Healthcare: a right, a privilege, or something else? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

lofhay · 08-21-2009, 12:24 PM

Is healthcare something to which everyone is entitled no matter who pays for it? Or is it a privilege which is available only to those who can afford it, or to whom it is a gift from those who can pay for it to those who cannot?

How much responsibility does the individual have for his/her own health? And, if a person does not cultivate healthy habits such as proper diet, exercise, refraining from destructive habits like smoking, then who is responsible for their healthcare?

How you think about these questions will determine how you feel about the debate concerning what government should do, or not do, about healthcare. I must admit that I have a hard time bringing myself to see this any way but that each individual is responsible for their own health, and any government help is a form of charity-- a gift. I am willing to do my part to help some, but I wonder about government involvement.

Jinn · 08-21-2009, 12:34 PM

You're right, and I consider it a right.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is hard if you're bleeding from the face.

dc_dux · 08-21-2009, 12:45 PM

Perhaps we should take a cue from the new Iraqi constitution that we gave so much blood and $$$ to create.

The Iraqi constitution modeled in many respects on our own Constitution....free speech, free press, free association, freedom of religion, protection against search and seizure, etc. (but no specific right to bear arms) provides even more rights - to guaranteed work, a living wage and health care.

Baraka_Guru · 08-21-2009, 12:52 PM

I believe health care is a right.

After a bit of a search, I found this, which I agree with:

United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948. Article 25 states: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."

roachboy · 08-21-2009, 01:37 PM

access to basic health care is a fundamental human right.
to my mind, there is no debate about this.

The_Dunedan · 08-21-2009, 01:55 PM

The issue is not the "right" of access to healthcare.

The issue is whether someone has the "right" to rob other people at gunpoint to -pay for- that healthcare.

My answer is no. I don't care what someone does with my stolen time/money, simply that they have stolen it. Robbery is wrong, period. Blackmail is wrong, period. Extortion is wrong, period.

I see no room for discussion here.

highthief · 08-21-2009, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

The issue is not the "right" of access to healthcare.

The issue is whether someone has the "right" to rob other people at gunpoint to -pay for- that healthcare.

My answer is no. I don't care what someone does with my stolen time/money, simply that they have stolen it. Robbery is wrong, period. Blackmail is wrong, period. Extortion is wrong, period.

I see no room for discussion here.

So you are against taxation, is what you are really trying to say?

No taxation at all - so no roads, military, education, etc?

Rekna · 08-21-2009, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

The issue is not the "right" of access to healthcare.

The issue is whether someone has the "right" to rob other people at gunpoint to -pay for- that healthcare.

Do people have a right to rob other people at gunpoint in order to -give them- that healthcare?

I would say providing affordable health care to all who need it is a moral imperative.

SecretMethod70 · 08-21-2009, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

The issue is not the "right" of access to healthcare.

The issue is whether someone has the "right" to rob other people at gunpoint to -pay for- that healthcare.

My answer is no. I don't care what someone does with my stolen time/money, simply that they have stolen it. Robbery is wrong, period. Blackmail is wrong, period. Extortion is wrong, period.

I see no room for discussion here.

I hope you extend that argument to the police force, firefighters, roads, etc.

Aw crap, highthief beat me.

Anyway, health care is a human right. That doesn't mean all governments are capable of providing that right, but we certainly are.

allaboutmusic · 08-21-2009, 03:18 PM

I was going to say that it seems wrong to me that someone in prison should have the right to basic healthcare that someone poor outside of prison doesn't. But I suppose the same argument could be made about a bed to sleep on and food to eat.

I think it's a right. I'm happy for my taxes to go towards saving lives and improving the health of others. Whatever is said about the National Health Service here in the UK, I have made use of it when I needed it, and it is nice to know that it's there and available to me if I should need it again.

I do think that there should be some weighting towards personal responsibility... for example, if there is limited availability of cancer treatment, then I think it's fair to favour the patient who has given up smoking.

Charlatan · 08-21-2009, 04:11 PM

It should be a right.

The frontier attitude of every person for themselves that is frequently put forth is, to my mind, a most self-centred and vicious attitude.

I have no trouble paying more in taxes so that all can benefit.

Baraka_Guru · 08-21-2009, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

The issue is not the "right" of access to healthcare.

The issue is whether someone has the "right" to rob other people at gunpoint to -pay for- that healthcare.

My answer is no. I don't care what someone does with my stolen time/money, simply that they have stolen it. Robbery is wrong, period. Blackmail is wrong, period. Extortion is wrong, period.

I see no room for discussion here.

No room for discussion? Fair enough. We'll discuss is amongst ourselves then.

But I think most of us already knew that anarchy does not recognize, or has no concern for, the concept of rights.

Tully Mars · 08-21-2009, 04:28 PM

I think it's basic human right. the fact that we let people die, even though we could save them, simply due to lack of funds is asinine.

The_Dunedan · 08-21-2009, 06:25 PM

Quote:

So you are against taxation, is what you are really trying to say?

Yup.

Quote:

No taxation at all - so no roads, military, education, etc?

Who says these things have to be State-driven? Have you any notion how many jobs could be created by privatising, for instance, roads?

Let's imagine, for a moment, that I am someone marginally wealthy. Let's say I have $2,500,00. in today's money to invest. Now, the last figure I heard on the construction of roads was that they usually cost about $1,000,000.00 per mile to grade, pave, etc, leaving perhaps only $500,000.00 to purchase rights-of-way, pay for contract Archaeologists or hordes of eager graduate students to conduct a survey and make sure I'm not running over any Native American funeral sites, and etc.

So I'm smart. I put my little stretch of road, after buying the appropriate rights-of-way from the landowners affected, in an area where it'll connect people to a primary resource (a grocery store or feedlot for country-folk, or urban parents to better-performing suburban schools) that they want faster, more convenient access to. Then, I charge tolls for travellers, and sell subscriptions to locals. Folks with subscriptions get a catchy bumper-sticker, rather like an inspection sticker, but just showing that they're paid up. Subscribers don't have to go through the tollbooth, but can instead use an EZ-Pass-type device for instant access. Anyone who tries to "crash" the Subscriber lane in toll-booths and doesn't have one of these passes gets their picture taken, which gets them hunted down by some gentlemen we'll discuss shortly.

Now, this bumper-sticker has a function besides recording your subscription. It also prominently displays, in large and friendly red letters, a 1-800-How's-My-Driving telephone number, like you sometimes see on the back of 18-wheelers. If you behave like an idiot, people can call in a complaint to me (or someone who works for me, anyway) about the problem-child. The sticker also shows a subscription number which, in this case, is used rather like a license-plate number to keep track of complaints. If you get more than, say, two complaints in 90 days, you lose your subscription rights and your EZ-Pass is canceled, so the computers won't recognise you when you go through the tollbooth.

Which brings us back to those gentlemen I mentioned a moment ago. At each end of the road are the tollbooths. In these tollbooths are barriers. Large ones. These barriers are controlled by equally large gentlemen with a love for cars. When someone makes an irreconcilable ass of themselves, these large gentlemen raise the large barriers, creating a -very- large traffic jam at the opposite end of the road if it's crowded, and simply cutting the miscreant off if it isn't. Either way the large gentlemen get to keep the car, but the best thing is when they catch some jackass when everyone's been stuck for an hour while they search the jam, armed with pictures of a car which is being driven by a muppet. When the muppet is caught, it is subjected to much malicious mockery and much public embarassment while being relieved of it's transportation and a taxi or friend is called.

I think people would behave on a road like that. I think they would -use- a road like that, because other people behaved themselves. And I think subscriptions and tolls could pay for its' upkeep nicely, given the proper location.

I am willing to concede that the military functions are best left to the State. However, I am an old fan of a bumper-sticker involving bake-sales and bombers. The Military should be run by the Gov't, but only funded by it insofar as it was able to collect money through voluntary fundraising efforts, such as lotteries, pledge drives, etc. A peacetime military has no need for excess, and a defensively-oriented (as I abohor offensive war) military is not nearly so difficult to maintain as the offensive/dominant-superpower machine we are today obliged to support. In wartime, the defensive needs of the nation should be primarily borne by the militia, the Fyrd, whatever you wish to call it. Such men and women could be asked to sign up to serve for a set (and firmly fixed) term with organized formal armies (ala the Continental Army) and be provided with weapons, ammunition, kit and pay; or they could elect to remain members of the Unorganised Militia, working in private concert with the "official" formations but obliged to provide all their own kit. Such a system provides for a significant check against the growth of an overly-powerful military, with the capability and the means to wage offensive war either internally or externally.

The State, as it is unavoidably and without exception an instrument of armed and violent coercion, has -zero- business educating children.

As above, imagine this scenario. I am again a young investor with $2,500,00.00 to play with. My parents own a city home in a fashionable suburb, along with a country home out in the mountains. I know from talking to them that both areas have dozens of kids, and I decide to build a couple of schools.

I shop around the real-estate ads, I talk to local Churches about buying their facilities and paying to set them up elsewhere, and I eventually end up with a pair of de-commissioned Former First Baptist Churches. I knock the steeples off, convert the chapel into two floors with a number of classrooms and labs, and start accepting students. If I spend $1,000,000.00 per site, that leaves $250,000.00 per site to hire staff, and I hire the best and highest-recommended teachers I can find. I network with other educational entrepreneurs and certification centres, vetting prospective employees and hiring only those who come with good preferences.

Then I start accepting students. I don't turn any student away until the place is full, and tuition is based upon the cost of upkeep and salaries divided by the number of students. Additional funds come from sport ticket sales, fundraisers, raffles, etc, and could be used to offset those students who's families could not afford to pay. Teacher pay could be saved on considerably by simply providing room and board on-site.

Again, I see no reason why the education of children, which is of the utmost importance to the survival of our species, should be left to so murderous and rapacious anentity as the State. You'll note that the only thing I regard the State as being any good for is warfare; there's a reason for that.

Edited to add:

Quote:

But I think most of us already knew that anarchy does not recognize, or has no concern for, the concept of rights.

Ballocks. Anarchism is the only consistent expression of Rights; the absolute right to do as you wish, with consenting partners or customers or whomever, until and unless you violate someone else's equal and co-extant right to do likewise. Anarchism, at least my alternate-Thursdays flavour of it, does not recognise the ficticious "right" of people to steal from and enslave others simply because it is popular and sanctified by some farcical (but sadly non-aquatic) ceremony.

percy · 08-21-2009, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

It should be a right.

The frontier attitude of every person for themselves that is frequently put forth is, to my mind, a most self-centred and vicious attitude.

I have no trouble paying more in taxes so that all can benefit.

I have a problem paying more taxes for it since it isn't fixing the system (believe me,I know the system well), and a bigger problem not being allowed to pay more for healthcare via private two-tiered healthcare. (In Canada)

Ironically, the Americans are fighting against a system like we have in Canada, yet a plethora of Canadians would welcome the US approach to tiered healthcare to compliment our existing universal healthcare.

Maybe we should have a North American Summit to figure it out.

Incidentally, how do Europeans feel about their healthcare?

Willravel · 08-21-2009, 07:11 PM

Health care is a human right, and no taxation whatsoever is anarchy.

Rekna · 08-21-2009, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

Yup.

Who says these things have to be State-driven? Have you any notion how many jobs could be created by privatising, for instance, roads?

Let's imagine, for a moment, that I am someone marginally wealthy. Let's say I have $2,500,00. in today's money to invest. Now, the last figure I heard on the construction of roads was that they usually cost about $1,000,000.00 per mile to grade, pave, etc, leaving perhaps only $500,000.00 to purchase rights-of-way, pay for contract Archaeologists or hordes of eager graduate students to conduct a survey and make sure I'm not running over any Native American funeral sites, and etc.

So I'm smart. I put my little stretch of road, after buying the appropriate rights-of-way from the landowners affected, in an area where it'll connect people to a primary resource (a grocery store or feedlot for country-folk, or urban parents to better-performing suburban schools) that they want faster, more convenient access to. Then, I charge tolls for travellers, and sell subscriptions to locals. Folks with subscriptions get a catchy bumper-sticker, rather like an inspection sticker, but just showing that they're paid up. Subscribers don't have to go through the tollbooth, but can instead use an EZ-Pass-type device for instant access. Anyone who tries to "crash" the Subscriber lane in toll-booths and doesn't have one of these passes gets their picture taken, which gets them hunted down by some gentlemen we'll discuss shortly.

Now, this bumper-sticker has a function besides recording your subscription. It also prominently displays, in large and friendly red letters, a 1-800-How's-My-Driving telephone number, like you sometimes see on the back of 18-wheelers. If you behave like an idiot, people can call in a complaint to me (or someone who works for me, anyway) about the problem-child. The sticker also shows a subscription number which, in this case, is used rather like a license-plate number to keep track of complaints. If you get more than, say, two complaints in 90 days, you lose your subscription rights and your EZ-Pass is canceled, so the computers won't recognise you when you go through the tollbooth.

Which brings us back to those gentlemen I mentioned a moment ago. At each end of the road are the tollbooths. In these tollbooths are barriers. Large ones. These barriers are controlled by equally large gentlemen with a love for cars. When someone makes an irreconcilable ass of themselves, these large gentlemen raise the large barriers, creating a -very- large traffic jam at the opposite end of the road if it's crowded, and simply cutting the miscreant off if it isn't. Either way the large gentlemen get to keep the car, but the best thing is when they catch some jackass when everyone's been stuck for an hour while they search the jam, armed with pictures of a car which is being driven by a muppet. When the muppet is caught, it is subjected to much malicious mockery and much public embarassment while being relieved of it's transportation and a taxi or friend is called.

I think people would behave on a road like that. I think they would -use- a road like that, because other people behaved themselves. And I think subscriptions and tolls could pay for its' upkeep nicely, given the proper location.

I am willing to concede that the military functions are best left to the State. However, I am an old fan of a bumper-sticker involving bake-sales and bombers. The Military should be run by the Gov't, but only funded by it insofar as it was able to collect money through voluntary fundraising efforts, such as lotteries, pledge drives, etc. A peacetime military has no need for excess, and a defensively-oriented (as I abohor offensive war) military is not nearly so difficult to maintain as the offensive/dominant-superpower machine we are today obliged to support. In wartime, the defensive needs of the nation should be primarily borne by the militia, the Fyrd, whatever you wish to call it. Such men and women could be asked to sign up to serve for a set (and firmly fixed) term with organized formal armies (ala the Continental Army) and be provided with weapons, ammunition, kit and pay; or they could elect to remain members of the Unorganised Militia, working in private concert with the "official" formations but obliged to provide all their own kit. Such a system provides for a significant check against the growth of an overly-powerful military, with the capability and the means to wage offensive war either internally or externally.

The State, as it is unavoidably and without exception an instrument of armed and violent coercion, has -zero- business educating children.

As above, imagine this scenario. I am again a young investor with $2,500,00.00 to play with. My parents own a city home in a fashionable suburb, along with a country home out in the mountains. I know from talking to them that both areas have dozens of kids, and I decide to build a couple of schools.

I shop around the real-estate ads, I talk to local Churches about buying their facilities and paying to set them up elsewhere, and I eventually end up with a pair of de-commissioned Former First Baptist Churches. I knock the steeples off, convert the chapel into two floors with a number of classrooms and labs, and start accepting students. If I spend $1,000,000.00 per site, that leaves $250,000.00 per site to hire staff, and I hire the best and highest-recommended teachers I can find. I network with other educational entrepreneurs and certification centres, vetting prospective employees and hiring only those who come with good preferences.

Then I start accepting students. I don't turn any student away until the place is full, and tuition is based upon the cost of upkeep and salaries divided by the number of students. Additional funds come from sport ticket sales, fundraisers, raffles, etc, and could be used to offset those students who's families could not afford to pay. Teacher pay could be saved on considerably by simply providing room and board on-site.

Again, I see no reason why the education of children, which is of the utmost importance to the survival of our species, should be left to so murderous and rapacious anentity as the State. You'll note that the only thing I regard the State as being any good for is warfare; there's a reason for that.

Edited to add:

Ballocks. Anarchism is the only consistent expression of Rights; the absolute right to do as you wish, with consenting partners or customers or whomever, until and unless you violate someone else's equal and co-extant right to do likewise. Anarchism, at least my alternate-Thursdays flavour of it, does not recognise the ficticious "right" of people to steal from and enslave others simply because it is popular and sanctified by some farcical (but sadly non-aquatic) ceremony.

Then said entrepreneur buys up all the roads connecting A to B. He then decides to charge exuberant fees for any good traveling between A and B. He even starts another buisness in A for which the competition lives in B. He then says B cannot use his roads to help his new buisness.....

I'm sorry feudalism doesn't work. If you like feudalism then move to Afghanistan. Otherwise STFU or get the fuck out of the US.

Derwood · 08-21-2009, 07:41 PM

what a shock....The_Dunedan has highjacked another thread with his "no-tax" nonsense. Make your own thread about it and leave us to discuss the topic at hand.

I think this is a fundamental right regardless of what the Constitution says. I'm as far from a strict constructionist as you'll find, as I find it limiting and inflexible.

Charlatan · 08-21-2009, 09:13 PM

I am grateful that we do not live in the feudal world that Dunedan posits as a good thing. The Libertarian vision for the world is, in essence, the most selfish of worlds and I want nothing of it.

Willravel · 08-21-2009, 09:23 PM

What Dunedan posted is not libertarian; its technical name is anarcho-capitalism, or a system of societal organization based solely on a drastic and fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the private market.

Cynthetiq · 08-21-2009, 09:43 PM

basic preventative health care is a right, as much as emergency care. I do not consider diabetes and asthma medication or other medications for prevention as a privilege but as a fundamental portion of preventative health care.

Anything that is prolonging your life for terminally ill, such as long term treatment such as cancer treatment, AIDS cocktails, and the like, are a privilege.

SecretMethod70 · 08-21-2009, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

Ballocks. Anarchism is the only consistent expression of Rights; the absolute right to do as you wish, with consenting partners or customers or whomever, until and unless you violate someone else's equal and co-extant right to do likewise. Anarchism, at least my alternate-Thursdays flavour of it, does not recognise the ficticious "right" of people to steal from and enslave others simply because it is popular and sanctified by some farcical (but sadly non-aquatic) ceremony.

You should check out Somalia. By the sounds of it, it's your utopia. Anarcho-capitalist heaven.

samcol · 08-22-2009, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

The issue is not the "right" of access to healthcare.

The issue is whether someone has the "right" to rob other people at gunpoint to -pay for- that healthcare.

My answer is no. I don't care what someone does with my stolen time/money, simply that they have stolen it. Robbery is wrong, period. Blackmail is wrong, period. Extortion is wrong, period.

I see no room for discussion here.

I consider myself a constitutionalist I suppose, and I've heard this angle before. When you break issues down like this it does come down to whether or not someone should be held at gun point to follow along. As that is the last possible outcome if you resist.

It's easier when it's not you personally doing the gun pointing, but the conclusion is still the same. What government services should be provided at the point of a gun?

Healthcare? I think not. I couldn't do it personally or through a surrogate.

YaWhateva · 08-22-2009, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

I consider myself a constitutionalist I suppose, and I've heard this angle before. When you break issues down like this it does come down to whether or not someone should be held at gun point to follow along. As that is the last possible outcome if you resist.

It's easier when it's not you personally doing the gun pointing, but the conclusion is still the same. What government services should be provided at the point of a gun?

Healthcare? I think not. I couldn't do it personally or through a surrogate.

Nothing should ever be forced at gunpoint. I know this has been said before but are roads or the military forced to you at gunpoint? No? fuck roads then. How about that Postal Service? Should they force you to send that piece of mail at $0.44? This is a horrible way to look at 'government services'.

Healthcare is a right.

Edit: reading this again, all I can say is 'wow' if this is what you guys really thought the framers were thinking.

samcol · 08-22-2009, 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YaWhateva

Nothing should ever be forced at gunpoint. I know this has been said before but are roads or the military forced to you at gunpoint? No? fuck roads then. How about that Postal Service? Should they force you to send that piece of mail at $0.44? This is a horrible way to look at 'government services'.

Healthcare is a right.

Edit: reading this again, all I can say is 'wow' if this is what you guys really thought the framers were thinking.

Well actually the roads and military are forced by gunpoint. If I don't pay the taxes to fund the roads or military what happens? I've made the choice to face bureaucrats with weapons and a public mandate to send me to jail.

However, like I said in the earlier post, I tend to agree with the constitution. It says the congress has the ability to 'establish post offices and post roads,' so I agree with that. The federal government has the authority to build roads under the constitution. Also, forming a military is one of the limited powers given to the federal government so I don't have a problem with that either.

Health care though is not mandated or authorized by the federal government, and the funding should not be extracted by gun point to fund it.

scout · 08-22-2009, 01:51 AM

Here's the gist of what I'm seeing in this thread and several others on the board.....Ultimately the people that are proponents of government run health care just want to be able to tell people how to live their lives. It's shaping up to be a control freak thing. If you don't live a healthy productive life just like the gooberment tells you to you won't be covered when you get sick, health care isn't a "right" then it's merely a "privilege". Funny how people are entitled to welfare no matter how they live or apply themselves but you want gooberment control of health care so you can decide who is covered and who isn't by the manner in which they took care of themselves. If you practice unsafe sex and contract AIDS you aren't entitled or if you have a shitty job and get cancer because of it you aren't covered because coverage for those illnesses is a privilege.

Willravel · 08-22-2009, 02:14 AM

Here's the gist of what I'm seeing from conservatives. Ultimately, if you don't like something, you're fine pulling the "the government is forcing me" card. If you agree with something, say the fire department or military, you're mysteriously silent on how the government is stealing your hard-earned money to give to bureaucratic firemen and soldiers that protect homes and lives that may not necessarily be your own. Unless you're Dunedan, in which case you believe we should all belong to the United States of Wall Street and that the founding fathers were all dead wrong about everything they ever said, wrote, or (most importantly) signed. But it's not enough to simply pull the selective "I'm a victim of taxation" card, no you've got to lie, cheat and steal to get what you want. During your tantrum, you scream out absurdities like "death panels" and "abortion funding" and "socialism" because you think everyone's as susceptible to scare tactics as you are. Only we're not. 77% of the country supports the public option. Ouch. On top of that, the Democrats have a super-majority, and the White House, so you're just going to have to deal with the sour grapes of drastically improved health care as the last nail is put into the coffin of your political ideology. Double ouch.

Nimetic · 08-22-2009, 05:22 AM

Neither. IMHO. Mainly because I don't like the term "a right".

I would argue though that we have a moral duty to care (to a certain extent) for each other. And.... that this can make economic sense.

Lets take the case of a dirt poor single mother who is pregnant and starts to deliver a baby... as luck would have it, not only did the father run off, but she invested with some dodgy Wall street people (Bernie Madoff) who took her $. Even worse... she tries to deliver at home but the first limb to come out is a leg. Yeah the baby is wrong way around.

The baby has no money either.

With state funded care they may be ok. Without any assistance they have high risk of complications.

Surely it's worth having a state that takes care of this?

Now there's another end of the scale also. To me... only the stuff that enhances productivity or "life years" should be state funded. Most cosmetic procedures would be off the list.

dksuddeth · 08-22-2009, 06:02 AM

you have as much right to healthcare as you have the right to drive.

roachboy · 08-22-2009, 06:10 AM

it's the case that you can see the dividing line between positions surfacing through the responses to this question.

what's curious is that the more rightwing anarchist responses tend to dodge the issue directly and instead divert it onto a question of resource allocation.
but in other contexts, life, liberty etc. are positioned as fundamental rights. well that and having a gun.
so how do you separate access to basic health care from the notion of "life", say?

lofhay · 08-22-2009, 06:10 AM

Those who think that healthcare is a "right", meaning that if they can't afford it then the government (tax payers) should pay for it, have not explained the logic of this. Being compassionate is one thing. Taxing some to give to others is another thing. If I am responsible for taking care of those who can't, or won't, take care of themselves, where do we draw the line? Am I obligated to take care of every human born into poverty? This is not possible, so we are compelled to decide what we can (will) do and what we cannot.

There is something about a government decree forcing me to help pay for others' needs which flies in the face of individual freedom.

SecretMethod70 · 08-22-2009, 06:23 AM

It's worth pointing out that this...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948. Article 25 states: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."

...is the law. We've signed onto the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, therefore, it is a part of US law. That we don't fully live up to our responsibilities is nothing new, but it is law nonetheless.

Personally, I wish we'd also ratify the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. It's quite sad to look at the map and see the US stand out as one of the few countries who has not fully ratified this covenant. Granted, many countries who have ratified it do not abide by it, so I suppose you could at least give the US credit for not signing something it has no interest in upholding, but you kind of have to wonder how sick the political landscape in the US must be when we don't recognize the goodness of ratifying this covenant but Iran does. They may not adhere to it, but they're at least aware that civil society does expect such things so they should at least make a show of it. Here? We don't even try.

Health care is much the same. How one can argue that it is a right to carry a gun (one which I'm totally OK with by the way), and a right to say what you want (with certain minor limitations of course), but not a right to receive the health care necessary to stay alive and well to do such things, I will never understand. That some here are apparently so used to their own doublespeak that they think a right to healthcare is really some nefarious plan to control people is even more saddening. Have you lost so much of your humanity - been so fully consumed by your own selfish principles - that you are incapable of comprehending that people might consider the full chance of a long and healthy life a right, with no ulterior motives?

For the record, I disagree with Cynthetiq's distinction between which type of care is a right vs which is a privilege, mainly because some of those treatments can extend life by a significant amount. But, for the sake of clarity, let's reword this right: "People have the right to preventitive medical care, and medical care which will reasonably serve to extend their life in the face of illness." Being a right, it's unimportant to get into what is and is not reasonable, just like the constitution does not define what is "well-regulated" or so forth. We can debate about what "reasonably" extends life in the face of terminal illness - I think the AIDS cocktail qualifies, Cynthetiq does not - but denying such a right is, to my mind, unconscienable.

dc_dux · 08-22-2009, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lofhay

Those who think that healthcare is a "right", meaning that if they can't afford it then the government (tax payers) should pay for it, have not explained the logic of this. Being compassionate is one thing. Taxing some to give to others is another thing. If I am responsible for taking care of those who can't, or won't, take care of themselves, where do we draw the line? Am I obligated to take care of every human born into poverty? This is not possible, so we are compelled to decide what we can (will) do and what we cannot.

There is something about a government decree forcing me to help pay for others' needs which flies in the face of individual freedom.

No one is talking about FREE health care, but rather government assurances that affordable and accessible health care is available to all....with govt subsidies for those most in need.

SecretMethod70 · 08-22-2009, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lofhay

Those who think that healthcare is a "right", meaning that if they can't afford it then the government (tax payers) should pay for it, have not explained the logic of this. Being compassionate is one thing. Taxing some to give to others is another thing. If I am responsible for taking care of those who can't, or won't, take care of themselves, where do we draw the line? Am I obligated to take care of every human born into poverty? This is not possible, so we are compelled to decide what we can (will) do and what we cannot.

There is something about a government decree forcing me to help pay for others' needs which flies in the face of individual freedom.

How many times must we talk in this circle? You're obligated to pay for my police protection, my fire service, the roads I drive on, my education, etc etc etc. Personally, I find it less important for my property to be protected (police) than for my life to be protected (health care). I think both are important, but to support government police (which are only sometimes related to protecting one's life) and not support government health care (which is related to protecting one's life the majority of the time) is a sad commentary on our society's priorities (property > life).

---------- Post added at 09:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:28 AM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

No one is talking about FREE health care, but rather government assurances that affordable and accessible health care is available to all....with govt subsidies for those most in need.

Thank you, also an important point.

scout · 08-22-2009, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Here's the gist of what I'm seeing from conservatives. Ultimately, if you don't like something, you're fine pulling the "the government is forcing me" card. If you agree with something, say the fire department or military, you're mysteriously silent on how the government is stealing your hard-earned money to give to bureaucratic firemen and soldiers that protect homes and lives that may not necessarily be your own. Unless you're Dunedan, in which case you believe we should all belong to the United States of Wall Street and that the founding fathers were all dead wrong about everything they ever said, wrote, or (most importantly) signed. But it's not enough to simply pull the selective "I'm a victim of taxation" card, no you've got to lie, cheat and steal to get what you want. During your tantrum, you scream out absurdities like "death panels" and "abortion funding" and "socialism" because you think everyone's as susceptible to scare tactics as you are. Only we're not. 77% of the country supports the public option. Ouch. On top of that, the Democrats have a super-majority, and the White House, so you're just going to have to deal with the sour grapes of drastically improved health care as the last nail is put into the coffin of your political ideology. Double ouch.

Your quoting a 3 month old poll to support your position. More recent polls suggest less than half of Americans support health care reform as it is being presented at this time.

Last time the Democrats had a super majority in both houses and they forced something through against the wishes of the majority of Americans they lost the next election and it was 12 long years before they was trusted enough to have a majority. Then the hot topic was gun control, this time it is shaping up to be health care reform.

dc_dux · 08-22-2009, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

Your quoting a 3 month old poll to support your position. More recent polls suggest less than half of Americans support health care reform as it is being presented at this time.

Most of the recent polls I have see show a pretty even split for/against the plans currently on the tables....generally in the mid 40s for both sides.

What is also clear from most of the polls are the high percentages of people who believe the various myths that have been spread by the opposition are true -- will give health care to illegal immigrants, will result in government take over of the health care system, will use taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions, will allow the government to make life/death decisions, etc.

Quote:

Last time the Democrats had a super majority in both houses and they forced something through against the wishes of the majority of Americans they lost the next election and it was 12 long years before they was trusted enough to have a majority. Then the hot topic was gun control, this time it is shaping up to be health care reform.

I have no idea what your referring to here, but gun control legislation in the last 30+ years has always had majority public support...just not enough to counter to influence of the NRA.

To conclude that the Democrats lost the majority in Congress because of the gun issue is a simplistic rewriting of recent history to suit your personal agenda.

Rekna · 08-22-2009, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

Your quoting a 3 month old poll to support your position. More recent polls suggest less than half of Americans support health care reform as it is being presented at this time.

Last time the Democrats had a super majority in both houses and they forced something through against the wishes of the majority of Americans they lost the next election and it was 12 long years before they was trusted enough to have a majority. Then the hot topic was gun control, this time it is shaping up to be health care reform.

And you are quoting polls that are two weeks old. The polls I have seen recently show the vast majority of Americans want a public option. The point is polls are like assholes, every one has one, and they are full of shit.

roachboy · 08-22-2009, 08:16 AM

assume that the un charter defines what fundamental human rights are and that as signatory the united states is bound by that.
i expect that alot of the ultra-nationalist anarcho-capitalist types will go a little wonky on this point since, like almost all of 20th and 21st century reality, its not written into the constitution....but i see no particular reason to take that line of argument seriously.

anyway, if you assume that people possess certain rights as a function of being human--because being human at this point means being part of a socio-economic and political system---it follows that system actions should be built in order to protect and maintain those rights. from there, a requirement that health care be made accessible to all, regardless of income, regardless of situation, follows.

if you think about it, the united states is a political system that for 60 years has devoted the bulk of its resources to organizational and technological systems designed to kill people in great number. we are, then, a culture of death. in a very christian way, we treat life as if it were cheap.
what is the basis for this?
the way a social system allocates resources is a good indicator of it's political priorities. the united states does not provide basic health care to all because politically this is not an important goal. the debate is really about changing that---changing the assumptions about how a functional social system should be organized and then moving to make the united states something more like a functional system.

conservatives seem to be under some bizarre-o impression that "individuals" exist in opposition to the social. this is simply idiotic, and at some many basic levels that it's hard to know where to begin taking it apart. perhaps because it is so idiotic that it's dificult to screw up the energy to bother with it. but think about language---is that an individual or a collective space? conservatives talk for the most part in a shared medium, they operate in a socially coherent manner day to day--none of that would be possible is "individuals" simply sprouted from the ground.

we are in a social system. one of the things a social system does is reallocate resources. welcome to the modern world, the one that took shape across the 200 years since the constitution was written, the one that makes 18th century notions of the individual quaint, an object of curiousity---and entirely useless as an analytic device.

individuals are possessed of rights because theyre defined that way through legal actions.
they don't bear them "naturally"
political theory origin myths--all that state of nature shit---are fairy tales developed to justify or criticize a political order that existed at the time they were written.
lockes second treatise on government is a speculative exercise.
you'd think conservatives would know this quite basic fact.

Stare At The Sun · 08-22-2009, 08:24 AM

My personal attitudes have slowly been changing about this. I didn't used to favor a public health option, but now I do.

Personally though, I think the public health option should work in stages by age like this:

When you're young (pre-18), you have very basic prescription and doctors coverage. With emergency access to hospitals, (or if you have a preexisting condition/something known, you always have that.

When you're an adult (18-30) you have the same coverage but better. Including more things, more coverage, focus on prevention and and treating conditions, but with expanded coverage.

When you're middle aged (30-59) you have the same coverage, but even better, with access to surgeries, specialists, etc.

When you're a senior (60 +) you have all the health care options.

Personally, I think a tiered system like this would allow for older citizens to get the treatment they want and need, while still allowing younger persons to get access to the few meds they need. With access to emergency treatments, and always having the ability to up your coverage if the need arises, it seems pretty logical.

One big thing though, the cost of prescription drugs is so absurd. Those prices need to go down somehow, and fast.

FoolThemAll · 08-22-2009, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

No room for discussion? Fair enough. We'll discuss is amongst ourselves then.

If you'd look just one post above that one, you'll notice that roachboy was the one to start that nonsense.

Health care is pretty clearly not a right - it requires an investment of time, money, and knowledge on the part of someone else. Given an inability/unwillingness to pay, it requires unpaid labor. Rights don't enslave, not even those who can afford a couple instances of slavery a month.

But this hardly settles the issue. The government has been in the business of providing more than just positive rights to the people for a long time - do I have a right to a paved road? "It's a right" is just a nice false spin to add to the already compelling (but maybe not compelling enough) "we should all chip in, it's the right thing to do".

08-21-2009, 12:24 PM	#1 (permalink)
lofhay Tilted Location: Charleston, SC	Healthcare: a right, a privilege, or something else? Is healthcare something to which everyone is entitled no matter who pays for it? Or is it a privilege which is available only to those who can afford it, or to whom it is a gift from those who can pay for it to those who cannot? How much responsibility does the individual have for his/her own health? And, if a person does not cultivate healthy habits such as proper diet, exercise, refraining from destructive habits like smoking, then who is responsible for their healthcare? How you think about these questions will determine how you feel about the debate concerning what government should do, or not do, about healthcare. I must admit that I have a hard time bringing myself to see this any way but that each individual is responsible for their own health, and any government help is a form of charity-- a gift. I am willing to do my part to help some, but I wonder about government involvement.

08-21-2009, 12:34 PM	#2 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	You're right, and I consider it a right. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is hard if you're bleeding from the face. __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

08-21-2009, 12:45 PM	#3 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Perhaps we should take a cue from the new Iraqi constitution that we gave so much blood and $$$ to create. The Iraqi constitution modeled in many respects on our own Constitution....free speech, free press, free association, freedom of religion, protection against search and seizure, etc. (but no specific right to bear arms) provides even more rights - to guaranteed work, a living wage and health care. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 08-21-2009 at 12:48 PM..

08-21-2009, 12:52 PM	#4 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	I believe health care is a right. After a bit of a search, I found this, which I agree with: United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948. Article 25 states: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control." __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

08-21-2009, 01:37 PM	#5 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	access to basic health care is a fundamental human right. to my mind, there is no debate about this. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-21-2009, 01:55 PM	#6 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	The issue is not the "right" of access to healthcare. The issue is whether someone has the "right" to rob other people at gunpoint to -pay for- that healthcare. My answer is no. I don't care what someone does with my stolen time/money, simply that they have stolen it. Robbery is wrong, period. Blackmail is wrong, period. Extortion is wrong, period. I see no room for discussion here.

08-21-2009, 03:18 PM	#10 (permalink)
allaboutmusic Aurally Fixated	I was going to say that it seems wrong to me that someone in prison should have the right to basic healthcare that someone poor outside of prison doesn't. But I suppose the same argument could be made about a bed to sleep on and food to eat. I think it's a right. I'm happy for my taxes to go towards saving lives and improving the health of others. Whatever is said about the National Health Service here in the UK, I have made use of it when I needed it, and it is nice to know that it's there and available to me if I should need it again. I do think that there should be some weighting towards personal responsibility... for example, if there is limited availability of cancer treatment, then I think it's fair to favour the patient who has given up smoking.

08-21-2009, 04:11 PM	#11 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	It should be a right. The frontier attitude of every person for themselves that is frequently put forth is, to my mind, a most self-centred and vicious attitude. I have no trouble paying more in taxes so that all can benefit. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

08-21-2009, 04:28 PM	#13 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	I think it's basic human right. the fact that we let people die, even though we could save them, simply due to lack of funds is asinine. __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

08-21-2009, 07:11 PM	#16 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Health care is a human right, and no taxation whatsoever is anarchy.

08-21-2009, 07:41 PM	#18 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	what a shock....The_Dunedan has highjacked another thread with his "no-tax" nonsense. Make your own thread about it and leave us to discuss the topic at hand. I think this is a fundamental right regardless of what the Constitution says. I'm as far from a strict constructionist as you'll find, as I find it limiting and inflexible.

08-21-2009, 09:13 PM	#19 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I am grateful that we do not live in the feudal world that Dunedan posits as a good thing. The Libertarian vision for the world is, in essence, the most selfish of worlds and I want nothing of it. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

08-21-2009, 09:23 PM	#20 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	What Dunedan posted is not libertarian; its technical name is anarcho-capitalism, or a system of societal organization based solely on a drastic and fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the private market.

08-21-2009, 09:43 PM	#21 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	basic preventative health care is a right, as much as emergency care. I do not consider diabetes and asthma medication or other medications for prevention as a privilege but as a fundamental portion of preventative health care. Anything that is prolonging your life for terminally ill, such as long term treatment such as cancer treatment, AIDS cocktails, and the like, are a privilege. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

08-22-2009, 01:51 AM	#26 (permalink)
scout Psycho	Here's the gist of what I'm seeing in this thread and several others on the board.....Ultimately the people that are proponents of government run health care just want to be able to tell people how to live their lives. It's shaping up to be a control freak thing. If you don't live a healthy productive life just like the gooberment tells you to you won't be covered when you get sick, health care isn't a "right" then it's merely a "privilege". Funny how people are entitled to welfare no matter how they live or apply themselves but you want gooberment control of health care so you can decide who is covered and who isn't by the manner in which they took care of themselves. If you practice unsafe sex and contract AIDS you aren't entitled or if you have a shitty job and get cancer because of it you aren't covered because coverage for those illnesses is a privilege. __________________ "The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." Thomas Jefferson

08-22-2009, 02:14 AM	#27 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Here's the gist of what I'm seeing from conservatives. Ultimately, if you don't like something, you're fine pulling the "the government is forcing me" card. If you agree with something, say the fire department or military, you're mysteriously silent on how the government is stealing your hard-earned money to give to bureaucratic firemen and soldiers that protect homes and lives that may not necessarily be your own. Unless you're Dunedan, in which case you believe we should all belong to the United States of Wall Street and that the founding fathers were all dead wrong about everything they ever said, wrote, or (most importantly) signed. But it's not enough to simply pull the selective "I'm a victim of taxation" card, no you've got to lie, cheat and steal to get what you want. During your tantrum, you scream out absurdities like "death panels" and "abortion funding" and "socialism" because you think everyone's as susceptible to scare tactics as you are. Only we're not. 77% of the country supports the public option. Ouch. On top of that, the Democrats have a super-majority, and the White House, so you're just going to have to deal with the sour grapes of drastically improved health care as the last nail is put into the coffin of your political ideology. Double ouch.

08-22-2009, 05:22 AM	#28 (permalink)
Nimetic Junkie Location: Melbourne, Australia	Neither. IMHO. Mainly because I don't like the term "a right". I would argue though that we have a moral duty to care (to a certain extent) for each other. And.... that this can make economic sense. Lets take the case of a dirt poor single mother who is pregnant and starts to deliver a baby... as luck would have it, not only did the father run off, but she invested with some dodgy Wall street people (Bernie Madoff) who took her $. Even worse... she tries to deliver at home but the first limb to come out is a leg. Yeah the baby is wrong way around. The baby has no money either. With state funded care they may be ok. Without any assistance they have high risk of complications. Surely it's worth having a state that takes care of this? Now there's another end of the scale also. To me... only the stuff that enhances productivity or "life years" should be state funded. Most cosmetic procedures would be off the list. Last edited by Nimetic; 08-22-2009 at 05:26 AM.. Reason: Grammar

08-22-2009, 06:02 AM	#29 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	you have as much right to healthcare as you have the right to drive. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

08-22-2009, 06:10 AM	#30 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	it's the case that you can see the dividing line between positions surfacing through the responses to this question. what's curious is that the more rightwing anarchist responses tend to dodge the issue directly and instead divert it onto a question of resource allocation. but in other contexts, life, liberty etc. are positioned as fundamental rights. well that and having a gun. so how do you separate access to basic health care from the notion of "life", say? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-22-2009, 06:10 AM	#31 (permalink)
lofhay Tilted Location: Charleston, SC	Those who think that healthcare is a "right", meaning that if they can't afford it then the government (tax payers) should pay for it, have not explained the logic of this. Being compassionate is one thing. Taxing some to give to others is another thing. If I am responsible for taking care of those who can't, or won't, take care of themselves, where do we draw the line? Am I obligated to take care of every human born into poverty? This is not possible, so we are compelled to decide what we can (will) do and what we cannot. There is something about a government decree forcing me to help pay for others' needs which flies in the face of individual freedom.

08-22-2009, 08:16 AM	#38 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	assume that the un charter defines what fundamental human rights are and that as signatory the united states is bound by that. i expect that alot of the ultra-nationalist anarcho-capitalist types will go a little wonky on this point since, like almost all of 20th and 21st century reality, its not written into the constitution....but i see no particular reason to take that line of argument seriously. anyway, if you assume that people possess certain rights as a function of being human--because being human at this point means being part of a socio-economic and political system---it follows that system actions should be built in order to protect and maintain those rights. from there, a requirement that health care be made accessible to all, regardless of income, regardless of situation, follows. if you think about it, the united states is a political system that for 60 years has devoted the bulk of its resources to organizational and technological systems designed to kill people in great number. we are, then, a culture of death. in a very christian way, we treat life as if it were cheap. what is the basis for this? the way a social system allocates resources is a good indicator of it's political priorities. the united states does not provide basic health care to all because politically this is not an important goal. the debate is really about changing that---changing the assumptions about how a functional social system should be organized and then moving to make the united states something more like a functional system. conservatives seem to be under some bizarre-o impression that "individuals" exist in opposition to the social. this is simply idiotic, and at some many basic levels that it's hard to know where to begin taking it apart. perhaps because it is so idiotic that it's dificult to screw up the energy to bother with it. but think about language---is that an individual or a collective space? conservatives talk for the most part in a shared medium, they operate in a socially coherent manner day to day--none of that would be possible is "individuals" simply sprouted from the ground. we are in a social system. one of the things a social system does is reallocate resources. welcome to the modern world, the one that took shape across the 200 years since the constitution was written, the one that makes 18th century notions of the individual quaint, an object of curiousity---and entirely useless as an analytic device. individuals are possessed of rights because theyre defined that way through legal actions. they don't bear them "naturally" political theory origin myths--all that state of nature shit---are fairy tales developed to justify or criticize a political order that existed at the time they were written. lockes second treatise on government is a speculative exercise. you'd think conservatives would know this quite basic fact. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-22-2009, 08:24 AM	#39 (permalink)
Stare At The Sun Eh? Location: Somewhere over the rainbow	My personal attitudes have slowly been changing about this. I didn't used to favor a public health option, but now I do. Personally though, I think the public health option should work in stages by age like this: When you're young (pre-18), you have very basic prescription and doctors coverage. With emergency access to hospitals, (or if you have a preexisting condition/something known, you always have that. When you're an adult (18-30) you have the same coverage but better. Including more things, more coverage, focus on prevention and and treating conditions, but with expanded coverage. When you're middle aged (30-59) you have the same coverage, but even better, with access to surgeries, specialists, etc. When you're a senior (60 +) you have all the health care options. Personally, I think a tiered system like this would allow for older citizens to get the treatment they want and need, while still allowing younger persons to get access to the few meds they need. With access to emergency treatments, and always having the ability to up your coverage if the need arises, it seems pretty logical. One big thing though, the cost of prescription drugs is so absurd. Those prices need to go down somehow, and fast.