Does anybody here think that Healthcare is a right?

[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.

[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?