I'm curious where this belief that society or the government owes anyone healthcare. Last time I checked, healthcare is not one of the things listed in the Constitution.
I don't know - Perhaps it should be.
Given the US constitution was written in Philadelphia in 1787 it is hardly surprising that there was no ideological premise underlying the provision of health care for all citizens written into it. Its omission may well have reflected the views of Jefferson etal but I don't believe so. Nonetheless the conceptual basis for a health care "system" IE an organised and widespread delivery model still arose out of the public domain.
Prior to this those with nominal incomes or the poor and destitute relied heavily on the altruism of the medical professions of the day. Even then you could guarantee there were no poor people with their own "physician" and access to advanced medical procedures was all but non-existent.
Indeed the poor and powerless of the underclasses were often the guinea pigs of medical research. Further they were often blamed for the rise of epidemics.
Their squalid living conditions. lack of sanitation and hygiene, poor education and access to basic health care provision helped to cement their place on the lower rungs of society.
Given the lessons learned at the time of the value of widespread health care both in human and economic costs it remains surprising that the concept didn't gain traction across all ideological spectrum's. Given the largely agrarian and trade goods economies of the day, the pandemics of the 15th through 18th centuries decimated the very workers relied upon by the merchant and upper classes to maintain their businesses and incomes. The flow on effect for nations was often economic catastrophe.
Even today we have medical catastrophes with enormous economic consequences. Flu pandemics, even widespread outbreaks of seemingly trivial medical problems like gastro can shut down businesses and produce millions of lost man hours at workplaces. The dollar cost can be felt at local, regional or even national levels.
I would think that lifting the bottom line of health care both in terms of scope and in the level of dissemination does more than just make a poor person feel more a like a rich one because they can get a heart transplant too.
The flow on effects are to both the economy and the social fabric of the population.
It's a trite argument, typically shovelled out by the political right, that the idea of "universal health care" is some evil contrivance of the "socialists" (read communists - I wish people would just apply the tag that they really mean but don't actually understand) with the next step being chanting political mantras each day and seeing all of us wearing olive drab overshirts whilst plowing the fields singing dogmatic anthems.
It isn't. It makes sense in every respect. Plenty of countries have tried it irrespective of the incumbent governments ideological position (though more common to the left of centre of course). Some have met with mixed results others with great success.
The problems typically lie with efficient implementation but this belies the veracity of the concept. But they also lie in the corporate mindset. To my way of thinking, the evidence doesn't seem to reflect much in the way of "social responsibility" being demonstrated by corporate anybody (not just corporate America by the way). Look what the big pharmaceuticals tried to do to stop generic aids meds in Asia and Africa.
Individual effort, entrepreneurialism, reaching for the stars - all good stuff. But resistance from the private sector ( because they feel threatened - or more correctly they don't want their profits "shared around") has ridden on the back of American ideals like those mentioned for too long.
I don't know that that's what your forefathers exactly had in mind when they wrote the constitution whether they included a section on "universal" health care as a right or not. Maybe the "Life" part of ..."life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" was a broader and more complex metaphor than we realise.
Anything "collective" or universal" doesn't have to be a threat to the foundation principles of the American heart and mind.
All societies evolve. Perhaps with Obama you will see the beginning of a new paradigm in the way americans feel and think about many things including health care. Perhaps in a few years many an American family will breathe a sigh of relief and find comfort in knowing that their fellow Americans (through the government) are not only watching their backs (security) but watching their health as well.
Time will tell I guess. Here hoping.
MM
.
