewise, there's a difference between the right to life and the right to the goods and services required to stay alive.

People do NOT have the right to a service (health insurance/care) that they have not legitimately acquired by buying it from someone else (or producing it themselves), nor is it "selfish denying" to tell them they need to pay for (or find a donor to pay for) something they need. Collecting taxes to pay for other people's health care is selfishly denying those taxpayers their justly-acquired wealth--wealth which they could otherwise be using to purchase their own health care, food, and other life-sustaining goods and services.

People who cannot afford health care should seek support from their family, friends, churches, neighbors, charities, etc. When the government provides charity or a 'safety net' for people, it completely erodes these important community connections and depersonalizes the act of asking for support and the act of giving support. This depersonalization also makes it easy to ask for help when you don't *really* need it, which leads to abuse and overuse. Additionally, the government has no real incentive to get people off the dole and back on their own, while a personal donor does. The 'War on Poverty' has been running for decades, and we still have just as many poor people even though we've spent hundreds of billions of dollars. All of the tax money needed to pay for that has a tendency to drive more people toward government support, since they have less money of their own to begin with.

[Dan Conner]

Originally Posted by Free Press Editor Joe Spear

Dan. Was your last comment direct at me or "Jon"?

I'm sorry, but it was addressed to Jon

[Dan Conner]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Kovaciny

Dan, there's a difference between the right to health insurance/care and the right to own or purchase health insurance/care. Likewise, there's a difference between the right to life and the right to the goods and services required to stay alive.

People do NOT have the right to a service (health insurance/care) that they have not legitimately acquired by buying it from someone else (or producing it themselves), nor is it "selfish denying" to tell them they need to pay for (or find a donor to pay for) something they need. Collecting taxes to pay for other people's health care is selfishly denying those taxpayers their justly-acquired wealth--wealth which they could otherwise be using to purchase their own health care, food, and other life-sustaining goods and services.

People who cannot afford health care should seek support from their family, friends, churches, neighbors, charities, etc. When the government provides charity or a 'safety net' for people, it completely erodes these important community connections and depersonalizes the act of asking for support and the act of giving support. This depersonalization also makes it easy to ask for help when you don't *really* need it, which leads to abuse and overuse. Additionally, the government has no real incentive to get people off the dole and back on their own, while a personal donor does. The 'War on Poverty' has been running for decades, and we still have just as many poor people even though we've spent hundreds of billions of dollars. All of the tax money needed to pay for that has a tendency to drive more people toward government support, since they have less money of their own to begin with.

Jon, you make a point without distinction. Let me just say that it is everyone's right to equal healthcare treatment. Who cares about insurance. I think your distinction points out a glaring misconception that people are equating insurance with actual healthcare. All peopl should be able to get equally life-sustaining healthcare, whether they can afford it or not. If you want the privilege of paying for healthcare insurance, have at it.

[Bob Jentges]

Originally Posted by Dan Conner

Jon, you make a point without distinction. Let me just say that it is everyone's right to equal healthcare treatment. Who cares about insurance. I think your distinction points out a glaring misconception that people are equating insurance with actual healthcare. All peopl should be able to get equally life-sustaining healthcare, whether they can afford it or not. If you want the privilege of paying for healthcare insurance, have at it.

I do not intend to intervene in your debate with Jon on the substance of the issue, but I found it ironic that way back when in a different thread on essentially the same topic I expressed there was a distinct difference between health care and health insurance. At that time I was ridiculed by the same guy that now says they are indeed different.

I guess that demonstrates if all one is looking for is an arguement, they are not difficult to start!

[Liz Ratcliff]

You bet healthcare is a HUMAN right. I feel sorry for those who put enterprise /money before mankind. And in terms of the Declaration of Independence... Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness... hard to acheive when being exploited by insurance companies... or lack of funds prevent medical treatment...

Here is another quote for the Declaration of Independence... "the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them..."

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."

"That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

"And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor. " - what happened there?

If you so dearly heed the words of the Declaration of Independence, why not then stand with us in defiance of health insurance companies' tyranny over us! Was it not tyranny that inspired the D of I? Do you not see insurance and big pharma price gouging and claim denying and the majority of bankruptcies related to huge medical bills as tyranny? Or is it the corporations inalienable right to drain the good people of this country with high premiums and prices and low payout? What about the confirmed price gouging and rebranding the same drugs to prolong their marketability? How about denying domestic abuse victims for PRE EXISTING conditions? Health insurance ONLY cares about obscene profits - not you, not me, not your family, not mine, not anyone that costs them money! WAKE UP!

For those with good insurance yet opposed to a public option - good for you! I challenge you to put yourself in someone else's shoes and imagine what someone without the good fortune you have might have to go through to get treatment. Perhaps you can ponder having to sell your home because you can't afford it with all your medical bills. Got a comfy car? Good because you may have to live in it. And I hope you never have a catastrophic medical crisis that may threaten your good fortune as it has for more than half of our countrymen that file bankruptcy every year.

I find it ironic that in the name of freedom, some defend the freedom of corporations to oppress this country. UGH! Capitalism has become an ugly beast when we are so blind as to turn our backs on humanity.