Brad Carmack 06 October at 14:18
Good question. I'm researching the current Washington health care reform proposal for my ethics class (http://finance.senate.gov/healthreform2009/finalwhitepaper.pdf - check out the executive summary and table of contents to get the gist of the paper) and so far I'm struggling to pick a side. I'm persuaded by many arguments forwarded by the Baucus plan, and the remedies to articulated problems seem plausible and promising. However, I struggle to discern whether the long-run benefits of the Baucus plan, if applied, will outweigh their significant costs and establish a system that's better than the status quo. I'm a bit suspicious of expanding a federal administration over health care since generally public sector spending is less efficient than private sector, and some of the remedies in the Baucus plan seem very similar to Medicaid, which I think has been a significant contributor to the national debt without providing as much worth as the cost for those who pay the cost. Hmm- still thinking, thanks for the question.
Source: finance.senate.gov
Brad Carmack 06 October at 14:27
Also, I don't agree with Baucus's statement: "I believe — very strongly — that
every American has a right to high-quality health care through affordable, portable,
meaningful health coverage." I believe that Americans have many rights, such as those enumerated in the constitution- but there really is no use in articulating a right unless that right creates a corresponding duty. And a right to high-quality health care through affordable, portable, meaningful health coverage necessarily implicates a very significant positive duty (meaning that others have to do something for you to enjoy your right). Why does Blair have the duty to pay for me to enjoy the right to affordable health care? Doesn't Blair Larsen have the right to not pay for my healthcare, and instead use his money in selfish, individually chosen ways? I will concede that Blair has the positive duty to refrain from hazardous explosive experiments around people so they can enjoy their life and liberty privileges, but I wouldn't extend that same reasoning to Blair having to pay money for me to enjoy good health. It sounds real nice to believe in a right to high-quality health care, but the reality is that everyone comes into the world bereft of high-quality health care, and I think the question of "whose duty is it to give you high-quality health care" is one insufficiently answered by the Baucus proposal (at least that's how I see it so far).
every American has a right to high-quality health care through affordable, portable,
meaningful health coverage." I believe that Americans have many rights, such as those enumerated in the constitution- but there really is no use in articulating a right unless that right creates a corresponding duty. And a right to high-quality health care through affordable, portable, meaningful health coverage necessarily implicates a very significant positive duty (meaning that others have to do something for you to enjoy your right). Why does Blair have the duty to pay for me to enjoy the right to affordable health care? Doesn't Blair Larsen have the right to not pay for my healthcare, and instead use his money in selfish, individually chosen ways? I will concede that Blair has the positive duty to refrain from hazardous explosive experiments around people so they can enjoy their life and liberty privileges, but I wouldn't extend that same reasoning to Blair having to pay money for me to enjoy good health. It sounds real nice to believe in a right to high-quality health care, but the reality is that everyone comes into the world bereft of high-quality health care, and I think the question of "whose duty is it to give you high-quality health care" is one insufficiently answered by the Baucus proposal (at least that's how I see it so far).
