What about a health problem caused by the job? Say, a finger cut off, or breathing problems leading to hospitalization for pneumonia caused by poor ventilation or other health/safety situation?
Should you pay for your health care if your health problems are caused by a work environment? Especially if the situation was preventable?
As you stated: law enforcement is a key purpose for civil government as is the judicial process that follows the police work.
Couldn't you just as easily make the same argument for the health of the citizens of that civil government?
Not to mention: The federal government is already WAY involved in the health care industry. The FDA, for example, must approve any drugs before they're dispensed to citizens of the government. Doctors have to be certified in the state in which they practice. Etc.
Before folks get the wrong impression: I'm not for more government. I believe that the Constitution was intended to limit government, and that we're on a dangerous path to overturning the Constitution (or at least rendering it null and void).
Having done a very small amount of research into the single payer system, I'm not a big proponent.
Czechoslovakia was touted as an example of what we were trying to accomplish with the health insurance bill that was just passed; having checked into it, they had a very good system until the early part of the 20th century. When the Russians took over, they implemented a bureaucratic system financed by the government through taxes. By 1985, their system suffered from poorly maintained facilities and a lot of corruption. They've been attempting to overhaul their health care system since 1995. Can't find much on how well that's going.
I'm thinking there has to be a way to provide health care (not this huge insurance scam we all just hooked into) for those that need it, while providing private practice and therefore competition--but without requiring those that pay taxes to have to pay for the health care of those that don't pay taxes.
Or maybe I'm just trying to live in my own version of reality....
The role of civil government should be to provide a system of justice to punish wickedness and for us to use to resolve our differences without resorting to personal vengeance.
To that end the government has a legitimate role in regulation of many activities including commerce - the old weights and monetary standards mentioned in the Bible - and other activities involving the sale and exchange of goods and services including medical goods and services.
Regulating something does not mean absolute control of it or actually providing it.
For example one can regulate traffic - limit speed, provide rules of the road, require responsible conduct, etc. but not provide everyone with an automobile or require everyone to have one and not have a traffic policeman at every corner or in your car with you.
The thread posed the question of whether the government should provide doctors - I say no to that - but did not ask whether it should regulate doctors - I say okay to that only to the minimum extent necessary to provide justice for the exchange of their goods and services.
The law should be the minimum required - not the maximum possible.
It should provide a framework within which individuals can act fairly and responsibly if they wish, be punished if they act dishonestly, and suffer their own consequences if they act irresponsibly.
"A government and it's agents are under no general duty to provide PUBLIC SERVICES, such as police protection, to ANY particular citizen."
-Warren v. District of Columbia (D.C. App. 1981)
If our government doesn't care if we get shot, what makes you think they care if we get medical care for it?
I think most police and public officials do care. All that the Warren case says is that police can't be sued for failing to protect a particular individual.
This applies in every state. It is a matter of legal obligation. Should every person who gets his car stolen be permitted to sue the government?
The government may obligate itself by contract with an individual. For example, if a police officer says, "We will protect you against . . . " get it in writing.
Rankings mean nothing to me, unless i know the criteria, and/or the "agenda" that precipitated the rankings.
For instance, there's that anti-American bunch of nuts that rank Cuba's healthcare system above the USA's.
They must smoke some of that medical marijuana to jump to that conclusion.
forced to buy their insurance. Think about it.[/quote]
So let me get this straight: insurance companies, who make their money based on their customers not getting sick or injured, will make a killing by being flooded with new customers who are sick and injured? Could you please explain to us how that's supposed to work?
Second, when they start having to drop customers, where is all of that money supposed to come from?
Says the same genius who just stated that insurance companies are going to "make a killing" by having to pay out on countless new claims.