Health Care as a Human Right

[Detmurds]

No where in the Constitution does it say that private industry can charge any price they want for a necessary item such as healthcare, housing, utilities, clothing, food & education.

Enough said!

If government would just stop taxing the hell out of them it wouldn't be a problem! Government knows this and they also know that you don't!

 

[jillian]

Well...if you ever develop a tumor....go see a lawyer.....

What a stupid comment.

 

[Detmurds]

Hey Jillian, ...is that crickets I hear? It got quiet!

 

[Diuretic]

If healthcare isn't a human right, then what sort of "good" is it?

 

[jreeves]

If government would just stop taxing the hell out of them it wouldn't be a problem! Government knows this and they also know that you don't!

Here is a great article explaining the falacies with these socialistic agendas.


Prices

The price system in a market economy guides economic activity so flawlessly that most people don't appreciate its importance. Market prices transmit information about relative scarcity and then efficiently coordinate economic activity. The economic content of prices provides incentives that promote economic efficiency.

For example, when the OPEC cartel restricted the supply of oil in the 1970s, oil prices rose dramatically. The higher prices for oil and gasoline transmitted valuable information to both buyers and sellers. Consumers received a strong, clear message about the scarcity of oil by the higher prices at the pump and were forced to change their behavior dramatically. People reacted to the scarcity by driving less, carpooling more, taking public transportation, and buying smaller cars. Producers reacted to the higher price by increasing their efforts at exploration for more oil. In addition, higher oil prices gave producers an incentive to explore and develop alternative fuel and energy sources.

The information transmitted by higher oil prices provided the appropriate incentive structure to both buyers and sellers. Buyers increased their effort to conserve a now more precious resource and sellers increased their effort to find more of this now scarcer resource.

The only alternative to a market price is a controlled or fixed price which always transmits misleading information about relative scarcity. Inappropriate behavior results from a controlled price because false information has been transmitted by an artificial, non-market price.

Look at what happened during the 1970s when U.S. gas prices were controlled. Long lines developed at service stations all over the country because the price for gasoline was kept artificially low by government fiat. The full impact of scarcity was not accurately conveyed. As Milton Friedman pointed out at the time, we could have eliminated the lines at the pump in one day by allowing the price to rise to clear the market.

From our experience with price controls on gasoline and the long lines at the pump and general inconvenience, we get an insight into what happens under socialism where every price in the economy is controlled. The collapse of socialism is due in part to the chaos and inefficiency that result from artificial prices. The information content of a controlled price is always distorted. This in turn distorts the incentives mechanism of prices under socialism. Administered prices are always either too high or too low, which then creates constant shortages and surpluses. Market prices are the only way to transmit information that will create the incentives to ensure economic efficiency.

Profits and Losses

Socialism also collapsed because of its failure to operate under a competitive, profit-and-loss system of accounting. A profit system is an effective monitoring mechanism which continually evaluates the economic performance of every business enterprise. The firms that are the most efficient and most successful at serving the public interest are rewarded with profits. Firms that operate inefficiently and fail to serve the public interest are penalized with losses.

By rewarding success and penalizing failure, the profit system provides a strong disciplinary mechanism which continually redirects resources away from weak, failing, and inefficient firms toward those firms which are the most efficient and successful at serving the public. A competitive profit system ensures a constant reoptimization of resources and moves the economy toward greater levels of efficiency. Unsuccessful firms cannot escape the strong discipline of the marketplace under a profit/loss system. Competition forces companies to serve the public interest or suffer the consequences.

Under central planning, there is no profit-and-loss system of accounting to accurately measure the success or failure of various programs. Without profits, there is no way to discipline firms that fail to serve the public interest and no way to reward firms that do. There is no efficient way to determine which programs should be expanded and which ones should be contracted or terminated.

Without competition, centrally planned economies do not have an effective incentive structure to coordinate economic activity. Without incentives the results are a spiraling cycle of poverty and misery. Instead of continually reallocating resources towards greater efficiency, socialism falls into a vortex of inefficiency and failure.

Private Property Rights

A third fatal defect of socialism is its blatant disregard for the role of private property rights in creating incentives that foster economic growth and development. The failure of socialism around the world is a "tragedy of commons" on a global scale.

The "tragedy of the commons" refers to the British experience of the sixteenth century when certain grazing lands were communally owned by villages and were made available for public use. The land was quickly overgrazed and eventually became worthless as villagers exploited the communally owned resource.

When assets are publicly owned, there are no incentives in place to encourage wise stewardship. While private property creates incentives for conservation and the responsible use of property, public property encourages irresponsibility and waste. If everyone owns an asset, people act as if no one owns it. And when no one owns it, no one really takes care of it. Public ownership encourages neglect and mismanagement.

Since socialism, by definition, is a system marked by the "common ownership of the means of production," the failure of socialism is a "tragedy of the commons" on a national scale. Much of the economic stagnation of socialism can be traced to the failure to establish and promote private property rights.

As Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto remarked, you can travel in rural communities around the world and you will hear dogs barking, because even dogs understand property rights. It is only statist governments that have failed to understand property rights. Socialist countries are just now starting to recognize the importance of private property as they privatize assets and property in Eastern Europe.


http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=4014

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That's a lie perpetuated by the AMA and insurance industries.

1) people don't bring malpractice cases that don't have a basis because they're too expensive.

2) after bringing a med mal case, most states require you to go through a panel to determine merit.

3) if someone does damage to you or yours because of medical malpractice (which can't be something that's an anticipated side effect or danger or a particular treatment) it is likely that the damage they cause will result in death or severe injury which could require lifetime care...

the same rules are true for a products liability case except that they don't usually have to go through a panel first.

so tell me again why a doctor's liability should be limited to $250,000 when he can cause millions of dollars worth of damage.

oh and a case having merit doesn't mean that you automatically win in court. If you lose, it just means you didn't convince the trier of fact.

Remind me again about how medical malpractice is so hard to prove and to expensive to bring unless real. I watch daily adds by a law firm advertising that Cerebral Palsy is a condition that happens because a doctor screwed up a delivery and is not a disease.

I suggest you research John Edwards career and see some of the truly ignorant things he has managed to convince juries to agree with.

Remind us again why some places are without doctors for child birth and other specific conditions, not because no one is available but because the lawsuits are so thick and heavy and costly that no doctor can afford insurance to practice that procedure in that area.

 

[Taomon]

I believe you are the blind one here since you think it is a "human right" to have socialized medicine. You believe the government should take over an entire private industry. Where in the Constitution does it say the government should run private industry? Where does it say health care is a "human right"?

Actually, I never said it was a human right to have socialized medicine...nice try. I do believe it is our right to have access to adequate medical care and health insurance seems to have changed into another class caste enabler. Where in the Constitution does it say that private industry can withhold medical care from the working class? If I am shot am I not afforded the right to be treated by a qualified physician? Do I not have the right to medical care? The health insurance industry seems to have a say in where and when I get treatment. Where in the Constitution does it say that private industry dictates my medical care?

The only right you have is to freely pursue good health care for your own happiness and well-being. That can happen in a free market. Please stop falling for the ignorant liberal socialist mantra that private industry is the source of all evil. Yes, private industry has profit as its prime motive….there is absolutely nothing inherently "evil" in that. When corps and govt mix is when you typically get the "evil" actions.

Freely pursue within a free market at a price. What if one cannot afford that price? Does one not deserve that service? If I have a family of four and earn slightly above minimum wage, do I not deserve heat in the winter, a roof over our heads? I don't believe in socialist redistribution of wealth, but I do believe in price controls and subsidies. Healthcare, utilities, housing, clothing, education and food should all be affordable. These are necessities of intelligent life.

When you have a free market, competition will exist and you, the consumer, gets to choose among various competitive services and prices instead of being fed one option via the socialized rubber stamp approach. Of course you have to pay for those health services….or do you think it's your "human right" to get them for "free"? Give me a break. Socialized medicine is NOT free either. Plus you wind up with no control over your own health care...you essentially go on the "government dole" because they (the govt pinheads) determine what you "should" have and what you "shouldn't"...in other words, no more free CHOICE. (and here i thought you libs were all about "choice")

This free market competition concept works in theory only. Greed is the factor is always left out. The reality is that most people have to settle for insurance that does not cover necessary procedures and things like "preventive care." Usually they are not part of a health plan or have high, (usually unattainable) premiums attached. Of course, one can always destroy one's create by getting necessary procedures and owing the facilities that perform them. That is the free market system as we know it. Again, I don't think healthcare should be free, just affordable.

We need more deregulation to get the government and other bloodsucking third parties OUTof the health care industry. When products and services exist in a competitive and free market the customer always benefits.

What? When has that ever happened? Deregulation allows companies to charge any price they want. Competition does force prices down, or have you not noticed that? In MA we are required by law to buy Auto Insurance if one drives a car. The prices are through the roof. There is two auto insurance companies that are very cheap. They don't cover a lot and claims are almost impossible to get approved. Do you think that we should have the same situation for healthcare? We need regulation to enforce a pricing system that is fair. We need regulation to ensure that certain standards are in place within every health care plan. We need regulation to keep the private insurance companies from running amok.

Of course your next beef is what about the poor who can't even pay the lower costs? There will always be a small minority who cannot pay and these people must depend upon charity - which is abundant in a free and prosperous society. However, most hardworking people can afford decent health care in a free market. That used to be the case here in the U.S. but ever since government and other gouging third parties got involved, prices have escalated. Getting rid of them is our challenge and the solution to our health care crisis, not expanding government interference.

Actually you are wrong. The poor get healthcare for free. I can live with that. The problem is that the working class cannot afford decent healthcare. Where do you live that the working class can afford this?

I am fortunate enough to work in an industry that pays me well, according to experience and ability. This was not always the case. I used to work for Blue Cross and I could not afford the insurance, but needed it. It hurt us financially to pay for it. There is no help for working families because if you earn minimum wage or higher, you earn too much as they say.

People who work at Wal-Mart earn just above minimum wage. How are they able to afford decent health insurance?

Prices have escalated because of the pharma-industry is basically in crisis mode. Most patents are running out. Instead of developing new drugs, most companies are spending millions on finding new uses for already existing drugs...and extending those patents for another 10 years. When a patent runs out, generic labels can imitate the drug. This cuts into profits, but benefits the consumer.

I work for a biotech. The Capital Group Companies, Inc bought a big portion of shares (not nearly a controlling share amount), basically enough to influence the board of directors. This investment group is famous for buying companies, gutting them and selling them for profits. They tried to influence the board to sell the company.

We were looked at by Phizer and Johnson & Johnson. That was when I learned about the current state of the pharma-industry. Biotech is the future and pharmas are fading out.

In addition to this, insurance companies do not have any regulation from raising prices. I am curious, what state do you live in? I would love to see how your boasts compare to the realistic statistics in your area.

I live in MA and all citizens 18 and older are required by law to purchase health insurance. We had a problem because most of the workers could not afford the high cost of healthcare, the high cost of housing, the high taxes, the high cost of food and so on. Mitt Romney saw a solution...force citizens to buy insurance. Now we do have various plans according to affordability. This plays out exactly as I told you, higher cost coverage has more benefits and lower cost coverage has little or almost none. So basically the upper middle class can have decent coverage and the lower middle class is at the emergency room with the sniffles. That is the free market for you.

 

[Taomon]

Remind me again about how medical malpractice is so hard to prove and to expensive to bring unless real. I watch daily adds by a law firm advertising that Cerebral Palsy is a condition that happens because a doctor screwed up a delivery and is not a disease.

I suggest you research John Edwards career and see some of the truly ignorant things he has managed to convince juries to agree with.

Remind us again why some places are without doctors for child birth and other specific conditions, not because no one is available but because the lawsuits are so thick and heavy and costly that no doctor can afford insurance to practice that procedure in that area.

You cannot prove your contentions. And John Edwards is a good man. He was a lawyer who stood up for the little people against the tyranny of private industry, and you demonize him for it?

 

[jillian]

Remind me again about how medical malpractice is so hard to prove and to expensive to bring unless real. I watch daily adds by a law firm advertising that Cerebral Palsy is a condition that happens because a doctor screwed up a delivery and is not a disease.

I suggest you research John Edwards career and see some of the truly ignorant things he has managed to convince juries to agree with.

Remind us again why some places are without doctors for child birth and other specific conditions, not because no one is available but because the lawsuits are so thick and heavy and costly that no doctor can afford insurance to practice that procedure in that area.

John Edwards career???

Yeah, he really sucks, doesn't he?

http://www.monkeytime.org/lakey.html

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0707/06/ng.01.html

 

[RetiredGySgt]

John Edwards career???

Yeah, he really sucks, doesn't he?

http://www.monkeytime.org/lakey.html

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0707/06/ng.01.html

Remind us again how Cerebral Palsy is caused by a bad doctor. How birth defects can somehow be turned into malpractice by shyster lawyers like Edwards.

 

[Taomon]

Remind us again how Cerebral Palsy is caused by a bad doctor. How birth defects can somehow be turned into malpractice by shyster lawyers like Edwards.

Prove that John Edwards did such things.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Prove that John Edwards did such things.

Do the research, I am not your errand boy.

 

[Taomon]

Do the research, I am not your errand boy.

Oh no you don't. You made it quite clear not too long ago, that when one makes a statement, one must back it up with evidence.

Twice you made disparaging comments about John Edwards without a shred of evidence. The burdon of proof lies with you. That is how this game is played. Either put up or shut up.

 

[midcan5]

Good debate. Consider for a moment the novel idea that in a democracy the people create what comes to be a 'right,' and sooner or latter the common folk are going to wake up - actually that may be happening now - and say, hey, I too would like to have heathcare. Hmm... darn is that a sorta socialistic communistic democractic idea or what.

 

[jreeves]

Good debate. Consider for a moment the novel idea that in a democracy the people create what comes to be a 'right,' and sooner or latter the common folk are going to wake up - actually that may be happening now - and say, hey, I too would like to have heathcare. Hmm... darn is that a sorta socialistic communistic democractic idea or what.

If the people get tired of having 30 percent of their paychecks stolen maybe they will revolt against the government.

 

[midcan5]

Stolen? How so? explain.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Oh no you don't. You made it quite clear not too long ago, that when one makes a statement, one must back it up with evidence.

Twice you made disparaging comments about John Edwards without a shred of evidence. The burdon of proof lies with you. That is how this game is played. Either put up or shut up.

Eat my shit. His case history is a matter of public record. Nothing nefarious or tough about it at all. I have no interest in posting articles for you that you won't read and won't accept.

He made his money by convincing Juries he knew what babies thought or felt before they were born. His big cases were not proven they were games of him selling the jury on his opinion.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Actually, I never said it was a human right to have socialized medicine...nice try. I do believe it is our right to have access to adequate medical care and health insurance seems to have changed into another class caste enabler. Where in the Constitution does it say that private industry can withhold medical care from the working class? If I am shot am I not afforded the right to be treated by a qualified physician? Do I not have the right to medical care? The health insurance industry seems to have a say in where and when I get treatment. Where in the Constitution does it say that private industry dictates my medical care?

Yet the things you say leads one to that conclusion. And you already have the right to access to adequate health care - you just have to pay for it.

The fact that you can't pay for it is why you fall back on the class argument....despite the fact you are a member of the richest working class in the history of the world, a typical 2car, 2TV, 2cell phone family, (and nobody really in need sits for 4+ hours in emergency) you think you are poor and downtrodden. Boohoo.

If you are shot there is nothing in the Constitution that says anybody must save you. You do not have a "right" to medical care. As God-fearing people, however, we believe it is a moral duty for others to help you if they can….but now we are getting into "religion" and we wouldn't want that to happen, would we? Although you might have a new respect for pro-lifers when seculars take over and decide not to give you medical care because you're not worth it...too old, too sick, whatever...all for the greater good, of course.

Yes, the health insurance providers do have a lot to say today about your medical care….too much in fact - I believe that is wrong…you and your doctor should be in control….and yes, there is nothing in the Constitution that says they should dictate your health care...we agree on that.

Freely pursue within a free market at a price. What if one cannot afford that price? Does one not deserve that service? If I have a family of four and earn slightly above minimum wage, do I not deserve heat in the winter, a roof over our heads? I don't believe in socialist redistribution of wealth, but I do believe in price controls and subsidies. Healthcare, utilities, housing, clothing, education and food should all be affordable. These are necessities of intelligent life.

If you cannot afford the price, you either need to make more money or vote for change. Change can be for either more government involvement or less. I think it's already been proven that more is not the best route.

If you have a family of 4 and only earn slightly above minimum wage, that does not mean you deserve anything. What it really means is you are an irresponsible person for having a family when you cannot afford one. Why should I pay for your stupid mistakes? It means you better get two jobs or else learn how to make more money per hour.

This free market competition concept works in theory only. Greed is the factor is always left out. The reality is that most people have to settle for insurance that does not cover necessary procedures and things like "preventive care." Usually they are not part of a health plan or have high, (usually unattainable) premiums attached. Of course, one can always destroy one's create by getting necessary procedures and owing the facilities that perform them. That is the free market system as we know it. Again, I don't think healthcare should be free, just affordable.

This free market competition works real well for the most part. Just because there are some glitches does not mean we need to scrap the whole idea. Greed is a factor found in any economic system. Competition is what keeps greed under control.

What? When has that ever happened? Deregulation allows companies to charge any price they want. Competition does force prices down, or have you not noticed that? In MA we are required by law to buy Auto Insurance if one drives a car. The prices are through the roof. There is two auto insurance companies that are very cheap. They don't cover a lot and claims are almost impossible to get approved. Do you think that we should have the same situation for healthcare? We need regulation to enforce a pricing system that is fair. We need regulation to ensure that certain standards are in place within every health care plan. We need regulation to keep the private insurance companies from running amok.

Regulation to enforce price fixing is socialism. Show me a true socialist system that has worked so well you that you've had dreams of living under it….like the once great USSR? How about Maoist style? I'm sure you'd love the health care system in Cuba. Hey, Venezuela is going socialist today….quick, change countries! Socialism and evil seem to go together. Why is it people cannot learn from history?

Actually you are wrong. The poor get healthcare for free. I can live with that. The problem is that the working class cannot afford decent healthcare. Where do you live that the working class can afford this?

I am fortunate enough to work in an industry that pays me well, according to experience and ability. This was not always the case. I used to work for Blue Cross and I could not afford the insurance, but needed it. It hurt us financially to pay for it. There is no help for working families because if you earn minimum wage or higher, you earn too much as they say.

People who work at Wal-Mart earn just above minimum wage. How are they able to afford decent health insurance?

Prices have escalated because of the pharma-industry is basically in crisis mode. Most patents are running out. Instead of developing new drugs, most companies are spending millions on finding new uses for already existing drugs...and extending those patents for another 10 years. When a patent runs out, generic labels can imitate the drug. This cuts into profits, but benefits the consumer.

I work for a biotech. The Capital Group Companies, Inc bought a big portion of shares (not nearly a controlling share amount), basically enough to influence the board of directors. This investment group is famous for buying companies, gutting them and selling them for profits. They tried to influence the board to sell the company.

We were looked at by Phizer and Johnson & Johnson. That was when I learned about the current state of the pharma-industry. Biotech is the future and pharmas are fading out.

In addition to this, insurance companies do not have any regulation from raising prices. I am curious, what state do you live in? I would love to see how your boasts compare to the realistic statistics in your area.

I live in MA and all citizens 18 and older are required by law to purchase health insurance. We had a problem because most of the workers could not afford the high cost of healthcare, the high cost of housing, the high taxes, the high cost of food and so on. Mitt Romney saw a solution...force citizens to buy insurance. Now we do have various plans according to affordability. This plays out exactly as I told you, higher cost coverage has more benefits and lower cost coverage has little or almost none. So basically the upper middle class can have decent coverage and the lower middle class is at the emergency room with the sniffles. That is the free market for you.

Looks like Romney's government decree is not working. Forced car insurance doesn't work either. Seems every time I'm hit it's by some slacker without insurance.

Where'd you get the idea I've been boasting about anything? I happen to agree with you that health care prices have skyrocketed, however, I disagree with you on how to solve the problems.. IMO cradle-to-grave socialism is NOT the answer. Some better approaches:

1. Reform the tax treatment of health care expenses - to level the playing field & lower costs.
2. Promote portable, nationwide insurance - to help provide lower cost insurance options.
3. Reduce barriers to entry - to help increase the supply of doctors, nurses, etc.
4. Address head-on the costs of treating the chronically ill - provide direct subsidies to purchase insurance.
5. Allow market forces to work - put the consumers in charge.

http://healthpolicy.stanford.edu/ne...emarket_solution_for_us_health_care_20040506/

 

[Taomon]

Eat my shit. His case history is a matter of public record. Nothing nefarious or tough about it at all. I have no interest in posting articles for you that you won't read and won't accept.

He made his money by convincing Juries he knew what babies thought or felt before they were born. His big cases were not proven they were games of him selling the jury on his opinion.

So basically, you cannot prove it. I take it that you did a google search and could not find a verifiable source for your lies? RGS, if I stated that George W Bush raped a woman and that she tried to sue him (a police report does actually exist) you would demand that I provide proof...and even then you would probably dismiss it anyhow.

But the fact is that if I made the contention, the burdon of proof is on me. You screamed as much to me many times. You seem to think that the rule doesn't apply to you, and it does.

Put up or shut up.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So basically, you cannot prove it. I take it that you did a google search and could not find a verifiable source for your lies? RGS, if I stated that George W Bush raped a woman and that she tried to sue him (a police report does actually exist) you would demand that I provide proof...and even then you would probably dismiss it anyhow.

But the fact is that if I made the contention, the burdon of proof is on me. You screamed as much to me many times. You seem to think that the rule doesn't apply to you, and it does.

Put up or shut up.

Sorry but not gonna play. Do your own google, once again it is public record, easily found and if you do the search you will read what you find. If I provide links you will just ignore them.

What I find funny is your absolute ignorance on so many issues. what are you? 18?