Health Care in 2040?

Is  "Health Care" an economic process or a human rights process?

Note the Constitution’s Preamble:      

        

And note Amendment XIV, Section 1.: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.   

Health Care as a Constitutional Consideration

      Health care affects virtually all of the six constitutional attributes or covenants, but comes under 'General Welfare', covenant (4), the most. It is these dynamic inter-relationships between the covenants (1 through 6) that define the American society and these dynamics establish the additional Rights as written and amended in the Bill of Rights of 1789. Those Rights  were written to specifically include new Rights through history  (Amendments IX and X)  such as Amendment XIII (slavery)  and   Amendment XIV (birth right). It is interesting that Americans attempted to make citizens more free by prohibiting a narcotic form of enslavement in Amendment XVIII (prohibition of alcohol) but had to repeal it because no one understood the physiological and psychological causes of addiction.  Addictive enslavement was also an economic process that exemplified the ancient predatory instincts of Cro-Magnons to an extent that it could destroy all covenants the race of man produced. But in the modern sense, it is a total economic cost of health to the citizen that has become a new form of enslavement and it is because the processes of wellness or healthless degeneration are not protected as a 'Right'    One of the major attributes of a Healthcare Right (doesn’t exist yet, morally or constitutionally) is the medical profession’s concept of ‘do no harm in the care process’ covenants (1), (6) and (4).    Covenant dynamics should apply to government interaction with healthcare, where the Electeds arrange through constitutional oversight that an individual does not suffer from the lack of availability of facilities, expressed in covenants  (2), (3),  (4) and (6 ), exploitative after-costs of treatment, within covenants (1), (2) and (4), AND the society itself, under covenants (2), (4), (6)  and especially (1), isn’t decapitated by attempting to cover more than is physically and technically possible in any given time frame.  Guessing the time frames is, naturally, a governmental mix of blessing and catastrophe.

        If the purposes of healthcare, whether defined in the Congress’s committees or the President’s councils,  isn't defined as some form of advancing human evolution, something the 100,000 year old Cro-Magnons have just acquired the ability to do, then any process created by members of a 'government', no matter how well intentioned, is going to have a nearly parasitic corruption or economic infestation attached to it. Pharaohs and Chin Emperors gave free health care (un-evolved care) to people working directly for them but not to others, but it was an evolutionary corruption since the wellness of the individual wasn’t the purpose. Privilege was. It was defined as an economic necessity for getting something done, the higher the despotic rank the more the health reward.   Many of the personal physicians in the ancient worlds, in nearly all such literate societies,  had an altruistic interest in helping people to be better persons,  but there was a nearly parallel process of using illness or  disability or even 'demonic possession' to extract wealth from the unlucky.   This economic exploitation exists on nearly all levels. In some societies, the economic attachment has such political and economic overtones that it completely defeats the purpose of being healthy. This began to change with the expressed rights of the American Constitution in 1789 CE,  but many considered health an a form of economics.  The long history of charlatanism and addiction are clear examples of those economics, but the steadily increasing awareness of whole-person wellness was actually more significant. 

      Whole-person wellness was practiced by many in a non-economic context and several philosophies involving monastic isolation from poor health environments  proved very successful.  They demonstrated that wellness existed outside of the economic environment but was not defined in a context of a human right. For those who think the 'right' of whole person health already exists, check again.  There is nothing in any Earthly constitution, charter, spiritual scripture (whether Vedas, Mahayana, Tao De Ching, Bible, or Quran; all only  hint at the idea) or societal covenant that defines the whole health of the Being itself as a right because until a generation ago, there were no scientific, medical or technical awareness or mechanisms that could allow it. Human life was strictly a matter for Creation to determine through random chance and Creation usually punished anyone who was foolish enough not to take care of himself as he was able. That is no longer true; human beings are gradually acquiring the altruistic ability to cooperate for their own mind, body, and spiritual enhancement, which might incorporate the Bodhi or Parakletos itself,  but they haven't yet defined it as a human right protected against economic excesses by the state or other individuals.

     Suppose that a wellness ‘right’ or ‘Evolved Right of Being’ (ERB)  was defined as: any process that enhanced individual development through the proper creation and maintenance of the thousands of molecular  structures that develop within the individual to make him a complete, enhanced and free being?  With the ERB purpose as a gained form of freedom from many environmental tyrannies including fellow humans, the many attributes of the ‘Evolved Right of Being’ can be defined singularly (the attributes continually change in a  dynamical complexity system) without being confused with capitalist, socialist, or Dracunculus (individual parasitic) manipulation of the Right, as was intended with the creation of the original Bill of Rights.  The objectives of the Bill of Rights still remain; to insure freedoms of the individual and the ERB or Wellness Right is no different in that context with the healthless being protected. Possible attributes are close to the proposals for healthcare that  have come into existence over the past 100 years, although not defined formerly as parts of an ERB, which wasn’t even possible until a generation ago.  

Ethics Considerations of New Technologies

Current Economic Considerations

      The current proposal from the US Congress (HR3200) involves four concepts: (Item 1) Make the healthcare available to a representative spectrum of the human race(3,4,1). (Item 2) Create a more advanced physical infrastructure as a Wellness Right attribute(3,4,5,6). (Item 3) Control the exploitative, parasitic nature of the current systems as part of the 'do no harm' attribute(1,3,4,2). (Item 4) Create an infrastructure that increases the probability of wellness(6).  The President has made proposals that: (Item 1) Reduce the parasitic attachments to an individual’s ability to be free of health related burdens(3,4,1), (Item 2)  Establish pre-emptive medical diagnostics that allow determination of existing conditions within various human molecular structures without termination of health support(1,4,6).  (Item 3) ‘General Welfare’ extension of health support to a larger spectrum of citizens(1,4). (Item 4)  Pre-emptive support that aids the citizen’s ability to move freely within the society regardless of possible health disasters(4,2,6). 

      The Conservative minority coalition of the House of Representatives has made unconsidered proposals that:  Allow for income tax reductions for virtually all health care expenses including contributions to wellness 'savings' accounts (HR 544)(4,6).  Defines (HR 643) pre-natal and childhood care as an attribute of a Wellness Right (1,2,4). Defines (HR 270) military public service as an attribute of a Wellness Right (3,4,2), regardless of age. Does not recognize protections of a Wellness Right against economic exploitation.

    Medical community comments:  (Item 1) “Private insurance companies escape real regulation.” (1,6)     (Item 2) “We urgently need tort reform, but it's nowhere to be seen.”(1,2,4,5)     (Item 3) "’Prevention’ won't magically make costs go down.”(5,6)   (Item 4) “Reform efforts don't address our critical shortage of health-care workers.”(6.5.4,1)  (Item 5) “We need more primary-care physicians -- but we also need specialists.” (6,3,4,1)  (Item 6) “We have to streamline drug development and shake up the Food and Drug Administration.”(4,1)   (Item 7) “We can't fund health-care reform by cutting payments to doctors.”(4,1,6)  (Item 8) “We can't forget about research.”(3,4,,4,6)    (Item 9) “Cutting reimbursements could shut some hospitals down” (4,1)   

      Many of these proposals might be satisfied by the creation of a Constitutional ‘General Welfare’(4), ‘Common Defense’(3), ‘Justice’(1) and ‘Tranquility’(2) consensus by the congress that excludes the many minority, me-first dogmas of special interests (Amendment XIV privileges).  Nearly all of these are economic and legal issues  not protected a rights context.  Establishing a government agency that has the responsibility of insuring that medical establishments (1,6,4,5) are covered for the purchase and maintenance of facilities would cut operating costs considerably. Add a Cobra/Medicare temporary system (4,5,1) that could insure workers who are ‘in motion’ for whatever reason so  many working people stay out of losing  their coverage during critical periods of their lives (that is, you maintain the person’s freedom to enhance his existence).  Most of this already exists as government agency functions, currently authorized by the interstate commerce clause but not an ERB,  and only need to be rationally extended by a bipartisan consensus in the congress and administrated by the Executive branch as a coordinated process.  The political gain and blame game in Congress would have to be set aside for the ERB attribute consensus, however. 

    Most of these proposals would actually fit within two possible attributes of the ERB:  (1) creation of General Welfare physical infrastructures to support wellness (6,4,5,1) and  (2) prevent financial or Dracunculus attachments to the freedom of the healthless individual attempting to enhance his existence (6,1,2,5,4).  The proposals do not address a third attribute of the ERB freedoms, however, and that is  not to create further harm to the healthless by the dynamic, cumulative  process of the health environment itself (IE: third party endangerments by a law or diagnostic  entity)

Possibilities

     An attribute of an ‘Evolved Right of Being’ could be a government responsibility to insure physical facilities for medical care, as most societies do now.  Another attribute would be a responsibility of all within the Right covenant to do no more harm to one that has fallen ill and that would include the cost of care.  A major part of that no harm attribute might be a Cobra and Medicare style periodic coverage that allows a person to enter cooperative medical systems while ‘mobile’(3,4,2,1).  Again, the purpose of  human political representatives, as demonstrated by the Eisenhower, Kennedy, Clinton and other previous healthless  correction legacies,  who have shown an altruistic desire to bring this form of Right into existence  should be to focus on defining one attribute of the ERB at a time, without the non-altruistic ‘amendmentitus’ of the past three generations.  This positively affects all six covenants and lays the  infrastructures   for a seventh (6,3,4,2,5,1 to 7?).

     Virtually none of the political parties or structures have really addressed the idea that a Wellness Right or a future Evolved Right of Being  purpose for healthcare appropriations is a pre-requisite which has to be defined and agreed to by all parties as a consensus on the Constitution’s ‘general welfare’, ‘justice’, ‘tranquility’ and ‘our posterity’ covenants (4,1,2,6) before there is any meaningful legislation (Article I, Section 8).  Suppose that one of the objectives of wellness or human entity health plans was to ensure that an individual gained the ability to enhance himself physically and mentally  no matter what the start point of the illness, disability, or inherited defect?   Does the economic shift from $4800 in 1990 to what that now is a $7000 a year cost to each person that is to become $12000 or more defeat any chance of a Wellness Right? That is, an individual as a citizen has acquired one of the freedom attributes of a health ‘right’ even when the actual right does not as yet exist as part of the American constitutional covenant. Mere perception of each ethics segment  above as a component or attribute of a  Wellness Right might create the only Right enumerated that invests in all six of the Covenants, something even the founders couldn't have envisioned, with or without Creational help. 

Does 123456 or 654321 or 143526 make 7, then 8?