CDZ Is Medical Care a Human/Social Right?

[YoursTruly]

First a little background on myself. Raised conservative, but feel that Libertarian really is how I identify currently. With that said, yes, I'm for the free market, capitalism, small government, personal freedoms, liberty, as little taxes as possible, etc. But I also realize that there will always be a need for social programs, so that's where I tend to disagree with the Libertarian viewpoint.

The Declaration of Independence provides us with Life, Liberty and Pursuit of happiness as unalienable rights.
If Life is a right within our society, shouldn't those technologies and medicines that provide and extend life be offered with no cost? Are we as a society looking at medical care, from all political sides, through the wrong lens. If we agree that life is a right, those medicines and technologies that can enhance, cure and extend, should be a right provided to the citizens rather than being a commodity to exchange.

As much money as we spend and give away, I really feel that this country can create a healthcare system, private/public/hybrid, that could be free to all.

I don't think left understands what a right is. It's something that you have on your own, that has nothing to do with others. Except for what others can do to adversely affect you and your life.
Not what others have to do for you. That goes against their individual rights if they're forced to do anything for you.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Why would we do that? Life is not intended to be fair. If it were fair, much of the point of life (living properly without reward) would be lost.

If life was fair, then every baby would be allowed to be born, but fortunately for the rest of US, those stupid prog women just have their babies murdered before they even get a chance to prove themselves. Maybe it is a good thing, because maybe the stupid gene pool stops with the stupid prog woman...

 

[sartre play]

Don't know if its a right, but pretty sure we could do a better job if we stopped stabbing each other in the back over party politics.

 

[YoursTruly]

First a little background on myself. Raised conservative, but feel that Libertarian really is how I identify currently. With that said, yes, I'm for the free market, capitalism, small government, personal freedoms, liberty, as little taxes as possible, etc. But I also realize that there will always be a need for social programs, so that's where I tend to disagree with the Libertarian viewpoint.

The Declaration of Independence provides us with Life, Liberty and Pursuit of happiness as unalienable rights.
If Life is a right within our society, shouldn't those technologies and medicines that provide and extend life be offered with no cost? Are we as a society looking at medical care, from all political sides, through the wrong lens. If we agree that life is a right, those medicines and technologies that can enhance, cure and extend, should be a right provided to the citizens rather than being a commodity to exchange.

As much money as we spend and give away, I really feel that this country can create a healthcare system, private/public/hybrid, that could be free to all.

I completely agree not only with your political views, as I myself share those same beliefs. But also can see you side of your healthcare idea's. I can't say I agree. But I can say I don't disagree. You've given me something to think about.
What I lack are the details as to how and how it would be paid for. Who would be responsible for how it's ran. And to what extent would coverage be available. (which would be decided by those who control the rules and regs of the system)

Being a free market guy myself, I have to believe that there's a regulated capitalist way of solving this problem. As in letting the medical profession also manage the insurance part of it. Taking out the middle man (the health insurance companies) would save a TON of money. After all, health insurance companies are nothing more than money brokers. We pay them. And they pay the people who actually treat & cure people. And I might add, they only pay the professionals what THEY think is right. So taking the middle man out of this, allowing the medical profession to offer a nationwide insurance coverage, would save a lot or people a lot of money. Meaning two important things.
1. All the money spent on insurance premiums, go directly into the medical field. No profit for the insurance companies. They keep all the money and disperse it to the medical professionals who actually do something to help people.
2. They themselves decide who a treatment or procedure is worth. (not the insurance company). They can also make decisions on what tests and procedures to use on a patient. No need to milk insurance companies or medicare/medicaid. Example: If a Doctor bills Blue Cross $4500 for a procedure, they're lucky if they get $300 for it.
There would be more benefits to a system like this. Like there would be only a fraction of rules and regulations by the government, than what they need now. Of course it wouldn't be no rules or regs, for the simple fact that humans and money are involved.

You know as well as I do, when the government subsidizes anything, they take control of it. And since most of our elected officials are attorneys and not doctors, allowing the government too much power & control over the medical profession, is not a good idea.
Fact is, our system of government is a good system. The problem with it, are the people we elect to control it.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

When we look at inflated costs, isn't there a better way to provide medical needs to everyone

Yes, there HAS to be a better way. I dont know how you get government out of it, once it's been allowed in, but removing those deep pockets except in the most critical cases, would go a long way towards reducing medical costs.

And emergency rooms are the answer. All they do is patch you up and get you stable and tell you to "see your doctor" which you dont have and cant afford, otherwise you wouldnt be in the ER

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Don't know if its a right, but pretty sure we could do a better job if we stopped stabbing each other in the back over party politics.

We could do really good if we stopped allowing illegal aliens to walk into an emergency room and get free, while the paying customers have to pick up the hefty tab. I refer to the story below.

Overtaxing the rich: A cautionary tale

While it might not be politically correct to suggest that the rich should get the lion’s share of tax breaks, let me share a story that provides food for thought

www.theglobeandmail.com

Each and every day, 10 men go to a restaurant for dinner together. The bill for all 10 comes to $100 each day. If the bill were paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The 10th man – the richest – would pay $59. Although the 10 men didn't share the bill equally, they all seemed content enough with the arrangement – until the restaurant owner threw them a curve.

"You're all very good customers," the owner said, "so I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20. I'm going to charge you just $80 in total." The 10 men looked at each other and seemed genuinely surprised, but quite happy about the news.

The first four men, of course, are unaffected because they weren't paying anything for their meals anyway. They'll still eat for free. The big question is how to divvy up the $20 in savings among the remaining six in a way that's fair for each of them. They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33, but if they subtract that amount from each person's share, then the fifth and sixth men would end up being paid to eat their meals. The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each person's bill by roughly the same percentage, and he proceeded to work out the amounts that each should pay.


The results? The fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $14, leaving the 10th man with a bill of $50 instead of $59. Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got one dollar out of the $20," said the sixth man, pointing to the 10th man, "and he got $9!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too! It's not fair that he got nine times more than me!" "That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get back $9 when I only got $2? The rich get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine outraged men surrounded the 10th and brutally assaulted him. The next day, he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they faced a problem that they hadn't faced before. They were $50 short.

 

[LibertyKid]

I completely agree not only with your political views, as I myself share those same beliefs. But also can see you side of your healthcare idea's. I can't say I agree. But I can say I don't disagree. You've given me something to think about.
What I lack are the details as to how and how it would be paid for. Who would be responsible for how it's ran. And to what extent would coverage be available. (which would be decided by those who control the rules and regs of the system)

Being a free market guy myself, I have to believe that there's a regulated capitalist way of solving this problem. As in letting the medical profession also manage the insurance part of it. Taking out the middle man (the health insurance companies) would save a TON of money. After all, health insurance companies are nothing more than money brokers. We pay them. And they pay the people who actually treat & cure people. And I might add, they only pay the professionals what THEY think is right. So taking the middle man out of this, allowing the medical profession to offer a nationwide insurance coverage, would save a lot or people a lot of money. Meaning two important things.
1. All the money spent on insurance premiums, go directly into the medical field. No profit for the insurance companies. They keep all the money and disperse it to the medical professionals who actually do something to help people.
2. They themselves decide who a treatment or procedure is worth. (not the insurance company). They can also make decisions on what tests and procedures to use on a patient. No need to milk insurance companies or medicare/medicaid. Example: If a Doctor bills Blue Cross $4500 for a procedure, they're lucky if they get $300 for it.
There would be more benefits to a system like this. Like there would be only a fraction of rules and regulations by the government, than what they need now. Of course it wouldn't be no rules or regs, for the simple fact that humans and money are involved.

You know as well as I do, when the government subsidizes anything, they take control of it. And since most of our elected officials are attorneys and not doctors, allowing the government too much power & control over the medical profession, is not a good idea.
Fact is, our system of government is a good system. The problem with it, are the people we elect to control it.

Yes, very well said. We as a modern society have been given this ability to heal, enhance one's health, cure, and subdue terrible health problems. There has to be a way where we can value those gifts and create a system that values the charity in dispersing those talents to those at need.

It's a HUGE lift and the logistics, economics, education, training, pay, costs, etc., are currently largely unknown. I do think it would take a complete reboot of the system from the bottom up and inside out. Unfortunately, i can't see it happening as I feel DC loves the division it creates.

Perhaps it is wishful thinking.

 

[ClaireH]

Absolutely understood. All professional medical providers still get paid and paid well for their professional and educational experience. Of course the healthcare is not "Free" as someone has to pay for it. But this country is wealthy, we have the financial means to do great things. If we honestly looked at the money that comes in and then goes out to other countries who provide nothing for us. When we look at inflated costs, isn't there a better way to provide medical needs to everyone.

The US is indeed a strong country overall, regardless of the media’s consistent divide the masses messages they flame daily. There are many positive bonds among humans in all communities, including communities with corrupt overlords.

To imply, however, that we are wealthy enough to continue down the forever in debt rabbit hole. That “forever” part is complete naivety of multiple, successive administrations unwilling to address it, and fallacy that the US will somehow never have to repay it. I’m kind of surprised, quite frankly, that China hasn’t called in its debt by now. The US needs to wake up and anticipate that possibility. Japan owns a lot of US debt, but we’ve maintained good standing for many years now as allies and much less likely to do so.

Because I’m far from being an economist, but I can guess that the reason China hasn’t called in that major money is because they benefit from the United States continuing to owe them.

I’m going to look up the current dollar amount US owes to other countries, but I have to come back and edit. I’ll also pick up a link for the US debt clock; if that doesn’t wake a person up to the insanity of it all, nothing will! I remember the first time I saw that national debt clock…each second mega bucks being spent, insurmountable debt without end. I basically fixated on the screen in total shock!

 

[YoursTruly]

Yes, very well said. We as a modern society have been given this ability to heal, enhance one's health, cure, and subdue terrible health problems. There has to be a way where we can value those gifts and create a system that values the charity in dispersing those talents to those at need.

It's a HUGE lift and the logistics, economics, education, training, pay, costs, etc., are currently largely unknown. I do think it would take a complete reboot of the system from the bottom up and inside out. Unfortunately, i can't see it happening as I feel DC loves the division it creates.

Perhaps it is wishful thinking.

If one side came up with a damn good plan of action, one that would work efficiently, cut costs in half, and covered everyone, the other side would bash it to death.
I can't stand this two party system.

 

[YoursTruly]

Absolutely understood. All professional medical providers still get paid and paid well for their professional and educational experience. Of course the healthcare is not "Free" as someone has to pay for it. But this country is wealthy, we have the financial means to do great things. If we honestly looked at the money that comes in and then goes out to other countries who provide nothing for us. When we look at inflated costs, isn't there a better way to provide medical needs to everyone.

You can't really say this country is rich. There are a lot of rich people here, who have a LOT of money. But the thing is, it's their money. There in lies the problem. When a group gets the idea that someone else has too much money, it's still someone else's.
One thing that put Tulsi Gabbard above all the other democrats is her idea of cutting a crap load of BS to pay for a single payer plan. Like all these wars of aggression. Gender studies in Pakistan. And a ton of other pet projects that we all know all the money doesn't actually go to what's written in the bills.

So before the government starts taxing the rich plumb out of the country, they should cut all the BS out of the budget, and then take a look at what taxes are needed.
Damn you democrats for throwing the only actual democrat under the bus in the last election, in leu of an old established buffoon and his "sleep her way to top" VP.

 

[YoursTruly]

I'm with Tipsycatlover on this......no such thing as "social rights", except "you have the right to remain silent".

If a state government decides they want to have a gov't funded medical center or clinics, thats all on them. Of course, they ARE using OUR money for it. But plenty of "no pay" places are funded by private entities, companies, and organizations. You just have to get off your lazy ass and go find one.

Can you imagine the taxes we would have to pay in order to have "free" healthcare in this country???

If the government didn't cut one dime from their budget, taxes would be very high. If they'd cut out a lot of BS, like say 100 military bases they have scattered out all over the world, abolish a few government agencies and a whole slew of other crap, I doubt we'd even notice the tax increase that was needed.
Considering that a LOT of people are paying over $800 per month for health insurance, I doubt taxes would be raised even close to that amount.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Doctors don't work for free. They have to pay for an office and someone to prepare reports. They have huge premiums for malpractice insurance. Take away the right to sue for medical malpractice and costs would go down. That's why countries with semi socialized medicine are able to provide some kind of medical care.
Doctors will simply not work for the love of mankind.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Yes. It is. That’s what the concepts of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness entails.

And not only that, but…

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

to deny an American citizen healthcare based upon the ability to pay, goes against the very notions of domestic tranquility, general welfare, and more importantly, the very concept of forming a more perfect union.

Who will be responsible for keeping that gun at the heads of providers?

 

[LibertyKid]

You can't really say this country is rich. There are a lot of rich people here, who have a LOT of money. But the thing is, it's their money. There in lies the problem. When a group gets the idea that someone else has too much money, it's still someone else's.
One thing that put Tulsi Gabbard above all the other democrats is her idea of cutting a crap load of BS to pay for a single payer plan. Like all these wars of aggression. Gender studies in Pakistan. And a ton of other pet projects that we all know all the money doesn't actually go to what's written in the bills.

So before the government starts taxing the rich plumb out of the country, they should cut all the BS out of the budget, and then take a look at what taxes are needed.
Damn you democrats for throwing the only actual democrat under the bus in the last election, in leu of an old established buffoon and his "sleep her way to top" VP.

Agreed, there is so much in our budget that could be cut. I don't believe we absolutely know the true budget though and may never know the true budget. For all I know, this 'deficit', could be completely fabricated. I don't know. I don't get to examine and audit the books. I absolutely have to take the govt's word... which I don't trust.

Then we need to figure out a way to fairly compensate our Drs., nurses, and everyone else in the industry. Overhaul the insurance industry. Fix the pharmaceutical companies.

 

[sear]

Is Medical Care a Human/Social Right?

a) It is not.
b) It definitively must not ever be considered to be.

Why not?
Because healthcare is something one human being provides another. As soon as we entitle one human being to the services of another, we not merely re-institute slavery, compulsory servitude. But we enshrine the principle of slavery for perpetuity.

Any society that wishes to socialize medicine, dispense medical care without direct fee for service charge may do so.
Several have. AND !!
Some of those that have not only have per capita healthcare outcomes as good or better than the United States of America, but life expectancy as long or longer. AND !!
Some of those ALSO have higher "happiness quotients" than the United States.

Visionary leaders such as Presidents Clinton & Obama understood this, and tried to drag the United States kicking & screaming into a more modern world. Clinton failed. Obama succeeded.
Healthcare in the United States is not a panacea. Far from it. But there are enough different models in operation around the globe, to see which models produce the best healthcare outcomes (longest useful life expectancy) at lowest per capita cost.

The United States of America is not the best by those criteria, yet. Let's see where President Biden goes with it, particularly if he solidifies Democrat dominance in both houses of congress, unusual, unlikely, but not impossible.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You have the same right to health care as you have to a house, a car, a gun, a computer, and a college education.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

I'm no economic expert, but I think the "we're a rich nation so the money HAS to be SOMEWHERE" argument doesn't hold weight.

And that's what most people who argue for free health care cite. It's like the free college crowd.. you ask them how and they go 'THE CORPORATIONS.. THE BILLIONAIRES"

These mythological creatures who can just rain their wealth down onto all of us for no reason.

 

[dblack]

First a little background on myself. Raised conservative, but feel that Libertarian really is how I identify currently. With that said, yes, I'm for the free market, capitalism, small government, personal freedoms, liberty, as little taxes as possible, etc. But I also realize that there will always be a need for social programs, so that's where I tend to disagree with the Libertarian viewpoint.

The Declaration of Independence provides us with Life, Liberty and Pursuit of happiness as unalienable rights.
If Life is a right within our society, shouldn't those technologies and medicines that provide and extend life be offered with no cost?

No. For reference see the Second Amendment, which establishes our right to keep and bear arms. But in no way implies that government should provide us all with guns.

Are we as a society looking at medical care, from all political sides, through the wrong lens. If we agree that life is a right, those medicines and technologies that can enhance, cure and extend, should be a right provided to the citizens rather than being a commodity to exchange.

As much money as we spend and give away, I really feel that this country can create a healthcare system, private/public/hybrid, that could be free to all.

A product or service can never be a political "right". The concept makes no sense.

By the way, you might "identify" as a Libertarian (I identify as Johnny Depp), but you seem to have missed out on a few of their key principles.

 

[MizMolly]

There is no such thing as a social right. Life is a right does not mean someone else has to pay for your medical care. Do you get free tickets to Disneyland because you have a right to happiness?

Some people confuse Medicaid with Medicare. I just retired and signed up for Medicare. Not only did I pay into it on every paycheck, I have a big chunk deducted from my Social Security check, which I also worked and paid for.