Is healthcare a right? why or why not?

Diuretic · Sep 28, 2007

Psychoblues said:
Maybe healthcare is not a right but it is damn sure a responsibility of a society. I hope this clears up the disillusions.

I've tried to argue that point PSB but I'm not sure how well it's going

Bern80 · Sep 28, 2007

Psychoblues said:
Maybe healthcare is not a right but it is damn sure a responsibility of a society. I hope this clears up the disillusions.

Yet no one seems to be able to tell me why me (Bern80) am to be responsible for your (psychoblues) healthcare. Over say, I don't know, YOU.

People just keep saying it is. I'm sorry I just don't get it. It's selfish to me really. Put the shoe on the other foot for second. Why is it fair for you to put that burden on someone else if you are capable of fixing it yourself? Do you truly beleive it is right for you to make me responsible for your health? That it is okay for you to place responsiblity for solving your medical problems on someone else when they have their own to deal with as well?

I had cancer when I was 4 and almost died. Needless to say the medical bills to my parents were quite large. You are essentially saying that it would have been okay for them to not only obfiscate themselves of any responsibility to me, but had the right to shift said responsibility on to you. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

It isn't my responsiblity because while medical conditions may befall say you Diuretic in Australia that you have no control over. I however haveing even less control over it than you do being half a world away am to be predominantly responsible for fixing you? How can you place responsibility of the situation on someone that has even less control over it than you do?

Bern80 · Sep 28, 2007

Diuretic said:
Those are good questions, they provoke thought. I can't answer them immediately but they're worth thinking about.

Just one point and I don't mean to be ideological so please don't treat it this way. Given the wealth of the United States I think the fear that the scheme would be underfunded is - although understandable - unlikely. The amount of money that has been spent and is being spent on the occupation of Iraq for example (I emphasise, I'm not being ideological, I'm merely pointing out that the money is available) if it were spent on healthcare in the US may well be able to fund the system so that everyone in the US gets world class healthcare. Since I have no idea how much it would cost I'm guessing of course, but I do think the federal government would have ability to pay.

On your other points I'll need to think more about them to try and come up with some responses.

Small point fo contention though. Our government doesn't have the ability to pay anything. It is the ability of the people to pay for it via whatever taxes governmetn decides to levy. The US is the richest country in the world for a reason. that reason is because while there may be less of a safety net for those that can't or won't make it. There is little to no limitation to how much wealth one can accumulate.

You have to face a little basic reality if you propose a tax based system. We have a progressive income tax in the US. The more you make the more you pay. there is no reason to think the same wouldn't hold true for such a healthcare industry. The rich will be paying the bulk of the countries medical bills so it won't be an even distribution of burden. Just as roughly 85% of tax revenue is generated by just the top 10% or so of income earners it than reasonable to assume that the same 10% is going to be paying the bulk of the medical bills.

I know the left has heard over and over but what drives the rich up the wall is that most of them worked very, very hard to get where they are. And they aren't pissed off about the tax rate because they're greedy. They're pissed off because they know, they have seen with their own eyes, I have seen with my own eyes that what they earned through their hard work and asking nothing of anyone is going to people that simply aren't willing to put forth the effort. Beleive what you want but the number of people that can't (who I have no problem helping) is vastly outnumbered by those that won't. Policies that shift more responsibilities from people that should be responsible to those that shouldn't be only exacerbates that. Until your society has spiraled into complacency where there is no incentive to achieve anything because 1)you have learned it will be provided for you 2)also learned that you can't get rich because the more you make the more will be taken away to those that have learned #1

Diuretic · Sep 28, 2007

How about looking at it a different way? Instead of focusing on what's not being said and focusing on what's being said?

The argument is not that you - Bern80 is responsible for anyone's health care. The argument is that you pay taxes, just like every other citizen who earns an income - and those taxes will help pay for things as diverse as foreign wars and domestic healthcare schemes. Does that make it clearer?

Now, why should it be the case that government pays for a health care scheme? That's the interesting part. Those of us who are arguing for that to be the case must put up some arguments for our position. Let's break out of this mobius strip we're in in this discussion and try and move it forward.

I'll put one position and it's not entirely relevant to the US but is really a thought about a government-funded health scheme. My position is that if a government-funded health scheme allows that all those who need health care in a timely manner are given health care. My contention is that the general health of the population would increase and certain diseases would either disappear or be reduced in large measure. That's my contention - that it's a public good because it's good for the public (that's not a contradiction in terms, it's just one of those English language things where the same word means something different depending on context).

Deaths in England and Wales from infectious diseases such as TB, Diptheria, Whooping cough, Measles and Polio were reduced. The NHS was instituted in 1948.

<table border="0" style="border-collapse: collapse" width="78%" bgcolor="#CCCCCC"><tr><td colspan="3">
Deaths in England and Wales from infectious disease</td><td width="17%">
 </td><td width="11%"> </td><td width="11%">
 </td></tr><tr><td width="15%"> </td><td width="17%">
Tuberculosis</td><td width="15%">
Diphtheria </td><td width="17%">
 Whooping cough</td><td width="11%">
Measles</td><td width="11%">
Polio</td></tr><tr><td width="15%">
1943</td><td width="17%">
25,649   </td><td width="15%">
1,371   </td><td width="17%">
1,114  </td><td width="11%">
773</td><td width="11%">
80</td></tr><tr><td width="15%">
1944     </td><td width="17%">
24,163</td><td width="15%">
1,054  </td><td width="17%">
1,054</td><td width="11%">
243 </td><td width="11%">
109</td></tr><tr><td width="15%">
1945                       </td><td width="17%">
23,955</td><td width="15%">
722 </td><td width="17%">
689  </td><td width="11%">
729</td><td width="11%">
139</td></tr><tr><td width="15%">
1946        </td><td width="17%">
22,847</td><td width="15%">
472</td><td width="17%">
808 </td><td width="11%">
204   </td><td width="11%">
128</td></tr><tr><td width="15%">
1947                </td><td width="17%">
23,550 </td><td width="15%">
244</td><td width="17%">
905 </td><td width="11%">
644</td><td width="11%">
707</td></tr><tr><td width="15%">
1948           </td><td width="17%">
23,175             </td><td width="15%">
156</td><td width="17%">
748  </td><td width="11%">
327</td><td width="11%">
241</td></tr><tr><td width="15%">
1949              </td><td width="17%">
19,797</td><td width="15%">
84 </td><td width="17%">
527 </td><td width="11%">
307 </td><td width="11%">
657</td></tr><tr><td width="15%">
1950            </td><td width="17%">
15,969 </td><td width="15%">
49   </td><td width="17%">
394</td><td width="11%">
221   </td><td width="11%">
755</td></tr><tr><td width="15%">
1951 </td><td width="17%">
13,806 </td><td width="15%">
33   </td><td width="17%">
456   </td><td width="11%">
317     </td><td width="11%">
217</td></tr><tr><td width="15%">
1952        </td><td width="17%">
10,585</td><td width="15%">
32 </td><td width="17%">
184  </td><td width="11%">
141</td><td width="11%">
275</td></tr><tr><td width="15%">
1953         </td><td width="17%">
9,002</td><td width="15%">
23 </td><td width="17%">
243 </td><td width="11%">
245  </td><td width="11%">
320</td></tr><tr><td width="15%">
1954    </td><td width="17%">
7,897</td><td width="15%">
8</td><td width="17%">
139</td><td width="11%">
45 </td><td width="11%">
112</td></tr><tr><td width="15%">
1955                 </td><td width="17%">
6,492</td><td width="15%">
12 </td><td width="17%">
87 </td><td width="11%">
174</td><td width="11%">
241</td></tr><tr><td width="15%">
1956             </td><td width="17%">
5,375 </td><td width="15%">
3</td><td width="17%">
92 </td><td width="11%">
28   </td><td width="11%">
114</td></tr><tr><td width="15%">
1957         </td><td width="17%">
4,784 </td><td width="15%">
4</td><td width="17%">
87</td><td width="11%">
94</td><td width="11%">
226</td></tr><tr><td width="15%">
1958      </td><td width="17%">
4,480 </td><td width="15%">
8   </td><td width="17%">
27  </td><td width="11%">
49</td><td width="11%">
154</td></tr></table>
I contend that treating health care as a communal responsibility and not just a personal issue of responsibility does improve society in general.

Source for those statistics: http://www.nhshistory.net/Chapter 1.htm#Preparing_for_the_new_service

Psychoblues · Sep 28, 2007

Just how many sad stories trump your pitiful one, B'80? I suspect about a million to your one.

Bern80 said:
Yet no one seems to be able to tell me why me (Bern80) am to be responsible for your (psychoblues) healthcare. Over say, I don't know, YOU.

People just keep saying it is. I'm sorry I just don't get it. It's selfish to me really. Put the shoe on the other foot for second. Why is it fair for you to put that burden on someone else if you are capable of fixing it yourself? Do you truly beleive it is right for you to make me responsible for your health? That it is okay for you to place responsiblity for solving your medical problems on someone else when they have their own to deal with as well?

I had cancer when I was 4 and almost died. Needless to say the medical bills to my parents were quite large. You are essentially saying that it would have been okay for them to not only obfiscate themselves of any responsibility to me, but had the right to shift said responsibility on to you. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

It isn't my responsiblity because while medical conditions may befall say you Diuretic in Australia that you have no control over. I however haveing even less control over it than you do being half a world away am to be predominantly responsible for fixing you? How can you place responsibility of the situation on someone that has even less control over it than you do?

Even with your cancer, I think you still suck as a member of the American Society. Dig it?

Gunny · Sep 28, 2007

Psychoblues said:
Just how many sad stories trump your pitiful one, B'80? I suspect about a million to your one.

Even with your cancer, I think you still suck as a member of the American Society. Dig it?

And I suspect you have told every one of the million.

M14 Shooter · Sep 28, 2007

Diuretic said:
No, I think there's a wilful refusal on your part to take the point.

As the desert said to he grain of sand.

I asked you in an earlier post if you lived in a society or a landmass populated by individuals. You said both, thereby avoiding answering the question as it was put. But a valid answer would have been good.

No, -I- didn't. Someone else did.

A society is composed of people who come together to live with certain explicit and implicit agreements about how they will conduct themselves relative to one another. Each individual has rights but each individual also has obligations to other individuals and to the collective called 'society'. Among those obligations is the paying of income tax. Income tax is used by elected government to finance its programmes. Among those programmes may be a health care scheme which is provided as part of the government's obligtation towards the members of society. Acknowledging and complying with obligations is important for all components of society, if that doesn't happen then the social situation breaks down. Taxation isn't slavery.

You apparently do not understand my argument isn't taxation = slavery .
I'm not at all sure how that can be, given the number of times I have made it clear that this is not the case.
More willful refusal on your part, perhaps?

Diuretic · Sep 28, 2007

M14 Shooter said:
As the desert said to he grain of sand.

No, -I- didn't. Someone else did.

You apparently do not understand my argument isn't taxation = slavery .
I'm not at all sure how that can be, given the number of times I have made it clear that this is not the case.
More willful refusal on your part, perhaps?

Bugger did I get the attribution wrong? Sorry 'bout that, unintentional.

As for taxation=slavery. I stand corrected then. Not a wilful refusal on my part, just a common or garden error, because that was how I read you.

So, in the interests of open dialogue, is it possible to summarise where we are? How do you view taxation?

M14 Shooter · Sep 28, 2007

Larkinn said:
Err no. You do, I hope, realize the difference between SOME of your labour going to someone else, and them having direct and complete control over everything you do, yes?

So... if the slaves in the Southern States had only been forced to give half their labor to their masters, they would not have been slaves? Or that their slavery, in that case, would have been OK by you?

So if you don't go to work tomorrow...who will put a gin to your head? The work that you do tomorrow is "extracted under the menace of what penalty"?

You dont pay your taxes, you go to jail.
You dont work for master, you get beat.
Is there a difference?

So really the standard for slavery which you are trying to promote is "Some (but not all) of the work that I voluntarily do goes to benefit others"...you really think thats slavery?

Of coruse I do -- and so do you, unless you would argue that if the slaves in the Southern States had only been forced to give half their labor to their maters, they were then not really slaves.

Subjective elements does not mean it is completely subjective.

If the -basis- for your argment is that subjective element, then it does make the argument completely subjective, and no more meaningful than arguing that Coke tastes better than Pepsi.

M14 Shooter · Sep 28, 2007

Diuretic said:
Bugger did I get the attribution wrong? Sorry 'bout that, unintentional.

No problemo. :eusa_dance:

So, in the interests of open dialogue, is it possible to summarise where we are? How do you view taxation?

In and of itself, taxation isn't an issue -- given that governemnt exists to protect the rights of its people, there are numerous legitimate functions of government -- and so there needs to be some sort of funding for it.

RetiredGySgt · Sep 28, 2007

No more word games. YES or NO, is taxation slavery? You do not get to claim it is not in one post and then go on and on in another post implying it is.

M14 Shooter · Sep 28, 2007

RetiredGySgt said:
No more word games. YES or NO, is taxation slavery? You do not get to claim it is not in one post and then go on and on in another post implying it is.

Are you talking to me?

In and of itself, it isn't.

But then, my argument isn't taxation = slavery.

Diuretic · Sep 28, 2007

M14 Shooter said:
No problemo.

Cheers

M14 Shooter: said:
In and of itself, taxation isn't an issue -- given that governemnt exists to protect the rights of its people, there are numerous legitimate functions of government -- and so there needs to be some sort of funding for it.

Agreed on that one.

Bern80 · Sep 28, 2007

Psychoblues said:
Just how many sad stories trump your pitiful one, B'80? I suspect about a million to your one.

Even with your cancer, I think you still suck as a member of the American Society. Dig it?

That's it!? That's you're answer to my question? That I'm a bad person because people should take responsibility for themslevs and not feel they have the right to depend on others? Who really is the bad person here? Me who expects nothing of anyone in terms of providing my needs. Or you that feels you have the right to selfishly burden others with what they should be responsible for on their own?

Why would I give a shit what you think of me Psycho? And still you are unable to anwer the questions I put forth. Dig it?

You are still unable to tell me why I am obligated and responsible in any way, shape or form to provide for your well being.

Shogun · Sep 28, 2007

Employees fired and fined for smoking, obesity and blood test results

http://businessshrink.biz/psycholog...d-for-smoking-obesity-and-blood-test-results/

Perhaps taking health care out of the work place is a great reason to develop universal health care? Come on, you capitolists... Dont businesses deserve a break on expendatures related to employee health care?

Bern80 · Sep 28, 2007

Diuretic said:
The argument is not that you - Bern80 is responsible for anyone's health care. The argument is that you pay taxes, just like every other citizen who earns an income - and those taxes will help pay for things as diverse as foreign wars and domestic healthcare schemes. Does that make it clearer?

Sure. Part of our taxes still got to some aspects of healtchare as part of the whole. Being a limited government kind of person, healthcare is certainly not the only thing I am oppossed to paying taxes for. That's for another time.

Diuretic said:
I'll put one position and it's not entirely relevant to the US but is really a thought about a government-funded health scheme. My position is that if a government-funded health scheme allows that all those who need health care in a timely manner are given health care. My contention is that the general health of the population would increase and certain diseases would either disappear or be reduced in large measure. That's my contention - that it's a public good because it's good for the public (that's not a contradiction in terms, it's just one of those English language things where the same word means something different depending on context).

That is essentially what I'm afraid won't happen. I mentioned some of the many factors in paying for this and of course not knowing some numbers. I did do a little searching and found an article about one isureance provider claimeing that roughly 80% of what they take in goes to paying their policyholder's bills. But again the money factors are complicated and I think more time needs to be spent figuring out the math of how something like this is gonna work before we just do it.

The point is I believe the money going into our healthcare facilities (everything from doctors fees, to prescriptions, to treatments, to research) is going to go down if paid solely through taxes. What does that have to do with your position above? A lot. Are we expecting all doctors to take an involuntery pay cut? Whether you beleive it moral or not a big part of why people get into medicine is for the money. What happens to the incentive to become one if one understands they can't make as much as before and that their salary is essentially set by the government. The other big one is research. We can't research for cures fast enough already, you never can. That research costs money. Are we expecting our R&D companies to do more with less?

That's essentially why I don't think the position you are taking is likely to pan out. You will have probably reduced the incentive to become a doctor in the first place. We are already short of those in many areas of the country. All the while the demand on the system has increased because it costs less (that is people who were putting things off for financial reasons aren't now and those that weren't covered at all now are, even those that were insured will go to the doctor more often because most peolpe's plans don't cover 100% of their medical expenses). How will meet this demand when we have reduced the incentive to become doctors? Are we going to lower the standards we require of students to become one so more get in? That woudl reduce the quality of the system as a whole. The same with R&D. less of it will take place if less money is going in.

Our population is a major factor as to wether this is workable or not. Just because it works in Europe or Canada isn't ample evidence that it would work here.

Diuretic said:
Deaths in England and Wales from infectious diseases such as TB, Diptheria, Whooping cough, Measles and Polio were reduced. The NHS was instituted in 1948.

I don't think you can attribute that primarily to NHS. It is more likely that cures were researched and developed for those things. Afterall the US has no NHS and we don't have problems with any of those anymore either.

Lastly even if your scenario turned out to be true I would still be oppossed to it on ethical grounds. I just dont' think my health and providing for it is your responsiblilty. Primarily because you don't have any control over it. I think of it similar to car insureance. We pay premiums for that too. As an example you own a car and you may get into an accident. Maybe you caused it, maybe you didn't just like with your health you get sick, maybe you could have prevented it, maybe you couldn't. As far the car accident, whether you caused it or are partially to blame does it really make any sense for you to say to me that it's my responsibility? You may have had no control over what happenned but I most definately don't have any control over what happened.

I am exteremly leary of any policy that allows the the people of the US an excuse to be even less responsible for their actions than is already the case.

rOckNrOllsCar11 · Sep 28, 2007

If our government gets health care on the bill of EVERY tax-paying American than EVERY American should get their moneys worth and have it too.

What's with the argument that making that a right would be to "socialize" health care. Am I supposed to shudder in fear like its 1983 and those nasty Russian atheist are just waiting for a reason to push the button?

A well run society takes care of its own especially before they try taking care of every one else problems in the world.

M14 Shooter · Sep 28, 2007

rOckNrOllsCar11 said:
If our government gets health care on the bill of EVERY tax-paying American than EVERY American should get their moneys worth and have it too.

What's with the argument that making that a right would be to "socialize" health care. Am I supposed to shudder in fear like its 1983 and those nasty Russian atheist are just waiting for a reason to push the button?

A well run society takes care of its own especially before they try taking care of every one else problems in the world.

Lets try it it like this:
Where X = whatever right you care to name
What right do you have to expect me to pay for you to exercise your right to X?

CharlestonChad · Sep 28, 2007

M14 Shooter said:
Lets try it it like this:
Where X = whatever right you care to name
What right do you have to expect me to pay for you to exercise your right to X?

Are your selfish morals greater than the good of the society?

M14 Shooter · Sep 28, 2007

CharlestonChad said:
Are your selfish morals greater than the good of the society?

Please answer the question.

Where X = whatever right you care to name
What right do you have to expect me to pay for you to exercise your right to X?

Is healthcare a right? why or why not?

Permanently confused

Gold Member

Gold Member

Permanently confused

Senior Member

Gold Member

The Light of Truth

Permanently confused

The Light of Truth

The Light of Truth

Diamond Member

The Light of Truth

Permanently confused

Gold Member

Free: Mudholes Stomped

Gold Member

Rookie

The Light of Truth

Baller Deluxe

The Light of Truth

The Worst Hospital in America

Healthcare Reform?

Similar threads