|
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. |
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. |
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. |
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." |
access to basic health care is a fundamental human right.
to my mind, there is no debate about this. |
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. |
Quote:
No taxation at all - so no roads, military, education, etc? |
Quote:
I would say providing affordable health care to all who need it is a moral imperative. |
Quote:
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. |
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. |
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. |
Quote:
But I think most of us already knew that anarchy does not recognize, or has no concern for, the concept of rights. |
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.
|
Quote:
Quote:
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:
|
Quote:
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? |
Health care is a human right, and no taxation whatsoever is anarchy.
|
Quote:
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. |
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. |
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.
|
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.
|
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
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.
|
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.
|
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. |
you have as much right to healthcare as you have the right to drive.
|
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? |
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. |
It's worth pointing out that this...
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
---------- Post added at 09:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:28 AM ---------- Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
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:
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. |
Quote:
|
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. |
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. |
Quote:
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". |
"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 and do such things, I will never understand. "
Your right to carry a gun or say what you want doesn't cost anyone else anything. Your "right" to healthcare for which you cannot pay costs the rest of us in taxes or high insurance premiums. Why won't you deal with this idea? Do you really believe that someone who can't afford certain medical treatment has the right to demand that you or I pay for it? I want to be compassionate, but I resist having government force me to pay for that for which I am not responsible. |
Quote:
I don't agree with either side of this. It's not black and white, "tax for nearly everything so everyone may benefit" or "no tax for anything, ever". At some point, people have to take responsibility for themselves. People sitting on their ass have to get jobs, people addicted to drugs have to get help, people that work at a local shop with no benefits can find a new job that offers benefits. I did that very thing 2 weeks ago. Hey, it's life. I don't need to have my hand held, I can figure it out. Also, and this is a big one for me, people should be taught to take their time about having kids. It should be a part of sex education, and part of a federal standard for education. If you have a kid at 20, you're going to have a hard time unless daddy left you a fat bank account. If you have a kid at 30, you're more likely to be in stable financial health and be able to handle the stress. Shit, I'm 33 and my wife is 31 and we still don't have a kid. So once that mindset is established, why do we need to hold peoples' hands? They can figure it out. Sure the healthcare system needs an overhaul, but the question is how much of an overhaul does it really need? The answer to that is another thread, but I'm just putting that out there. It doesn't have to be black/white, 0/1, yes/no on/off gov't healthcare/no gov't healthcare. To say that healthcare is a right is alien to me. I don't see healthcare in the bill of rights. Ben Franklin didn't consider healthcare to be an inalienable right. It doesn't appear to be mentioned anywhere. If I've missed something, please cite that. "Pursuit of happiness" is pursuit, not handouts of happiness. To tack it on to the current list of rights is a big leap. It's modern, and while that is good, it needs refinement and not just thrown in as it stands. I would say it is too new to be called a right, yet. IMO we should have a working system, however that is defined, before we define the system itself. ---------- Post added at 12:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:52 PM ---------- We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. I see nothing that implies healthcare. I see that you can pursue healthcare as part of happiness. And so chase it you shall. May you catch that, and riches, and whatever else your heart may desire, as long as it doesn't infringe on others' pursuit of the same goals. |
I think preventative healthcare should be a right. I'd rather pay more in taxes and fees to improve the health of my fellow human than to pad the bank account of HMO executives.
|
Quote:
you're quoting the Declaration of Independence, which is just that, a declaration. It has nice ideas, but has no bearing on the law. |
@ Filtherton: There is that. But a system overhaul without socializing could settle alot of those issues.
---------- Post added at 01:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:16 PM ---------- Quote:
|
Quote:
You have a right to an attorney during questioning....If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.Or pehaps you dont believe that everyone should have a right to legal counsel when charged with a crime. |
Here is a real quote from the constitution:
Quote:
|
Oh I agree, reform is necessary. But it does not say "provide". It says "promote". Additionally it explicitly says provide for defense, but promote for healthcare. It is spelled out. Now define promote, without providing.
Promote can be health education, AIDS awareness, sex ed. The list is long. |
provide and promote are not mutually exclusive terms....
promote could easily mean providing a public option to compete against private options in order to bring down prices and increase the quality of health care. The government does not want to take over healthcare, they are simply trying to provide more competition. |
Call me un-American, but I'm not terribly interested in what rich white slave owners 200+ years ago had to say about health care.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
a right is what the legal system in place calls rights.
each assignment of that status is a technical (in the sense of writing it into law) and political question. trying to make some distinction on principle between "rights that cost me money" and "rights that don't cost me money" says nothing about rights--only something about your aesthetic preferences. in other words, it says nothing about anything beyond what you like and what you dont. so it works on the same register as statements concerning your preferences or chunky as over against smooth peanut butter. rights pertain to a legal subject, a construction of persons that is basically the sum of legal statements which give attributes to a social individual. so one line of argument that could happen here concerns the universal declaration of human rights that smeth brought up above. once the united states signed that document, effectively it adopted that construction of legal subjects as binding. thanks largely to the john birch society wing of the contemporary right, there's a paranoia about the un abroad in the land (black helicopters anyone?)...this coupled with years of routine ignoring of such conventions, mostly in the name of conservative-style nation-states uber alles thinking, have resulted in the right not having quite caught up with reality. but it seems to me that the fact that the us signed that declaration means that it accepted this notion of human rights and accepted the construction of a legal subject that follows from it. so i don't see how universal health care is not already obligatory, and even less any possible basis from the right for opposing it. even on pragmatic grounds i don't see it. this is a capitalist system. one of the primary functions of such a system is the reproduction of the labor pool. keeping more people healthy--and socializing the costs of doing it--would seem to me to make sense for bidness. hell, even insurance companies have such an interest. i see no arguments against universal health care being good for bidness, so it makes no sense to me that the same folk who carry water for the existing corporate sector in political terms to oppose it. it seems that the main arguments come from some curious position rooted in a fantasy 18th century world of yeomen farmers and no indoor plumbing and no electricity. the dunedan above outlined a position that's internally consistent, but i'm baffled as to why it is compelling given that we're in the modern capitalist world, like it or not. the argument is which version of that system is more desirable, what ends would make it more desirable. so which variant of the existing system do we collectively want. stuff about individual rights drawn on this 18th century yeoman farmer no cars no internet business are beside the point. that said, i can see why conservatives would not want to concede this point, though--once you do, you concede the whole argument against universal access to basic health care. ======== o and vigiliante: fact is that neither you nor anyone else has the faintest idea what was running through the minds of the framers of the constitution. the whole original intent thing is goofy. in this context, it actively obstructs a coherent discussion. |
Quote:
Of course it doesn't matter that the Founding Fathers were white or slave-owners. I was being glib. But it's unbelievable to me that when it comes to health care (or gay marriage, or whatever "liberal" issue is at hand that day), people so readily say, "well, the Founding Fathers didn't specifically say they could have XXXX, so fuck them!" |
The Constitution is a living document, and the roll of government must be able to change to suit the times. Public health care would have been impractical in 1776, but if you look at every other industrialized country in the world it seems to have become quite practical. So we adapt in order to survive.
Anyway, we don't need an amendment for public health care any more than FDR needed one for the New Deal. There are perfectly legal and not-unconstitutional ways to have public health care. |
Quote:
Do me a favor and don't lump me with all conservatives. I have zero issues with gay marriage. I have many gay friends and just made a new one at work last night. He's a dude, that's all I care about. What people do in their own homes or what contracts they bind with others is none of my business. I no more care if they worship satan, become a priest or marry another man, or decide to go straight for personal convictions, or stay single and hit the nightclub scene. ---------- Post added at 02:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:03 PM ---------- No arguments there Will, you have a point. RB, I have to get ready for work. I'll hit the forum later, I gtg, no time to read. |
Quote:
Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on your perspective) socialist healthcare systems capable of providing workable solutions to the folks in their jurisdiction already exist and can be readily emulated. |
the gay marriage comment wasn't directed at you Vigilante. I'm not lumping you in with anyone
|
Why do all the people against health care assume they're going to be the ones paying for someone else's care?
Do you all have some omniscient doctor's guarantee that you'll be healthy as a horse until you die suddenly in your sleep when you're 95? Has it ever occurred to any of you that you might become chronically and severely ill; lose your job and your benefits, and may end up on the receiving end of a fair health care system? Does everything in life have to be about a few people making obscene profits? Isn't the health of our citizens above that kind of thinking? I certainly think it is. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
but paying for yourself and paying for others is exactly what private insurance is |
Quote:
|
what that business model generates are outcomes that are entirely the opposite of what's outlined in the universal declaration of human rights.
what it amounts to is: you can access basic health care if you can pay. if you can't, fuck you. that means a two-tiered society---one tier made up of people for whom some elements of the declaration apply, and another for whom they dont. what that business model does is make access to basic health care an instrument of class warfare. |
rahl, I think what Derwood meant was, under the present private insurance system that has us by the short hairs now - we all pay when the uninsured go to an ER for treatment. Under the proposed health care system, those people would be insured , and could go to their PCP for preventive treatment instead of waiting until things get so serious.
Besides - under the present system, just because you pay for health insurance when you're healthy doesn't mean it'll be there for you when you get sick. |
if you read my initial post I said what bothers MOST people, not neccesarily me. And I agree that people going to the ER who are uninsured or on medicaid instead of going to the their pcp increases cost. It's mostly due to the fact dr.'s don't accept medicaid patients because medicaid doesn't pay out as much as Insurance does.
|
Quote:
No that's my intention or reasoning at all. There are no guarantees in life. No guarantee you'll live a long life, no guarantee you'll life a happy one, no guarantee you'll find the love of your life, no guarantee that you'll have children, no guarantee that the job you want to have you will get and will pay enough to live the lifestyle you want to live. I didn't mention lifestlye as anything, interesting you attributed that ideology to my post. I didn't say anything about cancer from smoking or AIDS from sex. Ignorance is the only rationalized reason to believe those are the only reasons for getting these 2 ailments. Last year my aunt died of cancer and her care was paid 100% for by Medicare. It paid for all of her operations, chemo, etc. She lived a menial life since she didn't make a high salary before she took ill. The state of California paid for all of her treatment, including gamma knife surgery for a brain tumor. Seems to me like a poor person still can get quality care. I know of people here in NYC who get the AIDS medication under some other programs headed by NGOs sponsored by pharmaceuticals and philanthropists. This actually is my favorite opinion and result since it's something that is a CHOICE by a group of people that are interested in the cause. The government isn't an infite black box of money, so there's going to be some sort of limitations of sorts. NHS in England already has such a thing in place Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes - Google Books. What I've also read is that France is also looking to increase it's funding via copays and other payment types so that they can increase the amount of funding they have. The argument of paying for fire and police protection isn't a similar argument at all. Police and Fire departments in one area don't dramatically burden the entire area in such skewed manner if the population density gets higher. Someone's LOSS due to theft or fire doesn't impact the rest of the citizen's cost of living in the same manner as health care.My point about this whole thing isn't about anything but FISCAL responsibility. I don't care if you're poor, things have to come from somewhere, and it is unfair to burden future generations with any kind of deficit or debt. So, if the interest is in keeping everyone healthy. Great. Fund it properly. But every place that I see with such programs has not been able to self sustain it fiscally. This is UK, France, Iceland... |
Quote:
Anyways, I have scoliosis. Bad. I have a heel lift (basically a slanted block of rubber) in one shoe to keep the base of my spine straight. My back wasn't always so straight, so the correction adaption was exceedingly painful. I've spent years visiting chiropractors and having the scar tissue that covers the left side of my back rubbed out. It feels like you're being skinned alive sometimes, no therapeutic massages there. I haven't even begun dealing with my nearly negative arch that has developed on my left foot as a result of this rubber brick in my shoe. So to say I have not considered this issue is ridiculous, at least in my case. Of course I have. I am not thinking about my personal goals, I'm thinking what happens to America when we start walking down that road. It may be too late anyways, and my concerns may be completely unfounded. Who knows. No one here including myself can really say they know. All I know is that I'm trying to plan for the problems that lie ahead. Despite that, I still have some concerns. I'm not going to say yeah let's do it for me. I would benefit tremendously. My spine and ribcage are fucked, of course I would benefit. However would America benefit? We need overhauls on a lot of fronts, no argument there. But socialization may not be the answer we hope it to be. Yes it may start off small, but any time you change a system, you feel the effects long after, and results are not always planned. Quote:
Ok I gtg. Have fun with that :) |
what you think life in general is like is not important here, really. this is a question of law, a question of rights as defined through law, a question of what policies should follow from those premises. and it is about the simple fact that the health system in the united states is an expression of class war, nothing more nothing less.
you would be free to imagine "life" as having no guaratees or whatever in the context of universal access to basic health care just as much as you are now. most aspects of life would unfold as they do now around you. all that would change is that basic health care would stop being a prerogative of class and become available to everyone. you could continue to conflate economic position and something essential about who you are, who others are. you could continue to effectively argue that the materially disadvantaged do not deserve the same access to health care that you do. so could say whatever. what would change is that these views would become the parlor game that they should be. they shouldn't be built into the way actual health care is and is not delivered. |
Quote:
/off-topic No one is arguing for socialization. The current health care debate is for a public option. And not even public medicine, just public payment. The practitioners are still independent of the government (at least, as independent as they are from the insurance companies, which is, admittedly, not entirely), and people who do not want the basic coverage the government is willing to pay for can choose a private company instead. Debate whether or not that's a good thing; fine. Don't call it something it is not. It's not socialism, and it's not even close. |
The problem with taking a reductionist view of various conditions present within a given society is that it ignores the contribution that society collectively makes to the prevalence of a given condition.
There is significant epidemiological research correlating social position with health. So while one could argue that a lack of willpower is a personal issue, the fact remains that the children of the poor or chronically unemployed are more like to have issues with a whole slew of things including depression and chemical dependency. This puts these folks at a disadvantage and this disadvantage, though not insurmountable, makes it so a disproportionate number of them will be a net drain on the system. It stands to reason that society as a whole will benefit from interventions designed to reduce the extent or effects of disadvantages associated with growing up in poverty. So while some might find it distasteful to help people who have seemingly put themselves in a bind, we might all benefit if that distaste could be swallowed. |
Quote:
It's not just for a public option though, it's calling for a complete re-structuring of insurance companies. One thing in particular is forcing them to take people with pre-ex's. Which if all fine and good, but the backlash of that will be super high sky rocketed premiums, which people are going to bitch about, but thats the only logical result of having to take on such a high risk class of people. |
Even if healthcare is not expressly written as a right in the Constitution, it is a human right. That's not my opinion, that's according to the UN's Human Rights Declaration.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I think of the UN as a model for Utopian world, but not the real world. |
Quote:
|
And maybe govn't should step in and tell krogers how much to charge for a head of lettuce. Maybe they should come in and reorganize your company and change your payscale...doesn't make sense or seem right to me. I'm all for the government creating a public OPTION, but not telling companies how they are to run their business. But we're getting of topic here.
Is access to affordable health care services a "right" I honestly can't say one way or the other. It wasn't an issue 50+ years ago because it didn't cost an arm an a leg(no pun intended) to see your doctor, now it does. Who decides what rights to grant? I have no idea, never understood it. |
Quote:
My point is that right now, there really isn't competition among insurers. There isn't a market force that's driving down prices. The public option may be that force |
MAY is a very big gamble. If a public opiton is in reality an extension of medicaid it will be doomed to fail since Dr.'s won't accept it. Prices will only go up if the govn't forces Carriers to insure pre-ex's.
|
Quote:
---------- Post added at 07:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:54 PM ---------- Quote:
|
Quote:
|
The cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment has been interpreted by the SCOTUS to require all American prisoners to have free health care. As a right. Estellev. Gamble, 429, U.S. 97, 1976.
Doesn't this speak in volumes? |
Quote:
|
They could be made to work for their health care, but they're not.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I was just browsing the Wikipedia article on the Declaration on Human Rights, and it says that it is a "non-binding" agreement.
|
Quote:
Odd to and they don't get the right to vote. I'm all for keeping that. I'm not in the custody of the government. I'm a citizen and I get to vote. |
My point is that they could be forced to work for their health care, and if they don't work, they take the chance of getting sick and being screwed. Just like it is on the outside.
|
So perhaps the right to health care is more important than the right to vote?
I think the right to health care is about this, ultimately: human dignity. Human rights are about that. Dignity. If you cannot access something as basic as care for the health of you and your family, you are denied a fundamental necessity of human dignity. |
The bottom line is that health care is not influenced by market forces like other businesses.
Look at it this way. If you are told you are about to die but you can be saved for $10 would you pay it? How about $100? How about $1000? How about $10000? How about $100000. There is no price that you won't agree to pay when it comes to a life and death situation. This is why we need the government to come in and regulate. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
I think it's the right of a child to have health care no matter how poor he/she is. |
Quote:
Health care is not a right. You have the negative right to live, in that I have no right to kill you, but I should be under no requirement to ensure you survive. If you get sick and die because of poor genes, living in a bad environment, or not taking care of yourself it's not my fault and I don't want to have to bear the burden of keeping you alive. |
Quote:
Quote:
"Fuck everyone else, Ima get mine" is a piss poor way of being a member of society. In fact, it might reasonably be stated that one of the primary advantages of social existence is that there are many situations where we can all benefit from the assistance of other people more so than we benefit from going without that assistance. But I'm sure you don't ever take advantage of something you didn't earn and have never benefited from the spending of your fellow citizen's tax dollars. |
[QUOTE=filtherton;2692609]This is an appropriate attitude because birth control is always 100% effective and because the children resulting from unintended pregnancies deserve whatever suffering they get because their parents might have been irresponsible.
Agree or disagree, this is a huge problem in america. Too many people who have no business having kids are having multiple kids. I agree it isn't the kids fault that they were born to piece of shit parents, and they deserve coverage, but parents need to have concequences for having kids they can't support, not given more money for having as many kids as they can squeeze out. this is why welfare and medicaid are broken systems, they are too easy to take advantage of and easy to find the loopholes. Which is why I hope they can come up with a public option that will eliminate such loopholes. because the current system is broken |
Quote:
|
Quote:
---------- Post added at 10:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:36 AM ---------- Quote:
|
Quote:
In Sweden we do have government healthcare paid for by taxes, but also private hospitals for those that feel like using those. Seems to be working pretty well. Always room for improvement of course, but all in all a very good system. Oh, and I believe healthcare is a right. Refusing healthcare to someone just because they do not have the money to see a doctor or get a necessary operation is just fucked up on so many levels. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:00 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project