Is healthcare a right?

[Novelty_Bobble]

For the ridiculous analogy of water I must say this.

Water is essential for health and pretty much everyone needs the same, and the cost of it is stable.
Healthcare is simply not the same, it is a woeful analogy. People don’t suddenly need 1,000,000 gallons due to bad luck (unless their house in on fire in which case it gets provided for free)

Mind you, thinking a little further on this. Systems such as Germany do indeed try to reduce healthcare to the same type of commodity as water. They get everyone to pay a moderate, easily affordable amount and spread the risks. That ensures that the assistance goes to those that need it rather than just those that can afford it.

[Voyager]

@Amasia

My point with the trillion dollar question is that you really don’t believe that everyone has a right to health care. You believe that people have a right to health care with limits. Obviously, different limits then are currently in place. Fine.

Let me be really clear: What do you mean when you’re saying right? Do you mean a moral right, as in you believe it’s a moral duty to provide health care? If it’s a moral duty, is it the job of the government to enforce your belief of moral duty? Or do you mean a legal right? If you mean a legal right, where does it come from?

You’re using the phrase “right to life” which doesn’t really clearly mean anything. Please clarify what you mean by that.

Also, can you define death panels? Oh, you mean these? Why yes, thanks for asking- I am in favour of them.

Right to life means that every person is due a certain minimum level of care regardless of money or social position. Like I said, this does not include the right to fungus-free toenails. For the sake of efficiency, it is better to provide checkups and vaccines instead of treating a more expensive disease that was preventable, but it is not like we should force someone to go to the doctor.
Since we are all mortal, we clearly don’t have an unlimited right to life - but why should someone with less money have less of a chance to survive an illness or injury than someone with enough money for insurance? The reason I objected to the trillion dollar example is that any real costs for treatment of one person is tiny compared to the risk pool, and providing insurance for all actually makes the system more predictable more efficient. Adding coverage for that one million dollar patient probably also adds it for a thousand patients who never spend anything. Not to mention that we can probably fund care for that million dollar patient by getting rid of the massive inefficiency of our system, but that is an economic argument, not a moral one.

“Death panels” might be useful in displaying the actual odds of treatment working. It is too bad that we can’t even discuss them in the US because Palin had a fit about something that was not even close to being a real death panel, but which just allowed the government to pay for an end-of-life discussion between a patient and her doctor.

Helping innocent people survive is always more moral than letting them die. In this case we can do that and save money also. What’s not to like? Unless one is so fanatically against the government doing anything good that one doesn’t care about the facts, that is. Just like calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme, really.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Voyager

“Death panels” might be useful in displaying the actual odds of treatment working. It is too bad that we can’t even discuss them in the US because Palin had a fit about something that was not even close to being a real death panel, but which just allowed the government to pay for an end-of-life discussion between a patient and her doctor.
.

Issues such as the “trillion dollar treatment” do come up regularly and need to be dealt with by universal healthcare providers such as the NHS in the UK.
They take the form of cutting edge, expensive treatments with an uncertain outcome and it falls to an external body to judge their cost effectiveness.

For the NHS it is NICE who end up making the difficult decisions on whether to provide the treatment or not.

We recognise there is not a limitless pot of money, we can’t spend a million to gain a potential extra day of life but we might spend it if the person gets 3 years. What about all the shades of grey in between? That is where NICE come in. They are independent and make their decisions while trying to balance all of the health and cost implications. I’m happy it is them making that choice and not a health insurance company who’s motivations may be adversely skewed by profit.

[Cheesesteak]

@smiling_bandit

But here is my big point: if Ye Liberal Ones are so sure you can do this… why haven’t you? Why si is that the closer you come, the worse and worse things get, both with outcomes and financially, when these were supposed to improve health and reduce costs? Why do you keep demanding a national system when you haven’t shown once that you can run an effective system?

The best part about this is the underlying idea that Americans cannot run a health care system as efficiently as the French, or the Germans, or the Canadians, or the Japanese, or the British, or the Italians, or the Belgians. For some reason, if we try to set up a system like they have, we will fail completely, and should just give up and resign ourselves to having the most expensive and inefficient health care system in the world.

So much for American ingenuity and excellence.

So why not try to do this first? Frankly, this is my big, huge, absolutely-will-not-compromise issue. If all you can say is “We’ll have an international conference!”, then you have nothing to say. We have no bargaining power, and negotiations are, and always have been, about bargaining power. They’re not going to start taxing themselves more to take the burdern off Americans.

Today, we have no bargaining power. Other countries legislate drug prices, we do not. Our “bargaining” is to beg and plead with other countries to increase their prices, then to beg and plead with Pharmaceutical companies to lower prices in the US. Neither group has any reason whatsoever to say yes.

You want to even the field, legislate prices here, THEN approach the companies and countries to set up a pricing / subsidy system to encourage R&D, funded by everyone instead of just the US.

[YogSothoth]

Health is a right. Healthcare is what we use to get to it.

[Little_Nemo]

Here’s the question I always ask. Has any country that established a public health care system ever gone back to a private health care system?

If, as private health care advocates claim, public health care is so inferior, wouldn’t that be noticeable to the people who were presumably suffering under it? Wouldn’t they be demanding their government privatize health care so they could enjoy the benefits that we have?

But as far as I know, nobody that’s ever tried public health care has ever wanted to go back to private health care.

[Kearsen]

Health-care is as much of a right as it is to force people to eat a regimen of good dietary fibers, and exercise 30 minutes 3 times a day.

As soon as you can ensure a happy healthy population, you can make health-care a right.

[Kearsen]

@Voyager

But opponents of universal health care don’t care at all about efficiency, or else the clear evidence that it is more efficient would have some impact. They seem to believe that it is immoral for them to pay an extra cent to give some undeserving person (in their eyes) healthcare.

Say there is a person lying on the street. I trust all agree that this person has the right not to be shot by a representative of the government, at least without due process.

Now, say this person is lying on the street with a treatable disease that will be fatal without treatment - and which he had no part in getting, so there is no personal responsibility issue. Assuming it is feasible for the government to pay for his treatment, how is government refusing to do so any less a violation of his right to life than the government speeding up the process by shooting him?

I’m sure someone will say that he deserves to die since he could have gotten enough money for insurance but was too lazy - which goes against pretty obvious evidence. (Especially now that there is high unemployment.)

UHM would be a moral mandate even if it weren’t efficient - we’d just have to make it so. That it is is lagniappe.

I’d provide health care for that pour soul.

Now all you need to do is provide evidence that everyone who would utilize the health-care system has no personal responsibility in getting themselves the need to use it…

Good luck.

[Little_Nemo]

@Kearsen

I’d provide health care for that pour soul.

Now all you need to do is provide evidence that everyone who would utilize the health-care system has no personal responsibility in getting themselves the need to use it…

Good luck.

Would you argue that somebody who had his car stolen doesn’t deserve police protection? That he got himself into the situation by having a good car in the first place?

What’s your argument? That we shouldn’t have free health care because it would just encourage people to get sick? Do you honestly think that anyone is going to go out and willingly get cancer or diabetes or have a heart attack because the treatment is free?

[shiftless]

I have a right to get something for the money the governement takes from me. If not healthcare then something else worth all those wages. When the government agrees to provide the healthcare, and takes the wages to pay for it, then I have a right to expect it.

Otherwise, no. I don’t have an Og given right to have my body treated for any and all ailments.

[foolsguinea]

@Amasia

I pointed out that subsidized health care/ insurance is currently available to certain subsets of the population.

But the point I am making is that education is not currently a universal right anymore than health care. The right people have to certain type of education is similar to the right people have to a certain type of medical care (emergency medical care). You can get it, no matter what your circumstances.

Education is similar to health care in some ways as have already been described in this thread. But, I think it’s a poor example of where we want the health care debate to go, if your purpose is to argue it’s a universal right.

:rolleyes: Are you really drawing an equivalency between public schooling at 5 and an 80% subsidy of health care at a retirement age of 65 and increasing?

@Novelty_Bobble

Systems such as Germany do indeed try to reduce healthcare to the same type of commodity as water. They get everyone to pay a moderate, easily affordable amount and spread the risks. That ensures that the assistance goes to those that need it rather than just those that can afford it.

Also, by directing physicians toward those who are actually ill or injured, they improve the total bottom-line quality & efficiency of care.

[Voyager]

@Kearsen

I’d provide health care for that pour soul.

Now all you need to do is provide evidence that everyone who would utilize the health-care system has no personal responsibility in getting themselves the need to use it…

Good luck.

Sure - just as long as you agree that the fire department need not put out fires in houses where the occupants were responsible for them through carelessness, like rags near the furnace or smoking in bed. Of, if they do put out the fires, these people are charged for them.

What I would expect to see is even more education on healthy living, or maybe even taxes on things that will cost the government more money. That’s a reasonable market-based solution to the problem.

[Kearsen]

@Little_Nemo

Would you argue that somebody who had his car stolen doesn’t deserve police protection? That he got himself into the situation by having a good car in the first place?

What’s your argument? That we shouldn’t have free health care because it would just encourage people to get sick? Do you honestly think that anyone is going to go out and willingly get cancer or diabetes or have a heart attack because the treatment is free?

What exactly are you trying to attribute to me? Change the analogy to “being mugged” and it might make sense for him to have access to police protection. Otherwise it turns into an auto insurance claim. Also, there is a big excluded middle between having car stolen and having no personal responsibility in the theft. I.e, was it locked? Did it have an alarm? All questions that might provide at least some modicum of assurance that the owner did what he could do to ensure his car’s safety.

How does that transfer to health care? Are you going to have people checked to see that they have exercised there three times weekly (and how hard) Are you going to make sure they have eaten the correct diet for the week?

People who aren’t overweight, non-smokers and that exercise regularly are going to live longer (on average) than those who don’t and do. Providing health care where people have no personal responsibility to keep themselves healthy will have dire repercussions.

It already does (increased premiums) and those same people just don’t care.

[Voyager]

@Little_Nemo

What’s your argument? That we shouldn’t have free health care because it would just encourage people to get sick? Do you honestly think that anyone is going to go out and willingly get cancer or diabetes or have a heart attack because the treatment is free?

In fact, those who claim this should admit that their position predicts that people in countries with UHC would be less fit and sicker in general than people in countries, like ours, where this could lead to financial calamity. I invite them to submit the results of this experiment.

[Kearsen]

@Voyager

Sure - just as long as you agree that the fire department need not put out fires in houses where the occupants were responsible for them through carelessness, like rags near the furnace or smoking in bed. Of, if they do put out the fires, these people are charged for them.

What I would expect to see is even more education on healthy living, or maybe even taxes on things that will cost the government more money. That’s a reasonable market-based solution to the problem.

The fire department isn’t replacing the cost of the house. The insurance company is: and I firmly believe that the people who do such incredibly stupid things should not get recompensed for their stupidity.

[Cheesesteak]

@Kearsen

The fire department isn’t replacing the cost of the house. The insurance company is: and I firmly believe that the people who do such incredibly stupid things should not get recompensed for their stupidity.

Health Insurance companies do not pay replacement costs, Life Insurance companies do. Health Insurance companies pay for the cost to prevent a “total loss” just like municipalities do when they pay to support fire departments.

[Kearsen]

@Cheesesteak

Health Insurance companies do not pay replacement costs, Life Insurance companies do. Health Insurance companies pay for the cost to prevent a “total loss” just like municipalities do when they pay to support fire departments.

Which is just one more reason the analogy was stupid.

We have volunteer firemen here.

To go back to Voyager’s post, I would love to see un-healthy options taxed into oblivion. You know who this hurts the most right? Your voting base.

[Cheesesteak]

@Kearsen

Which is just one more reason the analogy was stupid.

We have volunteer firemen here.

But it’s still universal coverage, right?

Or, when you have a fire, do you have to call your Homeowner’s Insurance company to get pre-approval to call your “primary care” fire service? Then you find out a month later that they don’t cover “really tall ladders” anymore so you have to pay for that service out of pocket.

[Little_Nemo]

@Kearsen

Providing health care where people have no personal responsibility to keep themselves healthy will have dire repercussions.

So let me repeat my question. Do you honestly think that anyone is going to go out and willingly get cancer or diabetes or have a heart attack because the treatment is free?

[Little_Nemo]

@shiftless

I have a right to get something for the money the governement takes from me. If not healthcare then something else worth all those wages. When the government agrees to provide the healthcare, and takes the wages to pay for it, then I have a right to expect it.

Otherwise, no. I don’t have an Og given right to have my body treated for any and all ailments.

The government isn’t being run for your benefit. It’s being run for society’s benefit.

The government collects money from everybody to pay for the things that some people will need. It pays for roads even though not everyone drives. It pays for schools even though not everyone has children. It pays for police even though not everyone is a crime victim.