Is healthcare a right or a privilege

FacebookEmail
Print Friendly

Insurance News(NaturalHealth365) The basic premise that has fueled the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) is that free health insurance is an inherent right for every U.S. citizen. This is interesting because the constitution does not address this issue directly.

The reasons the Founding Fathers neglected this issue varies, and proponents point to the fact that health care was not a vital component to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness when the Constitution was being constructed. Unlike today, history tells us that healthcare was generally available to all citizens due to its affordability.

Will history repeating itself?

The comparison may seem like a stretch, but when we consider the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis and ensuing recession, we must question the long-term benefits of national health care. Like Obamacare, legislations empowering the government with more control were at the core of the housing bubble bursting.

1. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 stopped discriminatory lending .

2. The Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 mandated that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac offer affordable housing loan purchases.

3. Bill Clinton’s “National Homeownership Strategy: Partners in the American Dream” of 1995 was the tipping point with the stated premise,

The ideal of homeownership is so integral a part of the American Dream that its value for individuals, for families, for communities, and for society is scarcely questioned. This paper provides a brief survey of research into the nature and significance of homeownership’s presumed benefits, particularly for lower income households and other underserved populations.

The 2008 housing bubble: A roadmap for a future healthcare crash

Ultimately, since consumer debt habits and socioeconomic status were not corrected, millions of people qualified for mortgages with marginal to low credit scores and no money for down payments. In addition, people with significant consumer debt utilized their inflated home value to “consolidate” their massive debt portfolio into risky adjustable rate mortgages and refinanced their home.

Because spending habits weren’t corrected, the very same people racked up their credit cards again and, forgetting that they used their one and only “get of jail free card,” found themselves in a worse situation than they were in before. When home values began to plummet, Americans were shocked to be in negative equity situations and became outraged that their high mortgage payments were going toward homes that were, in many cases, half the cost of what they purchased them for.

Many low-to-middle income households filed for bankruptcy by the droves and foreclosed on their homes, which was the impetus to busting the “housing bubble.”

Comparisons between Obamacare and the national homeownership strategy

The 1995 objective to “increase homeownership to a record-high level over the next six years,” parallels the Obamacare’s objective to provide national health coverage in the follow ways:

1. Originally, the Fed was only required underwrite 30 percent of their loans to the affordable housing bucket, however, the Bush administration upped that to 56 percent. To meet these needs, the Fed had to purchase $5 trillion in affordable housing loans and encouraged lending institutions to relax their underwriting requirements so that more people could qualify for loans. Similarly, the Fed will have to subsidize the influx of health benefits being allocated at unprecedented levels.

2. Banks being mandated to provide mortgages to people who could not previously qualify for them is very similar to the mandate that businesses are required to offer health insurance to people who are not qualified due to pre-existing conditions.

3. The similarity between not dealing with the root issue(s) behind financial or health disparities is also shocking. In other words, was the solution to increase homeownership in low-to-middle income populations to loosen up lending requirements? Or, was it to train and educate people so that they could better themselves financially and not be in the socioeconomic status that they were in?
In the same way, is the solution to chronic disease, high infant mortality rate and an overall poor bill of health to provide free health insurance to everyone? Or, is it to train and educate people so that they are more proficient in taking ownership of their health so that they do not need medical attention?

4. Subsequently, if history repeats itself (as in the case of financially destitute people using their home as collateral for consumer debt and getting into negative equity situations and filing for bankruptcy / foreclosing on their homes), America’s health profile will actually decline because national health coverage will “enable” uneducated and/or unwilling people to perpetuate unwise and detrimental lifestyle decisions.

5. If we give people a blank check for health care, what motivation do they have to take responsibility for their own actions? We saw millions of people completely abuse the financial leniency of the government and banking system and live well outside of their means only to be “bailed out” by refinance and Chapter 7 and 11 bankruptcy options. What will this look like in light of Obamacare?

The backlash of the “right to homeownership” hit America hard and many of us are still shaken up financially because of this move. Should we be concerned over what the future will hold for our nation if the “right to free health insurance” turns sour?

So the question remains, “is health care a right or a privilege?”

What are your thoughts? Is free healthcare an unalienable right of all citizens or is it a privilege?

Looking for natural health solutions? Sign up now – for our free, weekly show featuring the greatest minds in natural health and science plus a free gift!

Sources:
http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.emory.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=a089c106-41ef-40f1-b1e0-3008632adc0b%40sessionmgr110&vid=2&hid=103
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c102:6:./temp/~c102w3wlEi:e0:
http://www.huduser.org/publications/txt/hdbrf2.txt
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/08/understanding_obamacare_can_expatriates_be_denied_coverage_for_pre-existing_cond.html

SUBSCRIBE TODAY! Click here to join the NaturalNews Inner Circle – a monthly (online) subscription offering exclusive audio interviews, video events, natural health product discounts, free gifts plus much more!

FacebookEmail

Gain INSTANT Access:


  • » Vaccine World Summit
  • » 7-Day Juice Cleanse
  • » FREE Newsletter
 

Keep Reading:

  • Health care is neither a right nor a privilege. It is a service whose basis has become marketing science, and the biggest scam ever perpetrated upon the American people. Whether health care is a right or privilege is decided by the government under which we live. I have no idea where you got this “premise” – “he basic premise that has fueled the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”)
    is that free health insurance is an inherent right for every U.S.
    citizen.” because Obamacare is 1) anything but affordable, and 2) finances health insurance companies and their CEOs. If your premise had anything to do with reality, we would be instituting socialized medicine.

    • Everyone can now rest assured cause this smoker is on the scene. LOL

  • This article has much wisdom. Thank you for the insightful parallel.

  • Paul Fassa

    Well – the healthcare or sick care system is a complicated mess within our complicated culture. To simplify not having a safety net by simply waving Libertarian banners doesn’t cut it with me.

    Especially since so much is being spent on death and destruction with our war machine. Consider the ridiculous cost of allopathic health care and the fact there’s virtually no coverage for what FEW alternative courses of care are allowed to exist – I say the whole thing is too ridiculous to approach seriously.

    There’s the UK with lobbying efforts to rid the nation of homeopathic clinics and hospitals under socialist funding when it’s as CHEAP as any health interventions can be! Makes no sense. Except when it comes to power and Big Pharma wants big profits.

    The Medical Mafia wants absolute power, and they have private and government insurance coverage to handle outrageously expensive treatments that often actually kill.

    So until ALL other forms of medicine can co-exist with some sort of coverage – fuged ubid id! Indigenous groups were much more humane. Medicine men had herbal knowledge that was used without PROFIT! Two of those shared freely resulted in Harry Hoxsey’s cures and the Canadian nurse Cassie’s Essiac Tea cure. Both worked and both were banned by the Medical Mafia.

    So any NARROW approach such as should you be nannyed for health care or should you suck it up and suffer and pay impossible bills is totally inappropriate when considering the bigger picture. Medicine should not be sooo profit driven and ALL protocols should exist as equal opportunity health providers.

    I used to be a mortgage broker – comparing housing bubbles to health care problems is a bit ludicrous, even sacrilegious, as far as I’m concerned. Why not just keep the government out of it completely?

    Ciao for now!

  • Anita

    This article could not have better stated the dangers of Obamacare. It is only when people educate themselves and take responsibility for their own health will they truly get better. To rely on a system or company for one’s health care is reckless and dangerous.

  • DanishGirl

    Good grief. This article skims over the top of a complicated issue and makes it sound like the banks and govt are innocent protectors of the irresponsible minions. Nothing could be further from the truth. The popular and controlled media states this fantasy too. It dosent matter whether or not we believe we deserve health care…This is the kind of arguing we see on Fox and other controlled news stations. The government and banks are so corrupt in this country and the system is so damaged that it will be an uphill battle to serve the people.

    Comparing the morgage crisis in 2008 to Obama care is oversimplification of a complicated issue. It happened because the big banks and wallstreet were participating in a type of a ponzi scheme that made them zillions of dollars that didnt exist. Then they took the profits offshore and claimed bankruptcy so their govt buddies would bail them out.
    Instead of trying to get a political argument going, I think the moderator of this blog would be smarter to stick to encouraging folks to get healthier without depending on the govt. Its probably going to collapse anyway.

  • Eileen

    Nothing is wrong with a decision made by society as a whole for subsidizing health care. If Obamacare did just that and nothing else, there really wouldn’t be a discussion. Obamacare also imposes 28 (?) new taxes, dictates what health care you must purcahse and allows the government to dip into your bank account without telling you; it is the beginnings of a massive nanny state that makes the EU look free. The resistance to Obamacare isn’t about who deserves health care; it is about usurping individual freedom of choice-about something which the government’s role is at best a neutral party a little like gay marriage.

  • Asia

    Access to health care should be a right, but there need to be incentives (like enormous discounts to one’s insurance costs) for using preventative measures, for maintaining a healthy weight, normal bp, blood sugar, etc.

    Ha, ha. Fat chance with the way doctors are educated by Big Pharma.