Does Health Insurance determine where you work and whether you stay married unhappily

[chloe]

I ask this because I have talked to plenty of people "online" and offline who have told me candidly that if they didn't need the Health Insurance they would have quit the crap job they loathe long ago or they would have left the crap spouse they can't stand long ago.

I just wondered if health insurance were no longer an issue and everyone had it regardless would it change your life in any career or marital way? If it's a weird question sorry I was just wondering and thought I'd ask.

[Luna Tick]

I know for sure I would never take a job with no health insurance or crappy health insurance.

[LuLu]

It determined the job I have now, but at least I like my job.

[chloe]

It determined the job I have now, but at least I like my job.

So if we had universal healthcare in a way it frees people up to do what they want for a living instead of working in a job because it offers healthcare, is that true?

lulu you should visit here more;)

[Little-Acorn]

Of course not. I've never had such a problem. For a while I was self-employed, doing software, and purchased my own. The rest of the time, my company has had employer-provided insurance, and since the govt pays me to take that, it has been more affordable than buying my own (though without those govt subsidies, the COBRA payments are scary, I'd NEVER get such a Cadillac plan on my own).

In short, never had a problem.

[chloe]

Of course not. I've never had such a problem. For a while I was self-employed, doing software, and purchased my own. The rest of the time, my company has had employer-provided insurance, and since the govt pays me to take that, it has been more affordable than buying my own (though without those govt subsidies, the COBRA payments are scary, I'd NEVER get such a Cadillac plan on my own).

In short, never had a problem.

Thanks littleacorn I always appreciate your input. I don't have any insurance but at the college they do offer a clinic for students and its onl $10 bucks a visit.

[Jess]

I'm self-employed as well and getting my own insurance is pretty danged expensive. But I gotsta have it, considering that many of my jobs involve implements of destruction that could hurt me. Some have.

The caveat is that I do like what I do. Most of the time.

[chloe]

I'm self-employed as well and getting my own insurance is pretty danged expensive. But I gotsta have it, considering that many of my jobs involve implements of destruction that could hurt me. Some have.

The caveat is that I do like what I do. Most of the time.

do you think if healthcare was universal in the usa it would change how you run your business in any way ior make your job easier or change who you hire?

[Jess]

do you think if healthcare was universal in the usa it would change how you run your business in any way ior make your job easier or change who you hire?

It would save me money, I wouldn't have that worry over my head and since I'm the only person who works for me, it wouldn't change any hiring issue.


Btw - decent insurance was not even close to being enough to keep me in a crappy marriage. Kids - yes. For a while. Insurance - no.

[ConHog]

I have always had Uncle Sugar's medical insurance.

[Jess]

I have always had Uncle Sugar's medical insurance.

Which you earned and are entitled to.

[ConHog]

Which you earned and are entitled to.

I certainly think so. I mean it's not the best, but it isn't the worst either.

[Jess]

I certainly think so. I mean it's not the best, but it isn't the worst either.

It's better than what I got.

[logroller]

So if we had universal healthcare in a way it frees people up to do what they want for a living instead of working in a job because it offers healthcare, is that true?


If we had universal healthcare, crappy jobs wouldn't go away--someone still has to do them, right?

Admittedly, if people just did what they wanted to do, instead of worrying about insurance--they'd probably be happier, healthier and not need elaborate healthcare plans to begin with. Universal healthcare may provide a mechanism for this; but unhealthy choices will continue to be made.

Lifestyle choices, like working long hours and the associated stress certainly contributes to poor health; if universal healthcare is to abate this, it will most likely result from a social shift away from high-production; but maybe that's a good thing.:thumb:

[chloe]

If we had universal healthcare, crappy jobs wouldn't go away--someone still has to do them, right?

Admittedly, if people just did what they wanted to do, instead of worrying about insurance--they'd probably be happier, healthier and not need elaborate healthcare plans to begin with. Universal healthcare may provide a mechanism for this; but unhealthy choices will continue to be made.

Lifestyle choices, like working long hours and the associated stress certainly contributes to poor health; if universal healthcare is to abate this, it will most likely result from a social shift away from high-production; but maybe that's a good thing.:thumb:

Sure I agree with that. I don't have any healthcare and working at a job I hate is not worth it to me. But Logroller I swear to God I have had so many people tell me the ONLY reason they stayed in some job they loathe is because they needed the health insurance for there sick kid, sick spouse or themself, additionally I met one person who told me they stayed in there marriage because there spouse carried cheaper better health insurance and they had to have it for a lifelong condition they suffered with.

So it just made me wonder how prevelant an issue that really is, or if those people are just isolated incidents. I admit when my children were little I worked at jobs I hated as I needed the health insurance for them. Now they are pretty much grown and frankly if I got sick and was going to die Id rather die then have to lose all my investments to medical care. What little savings and investments I have I want to go to my kids.

[Little-Acorn]

If we had universal healthcare, crappy jobs wouldn't go away--someone still has to do them, right?


When was the last time, when you pulled into a gas station, that someone came out to pump the gas, wash your windshield, and check your oil and water?

That used to be pretty much universal, at every gas station in the U.S. "Self-service" stations were virtually non-existent. But when the Minimum Wage started rising, those jobs DID start going away - the gas station owners found they now had to pay out more in wages and bennies to the high school kids doing them, than the services were bringing in. So, bye-bye.

Universal Health Care will be another big increase in the expenses that employers have to pay out, as a penalty imposed on them every time they hire somebody. (The idea that UHC will somehow DECREASE expenses, is laughable, and has pretty well been disproven.) With every additional expense employers have to pay for hiring someone, you can expect fewer someones to be hired, starting with those whose services don't bring in much additional income. As surely as night follows day.

[chloe]

When was the last time, when you pulled into a gas station, that someone came out to pump the gas, wash your windshield, and check your oil and water?

That used to be pretty much universal, at every gas station in the U.S. "Self-service" stations were virtually non-existent. But when the Minimum Wage started rising, those jobs DID start going away - the gas station owners found they now had to pay out more in wages and bennies to the high school kids doing them, than the services were bringing in. So, bye-bye.

Universal Health Care will be another big increase in the expenses that employers have to pay out, as a penalty imposed on them every time they hire somebody. (The idea that UHC will somehow DECREASE expenses, is laughable, and has pretty well been disproven.) With every additional expense employers have to pay for hiring someone, you can expect fewer someones to be hired, starting with those whose services don't bring in much additional income. As surely as night follows day.

Do you think people should be legally required to have to carry medical insurance and also legally required to have to go to the doctor?

What do you think would resolve the issue about health insurance? I think ALL health insurance should be eliminated and we should just work out contracts with the doctors and hospitals individually.

[Little-Acorn]

I'm self-employed as well and getting my own insurance is pretty danged expensive.

Do you get "cadillac" plans that pay for every office visit, aspirin, and band-aid? Those are VERY expensive, for obvious reasons - insurance companies don't have money trees.

Or do you get the kind I got when I was self-employed - plans with high deductibles for each incident, so they never pay for routine, predictable stuff? But if you clobber yourself good, and rack up $50,000 in medical expenses, they pay $49,000 of it? I found those to be surprisingly economical. They are what insurance is supposed to be for: They protect you from unexpected HUGE expenses, but you pay all the routine and small stuff. Basically, you almost never use them, just like car insurance or flood insurance.

Since govt started subsidizing health insurance like this in the 1940s, Americans have gotten weird ideas, thinking health insurance is supposed to pay for everything. That's like thinking house insurance is supposed to pay for every little nick in a wall, stuff that happens every day. It gets FAR away from insurance's real purpose: protecting you from unexpected HUGE expenses, but not from little routine ones. That's how costs are kept down... but when govt gets involved and starts "helping", they aren't any more.

[chloe]

Do you get "cadillac" plans that pay for every office visit, aspirin, and band-aid? Those are VERY expensive, for obvious reasons - insurance companies don't have money trees.

Or do you get the kind I got when I was self-employed - plans with high deductibles for each incident, so they never pay for routine, predictable stuff? But if you clobber yourself good, and rack up $50,000 in medical expenses, they pay $49,000 of it? I found those to be surprisingly economical. They are what insurance is supposed to be for: They protect you from unexpected HUGE expenses, but you pay all the routine and small stuff. Basically, you almost never use them, just like car insurance or flood insurance.

Since govt started subsidizing health insurance like this in the 1940s, Americans have gotten weird ideas, thinking health insurance is supposed to pay for everything. That's like thinking house insurance is supposed to pay for every little nick in a wall, stuff that happens every day. It gets FAR away from insurance's real purpose: protecting you from unexpected HUGE expenses, but not from little routine ones. That's how costs are kept down... but when govt gets involved and starts "helping", they aren't any more.

Little Acorn thanks for all that information. I have wondered about that, the time frames of when Health Insurance became so big that it became the primary issue in jobs and politics. In the old black n white movies that I like watching (he he) sometimes doctors made house calls and there was a warm kind of family doctor feeling to care portrayed. In those old days I don't think most people even had health insurance. Now it's as big as company stock matching plans and pension plans. It sure seems to have grown into something else then what it was originally intended to be.

[red states rule]

Don't give this issue a second thought folks. Remember Obamacare is going to "fix" all of these issues for you.

Do not worry about the spike in your cost for the ins. Don't sweat that your employer may stop offering health coverage all together. Don't fret over ins companies dropping coverage for kids on some plans

Obamacare will take care of all oyur needs and answer all your questions

Sometime in the not so distant future. After Obama is out of office. Unless the USSC rules it unconstitional. Or if Dems get voted out of office and the R's take over and repeal the damn thing

Other than that, Obamacare will solve all your health ins releated problems

Sowe have been told

[Little-Acorn]

we should just work out contracts with the doctors and hospitals individually.

I agree. Plus, we should work out contracts with health insurance companies individually. And visit several health insurance companies, just like getting several quotes for car repairs, before deciding which to go with.

None of these contracts every work out perfectly, of course. Just like nothing else in this world ever works out perfectly... though if you're careful, they usually come out pretty well.

Only if you suddenly turn around and announce that health insurance must have a PERFECT result (as we've been doing for the last few decades), will your results turn to chaos and your costs soar (as they are starting to now).

Demanding perfection in an imperfect world, is merely a bit of hysteria. And the sooner you get over that, the more sensible your life will become... obviously.

[chloe]

I agree. Plus, we should work out contracts with health insurance companies individually. And visit several health insurance companies, just like getting several quotes for car repairs, before deciding which to go with.

None of these contracts every work out perfectly, of course. Just like nothing else in this world ever works out perfectly... though if you're careful, they usually come out pretty well.

Only if you suddenly turn around and announce that health insurance must have a PERFECT result (as we've been doing for the last few decades), will your results turn to chaos and your costs soar (as they are starting to now).

Demanding perfection in an imperfect world, is merely a bit of hysteria. And the sooner you get over that, the more sensible your life will become... obviously.

Yeah your right, and employers shouldn't even be in the health insurance business, that should be a separate thing like car insurance. Maybe you should be in charge of fixing this problem Little Acorn, you have great answers. :salute:

[chloe]

Don't give this issue a second thought folks. Remember Obamacare is going to "fix" all of these issues for you.

Do not worry about the spike in your cost for the ins. Don't sweat that your employer may stop offering health coverage all together. Don't fret over ins companies dropping coverage for kids on some plans

Obamacare will take care of all oyur needs and answer all your questions

Sometime in the not so distant future. After Obama is out of office. Unless the USSC rules it unconstitional. Or if Dems get voted out of office and the R's take over and repeal the damn thing

Other than that, Obamacare will solve all your health ins releated problems

Sowe have been told

Forget Obama care, I vote for Little Acorn care !!!

[red states rule]

Forget Obama care, I vote for Little Acorn care !!!


It is several steps up from Obamacare that is for sure

[Little-Acorn]

Forget Obama care, I vote for Little Acorn care !!!

Ummm... haven't you noticed the common pattern throughout all my posts in this thread?

Government isn't involved at all, except for fraud protection - making sure insurance companies provide what they contracted to provide.

So voting is what won't do you any good... except to vote OUT the people who keep saying government can step in and fix it.

[chloe]

Ummm... haven't you noticed the common pattern throughout all my posts in this thread?

Government isn't involved at all, except for fraud protection - making sure insurance companies provide what they contracted to provide.

So voting is what won't do you any good... except to vote OUT the people who keep saying government can step in and fix it.

Sure government shouldn't but I also don't even think employers should be dealing out health insurance benefits I think it shouldn't be on the table at all as a work benefit.


Health insurance should be sold like Car insurance and companies dealing it allowed to compete the same way.

[logroller]

(The idea that UHC will somehow DECREASE expenses, is laughable, and has pretty well been disproven.)

Disproven using what? Every indicator I come across lists the US system as the most expensive.


Dark shade is public expense/ light shade is private.

http://topforeignstocks.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/oecd-health-expenditure-gdp-per-cpita.PNG

[logroller]

Sure government shouldn't but I also don't even think employers should be dealing out health insurance benefits I think it shouldn't be on the table at all as a work benefit.


Health insurance should be sold like Car insurance and companies dealing it allowed to compete the same way.

Check out how the Swiss program.

Features of the Swiss health systemSwiss citizens buy insurance for themselves; there are no employer-sponsored or government-run insurance programs. Hence, insurance prices are transparent to the beneficiary. The government defines the minimum benefit package that qualifies for the mandate. Critically, all packages require beneficiaries to pick up a portion of the costs of their care (deductibles and coinsurance) in order to incentivize their frugality.
The government subsidizes health care for the poor on a graduated basis, with the goal of preventing individuals from spending more than 10 percent of their income on insurance. But because people are still on the hook for a significant component of the costs, they often opt for cheaper packages; in 2003, 42% of Swiss citizens chose high-deductible plans (i.e., plans with significant cost-sharing features). Those who wish to acquire supplemental coverage are free to do so on their own.
99.5% of Swiss citizens have health insurance. Because they can choose between plans from nearly 100 different private insurance companies, insurers must compete on price and service, helping to curb health care inflation. Most beneficiaries have complete freedom to choose their doctor, and appointment waiting times are almost as low as those in the U.S., the world leader.

Switzerland’s imperfections
Naturally, such a system will not be attractive to those who implacably oppose the idea of a private health-care sector. But conservatives (http://www.nationalreview.com/critical-condition/48483/thank-you-bringing-switzerland-professor-krugman/john-r-graham) will also findobjectionable elements (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9272) to the Swiss system. In important ways, the Swiss system resembles that of Massachusetts and PPACA. The Swiss have an individual mandate. The government defines the minimum benefit package, which has been subject to expansion from special-interest lobbying, and is more comprehensive and less consumer-driven than it could be. The government has enacted Medicare-style price controls for hospital and physician reimbursement. Insurers must charge similar rates to the young and old (“community rating”), must cover pre-existing conditions, and must operate as non-profit entities. Princeton economist Uwe Reinhardt describes Switzerland (http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/292/10/1227) as “a de facto cartel of insurers and health care practitioners who transact with one another in a tight web of government regulations.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/04/29/why-switzerland-has-the-worlds-best-health-care-system/

[chloe]

Check out how the Swiss program.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/04/29/why-switzerland-has-the-worlds-best-health-care-system/

Nice find thanks logroller.

[LuLu]

So if we had universal healthcare in a way it frees people up to do what they want for a living instead of working in a job because it offers healthcare, is that true?

lulu you should visit here more;)

It probably would.
And I should.

[Gunny]

I ask this because I have talked to plenty of people "online" and offline who have told me candidly that if they didn't need the Health Insurance they would have quit the crap job they loathe long ago or they would have left the crap spouse they can't stand long ago.

I just wondered if health insurance were no longer an issue and everyone had it regardless would it change your life in any career or marital way? If it's a weird question sorry I was just wondering and thought I'd ask.

I'd say yes. From what I have seen, you civvies pay a buttload for insurance. It's ridiculous, but you're offsetting the doc's malpractice insurance because of the petty ne'er-do-wells who sue them for any and every thing imaginable.

[chloe]

I'd say yes. From what I have seen, you civvies pay a buttload for insurance. It's ridiculous, but you're offsetting the doc's malpractice insurance because of the petty ne'er-do-wells who sue them for any and every thing imaginable.

Good point Gunny, malpractice insurance is ridiculasly expensive. I wonder if they used to have to carry it in the old days when Doctors were able to make house calls and before the corporations were lovers with health insurance companies.:laugh2:

[Gunny]

Good point Gunny, malpractice insurance is ridiculasly expensive. I wonder if they used to have to carry it in the old days when Doctors were able to make house calls and before the corporations were lovers with health insurance companies.:laugh2:

I'd venture to guess that in "the old days", a doc losing too many patients and/or screwing up would get him a quick visit to the nearest tree with a rope.:laugh:

[fj1200]

They are what insurance is supposed to be for: They protect you from unexpected HUGE expenses, but you pay all the routine and small stuff. Basically, you almost never use them, just like car insurance or flood insurance.

Exactly, now health insurance is a health care payment plan, pay huge premiums up front so you don't have to pay the little stuff later on.


Since govt started subsidizing health insurance like this in the 1940s, Americans have gotten weird ideas, thinking health insurance is supposed to pay for everything. That's like thinking house insurance is supposed to pay for every little nick in a wall, stuff that happens every day. It gets FAR away from insurance's real purpose: protecting you from unexpected HUGE expenses, but not from little routine ones. That's how costs are kept down... but when govt gets involved and starts "helping", they aren't any more.

Not sure what you mean by subsidized but employer provided health care got its start when wage controls capped base salaries and employers started offering benefits to get around the caps. Pretty soon that was the basic package with businesses being able to deduct those expenses while individuals can't. Those two regulatory based incentives changed health care delivery. Until Medicare jumped in which is a whole new level of complexity.

[Little-Acorn]

Not sure what you mean by subsidized

The payments you make for your employer-provided health plans, can be made with pre-tax dollars. But if you buy your own, you must do it with dollars that have already been taxed. In other words, the govt pays you that much to take your company's health plan, while they pay you zip to buy your own. So who on earth would buy his own in that scenario?

This reduced (in some cases eliminated) competition - your only real choices are the few offerings your company makes.

If not for that tax-subsidized interference with the market, can you imagine ANYONE going to Joe's Lawnmower Shop and Landscaping to purchase their health care?

Insane.

And whenever you find something that nutty, you can be pretty sure that government is ultimately the cause.

[fj1200]

^That's where I thought you'd be going with that. And...

And whenever you find something that nutty, you can be pretty sure that government is ultimately the cause.

Agreed.

[fj1200]

Check out how the Swiss program.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/04/29/why-switzerland-has-the-worlds-best-health-care-system/

Excellent piece. How do you require that everyone purchase insurance without mandating it and then how do big government types keep from guilting those with insurance to provide it for those without insurance.

[chloe]

Excellent piece. How do you require that everyone purchase insurance without mandating it and then how do big government types keep from guilting those with insurance to provide it for those without insurance.

car insurance is mandatory, you can do health insurance the same way. require a basic plan people can order extra if they want to but basic coverage means no emergency room right offs like illegals love to do:laugh2:

Health Insurance companies can sell across state lines and be competative like car insurance. Government and Corporations are pretty much out of it.

[fj1200]

Car insurance isn't mandatory. You don't have to have a car and/or you don't have to drive it on public roads. ER "coverage" for illegals is different, that's mandated by law. But yes, get government out of it, corporations not so much as they are the HC providers, HC insurers, etc.

[chloe]

Car insurance isn't mandatory. You don't have to have a car and/or you don't have to drive it on public roads. ER "coverage" for illegals is different, that's mandated by law. But yes, get government out of it, corporations not so much as they are the HC providers, HC insurers, etc.

oh I thought if you HAVE a car and you drive it on the road its mandatory, so you mean I( don't have to have car insurance for my car? I didn't know that geez> Im cancelling it.:laugh2:

[fj1200]

^Methinks you read what you wanted to read there. ;) Or I might have tried to be too cute by half. :eek:

[chloe]

^Methinks you read what you wanted to read there. ;) Or I might have tried to be too cute by half. :eek:


so it is required ok gotcha.:salute: Vaccinations are required for children too.

Anyway selling health insurance like car insurance would may it competative and cheap:laugh2:

[Little-Acorn]

Anyway selling health insurance like car insurance would may it competative and cheap:laugh2:

Why wouldn't it be?

Just keep in mind the difference between buying health care insurance, and buying a health care payment plan. The former pays just for the big, unexpected things; while the latter pays for every office visit, flu bug, and aspirin.

Before WWII, most people (if they had anything) had the former. And they paid out of pocket for office visits, house calls (remember those?), tetanus shots etc. Many people almost never used their health insurance at all, because they never had MAJOR injuries or illnesses. Just as most people never use their house insurance, because most people's houses never burn down or get flooded or whatever... and so house insurance cost is quite reasonable. And (real) health insurance costs used to be quite reasonable, too, for the same reasonable. In fact, they still are... if you search out a plan that covers only MAJOR medical expenses.

But since govt got involved and started subsidizing "employer-provided" health care plans, thus hiding the costs from the patients, the plans grew more and more elaborate because they were now "other people's responsibilities". And the cost for them went up accordingly... but the beneficiaries saw very little of that part, so they didn't object.

And now people have gotten used to apparently-free health care, to the point where they have the odd idea that there is something "right" about it.

Weaning them off that weird idea (health care being a "right") will be painful... but the alternative is rising costs and diminishing care (exactly what is happening now), to the point where the system collapses. And unfortunately, those are our ONLY choices.

[Little-Acorn]

Something from years past, as relevant today as it was then:

----------------------------------------

What Are Our "Rights"?

You hear an awful lot about our "rights" these days. And justly so-- our rights, in this country, are our most valuable possession, outside of life itself. And some people say that our basic rights, are even more important than life. When Patrick Henry defiantly told the British government during colonial times, "Give me liberty or give me death!", he was stating that he considered a life without liberty, to be worse than no life at all (death).

So, what are our rights?

The Declaration of Independence mentions a few, and implies that there are others. So does the Constitution-- in fact, it names many, and categorically states that those aren't the only rights people have.

The Declaration says that among our rights, are "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". It also says that these were given to us "by [our] Creator". Take that as you will, depending on whatever religious outlook you hold. But one of the implications is that, wherever our rights came from, they were NOT granted us by government, or by our fellow men at all. We had them long before government existed. And these various government documents simply say that government cannot take them away or interfere with them.

Here we refer, of course, only to normal law-abiding citizens. The Constitution contains the phrase "except by due course of law" in many places. If you rob someone, assault him, destroy his property, murder him etc., then you can legitimately be deprived of liberty (you go to jail), property (you get fined), or even life in some extreme cases (Death Penalty). Outside of such lawbreaking, your rights are held inviolate.

But today, our "rights" seem to be multiplying without end. This is not necessarily bad-- as we said, rights are extremely valuable. But, are we getting ahead of ourselves, granting to ourselves so many things under the name of "rights"?

"Old Rights"

Some are pretty indisputable, such as the ones mentioned in the Declaration. The ones mentioned in the Constitution, especially in the first ten Amendments (which was even called the "Bill of Rights" by its authors), are similarly vital... though they seem to be undergoing a methodical erosion. Freedom of religion, right to peaceably assemble, freedom of speech and of the press, the right to keep and bear arms, etc. all are very basic, and it is scary to think of trying to exist in a country in which any of these do not exist.

New "rights"

But lately we have heard about other "rights", such as the right to work, the right to decent medical treatment, the right to a decent standard of living. These all sound salutary-- what kind of society would we have, if working for a living were forbidden, decent health care were forbidden, etc.?

But there is a big gap between "forbidden" and "compulsory". The rights found in the country's founding documents, are compulsory, to the extent that we all have them whether we want them or not (who wouldn't want them?), and no one can take them away.

What about, say, the right to decent medical treatment? Those who favor this "right", point out that they don't necessarily mean the rare, exotic, super-expensive treatments; nor "elective" procedures such as cosmetic liposuction or a luxury suite in the hospital. They usually mean that, if you get sick or injured, you have the "right" to have a doctor look at you, make sure the problem isn't unusually dangerous, and administer the routine treatments needed to help you on the way back to good health. An absence of such routine treatment, could occasionally put your life in peril, obviously-- a simple broken bone could lead to infection if untreated, and possibly far more. But there are differences between the "Old Rights", as we've called the ones in the founding documents, and these "New 'Rights'".

Your "right to life" protects something that no man gave you-- you simply had it, from the day you were born. Nobody had to go to extraordinary effort to create it for you, outside of natural processes that move forward on their own without deliberate effort or guidance by humans, government, etc.

Same with the "right to liberty". You were your own man, as it were, the day you were born. Nobody had to go to special effort to create that status for you. In fact, they would have had to go to considerable effort to take those things away, by deliberately coming to you and killing you; or by building a jail and imprisoning you etc. If they leave you alone, you have life and liberty, and can pursue happiness. They have to work at it to deprive you of those things.

The Difference in the "New 'Rights'"

But this isn't the case with what we've called "New 'Rights'". In order for you to get the kind of routine medical treatment its advocates describe, somebody has to stop what he is doing and perform work for you-- the doctor who examines you, the clerk who sets up your appointment, the people who built the office or hospital where you get treatment.

If this routine medical treatment is to be called a "right" on par with our "Old Rights", doesn't that mean that you must be given it when needed? And doesn't it follow, then, that others must be compelled to do the normal things needed to treat you?

Uh-oh.

How does this compulsion upon those others (doctors, clerks etc.) fit in with THEIR rights? They "have" to treat you? What if their schedules are full-- do they have to bump another patient to make room for you? What if they were spending precious quality time with their families-- do they have to abandon their own kids, to fulfill your "right" to treatment that only they can give? Doesn't this fit the description of "involuntary servitude"?

This is an important difference between the rights envisioned by the country's founders, and the new "rights" advocated by more modern pundits. In order to secure your "old rights", people merely had to leave you alone... do nothing to bother you. in fact, they were required to. But these new so-called "rights", required that people go out of their way to actively contribute to you.

And that "requirement", in fact violates THEIR rights-- specifically, their right to liberty. They must be left free to live their lives as THEY chose-- free from compulsion to come and help you out. If they want to help you, that's fine-- often it's the decent and moral thing to do. But they cannot be forced to help you, no matter how much you need the help.

These new "rights", are in fact not rights at all. They are obligations upon others, imposed on them without their agreement or consent.

Beware of announcements that you have the "right" to this or that. Ask yourself if this "right", forces someone else to do something for you, that he didn't previously agree to. If it does, it's not a "right" possessed by you. It's an attempt by the announcer, to force others into servitude... an attempt, in fact, to violate the others' rights.