I just don’t see it that way. Take food and shelter, two basic necessities. For people who don’t make much money, society has mechanisms in place to subsidize these necessities, however beyond a certain level of affluence, people are expected to foot the bill themselves. I don’t see why health care should be any different. Health care is NOT like police and fire services. Police and fire companies serve the entire community as a whole, health care serves the individual. If my house catches on fire, the fire dept. ensures that the whole neighborhood doesn’t burn down. If I get cancer, well, I might die, but nothing is going to happen to my neighbors because of it (and some wags here would likely argue that their lives will be immeasurably improved 
).
The ‘right’ of free speech and a free press has cost politicians their jobs or has made companies pay for wrongs they committed.
The ‘right’ to be secure in my person against unreasonable search has cost prosecutors convictions.
The ‘right’ to worship as I please costs the minister who would force me to join their chuch.
The ‘right’ to not has soldiers put up in my house against my will costs the army.
The right of negros to be free cost the slave owners.
Rights cost some people. In other words “The right to swing your fist ends at my nose”.
This I agree with. However, a universal insurance plan into which money is paid in some equitable way should meet this requirement.
True, but houses burning out in the sticks get coverage too. For health care, what if the poor person gets and does not treat some very communicable disease, which then spreads through the community like - well like wildfire?
Absolutely yes. Why is it that it’s always considered morally wrong on this board to profit from another’s suffering? Restaurant owners profit from my hunger. The gas company profits from my need to stay warm. SEGA profitted from my addiction to the Total War series. I hear this logic repeatedly…if it’s a want, it’s fine to make as much as possible but if it’s a need, then it needs to be a slim profit. I don’t see the difference.
To me, if you want to be cured of your illness, it’s acceptable to demand you to become poor in exchange. Why do I, a doctor/drug company boss/stock investor have to make you healthy AND wealthy (to some degree) but I can’t become wealthy myself?
Isn’t this why we have Medicaid and Medicare?
Did you miss the “pursuit of” part? The current system allows you to pursue healthiness just fine. It doesn’t say anything about a right to succeed in it.
Sure, if by “civilized”, you mean “has universal health care, plus a few other silly countries”.
I’ll jump on board with universal health care when someone points out to me how to solve the free-rider problem and explains why Medicaid/care aren’t “compassionate” enough already.
I think Post #21, Hari Seldons post explains things very well. I would like to ask those of you who object to Universal Health Care as socialism, how do you feel about our other socialist institutions like education, libraries, police and ffire protection. Should we privatize all that too? By your arguments, why should you have to pay for someone elses child to get an ecucation, etc.?
Cancer, no. But apparently, you’ve never heard of epidemics? Scarlet fever, smallpox, polio, etc. What about the 1918 Spanish Flu epidemic?
Someone upthread asked the same thing. Aside from the fact that epidemics would be handled by the CDC regardless of whether the people involved had health coverage or not, can you refresh my memory as to when the last big epidemic ran through the US population? I’ll wait.
I really don’t see any meaningful reason to distinguish between “individuals” being helped and “society” being helped. Society is simply a collection of individuals. The evidence seems to point that nations with UHC pay less in healthcare per capita and have longer life expectancies… so we, collectively, we’ll be getting more bang for our buck than our current system of rugged individualism… if that isn’t a benefit to society, I don’t know what is.
I don’t believe healthcare is a right. I do believe that in a modern society, it is utterly illogical for a government which provides for law enforcement, fire rescue and other emergency services not to provide healthcare.
I’ve always wondered how many people who dislike universal health care on the grounds that it affects their property rights have ever downloaded something illegally.
If we could all download free healthcare over peer-to-peer networks that would totally be awesome!
I’ve always wondered what distinguishes the threat of disease and illness from the threat of crime, invaders from other countries, or fires. To say that the latter helps us all but the former only helps individuals seems like a nonsensical distinction, just made up ad hoc to try to justify the absence of UHC. But even this analysis fails, because I think society is a happier place when nobody has to stress over going bankrupt over healthcare or get in a screaming match with their HMO over whether chemotheraphy is an “experimental treatment.”
As someone hoping to go into the health care field, I don’t mind people getting wealthy off providing a needed service. 
But I’m not sure what it has to do with Universal Health Care or health care as a right. From what I understand about other systems, it’s perfectly possible to run a system where a certain level of care (which can be hashed out and codified) is available from moderately to well paid doctors and anything beyond that is provided by filthy rich private doctors.
I have no problem with richer people getting better care IF everyone is assured *some *care (and right now the poorest people do have care under Medicaid and/or state plans, but the not-quite-poor-enough-to-qualify-but-too-poor-for-private-insurance are not assured of preventative care). I’m not a communist, I’m a socialist, I guess.
It’s really very simple, I’m kinda surprised you need help understanding the difference. Thinks like fire and police benefit the entire community, so the entire community is responsible for paying for them. Things like food, shelter and health care benefit the individual, so the individual is responsible for paying for them. The rest of your post, claiming “Oh, society is made of of individuals”, is meaningless, an attempt to justify the community assuming responsibilities that belong to the individual. Really, if you’re going to get involved in a discussion of rights, you should do some more reading about exactly this subject, because this is the very heart of why the founding fathers set things up like they did.
Everything seems to indicate that ensuring everyone has access to some basic level of health care is a benefit to the community as a whole. It keeps people healthy, happy, and able to be productive members of society. It also means that fewer healthy people have to take on the burden of caring for unhealthy individuals, so that they can remain productive as well.
You could make the same argument on a smaller scale with vaccinations. Technically, they only benefit the individual, but the more people who get them the less likely it is that those who don’t will come into contact with someone who has the disease in question.
How do countries with socialized healthcare handle it when people make demands that might be considered unreasonable?Are people guaranteed that they can pursue every possible avenue of treatment? Is a 77 year old emphysema patient who still smokes 3 packs a day guaranteed a lung transplant? Is the terminal cancer patient allowed to demand that every available treatment option be used, even if it’ll cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and not substantially prolong their life? Does the bald man get the government to pay for hair plugs?
The cost of UHC may be less per capita, but presently each “capita” isn’t paying for insurance. I have health insurance, because I choose to work a fulltime job. I pay less than some co-workers because I have an individual plan, rather than a family plan, and because I don’t smoke. With UHC, I won’t just be paying for my insurance, I’ll be paying for the “perfomance artist” (read busker) on the street, who chooses not to work for the man, or the perpetual student who wants to work part time and go to college for 20 years. Why should I? We have a reasonably decent safety net. In my state, children who are uninsured are qualified for the state medicaid program. Is it perfect? Certainly not. But people need to be responsible for themselves. If we do go to some form of UHC, those people who are not working need to be required to give back something to pay back the system. Life isn’t free, and I’m not in the mood to work extra hours to pay for your healthcare.
StG
Do these things happen with insurance?
What distinguishes food and shelter from healthcare is that anybody can get a cheap shitty one room basement apartment for a minimal amount of work. Anybody can buy a huge sack of potatoes and ramen noodles and be able to survive off of it. It’s a regular need.
Needing healthcare can often be like being struck by lightning. It can just come out of the blue, and the cost can be enormous. That’s why almost nobody pays for healthcare directly… they pool their money together to spread the risk. The bigger the pool, the better the negotiating power this pool has on the market.
Since EVERYBODY needs healthcare at some point in their lives, if we all just pay into the big pool it costs each of us less on average.
As to the free rider problem, it’s still a problem if we continue the Status Quo. Even a homeless bum can get healthcare in this country. But he has to wait until his problem is an emergency and then it ends up costing us more than if we let him see a doctor before it got serious.
I can understand the Ebeener Scrooge attitude of “let them die, and decrease the surplus population.” I think it’s evil, but I understand it. But our current system is just a half-ass compromise between Scrooge and UHC. Our society needs to shit or get off the pot, so to speak.
There’s no divine edict from on high as to what is an individual responsibility and what’s a societal responsibility. The Founding Fathers were simply human beings. Not Gods. They were members of the rich aristocracy and set things up to benefit the aristocracy. I’ve read the history books, and frankly a lot of it disgusts me.
jsgoddess - Probably not, except for terminal patients. That’s why I’m asking how such things are handled in other countries. Is there a limit to the services that can be requested? Are cosmetic services footed by the individual? What about dental (because my dental plan is okay, but things like crowns and orthodontia are through the roof)? If the government is the deciding force behind medical decisions (as opposed to the insurance companies), will they be the ones saying “I’m sorry, but we just can’t spend more money for your losing cancer battle. Call Hospice.”
StG
I believe that organ transplant is decided based on the projected outcome of the patient, so young patients get moved up relative to older patients, and those who smoke get moved down relative to those who don’t. If that’s the case now, I don’t see it changing.
I see no reason why cosmetic services wouldn’t continue exactly as they are now–paid for out of pocket.
The terminal patient is a trickier case. With insurance, the decisions seem to be monetary ones. I would prefer the decisions be primarily medical rather than primarily monetary. Spend a great deal on things that work. Spend very little or nothing on things that don’t.
AIDS was pretty big.