Is healthcare a right? why or why not?

[DiogenesDog]

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"

__________________
Save the wails...no, really, save the wails...
Reply With Quote

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

I am in a lot of places of business. I hear things. I know that the availability of healthcare is becoming less available to those who work. I have healthcare because my wife is a successful CFP and retail financial services investment person in a closely held company. My adopted daughter, who is 20, remains on our insurance because it is cheaper to keep her in school that to pay her premiums.

Just go get a job is not the answer. I would be able to get alone by by hook or by crook because I have access to a Veteran Administration HMO for which I pay a minuscule amount monthly.
lic
The President just recently quipped that healthcare is available to everyone in the country . . . "Just go to an emergency room." What!? Are they free. Did they fall thru a crack in space/time for the benefit of uninsured sick earthlings?

We have been fortunate in this country to have had a functioning public health service until just recent times. Noone (I like the Scots phrase) cares a wit about public health until some fast moving plague (generic sense) threatens the insured and uninsured alike. If this country comes to experience a catastrophic event of something like Katrina/\n, then the need for a seamless medical system will become quite evident in a very short time. It those who think for the moment and the next quarters dividends, that will be caught quite short when they are standing in line with "those poor people" to have their traumas tended. A major disaster will level the playing field pretty quickly.

A truly Christian Nation would not have to be concerned with such evil BS.

I believe that the divide here is not so much right and left but rather between the practical and the impractical. If we were to sort the sheep from the gaits here, I have enough experience to know what the relative divide would look like.

I believe that those with the jerkiest knees would be on one side and the thoughtful practicalist would be on the other.

Are there utilitarian amongst us. No, not Unitarians.

I Am

 

[Bern80]

__________________
Save the wails...no, really, save the wails...
Reply With Quote



I am in a lot of places of business. I hear things. I know that the availability of healthcare is becoming less available to those who work. I have healthcare because my wife is a successful CFP and retail financial services investment person in a closely held company. My adopted daughter, who is 20, remains on our insurance because it is cheaper to keep her in school that to pay her premiums.

Just go get a job is not the answer. I would be able to get alone by by hook or by crook because I have access to a Veteran Administration HMO for which I pay a minuscule amount monthly.
lic
The President just recently quipped that healthcare is available to everyone in the country . . . "Just go to an emergency room." What!? Are they free. Did they fall thru a crack in space/time for the benefit of uninsured sick earthlings?

technically, no. Practicallty, yes. If you need an ER you will be seen and treated whether you can pay or not. If you can't pay what is the hospital gonna do. When was the last time you heard that a hospital sued someone who couldn't pay their ER bill?

We have been fortunate in this country to have had a functioning public health service until just recent times. Noone (I like the Scots phrase) cares a wit about public health until some fast moving plague (generic sense) threatens the insured and uninsured alike. If this country comes to experience a catastrophic event of something like Katrina/\n, then the need for a seamless medical system will become quite evident in a very short time. It those who think for the moment and the next quarters dividends, that will be caught quite short when they are standing in line with "those poor people" to have their traumas tended. A major disaster will level the playing field pretty quickly.

This is a complete falsehood. Again if you need medical treatment in this country you will be treated whether you can pay or not. It's the law.

 

[Diuretic]

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.

I've heard of that being done there, great idea and top service too. I hope they remember to keep the shiny side outwards though

 

[Diuretic]

Are there utilitarian amongst us. No, not Unitarians.

Yes but I've recently discovered the joy of Virtue Ethics as well

 

[DiogenesDog]

Criminally and morally vacuously wrong.

My dear friend Jim, now 80 had a fall a year ago. He sustained a head wound and a radial fracture of the skull. He was treated in a very qualified and successful hospital and contracted MRSA. (An antibiotic resistant bug that is epidemic in America' hospitals.) When he recovered from that enough to be moved, he was infected with c-dif. (An antibiotic resistant bug in the gut that turns any thing in touches in the gut to an explosive excretion. The bills for treatment were astronomical. A part of them was paid by Medicare and part by a corporate retirement health policy with riders and supplements for extraordinary expenses. The end result was that the hospiral did not forgive any part of the debt and after 180 days sold the discounted debt to a collection agency. There were three seperate accounts in apparent arrears. There were three separate collection agencies in predation because Jim and his wife live in a simple condo unit with a small mortage and a depth of equity from a balloon market. They had a leased automobile with a reasonable payment and another three years to run on it. Some other debts were outstanding that complicated their lives. I walked them through bankruptcy under the new rules. I rolled Jim into the hearing room in a wheel chair with two O2 bottles. He is near deaf and has limited vision. The bankruptcy official went through the formalities of the hearing with a competent attorney in another chair representing Jim and his equally aged wife. In that room that day there were thirty others who were in business clothes and middle class business casual attire. They ranged in age from 30 to Jim's 80. I heard every story. Bankruptcy is a very public affair. Just because it has not happened to you or your parents . . . yet, there is no saying that just because you have done everything right, that it can not happen to you.

Do you hold your thoughts and conclusions in certitude? Have you ever had a near miss? Have you ever been injured in an automobile accident?

Your capacity for sympathy and compassion dictates by some universal quirk the amount of sympathy and compassion that will be returned to you in the here and now and in any form of eternity in which you may place your certitude.

Are you a religious person. What teaching in your religion has brought you to make the assertions that you make and the certitudes you hold?

I AM

 

[DiogenesDog]

Yes but I've recently discovered the joy of Virtue Ethics as well

Mane being the Muddy Waters pronunciation of man in the classic blues piece, Manish Boy.

Do you still post to P&CA? I was quite saddened to discover the passing of Darwin's Friend - the King of Catalina.

I have had a long side trek since I signed on here last year at this time.

 

[Bern80]

Criminally and morally vacuously wrong.

My dear friend Jim, now 80 had a fall a year ago. He sustained a head wound and a radial fracture of the skull. He was treated in a very qualified and successful hospital and contracted MRSA. (An antibiotic resistant bug that is epidemic in America' hospitals.) When he recovered from that enough to be moved, he was infected with c-dif. (An antibiotic resistant bug in the gut that turns any thing in touches in the gut to an explosive excretion. The bills for treatment were astronomical. A part of them was paid by Medicare and part by a corporate retirement health policy with riders and supplements for extraordinary expenses. The end result was that the hospiral did not forgive any part of the debt and after 180 days sold the discounted debt to a collection agency. There were three seperate accounts in apparent arrears. There were three separate collection agencies in predation because Jim and his wife live in a simple condo unit with a small mortage and a depth of equity from a balloon market. They had a leased automobile with a reasonable payment and another three years to run on it. Some other debts were outstanding that complicated their lives. I walked them through bankruptcy under the new rules. I rolled Jim into the hearing room in a wheel chair with two O2 bottles. He is near deaf and has limited vision. The bankruptcy official went through the formalities of the hearing with a competent attorney in another chair representing Jim and his equally aged wife. In that room that day there were thirty others who were in business clothes and middle class business casual attire. They ranged in age from 30 to Jim's 80. I heard every story. Bankruptcy is a very public affair. Just because it has not happened to you or your parents . . . yet, there is no saying that just because you have done everything right, that it can not happen to you.

Do you hold your thoughts and conclusions in certitude? Have you ever had a near miss? Have you ever been injured in an automobile accident?

Am I to assume you're talking to me? I fail to see how I am criminally wrong. I also fail to see the point of the story. I didn't see a claim anywhere that the individual wasn't treated to the best of someone's ability. Or that he was denied treatment based on his ability to pay. I honestly don't see the point your trying to make. Is it that somehow, some way this person should have been relieved of his healthcare costs based on the level of his pain? That's a little silly. The level of your discomfort determines whether someone should have to pay or not? is that it? Is it that we should live in a society where people don't have to worry about the cost of healthcare on top of whatever pain they may be going through?

I have never had a near miss. I have had a bullet hit me right between the eyes so to speak. I had cancer when I was four and several complications from that have effected me to this day. My premiums are not cheap. Is your point that because I and this individual have had complications above and beyond what most have and the medical expenses to prove it that we should be crying on the roof tops about how unfair it is and demand that someone take care of it for me? Why is it someone elses problem more than it is mine? Shit happens and while you may think that's unfair, it is equally unfair and morally wrong to beleive you're entitled to burden somene else with your 'shit'.

Are you a religious person. What teaching in your religion has brought you to make the assertions that you make and the certitudes you hold?

Not in the traditional sense, no. But what I believe God wants is for people to help each other when needed. Which is slightly different than God believeing individuals should be entitled to call upon others to relieve them of their burdens.

 

[Diuretic]

Mane being the Muddy Waters pronunciation of man in the classic blues piece, Manish Boy.

Do you still post to P&CA? I was quite saddened to discover the passing of Darwin's Friend - the King of Catalina.

I have had a long side trek since I signed on here last year at this time.

I haven't been to P&CA for such a long time. I fear its bookmark was wiped out in one of my many operating system reincarnations (said reincarnations usually being brought about by me wondering what this red button does or if this sparking new piece of software will enhance my digital experience ). But I do appreciate the reminder. It's a solid place that one, full of very, very good minds.

And full of good philosophy. And those of a liberal bent but not in a political sense, humanists, tolerant ones at that. More "liberal" in the sense of Dr Johnson's paen to the booksellers, "for they are liberal men".

I didn't know anyone from there had passed. That's sad.

And now I'm wracking my failing memory, the prose is familiar. I have several suspects in mind

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Originally health care was provided by some employers as a tool for recruitment and retention. It has since, I believe, been coded into law, requiring certain sized employers with certain types of employees to provide it. ( I think thats right, correct me if I am wrong) In other words Government creeped in and took over.

 

[maineman]

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?

a few thoguhts. I think that we are connected to one another. I think we are perfectly happy to ask the children of dirt poor, uninsured parents to go fight and die for us... I think we should do what we can to not ignore their plight in life. I think that taking care of the poor, the sick the feeble, the young, is a measure of the development of a society. I think that the more preventative health care we can provide, the healthier our population will be and the healthier our workforce will be. I think that those are both appropriate goals for society and I think that achieving them helps society run more efficiently. It is a well known fact that healthcare delivered at the local emergency room is the least cost effective. I think that to turn our backs on those less fortunate among us reeks of social darwinism and it flies in the face of my sense of humanity.

AND...I have never said anything about FREE healthcare and that was not part of your original question so it is a tad disingenuous to slip in it now.

 

[roomy]

Coming, as I do, from a nation that provides health care for all through the national health service I would like to offer my two panneth worth.
It should be provided by the government for all without discrimination.It is enjoyed as a right by those living and working in Britain.For all of it's failings, of which there are many it is still, far and away the best way to ensure peace of mind for all people.Those rich enough to afford it can always opt to take out health insurance or pay privately, it may ensure an earlier appointment but doesn't necessarily mean better care.
To pay for this, money is deducted at source from wage earners, this is called national insurance and goes toward the health service, sickness benefit and unemployment benefit.The amount deducted is determined by the size of the wage packet.

 

[Bern80]

a few thoguhts. I think that we are connected to one another. I think we are perfectly happy to ask the children of dirt poor, uninsured parents to go fight and die for us... I think we should do what we can to not ignore their plight in life. I think that taking care of the poor, the sick the feeble, the young, is a measure of the development of a society. I think that the more preventative health care we can provide, the healthier our population will be and the healthier our workforce will be. I think that those are both appropriate goals for society and I think that achieving them helps society run more efficiently. It is a well known fact that healthcare delivered at the local emergency room is the least cost effective. I think that to turn our backs on those less fortunate among us reeks of social darwinism and it flies in the face of my sense of humanity.

I don't disagree with that at all. As I said I think government does have an obligation to help those that can't help themselves. As far this particular debate is concerned however I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about those that can afford to. Let's take you as an example. Not knowing whether true or not, let's assume you have the means to afford health insureance. Again I want the who's responsible question answered. Why are the dems proposing that your health should be more the governments responsiblity then your own?

If I had a slightly more conspiratorial mind set I would say that it is because they really want people to be dependant on government because the more dependant we are on it the more power they have over us.

Whether ER care is cost effective or not is not my point. I'm well aware that it isn't. In fact the fact that it is so cost ineffective is what is causing many CA hospitals to close due to large number of illegals who get services there. The point was that I have heard the argument on this board (not neccessarily by you) that we dole out healthcare by who can pay. That is also disingenuous. If you need care you will be treated.

AND...I have never said anything about FREE healthcare and that was not part of your original question so it is a tad disingenuous to slip in it now.

fair enough

 

[maineman]

I don't disagree with that at all. As I said I think government does have an obligation to help those that can't help themselves. As far this particular debate is concerned however I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about those that can afford to.

a means test, by all means. If a citizen can afford the very best healthcare money can buy out of their own pockets without batting an eye, the government would assist them minimally, if at all. If a citizen could not afford any healthcare, the government would assist them to some politically determined maximum degree. People on the scale in between those extremes would be asked to pay for incrementally appropriate portions of the cost of their care.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

As far this particular debate is concerned however I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about those that can afford to. Let's take you as an example. Not knowing whether true or not, let's assume you have the means to afford health insureance. Again I want the who's responsible question answered. Why are the dems proposing that your health should be more the governments responsiblity then your own?

If I had a slightly more conspiratorial mind set I would say that it is because they really want people to be dependant on government because the more dependant we are on it the more power they have over us.

Now you're getting to the crux of the matter.

Why is it politicians want to manage your health care? They don't really. They do, however, want POWER. If they can control a man's health care, they can control the man. Think of the votes they could muster with promises of shorter waits or more "free" CAT scans or better clinics.

When your employer controls your health care - and you have a child dependent on that health care, do you think you will pretty much do anything for that employer? Sure thing. You will because you need to remain on the payroll to keep that health care. You're a partial serf.

It wouldn't be much different with government. Except worse. When they say your child must wait 4 months to get that much needed surgery you will have no recourse like a new job or to even buy individual insurance. So your child gets to suffer in pain while you get to tear your hair out unless you can pay for an expensive private surgeon probably in the blackmarket or somewhere in another country. Or maybe make special promises to that politician who can get your kid in early... You're a full time serf.

Health care must exist in a free market. That is the only way to place the power and control into the hands of the INDIVIDUAL so one can have choices and options in a FREE society.

 

[Bern80]

a means test, by all means. If a citizen can afford the very best healthcare money can buy out of their own pockets without batting an eye, the government would assist them minimally, if at all. If a citizen could not afford any healthcare, the government would assist them to some politically determined maximum degree. People on the scale in between those extremes would be asked to pay for incrementally appropriate portions of the cost of their care.

Well and good, but you didn't answer the question.

 

[maineman]

Well and good, but you didn't answer the question.

this question?

Again I want the who's responsible question answered. Why are the dems proposing that your health should be more the governments responsiblity then your own?


And in concert with my previous post, I don't think that dems are suggesting that one's health care SHOULD be more the governments responsibility than their own...I think they are saying that, in order to provide a basic level of health insurance to everyone, that the goverment will NEED to assume some responsibility for people depending on their ability to assume that responsibility themselves.

 

[Bern80]

this question?

Again I want the who's responsible question answered. Why are the dems proposing that your health should be more the governments responsiblity then your own?


And in concert with my previous post, I don't think that dems are suggesting that one's health care SHOULD be more the governments responsibility than their own...I think they are saying that, in order to provide a basic level of health insurance to everyone, that the goverment will NEED to assume some responsibility for people depending on their ability to assume that responsibility themselves.

But many of those mechanisms are already in place. Even if your homeless and on the street, if you are in urgent need of healthcare you will get it regardless of ability to pay. Most states have some form of state sponsored health care with premiums that are quite reasonable or downright cheap.

As screaming somewhat alluded to there has to be an option other than Hillary care that allows poeple to maintain the level of power they have in regards to their healthcare options and still make it affordable. The plans that we know some about already take significant power and choice away from the individual. Edward's plan would require that people visit the doctor once a year. Hillary's plan allows for private options but those makeing more than $250k a year will have an extra tax added to their plans to help fund a system that, implicitly admitted by such a tax, is of less quality than private plans. That tax is on top of the higher tax rates she has propossed for all wealthy americans to pay for her plan who most likely won't be using it at all.

 

[maineman]

But many of those mechanisms are already in place. Even if your homeless and on the street, if you are in urgent need of healthcare you will get it regardless of ability to pay. Most states have some form of state sponsored health care with premiums that are quite reasonable or downright cheap.

As screaming somewhat alluded to there has to be an option other than Hillary care that allows poeple to maintain the level of power they have in regards to their healthcare options and still make it affordable. The plans that we know some about already take significant power and choice away from the individual. Edward's plan would require that people visit the doctor once a year. Hillary's plan allows for private options but those makeing more than $250k a year will have an extra tax added to their plans to help fund a system that, implicitly admitted by such a tax, is of less quality than private plans. That tax is on top of the higher tax rates she has propossed for all wealthy americans to pay for her plan who most likely won't be using it at all.

I am not wedded to Hillary care...I am wedded to the idea that the richest strongest country on the face of the earth ought to be able to find some way to provide healthcare to ALL its citizens.

 

[Bern80]

I am not wedded to Hillary care...I am wedded to the idea that the richest strongest country on the face of the earth ought to be able to find some way to provide healthcare to ALL its citizens.

That is slightly different from your earlier assertion which I believe was those that can should be respsonsible for their own healthcare. Isn't what your really mean to say is that the richest, strongest country in the world outght to be able to provide basic healthcare to those that can't provide for themselves? That I can get behind.

There are two ways to look at it. Your way: the richest country in the world should provide healthcare to all (why, I don't know). Perhaps you should try the five whys yourself on that one.

Or my way of looking at in that government isn't really strengthening a society by teaching it that someone else is and will be responsible for their basic needs. I've said it before and I will say it again. Dependency breeds complacency. That's basic human nature.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I am not wedded to Hillary care...I am wedded to the idea that the richest strongest country on the face of the earth ought to be able to find some way to provide healthcare to ALL its citizens.

But you are wedded to socialism? Or do you have a different answer? The richest nation on earth is NOT obligated to provide healthcare to ALL no more than it is obligated to provide food and clothing and housing to ALL. That is a morally wrong approach and against the principles of our Constitution.