Is healthcare a right? why or why not?

[Bern80]

Why do I ask? To me it seems to be the most fundamental part of why some advocate for universal health care and why some advocate for privatized healthcare. Every candidate on the dem ticket has a plan of some type for of universal or government run healthcare. So I have to think that most of them think it is a right. By extension then people basically have the right to good health it would seem.

The problem I have with it being a right is the concept of a 'right' itself. A 'right' like the right to free speech or right to bear arms is something that is provided you without any cost or requirment to obtain access to. You don't have to earn the right to free speech or pay a fee when you want to speak. The conundrum I have with healthcare is if it is your right, that is you are under no personal responsibility to provide it for yourself, then who's responsibility is it, and why? If I'm not paying for the services somone else must be. According to Hillary anyway that will be increased taxes on the rich. But wait healthcare is a right, so why should the rich be expected to pay for it? It's a right so isn't it suppossed to be free to them as well? Why should they be worried about their own health as well as those that can't pay for it?

Rush had a caller on today who was a female physician and basically asked the same question. Why is she, a provider of a service like any other service, expected to provide it a reduced rate or free all together? You can't control all aspects of your health anymore than you can control all aspects of your car working, but we expect people to pay to have their own car fixed even if not responsible for the problem, yet some have this expectation that when 'shit happens' where your health is concerned it's suppossed to be free to get 'fixed'.

 

[Doug]

Good question. But note: the right to free speech can be interpreted to mean only that the government shall not undertake measures to limit your free speech. Now suppose that every time you tried to speak, someone else stopped you from doing so -- say, by standing next to you with a bullhorn, or bombing your newspaper, or rioting outside your editorial office when you print a cartoon they don't like. Do you have the "right" to demand that the government protect your free speech?

We certainly feel we have the right to demand that the government protect us from criminals, for example. But should we? Do we have a "right" to pursue our lives unmolested by criminal predators?

Also note that on the "right to bear arms", again, this is a kind of negative limitation on the government, not a positive demand that they provide you with arms to bear. However, if someone tried to take away your guns, you would expect the government to ... well, at least to come and carry away their corpse.

So ... are there any "rights" at all which require that the government do something, as opposed to refrain from doing something?

 

[Mr.Conley]

Well, it depends. Morally? Yes Legally? Maybe not.

 

[DiogenesDog]

If this were truly a Christian nation in the spirit that prevailed prior to the co-opting that took place in the reign of Constantine, it would be a sacrament.

I propose such a sacrament be a benchmark or litmus test for the Divine health of the the nation's everlasting spirit.

religion morality ethics humanism
(Don't mind me, I am just tagging.)

I AM

 

[maineman]

It is a right? probably not. Is it something that the richest most powerful nation on earth ought to provide to its citizenry? I would say so.

 

[Diuretic]

No, there's no right. An associated question might be, does a society have an obligation to ensure that health care is available to its citizens? If there's agreement on that question then the next question is only how it should be funded. If the answer to the question is no, society has no such obligation, then I'd suggest that the social contract has just been ripped up and there would be an argument for someone who was indigent and unable to afford health care would, simply by dint of survival, be able to steal money or commit a fraud to get the funds for their health care.

 

[Bern80]

It is a right? probably not. Is it something that the richest most powerful nation on earth ought to provide to its citizenry? I would say so.

That's getting to it I suppose. So why do you think we ought to? Why is a society that simply provides things to people with no expectation of responsibility better than a society that ask its citizenry to have a level of responsibility to provide for it's own well being?

I hate to bring up Rush again because the left loves to just pick him apart but he noted that that mentality, where we do things that just feel good and right is an example of a sentiment of people who's hearts are disconnected from their brains (what makes sense vs. what feels good). It feels good to say we 'ought to provide poeple free healthcare'. But is that really what's best for the growth of a society? Is it really best that a society over time learn that it can be dependant on others for what they need rather than take responsibility for providing it to themselves?

 

[Diuretic]

That's getting to it I suppose. So why do you think we ought to? Why is a society that simply provides things to people with no expectation of responsibility better than a society that ask its citizenry to have a level of responsibility to provide for it's own well being?

I hate to bring up Rush again because the left loves to just pick him apart but he noted that that mentality, where we do things that just feel good and right is an example of a sentiment of people who's hearts are disconnected from their brains (what makes sense vs. what feels good). It feels good to say we 'ought to provide poeple free healthcare'. But is that really what's best for the growth of a society? Is it really best that a society over time learn that it can be dependant on others for what they need rather than take responsibility for providing it to themselves?

If you don't bring up Rush you deny us on the left the pleasure of mocking him. Please feel free to bring him up whenever you wish

Society ought to ensure healthcare is available to all its citizens. How it should be funded is the moot point so, as usual, Rush is wrong. Ah, the pleasure

 

[Bern80]

If you don't bring up Rush you deny us on the left the pleasure of mocking him. Please feel free to bring him up whenever you wish

Society ought to ensure healthcare is available to all its citizens. How it should be funded is the moot point so, as usual, Rush is wrong. Ah, the pleasure

Mock all you want. I think it would behuve you to have actually listened to it instead of assuming he said something he didn't and thus just looking silly.

And you still haven't answered the question. Why should society do that? Because again I don't see how breeding dependancy on government for the things we need helps a society strenghten itself. If you want to get real technical we already do make sure those that need healthcare get it.

 

[Diuretic]

Mock all you want. I think it would behuve you to have actually listened to it instead of assuming he said something he didn't and thus just looking silly.

And you still haven't answered the question. Why should society do that? Because again I don't see how breeding dependancy on government for the things we need helps a society strenghten itself. If you want to get real technical we already do make sure those that need healthcare get it.

I don't mind looking silly, I've gotten used to it over the years

I answered your question but I'll answer the re-phrased question too.

Why should society ensure that healthcare is available? Because it actually does strengthen society as opposed to promoting the interests of only those who can actually afford healthcare. You mention "breeding dependency on government". Does that mean that people shouldn't rely on government for anything?

 

[Bern80]

I don't mind looking silly, I've gotten used to it over the years

I answered your question but I'll answer the re-phrased question too.

Why should society ensure that healthcare is available? Because it actually does strengthen society as opposed to promoting the interests of only those who can actually afford healthcare. You mention "breeding dependency on government". Does that mean that people shouldn't rely on government for anything?

Certainly not. I believe the government should provide things for people that they can't provide for themselves. That's a big blanket statement I understand but I think it applies to most things. The government should provide national security for example, ensure the safety of it's citizenry through police, provide healthcare and generally help those that can't help themselves. But for the sake of society's betterment I think a line needs to be drawn between the truly indigent we shoudl provide for and the unwilling to provide for themselves. I just don't see a very productive society in one that has learned over time that all of their basic needs are going to be taken care of by someone else, do you? Asked a different way, why is it not your responsibility to provide for your own healthcare needs?

 

[Diuretic]

Certainly not. I believe the government should provide things for people that they can't provide for themselves. That's a big blanket statement I understand but I think it applies to most things. The government should provide national security for example, ensure the safety of it's citizenry through police, provide healthcare and generally help those that can't help themselves. But for the sake of society's betterment I think a line needs to be drawn between the truly indigent we shoudl provide for and the unwilling to provide for themselves. I just don't see a very productive society in one that has learned over time that all of their basic needs are going to be taken care of by someone else, do you? Asked a different way, why is it not your responsibility to provide for your own healthcare needs?

I think it's not so much a question of providing for healthcare needs as inquiring about how healthcare is to be provided of itself and how it's to be paid for. I may over-simplify this somewhat but I'm going to try and keep this succinct.

For the sake of argument assume that there is in a society no concept of "insurance", in other words you can't transfer risk (for anything, not just healthcare) to anyone else. So everyone in that society has to purchase healthcare services from the individual or corporate providers of those services. Would that be a good society to live in?

(There are other examples I want to use but I don't want to post something several pages long so if it's okay with you and we can take one example at a time I'd appreciate it).

 

[Shattered]

If you don't bring up Rush you deny us on the left the pleasure of mocking him. Please feel free to bring him up whenever you wish

Society ought to ensure healthcare is available to all its citizens. How it should be funded is the moot point so, as usual, Rush is wrong. Ah, the pleasure

Healthcare IS available to all citizens. All you need to do is pay for it.

 

[Diuretic]

Healthcare IS available to all citizens. All you need to do is pay for it.

Exactly! And that leads to the question, "what if it can't be paid for"

 

[Shattered]

Exactly! And that leads to the question, "what if it can't be paid for"

That leads to the answer "Get a job that offers it."

 

[Diuretic]

That leads to the answer "Get a job that offers it."

Which leads me to the following:

Why should an employer be responsible? They have enough costs already so why should they be burdened with more costs? A big corporation with a very big workforce is going to be faced with a huge bill for health insurance if it's included in a labour contract. Of course those costs are passed on to the consumer which means if you buy a Chevvy then you're paying extra so that GM can pay for the health insurance for the UAW members on its payroll.

I would argue that spreading the cost on a social basis is far better. Toyota is a much more competitive auto corporation than GM because, among other things, it's not burdened with a massive health insurance bill for its employees.

 

[Bern80]

For the sake of argument assume that there is in a society no concept of "insurance", in other words you can't transfer risk (for anything, not just healthcare) to anyone else. So everyone in that society has to purchase healthcare services from the individual or corporate providers of those services. Would that be a good society to live in?

Simple enough and one I have actually thought of. Not quite like that. But I do find it fascinating sometimes that we do[i/] have the concept of insureance. We have insureance (all kinds) because it is a way that people can pay for unexpected events that usally cost more than most can afford. That is what your question assumes. You would answer your last question 'no' because it assumes that without insureance few would be able to afford the costs, right? The premise being that it would be bad to live in a society where no one could afford to essentially make themselves healthy.

And part of that response I think is the problem. We don't dig far enough to uncover the real issue. I prof I once had introduced to the concept of the five whys. The theory being that when tackling a problem you usually have to ask the question 'why' at least five times in order to really identify a problem. So why do we think there is a problem with our healthcare industry in the first place? It isn't because of a quality of care issue, the U.S. is probably the best in the world in terms of technology, physicians and resources. The reason I think that we have a 'problem' with the healthcare industry is because it is so expensive. I think that's the real issue. We (as a nation) probably wouldn't be haveing this discussion as to rights or who should pay for it, etc., if the cost of a kidney transplant was $5.

One side of the argument is trying to fix the problem by haveing governement pay for it via taxes (which we already do to an extent anyway). But really how is that any different from paying insureance premiums? The goal and understanding of the situation are the same. If costs are too much for most to afford, the best way to accomodate the most people is to gather a large pool of money together (via premiums or taxes) and from said pool pay for people's expenses as they arise. The difference being that under a premium model there is greater responsibility on the individual to provide for their needs while there is less responsiblity for the individual under taxes. The problem I have with the latter is that it is like me saying, 'Diuretic I can't pay for my healthcare costs, but since you have money and I don't (for whatever reason) you are going to be pay for my healthcare costs as well as your own.' Whether through fault of my own or not, is that really fair? Why should my medical costs be your concern at all?

 

[Bern80]

Which leads me to the following:

Why should an employer be responsible? They have enough costs already so why should they be burdened with more costs? A big corporation with a very big workforce is going to be faced with a huge bill for health insurance if it's included in a labour contract. Of course those costs are passed on to the consumer which means if you buy a Chevvy then you're paying extra so that GM can pay for the health insurance for the UAW members on its payroll.

I would argue that spreading the cost on a social basis is far better. Toyota is a much more competitive auto corporation than GM because, among other things, it's not burdened with a massive health insurance bill for its employees.

I happened to agree with this and is another concept that I find truly fascinating. Healthcare costs have become so expensive in this country that it is now the expectation of employers to provide an insureance plan to their employees. Again, paying for my healthcare isn't their responsibilty anymore than it is yours.

 

[Diuretic]

Simple enough and one I have actually thought of. Not quite like that. But I do find it fascinating sometimes that we do[i/] have the concept of insureance. We have insureance (all kinds) because it is a way that people can pay for unexpected events that usally cost more than most can afford. That is what your question assumes. You would answer your last question 'no' because it assumes that without insureance few would be able to afford the costs, right? The premise being that it would be bad to live in a society where no one could afford to essentially make themselves healthy.

Yes, exactly right. On the issue of insurance - it's a handy little invention I think. I happen to believe that some things are the responsibility of the individual. Let me give you an example. This country, like yours, has bushfires from time to time. And from time to time houses are lost in bushfires. Would you be surprised to know that some people actually lived in bushfire-prone areas and didn't have insurance on their houses? There they are moaning at the camera about having lost it all. Tough. They could afford the house, the car, the boat, the caravan but could't find the money for house insurance? They're kidding. And there they are moaning to the gummint that they should be compensated. No, they shouldn't be.

And part of that response I think is the problem. We don't dig far enough to uncover the real issue. I prof I once had introduced to the concept of the five whys. The theory being that when tackling a problem you usually have to ask the question 'why' at least five times in order to really identify a problem. So why do we think there is a problem with our healthcare industry in the first place? It isn't because of a quality of care issue, the U.S. is probably the best in the world in terms of technology, physicians and resources. The reason I think that we have a 'problem' with the healthcare industry is because it is so expensive. I think that's the real issue. We (as a nation) probably wouldn't be haveing this discussion as to rights or who should pay for it, etc., if the cost of a kidney transplant was $5.

The Five Whys is really good, I use it in problem-solving situations, it helps to get to the real cause of a problem rather than simply the apparent cause.

No, there's no problem with the quality, as you've pointed out. But yes the problem is with the cost. Some can afford it, a lot can't (not without some sort of health insurance I mean).

One side of the argument is trying to fix the problem by haveing governement pay for it via taxes (which we already do to an extent anyway). But really how is that any different from paying insureance premiums? The goal and understanding of the situation are the same. If costs are too much for most to afford, the best way to accomodate the most people is to gather a large pool of money together (via premiums or taxes) and from said pool pay for people's expenses as they arise. The difference being that under a premium model there is greater responsibility on the individual to provide for their needs while there is less responsiblity for the individual under taxes. The problem I have with the latter is that it is like me saying, 'Diuretic I can't pay for my healthcare costs, but since you have money and I don't (for whatever reason) you are going to be pay for my healthcare costs as well as your own.' Whether through fault of my own or not, is that really fair? Why should my medical costs be your concern at all?

That's more or less how it works here. I need to point out I'm not banging on about how good our system is (the current federal government has underfunded it and is about to find out the cost of doing so at the next election). We have a system of single-payer insurance for hospital health care and to support the costs of going to your family doctor (but not dental, that was killed by the current trogs in the fed govt). It's paid for by our taxes. We pay 1.5% extra to fund it. There are private health insurance schemes available as well, I contribute to a scheme so I get extra benefits.

People who are on low incomes or welfare will get free hospital and medical care. Trust me they'd sooner be able to afford private health insurance because they'd get extras but those in need are able to get health care. True, they will wait for elective surgery for example (see my point about the feds underfunding, that's the cause of it) but if they have urgent treatment they'll get it at no cost.

I suppose the way we see it here is that it's only fair that everyone be able to get health care. I could go on about that at length but that's pretty much the idea. But there are some practical reasons too. If someone is sick they'll go to the doc and not stay at home or take it to work because they can't afford to pay the bill. So that troubling cough might be TB but it will be picked up because a person is not constrained from going to the doc through lack of money. That means that it will be treated and the necessary interventions made to ensure others aren't infected. That's just one example of the more utilitarian aspects. As well our employers aren't burdened with the costs. So there are hard-headed reasons for it.

 

[Bern80]

Yes, exactly right. On the issue of insurance - it's a handy little invention I think. I happen to believe that some things are the responsibility of the individual. Let me give you an example. This country, like yours, has bushfires from time to time. And from time to time houses are lost in bushfires. Would you be surprised to know that some people actually lived in bushfire-prone areas and didn't have insurance on their houses? There they are moaning at the camera about having lost it all. Tough. They could afford the house, the car, the boat, the caravan but could't find the money for house insurance? They're kidding. And there they are moaning to the gummint that they should be compensated. No, they shouldn't be.

Also true here. As absolutely horrible as a disaster Katrina was, from a logical standpoint it's hard to see some of the gripes. I mean come on, you chose to live in an area that is next to the ocean, that is lower than the ocean (a sign that the French were a bunch of frickin geniuses).

On an interesting personal note on wildfires. Our family has a cabin in the mountains in the state of Montana which is dry and prone to forest fires in the summer. So what does the state provide? Get this. Up in the middle of nowhere the Montana fire service will not only fight the fires but they will actually wrap your house in tin foil to keep fire damage to a minimum, at no charge I might add.

People who are on low incomes or welfare will get free hospital and medical care. Trust me they'd sooner be able to afford private health insurance because they'd get extras but those in need are able to get health care. True, they will wait for elective surgery for example (see my point about the feds underfunding, that's the cause of it) but if they have urgent treatment they'll get it at no cost.

I suppose the way we see it here is that it's only fair that everyone be able to get health care. I could go on about that at length but that's pretty much the idea. But there are some practical reasons too. If someone is sick they'll go to the doc and not stay at home or take it to work because they can't afford to pay the bill. So that troubling cough might be TB but it will be picked up because a person is not constrained from going to the doc through lack of money. That means that it will be treated and the necessary interventions made to ensure others aren't infected. That's just one example of the more utilitarian aspects. As well our employers aren't burdened with the costs. So there are hard-headed reasons for it.

And that is true here as well. Contrary to what some may argue if you need healthcare you won't be turned away regardless of whether you can pay. I was in the ER myself this summer and it wasn't until after the ambulance ride and after they had finished treating me that how I was going to pay was even discussed.

The underfunding by the government is the main thing I'm worried about here. My guess is we have far more demand here than in Australia and I don't see how the government is going to be able to provide an at least equally large pool of money to subsidize doctors and facilities, keep up with tech, and pay for services than the system we have now. Right now we have lots of little pools of money due to all the insureance companies.

On top of that, whether she like it or not Hillary has already implicitly admitted that her system will not be as of high a quality or cover as much as private insureance companies. Under her plan they will be allowed a private plan if you want but if you do you would actually pay a penalty for it to help subsidize her plan. I beleive it is something like of you make more than $250k a year and have a private plan you will have to pay an extra tax on that plan? Now why on earth would she propose that if her system is going to save the healthcare industry?