Probably not, because that’s not really happening now. In most cases, they wind up in the ER and the hospital writes it off.
Back in the day, when I was struggling financially, I had a doctor growl at me “You gonna pay for this?” right before I went under for a procedure. I said yessir, and paid in installments.
Okay… so I’m arguing the theory behind the messaging, if that’s the message that’s chosen. We already treat firefighting as a “natural right”, so let’s treat healthcare the same way too.
But I think the messaging about socialism is already working – the favorability of the term has gone way, way up in recent years. Maybe we don’t need to change anything – just stick to the message, and highlight all the people that are harmed unjustly by the current system.
That’s a fair point – police and fire services are not things I would generally call rights. But, while it isn’t part of our Constitution, I think the idea that everyone is entitled to a basic education in the United States at the expense of the government is pretty much a right. I suppose you might quibble as to the difference between a right to education and an entitlement to education (or whatever), but the fact that every kid in the US can go to a public school sure walks, talks, and quacks like a right.
Then our doctors need not worry about Max S.'s concern. Problem solved!
Although I think you meant this in a different spirit, of course. Given the choice between a more efficient system that serves everyone; and a more wasteful system that serves only the wealthy; I know what I’m choosing.
I would agree with your point, and answer the question as “definitely not”.
This is a good point and echoes my thinking as well, even though my OP was muddled.
I don’t know what problem you think is solved.
Saying we don’t have to worry about healthcare costs because we don’t have to worry about fire-fighting costs is a non sequitur. Health care costs are high and rising. Fire-fighting costs are neither.
Regards,
Shodan
Maybe we could try some of the strategies used by countries that don’t have such high and rising health care costs?
No, we don’t. IIUC, “natural right” has a specific meaning that does not apply to something like firefighting.
I agree with what msmith537 said:
I think you and Ravenman both want to argue in support of healthcare as a right. I’m only here to point out that, while healthcare or health insurance coverage could be made to be a right, it could not be made into a natural or human right.
When you say we treat firefighting as a “natural right”, you lose me. I don’t think that a person is entitled to firefighting services by virtue of being a human, therefore I don’t treat firefighting as a natural right. I would justify the provision of fire-fighting services as part of a social contract: you abide by the local tax rules, don’t intentionally start fires, and in return the local government pays for firefighters. For adults, there is even consideration in that the adults are free to move elsewhere.
If you’re a tax cheat, or an arsonist, in most situations I think the firefighters should go in and save you. But it is not because you have some right to be saved. It would be a waste of life and resources to stand by idly. Saving a life is a good thing, right? But this is sometimes countered because sending firefighters in risks their lives. If we know nobody is in the building, that changes the ethical calculus significantly. Second, firefighters are in no position to determine if you are a tax cheat or arsonist. We’re talking about firefighters, not the IRS, and not detectives. Third, fires can spread and endanger other people. You might not be the only one in the vicinity of the fire. But if you are the arsonist, or a tax cheat, etc, it is not because you deserve the service.
Now if you have two houses on fire, with one person inside each, one is known to be the arsonist (maybe he confessed?), the other an innocent, no relevant logistical difference, I would not fault a strained fire dept. for going for the innocent first.
There was a story when I was in high school, environmental science I think. Some fire department somewhere let a house burn down. The house was outside of city limits, the residents were safe before the dept. got involved, and the owner had previously refused to pay whatever fee the dept. charged for coverage. The neighbor had paid the fee and the fire dept. came to put out the fire on his farmland.
~Max
All these are human-created and human-defined concepts, IMO, and thus it doesn’t matter to me what we call it. “Natural rights” or “human rights” or “purple wombat rights” – what matters to me is policy.
That’s a theoretical question that has no bearing on reality. We’re not talking about an experimental program. Most countries already have public health care systems and many of them have been in operation for decades. We have clear proof that public health care systems can be done.
Fire fighting is a public service provided by the government. Its costs are under control.
Healthcare is provided by private sources in this country. Its cost are high and rising.
In other countries, healthcare is a public service provided by the government. Their costs are under control.
There’s a clear argument to be made based on your own premises. We could bring the high and rising costs of healthcare under control by enacting a public healthcare system.
There seems to be no connection between what I wrote (which you quoted) and your response. I didn’t say anything about rights. I said that public employees aren’t slaves. Which was in direct response to somebody who said they were.
So what’s your opinion on that issue? Do you feel that public employees are slaves?
I agree that practicality of setting policy matters more than the theoretical underpinnings that the policy is based upon.
But the practicality of theory is that we’re a democracy. Part of setting a policy is building up public support for the existence of a program. And sometimes the best means to do that is to argue the theoretical underpinnings.
What’s theoretical? Food, water, electricity, internet, and even healthcare shortages happen in real life. I was thinking about triage after disaster in particular. You cannot ethically compromise on human rights, even in emergency situations.
~Max
Ya know, I’m no fan of Bernie, but it cracks me up that Bernie calls himself a “democratic socialist” and so many of his critics get lathered up over the linguistic gymnastics and retort that a socialist is a socialist.
Meanwhile, we discuss healthcare as a part of a social contract between people and their government, and suddenly these very fine distinctions between a right, a natural right, a public service, a human right, a purple wombat right, an entitlement, or a flibbity-floo-flop-flee… and the meanings of each of those words are VERY IMPORTANT for REASONS. After all, aren’t we a REPUBLIC and not a DEMOCRACY??? :rolleyes:
Outside of the immediate aftermath of a natural disaster, can you think of any examples of a country running out of healthcare?
I think iiandyiiii and Little Nemo both provided excellent responses to Shodan’s argument. Let me add another point to add some further perspective.
It can fairly be said that health care is expensive and costs are rising throughout the industrialized world. The reason for that is that health care is making major technological advances all over the world (not just in the US, BTW; a surprising amount of some of the some sophisticated medical equipment comes from Europe, and absolutely none of it has anything to do with private health insurance which is essentially a useless parasitical industry). The result of is that people (or in the US, people who can afford it) are living longer, healthier lives. Life expectancy is rising not so much because people are living to extraordinarily old age, but because they are no longer dying young to nearly the same extent. Their conditions are treatable.
No such technologies were even imaginable when the Founders wrote the Constitution. The practice of medicine was essentially non-existent. Even something so simple as anesthesia wasn’t discovered until the middle of the 19th century. I once read a book about primitive medical practices prior to those days, and it was horrifying. Today we have surgeries performed with precision robotic aids that would have been unimaginable just a decade or two ago. One such procedure saved my sister-in-law’s life, who had lung cancer that was otherwise untreatable.
I think we can all agree that these advances are good things. But health care costs are far lower everywhere in the world than they are in the US, by a significant margin, and on average are rising more slowly. And most of that US overpricing is waste, going to administrative overhead and often reckless profiteering, not to medical research. Since the capabilities of health care systems will continue to become more complex and expensive, doesn’t it make sense to have the most efficient possible system funding it? Medical services in Canada on average cost roughly half of what they do in the US, and some specific services, like MRI and CT scans, can literally cost ten times as much in the US. And there’s absolutely no reason for it except that they can, and since they can, the price structure supports a wasteful surplus of diagnostic imaging facilities, kind of like streets would be overcrowded with hot dog carts if hot dogs could be sold for $100 each.
Someone asked a question here about why a one-night stay in the ICU cost $90,000! This is the kind of shit-show that is absolutely not sustainable. My mother was put in ICU once for one night because she had a heart condition and there was no bed available in the cardiac ward. It didn’t cost us a cent (nor did the rest of the hospital stay). And it was a beautiful modern facility. The rooms were arranged in a large circle, every one with floor-to-ceiling windows and a great view, with glass fronts that could be temporarily covered with blinds for privacy, all manner of monitoring equipment, and a central desk that was very well staffed from which all the patients were monitored, electronically and visually. Socialized medicine in Canada! It’s not perfect, but I wouldn’t trade it for the US system for anything in the world. Even if I was very wealthy and would benefit from private health coverage, or just pay my own way, my conscience wouldn’t let me.
I actually agree with you and am ok with a national medical system. What I see is a expanded medicare system where more and more doctors and hospitals would take medicare. Right now the reimbursement rates are not high enough so only a few doctors take it.
Private hospitals, doctors, and insurance will still exist though for the very rich.
I agree that the argument over whether it is a “right” is irrelevant. There is a clear societal benefit - and vast cost efficiencies - to UHC systems. Diseases and medical conditions get treated sooner (or just plain get treated, as some don’t now), meaning that disease spread is more limited and the workforce overall is healthier (which has a knock-on economic benefit to employers). People aren’t tied to specific employers out of fear of losing healthcare coverage and thus the free movement of people increases, which also has an economic benefit. Price management becomes much easier, fraud identification becomes much easier, distribution of services becomes better coordinated - this is exactly the sort of service the government should be doing.
Never mind debates over principles - on a utilitarian basis it makes sense.
This appears to be an article of faith amongst opponents of UHC but it is not borne out by the numbers. UHC is much cheaper per capita because it is far more efficient, and outcomes are better. And you can still overlay a private system on top of it without negatively affecting that.
Defining health care as a human right isn’t going to automatically reduce health care costs. Which is why this talk about fire-fighting is beside the point. Fire-fighting isn’t cheaper than healthcare because fire-fighting is defined as a human right, and it isn’t cheaper because fire-fighting is a public service.
Regards,
Shodan