This requires us to have what every other industrialized nation already has (while they each spend on average one-half LESS than the US does on Healthcare and ALL have better health status indicators than the US). Universal health insurance coverage. (not to be confused with the ROmney-Travaglini-DiMasi-McDonough-Partners-BCBS-HPHC-MHA style Chapter 58 law that Massachusetts wil be struggling with–it does some good but has real shortcomings and real potential harmful components).
That is, if we actually had a HEALTH CARE SYSTEM with a center piece being universal insurance coverage and a system built on caring for patients and communities needs, not the current market-driven fragmented mess we have now. Establishing a Constitutional right to comprehensive health insurance is a legal and political tool to start getting us there, first as a Commonwealth and then as a nation.
Don’t take it from me, someone who’s worked in healthcare for 25 years, the past 13 of them as a nurse in hospitals, homecare, homeless shelters, teaching nursing students and on healthcare policy reforms. There’s a ton of data from myriad sources, a ridiculous amount, really, that shows this to be true. From the federal GAO, CBO, Institute of Medicine, the B.U Health Reform Program, at www.PNHP.org, and links to many other independent sources posted on the Alliance to Defend Health Care’s “Resources” page at http://www.DefendHealth.org.
So establishing a recognized right to comprehensive health insurance is not only the right thing to do, it’s the smart thing to do.
If you agree, help win the vote on this Constitutional Amendment item at the November 9, 2006, ConCon–and defeat the DOMA Amendment–both are human rights issues.
but if HEALTH PROMOTION and reducing development of disease and related costs of treating those diseases (often called “Disease burden”) is dollars-wise the biggest way to control rising HC costs — and I suspect it is — then the method by which people pay for their health care has nothing to do with the single greatest way to control rising HC costs.
<
p>
The state can do all kinds of things to encourage more public health. Lots of people think about bits and pieces of this, and I’m certainly no expert, but I imagine that everything from needle exchanges to mo’ better public parks to more public service advertisements to improved school curriculum can help improve the general public’s health — and thereby reduce health care costs. It doesn’t matter if we have single payer, personal mandate, or no policy for health insurance whatsoever… the gov’t (fed, state, and even local) can still use public funding for education, information, reduction of risk, and improved public facilities for exercise and recreation.
“Establishing a Constitutional right to comprehensive health insurance is a legal and political tool to start getting us there” is a ridiculous idea.
<
p>
Health care is not a constitutional right any more than auto insurance is, or a driver’s license.
<
p>
That’s not to say that it cannot be elevated in MA into a right although that’s not justification for it.
<
p>
Can someone explain why progressives believe health care is a right? Where’s it say that in the US Constitution?
Frankly, as to this question, who cares what’s in the US Constitution? If the people of Massachusetts want to make health care a constitutionally-protected “right” in their state Constitution, what’s to prevent them from doing it? You may (in fact, I’d wager you do) think it’s a bad idea, but it’s a bit silly to run around proclaiming that it’s not a “right” just because you think it shouldn’t be.
<
p>
Making something a “right” essentially creates a legal obligation to provide that thing to everyone in the state. Whether that’s a good idea or not is a policy question, not one of terminology or political theory. Let’s stick to the merits and not worry so much about what it’s called.
The problem was that the Amendment was darn popular in polling.
<
p>
Wouldn’t you love to know that your lawmakers will assume the:
<
p> “[…] obligation and duty […] on behalf of the Commonwealth, to enact and implement such laws, subject to approval by the voters at a statewide election, as will ensure that no Massachusetts resident lacks comprehensive, affordable and equitably financed health insurance coverage for all medically necessary preventive, acute and chronic health care and mental health care services, prescription drugs and devices. “
<
p>
Yar…and that reminds me of a tale fer ye:
<
p>
There they were, shoals ahead. A delemma: The Sylla was the 600,000 uninsured folks; the Charybdis was the wrath of voters when you vote against a popular amendment.
<
p>
What to do? The bill to pay for 600,000 folks could break the bank. A vote against a popular Amendment could cost you your seat.
<
p>
Our crafty sailors in the Legislature looked around and sent Senator Moore to the helm. (Tired of nautical metaphors yet? Too bad.) Mr. Moore has a pretty solid district and is, afterall, the Chair of Healthcare Finance. The crew rewarded Mr. Moore with some plums for his electorate (Rail Trail; OSV funding) before tethering him to the helm. The crafty captain tacted hard to starboard with the Amendment lufting out somewhere between the monsters to his left and right.
<
p>
With the amendment now stuck in the irons it’s time for more ‘study’.
<
p>
Probably not a bad outcome, all things considered.
many of us believe that declaring equal access to appropriate, affordable healthcare a basic human right will make us a more civilized, humane and advanced society.
<
p>
plus, in the long run, we’ll save a shitload of money.
<
p>
.