Does anybody here think that Healthcare is a right?

[Breezy]

I disagree. Explain yourself.

[Lonely_Sandberg]

http://www.abload.de/img/diaz1p4p71.gif

[LongBeachLakers]

Yes for tax paying citizens.

[Breezy]

Yes for tax paying citizens.

Should all rights be dependent on weather or not you're a tax payer?

[Cactus-Sack]

Nope. Health-care has to e administered by someone (A doctor), you do not have the right to another persons services.

[GimmeThat]

I think that Healthcare is a nessecity

Whether the nessecities in our life ought to be provided by our loved ones, or by the government.

That depends on how we view the function of our government should/ought to be, as well as the consequences we must bear that comes with these perspective/point of view

[MMM]

Better question is how to reduce health cost that the government already pays while maintaining a healthy work force to pay taxes.

[dunksby]

If you are a modern civilized society that supposedly boasts of a high quality of life then yes HC should be every citizen's right.

[Take Your Lumps]

No. We should have people who can't afford health care use emergency rooms as a doctor's office on the tax payer's dime.

Oh wait...we've been doing that for decades.

[russwest0]

No.

But at the same time basically every first world country but America has universal healthcare and it works great with little complaints from citizens.

If you want to see an epic government look at Switzerlands government.

[Marlo_Stanfield]

lol in every civilized country of at least the second world health care is a right for everyone.
way poorer countries than the USA have free health care on a good level for everyone and elite healthcare for the ones who pay more money.
only in the shithole that is the USA this is still a debate.
well as long as you can execute prisoners its all good tho:applause: :applause:

[Marlo_Stanfield]

No.

But at the same time basically every first world country but America has universal healthcare and it works great with little complaints from citizens.

If you want to see an epic government look at Switzerlands government.
:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

[GimmeThat]

We can either use the Affordable Care Act, disguise it as a way to tax the middle class who actually uses it, to pay for the poor.

Or we can set policies in which Doctors ought to practice and influence the medical insurance industry.


either way, Obama doesn't know how to do it.



the only practical difference, is whether or not Americans believe that everyone should be mandated with medical insurance.


which you know, private companies already provide medical insurance, and we can wipe away government offered insurance because chances are that private companies innovates faster than the government is still quite high.

but then, we are still left with the burden of medicare medicaid and its huge potential debt problem.

If affordable care act is the BEST solution to solve the medicare medicaid problem then yea.


but again, Obama doesn't know how to do it. And we risk the possibility that any president who is in charge who doesn't care or know how to be in charge of the program which creates another huge hidden financial fiasco for the government.

[DukeDelonte13]

yes.

If criminals are allowed a right to have free legal representation why don't good people have a right to get treated by a doctor paid by the gov?

Different situations i know, but i'm a compassionate person.

And in reality, even if taxes are raised to pay for it, i doubt the increase in taxes would be more than what you are paying for insurance now.

[DukeDelonte13]

We can either use the Affordable Care Act, disguise it as a way to tax the middle class who actually uses it, to pay for the poor.

Or we can set policies in which Doctors ought to practice and influence the medical insurance industry.


either way, Obama doesn't know how to do it.



the only practical difference, is whether or not Americans believe that everyone should be mandated with medical insurance.


which you know, private companies already provide medical insurance, and we can wipe away government offered insurance because chances are that private companies innovates faster than the government is still quite high.

but then, we are still left with the burden of medicare medicaid and its huge potential debt problem.

If affordable care act is the BEST solution to solve the medicare medicaid problem then yea.


but again, Obama doesn't know how to do it. And we risk the possibility that any president who is in charge who doesn't care or know how to be in charge of the program which creates another huge hidden financial fiasco for the government.


Obama didn't waive his wand and *poof* the ACA was signed into law.

Obama didn't design the ACA. The ACA was modified and discussed and worked on and then passed by congress. Obama pushed for it and signed it into law.


The ACA is not truly heathcare reform, it's healthcare insurance reform.

[Dresta]

It is no more a right than good health is, that is, not one at all, unless the government determines it to be so. People think they have an intrinsic right to everything these days 'my right to clean air' 'my right not to be offended' 'my right not to have complete safety and security' et cetera.

[GimmeThat]

yes.

If criminals are allowed a right to have free legal representation why don't good people have a right to get treated by a doctor paid by the gov?
Different situations i know, but i'm a compassionate person.

And in reality, even if taxes are raised to pay for it, i doubt the increase in taxes would be more than what you are paying for insurance now.

So if you are paying for insurance now, what is the difference between that and paying the government for it?

I understand your compassion to help pay for others insurance and their medical care.

The problem is again on your statement on "you doubt the increase in taxes would be more than what you are paying for insurance now"

The Medicare/medicaid problem might blow up and then we are again left with the problem of a Bail out or another federal government shut down.

Unless you think selling the idea of continuously raising taxes so everyone gets medical care is an easy sell.


If we can get the medicare/medicaid problem under control, I would actually push for subsidies to those in poverty for healthcare.

But then, that might just rely on the people who have money to get their own insurance, instead of counting on the government because they've paid the taxes and free is always better.

Whether or not that makes me a compassionate person.


I got my haters.

[Tarik One]

One of the main reasons Medicare/Medicaid has put the government in a financial bind is because many recipients were flat out abusing the system: Going to expensive hospitals and doctors for minor things: common colds, slight back pain, flu. Numbers prove this fact.

Now, they are gradually implementing HMO look-a-like plans where these Medicaid card holders are mandated to select a plan (usually several to choose from) and a single primary care provider and that PCP would grant referrals for other visits. Of course, the clients are upset about it, but they did it to themselves.

Once we get all of the Medicare/Medicaid recipients enrolled into these new available plans and limiting unnecessary doctor visits, you'll see some dramatic results across the board.

[GimmeThat]

Obama didn't waive his wand and *poof* the ACA was signed into law.

Obama didn't design the ACA. The ACA was modified and discussed and worked on and then passed by congress. Obama pushed for it and signed it into law.


The ACA is not truly heathcare reform, it's healthcare insurance reform.


well, he pushed for it. So yes, I know he didn't just waive his wand and *poof* there it is.

I used to support the ACA. until I realized most Americans aren't supportive of it probably due to the fact it's roll out hasn't been successful.

I apologize for relating its failure to Obama instead of the team who has designed it and is executing the plan.


If you get a business proposal that sounds possible, you vote for it, but its result turns into a disaster.

when do you say you had your chance?

[GimmeThat]

One of the main reasons Medicare/Medicaid has put the government in a financial bind is because many recipients were flat out abusing the system: Going to expensive hospitals and doctors for minor things: common colds, slight back pain, flu. Numbers prove this fact.

Now, they are gradually implementing HMO look-a-like plans where these Medicaid card holders are mandated to select a plan (usually several to choose from) and a single primary care provider and that PCP would grant referrals for other visits. Of course, the clients are upset about it, but they did it to themselves.

Once we get all of the Medicare/Medicaid recipients enrolled into these new available plans and limiting unnecessary doctor visits, you'll see some dramatic results across the board.


which is what made ACA an ambitious goal.

it's attempt to not just fix the current governmental healthcare, but to apply it to the whole population, knowing that there will be more elderly in the future.


I suppose there's two ways to approach cost saving.

one by letting the market to adjust to you, having your end goal in mind.
or you can first capture the whole market then through time, make adjustments in order to reach your goal.


The question is, which path is riskier?

Especially when you consider the history of the Federal Government and its intended function.


I'm not saying I'm the most educated here.

But I try to make sense of things.

[robert de niro]

the fact that people still need to argue about these questions is the reason why it is as bad as it is

[RidonKs]

i think so. not like you can really prove it or anything, but neither can you prove the right to keep your own property or the right to due process or the even the right to free speech and association. these are all merely constructs we have deemed appropriate. rightly so in my eyes.

the only objective resource we have to ground any claim of "right" is a the moral sense, that is rooted in our collective agreement on what seems acceptable.



to me, again only based on my own intuition, it is simply unacceptable that any human being should be left alone to suffer health problems that society otherwise has the capacity to remedy. that seems like a pretty good principle to abide by.

but then a few questions arise, as they inevitably must when you make a move from an abstract principle to its application in real complicated incomprehensible human affairs.

what exactly is a "health problem", you might ask. does the definition include self inflicted harm? maybe we should all be in strait jackets. how about mental health issues, that are deep seated and nearly impossible to adequately explain? maybe we should all be brainwashed robots. does it include addiction and all the consequences that follow? should we therefore ban all addictive substance? that seems kinda nuts, since sugar is right up there both in addictive quality and health repercussions. but maybe our diets should be strictly regulated as a form of preventative care. what about predictable health problems in the future? another tricky question.

and to what extent is a "capacity to remedy" actually reasonable? if the cost of extending the life of a single body for three months is half the national gdp, is the government obligated to bear that cost on the basis of that body's right to life, liberty, and security? should the organs of fresh corpses be publicly available regardless of its former human being's values and wishes?



these are by no means easy questions to answer. but none of them actually poke a whole in the principle of the matter, namely that people have a right to the healthy body society is able to grant them; it's simply complaining that applying that moral principle is hard. of course it is. its extraordinary difficult to tease out where circumstances end and human will begins. but avoiding that task is a real recipe for social collapse imo.

[longtime lurker]

The US ranks 37th in the world in healthcare. Prisoners have better healthcare than the majority of Americans. It's a complete joke that insurance companies run the system the way they see fit.

[Derka]

There is no such thing as rights.

You have temporary privileges that governments allow you to keep so long as you toe the line.

[RidonKs]

There is no such thing as rights.

You have temporary privileges that governments allow you to keep so long as you toe the line.
this is a profound misinterpretation i think. the idea that government is nice to you as long as you stay out of the way. i can see how people reach that conclusion given the times we live in, where all sorts of privileges are taken for granted and people feel alienated from politics. but it doesn't fit with the history of where those privileges actually came from.

governments do whatever the f*ck they want. literally the only constraints on them are outside force (other governments) and their own populations. if everybody throughout the history of our modern governing institutions felt as you do, that all they can do is "toe the line" and hope nothing really bad happens, we would still be tolerating all sorts of terrible things everybody now agrees are intolerable and immoral.

we are able to say and do and think what we want, to access social services and medical care and education, to participate in politics even indirectly... NOT because the people in power occasionally reward us for our good behaviour.

it's because enough people get angry enough to actually do something. mass movements compel those in power that it's in their best interest to acquiesce and give into popular demands for democracy and liberty and equality because otherwise a) the society would collapse and there would be nothing left to rule or b) they would lose their power when the people toss them out of office

rights are won by people who fight for them. and i honestly don't believe you when you suggest there are no "rights" that you wouldn't fight for. even if, in your country right at this second, it so happens that there are no rights you feel are threatened enough to be concerned about.

[gts]

I'll admit to being on the fence on this topic and doubt anybody will make an argument that sways me one way or the other

Here's my problem or conundrum..

As long as the government taxes the citizens then turns that money over to the various private research groups, allows healthcare costs to run rampant, insurance companies to shape the system and pharmaceutical companies to dictate our needs vs what's available based on who can afford to pay then my feeling is yes the government needs to do something to make sure everyone is covered in some way..

Do something... either crackdown on the healthcare system itself so it's affordable to all or make sure everyone has some level of coverage.

Something had to be done, like I said I'm not sure this is the right direction but it's a direction and that's a start...

[MadeFromDust]

Nope not a right. Healthcare is born out of Christian compassion and the world decided that was a good thing for all. Without compassion, healthcare is just another cut-throat business looking out for profit and the bottom line.

[robert de niro]

Nah, weather is too unpredictable even with modern technology.
:roll:

[GimmeThat]

There is no such thing as rights.

You have temporary privileges that governments allow you to keep so long as you toe the line.


under the assumption that no one can join the government besides the children of current existing government officials.

[Breezy]

I was mostly interested in the philosophical question of whether or not one has a right to it in the same way he has other rights. As addressed below.


Nope. Health-care has to e administered by someone (A doctor), you do not have the right to another persons services.


I agree and for further elaboration since someone must administer and pay for healthcare for someone to claim they have a right to it (or any positive right) is to correspondingly claim that someone else has an obligation to provide it. It's unwittingly a philosophy of slavery.

I also take comfort in the knowledge that not only is such a philosophy morally deficient, In practical terms countries that take that position deliver inferior health care.


You have temporary privileges that governments allow you to keep so long as you toe the line.

Serious question. Are you being facetious?

[MMM]

One of the main reasons Medicare/Medicaid has put the government in a financial bind is because many recipients were flat out abusing the system: Going to expensive hospitals and doctors for minor things: common colds, slight back pain, flu. Numbers prove this fact.

Now, they are gradually implementing HMO look-a-like plans where these Medicaid card holders are mandated to select a plan (usually several to choose from) and a single primary care provider and that PCP would grant referrals for other visits. Of course, the clients are upset about it, but they did it to themselves.

Once we get all of the Medicare/Medicaid recipients enrolled into these new available plans and limiting unnecessary doctor visits, you'll see some dramatic results across the board.

Wouldn't this argument show that countries with universal systems faced more abuse and increased costs. I don't think we can focus on users abusing the system and ignore doctors ordering more tests, visits, etc. for monetary gain or to avoid potential lawsuits. Even then I have doubts on whether that is the number 1 driver in costs.

[LongBeachLakers]

The only reason why countries in europe could afford free universal healthcare is because theyre benefitting from the fact that they dont have to spend any money or not much money on their military. American citizens are spending their tax dollars to protect countries in europe and around the world. Do we really need bases in every country?

Because so much of our tax dollars goes to Europe in the form of protection, whats left for us? Nothing, no healthcare system.

[Dresta]

I was mostly interested in the philosophical question of whether or not one has a right to it in the same way he has other rights. As addressed below.

I agree and for further elaboration since someone must administer and pay for healthcare for someone to claim they have a right to it (or any positive right) is to correspondingly claim that someone else has an obligation to provide it. It's unwittingly a philosophy of slavery.

I also take comfort in the knowledge that not only is such a philosophy morally deficient, In practical terms countries that take that position deliver inferior health care.


Completely this. For something to be considered a universal right, there has to be some kind of objective basis for declaring it such. Someone earlier said that then private property or liberty aren't philosophically demonstrable rights either, but the latter can be defined as a right in that to take away liberty is to treat man as a means to an end rather than an end in himself and so to deny his rationality; and the former can be justified in that without the institution of private property we would not have a civilisation at all, we would have had no need for government, and would be living as Nomads.

Accepting healthcare as a right, on the other hand, openly contradicts other rights that our culture had formerly accepted such as the right to be free from the physical coercion of others. It also turns government bureaucrats into administrative monsters, who use flimsy health economics - where human life is given numerical value - and then use it to justify whatever utilitarian monstrosity they wish to bring about.

[Dresta]

The only reason why countries in europe could afford free universal healthcare is because theyre benefitting from the fact that they dont have to spend any money or not much money on their military. American citizens are spending their tax dollars to protect countries in europe and around the world. Do we really need bases in every country?

Because so much of our tax dollars goes to Europe in the form of protection, whats left for us? Nothing, no healthcare system.
Not really. It's also because the American system is so hopelessly inflated, and everything so much more expensive than it should be. Doctors are paid far more than in any other country, and make up an absurdly privileged group, but then the inflated cost of college tuition also contributes to inflated pay for doctors.

Fact is that the actions of the government have caused an artificial inflation of medical costs in the United States. I can get done the same procedure done in Poland as in the US for 1/10th the price (completely unsubsidised). This is obviously something unique to the US, and not cost of medicine in general. Simply trumping up more taxpayer money as Obama has done is not a rectification of the fundamental problem, and only repeats the same mistakes as before.

Throughout the whole 20th century special medical interests have been lobbying the government to reduce competition. In the 80s, the US was subsidising demand while restricting the supply of hospitals, doctors, insurance, medication and the like. What we have is an absence of competition with instead government control over the industry in partnership with a few large and politically well-connected companies. What we have is a government dictated by special interests. Why is it so hard for people to understand the only way to avoid this is to deny the legislature the power of granting special favours to particular groups or individuals at all?

[MMM]

The only reason why countries in europe could afford free universal healthcare is because theyre benefitting from the fact that they dont have to spend any money or not much money on their military. American citizens are spending their tax dollars to protect countries in europe and around the world. Do we really need bases in every country?

Because so much of our tax dollars goes to Europe in the form of protection, whats left for us? Nothing, no healthcare system.

This is not really true. Americans pay more on health care/capita than anyone else.

I think it is interesting that it seems like you view it as a negative that tax dollars are leaving the country to police the world. Would argue the tax dollars are irrelevant to the benefit Americans get back in return.

[COnDEMnED]

I'm of the opinion that anyone should be able to have, or not have, health insurance if they want. Do what you want with the new ACA (or whatever it will be when the next president comes), but don't force me to sign up with the threat of IRS penalties looming over my shoulder if I don't.

In short, whatever way our nation is moving as far as health insurance goes, all I ask for is an option that says "No Thanks" with no penalties attached. This is America after all..right?

[Dresta]

I'm of the opinion that anyone should be able to have, or not have, health insurance if they want. Do what you want with the new ACA (or whatever it will be when the next president comes), but don't force me to sign up with the threat of IRS penalties looming over my shoulder if I don't.

In short, whatever way our nation is moving as far as health insurance goes, all I ask for is an option that says "No Thanks" with no penalties attached. This is America after all..right?
Where have you been for the past 80 years?

Ever heard of social security? Just another one of those things you can't say 'no thanks' to.

[COnDEMnED]

Where have you been for the past 80 years?

Ever heard of social security? Just another one of those things you can't say 'no thanks' to.
Right, but social security was implemented before I was born, I couldn't do anything about that. I'm thinking whoever the next president is will probably scrap a lot of this new law(that you had to pass to see what was in it) for something else. What that something else is, I have no idea. Clearly the majority of Americans aren't happy with or didn't want the ACA. It could be a selling point for the next presidential candidates to gain some votes by taking a stand against it (if it doesn't implode on itself before then).

[Balla_Status]

I've been told by a few of my mates that Australia is actually moving towards a more privatized healthcare system because they current system isn't working too well. Not sure why.

[Dresta]

Right, but social security was implemented before I was born, I couldn't do anything about that. I'm thinking whoever the next president is will probably scrap a lot of this new law(that you had to pass to see what was in it) for something else. What that something else is, I have no idea. Clearly the majority of Americans aren't happy with or didn't want the ACA. It could be a selling point for the next presidential candidates to gain some votes by taking a stand against it (if it doesn't implode on itself before then).
Social security was initially sold to the populace as social insurance funnily enough, and those who pursued it laughed at the accusations that it would lead to a monopoly that prevents individuals from saving money themselves, and which forces them to pay towards something they may or may not want, with no alternative (much like current day 'liberals' so often sneer contemptuously when the slippery slope argument is brought up). But it is undeniable that in the vast majority of cases one encroachment is followed by another and so on, especially as the initial action never has the beneficial effects its proponents hoped it would, so it always leads to a call for more action (as with healthcare, social security, progressive taxation, the federal welfare state etc.). Government action never has the beneficial impact its proponents envisaged, but their solution for this is always more government action.


'Since 1965, medical prices have exploded with physician fees (Figure 6). From 1965 through 1993, the price for medical care increased by 699% and physician fees 675% compared to only 359% for all goods and services measured in the Consumer Price Index. Today, medical prices and physician fees continue to grow at about twice the rate of inflation. Hospital prices have increased at almost four times. U.S. health-care spending has increased from 6% of the Gross Domestic Product in 1965 to 18% ($3 trillion) today.'

Basically: since the enactment of medicare and medicaid the US health system has been in a spiral of unaffordability, and as always, the solution is 'more of the same.'

:facepalm

[ForeverHeat]

USA seems like such a joke sometimes. Every other first world country has universal healthcare with no problems and you guys are still asking this question. People in Europe used to ask this questions decades upon decades ago. You guys need to step into the future.

[MMM]

Social security was initially sold to the populace as social insurance funnily enough, and those who pursued it laughed at the accusations that it would lead to a monopoly that prevents individuals from saving money themselves, and which forces them to pay towards something they may or may not want, with no alternative (much like current day 'liberals' so often sneer contemptuously when the slippery slope argument is brought up). But it is undeniable that in the vast majority of cases one encroachment is followed by another and so on, especially as the initial action never has the beneficial effects its proponents hoped it would, so it always leads to a call for more action (as with healthcare, social security, progressive taxation, the federal welfare state etc.). Government action never has the beneficial impact its proponents envisaged, but their solution for this is always more government action.



Basically: since the enactment of medicare and medicaid the US health system has been in a spiral of unaffordability, and as always, the solution is 'more of the same.'

:facepalm

Don't claim to have the answers but Americans spend more on health care for worse results per capita. System orientation should be a lot lower on priorities list in comparison to preventive care measures. With that being said why do other nations spend less on health care, get better results, and have better coverage???

I don't really see how moving in line with universal care is more of the "same" but I don't necessarily see the system orientation as the problem with health care.

[ballup]

Not a right, but with the kind of luxuries like cars, internet, and gps, shouldn't people be able to afford basic needs such as seeing a doctor?

[Gr]

There is no such thing as a right to human labor. So, no, healthcare is not a right.

[Crystallas]

Be weary of two ways of wording this to completely change the meaning.

We all have the right to health care. Healthcare is not a right.

Having a right to health care means as individuals, you have the right to care for your health how you see fit. Calling healthcare a right changes this, by stating that you must violate the natural rights of others to provide a a lawful right(which is not even a right, but an entitlement, and because entitlements are limited to how the law is written and the limits of availability it is then a privilege).

[GimmeThat]

Is it ones right to ask others to take care of their body in order to lower the cost of governmental expenditure?

The reality is that right now, when someone is facing the possibility of death, this person automatically becomes the public's burden. And I think I've said this before, that because of reasons like this, the health care cost has been on the rise.

Preventative care has many benefits. And it isn't in the private companies best interest in offering people to do so.


My question is this, is it better to offer insurance to people, or to simply re-enforce healthcare reform through the public areas?

When the private insurance has won the battle, the public has failed to do its job. Is it the publics job to then become that of the insurance company, or is it the publics job to institute laws that protects individuals from the insurance companies?


So, is having your health being of interest of the government the right thing to do? I would say it depends on your governments intention, you would tell me they can't have harmful intention when it comes to health. So I can only argue it depends on your governments intelligent.