The healthcare question never asked

In My Humble Opinion
21

I’m a liberal and I don’t think it’s a “basic human right.”

But I think, as a nation, we have to decide what we feel should be equally attainable to all classes of Americans. Education. Safety forces. Legal representation. Clean air & water. Health care.

Aside from health care, that stuff is written in to American laws and codes (not all at a federal level) because the people decided that the free market wasn’t going to make that stuff equally attainable, and equally up-to-standard, for all classes of Americans.

Why we think that health care can be provided equally and fairly by the free market, I do not know. It’s right there on paper that it can’t. Yet millions of Americans go bankrupt, live in pain, and die every day because either the majority of Americans or rather the majority of their representatives feel that someone might get more than them.

Not a basic human right but it is something important.

22

And realistically, there’s no way to extend health care to every human.

I believe that there’s no fixed, immutable set of rights that makes sense in all places and times. If you’re in a medieval subsistence economy, what is the point of free speech? That right became what it is because by the time of the Founders, we were at a point that that right could actually mean something for a fairly wide group of people.

We’ve come a ways since 1789. We’re an extremely affluent society. We could make it a right that nobody goes to bed hungry. We could make some level of universal health care a right, which is really what Obamacare just about did, by community rating, the individual mandate, subsidies, and putting minimum requirements on what insurance policies need to cover.

23

If you have a child, that child has a right to a free and appropriate education (at least in my state). That child’s education consists of services provided by others (teachers). Thus the child has a right to services performed by others, and we as a society don’t seem to have a problem with that.

24

A follow-on question? Did you read the essay I linked to?

Most if not all of the objections in this thread were covered, so I won’t attempt to do so.

The essay ends with :

25

I went yes as well but -------- remember how much fire service is provided by volunteers; roughly 96% in PA.

https://apps.usfa.fema.gov/registry/summary

One could argue that health care can (and is) better provided in a voluntary fashion by the community than by government decree or law.

26

No, that’s not the question, since it is too vague and the terms are undefined.

The question is “How much health care is a right?” It doesn’t matter who pays for health car. It matters how the available health care is distributed.

It is two completely different questions to ask A) Does an injured person have a right to a bonesetter?. or B) Does every person have right to heroic effort to the age of 100+ to live completely free from discomfort? Which one are you asking?

27

I think every person should have the right to accessible health care. If you can pay for it, pay for it. If you can’t, it will still be covered because we don’t let people suffer because they’re too poor to pay for help. Not any freebie vanity surgery of course. But I mean if someone has a condition and they can’t pay to help with keeping them working, sure, it makes sense to pull from the pot to help them back on their feet or if worse comes to worse, help them die in as little pain as possible. That seems like the compassionate thing to do. I mean we do that for dogs.

28

Like others have pointed out, health care does cost more than the average citizens of poorer countries can even realistically afford. So calling it a right, when it may not even be feasible, doesn’t make sense.

However, the problem right now is that the government has taken a series of steps that have the effect of making healthcare de facto unaffordable.

  1. The government attaches onerous requirements to licensing physicians, and has allowed private organizations to restrict the total number of medical school seats. It has also refused to fund additional residency slots, so an inadequate number of doctors can even be trained.

  2. The government is permitting hospitals and healthcare providers, who offer a service you cannot negotiate for when you need it, and who de facto usually have a monopoly at the time and place when you need care, to charge one rate to most payers (including the government), and another rate about 3 to 10 times higher to those without insurance.

  3. The government allows hospitals/healthcare providers to tell you what it’s going to cost weeks or months after they treated you, and then allows them to go through a legal process that will enable them to seize any assets you have (in order to pay a ‘bill’ that is many times the actual cost of service)

  4. The government is forcing these private providers to provide emergency care uncompensated, which forces them to perform these onerous billing policies in order to break even for all the uninsured getting some free care.

  5. The government allows drug companies to charge ridiculous rates for their products, for the stated reason that if they can’t charge whatever they like and have a monopoly, they wouldn’t be able to develop new drugs. But then the government doesn’t actually ensure that drug companies spend their profits on R&D and compensating their investors, but instead lets drug companies spend more money on advertising and admin than R&D…

So I’m not sure where this falls. De facto, it is feasible for the average citizen of America, if medical care were regulated more competently, for the average citizen to pay for most lifesaving treatments. Medical training may be expensive and lengthy, but far more Americans are qualified to become doctors and nurses than are accepted for training. Drugs may be expensive to discover, but they cost very little money to manufacture on a large scale. And so on.

So my position is that maybe it’s not a right, but in effect, the actions of the government is shortening the lives and bankrupting millions of people. Oh, and despite all this - despite the medical industry consuming 18% of GDP - the industry allows every patient to ultimately become a corpse. For 18% of every dollar ever made.

Guess how much of that 18% is being put into research to find and stop the ultimate cause of the problem, aging and senescence? Basically zero. Guess how much of that 18% is being put into developing and deploying some stopgap measure that might work, like preserving someone’s brain immediately post-mortem? Also zero.

The entire effect of the medical industry is to pay lavish paychecks to those who work in it, and in return, to alleviate some suffering and extend people’s lives a few years.

29

No, healthcare isn’t a human right. But like education and the rule of law it is an immense societal good.

30

This is why I said no. I don’t think there are such things as “basic human rights” because that implies universality, and every country has its own set of rights. Unless we end up with a one-world government, there can’t be universal human rights, just rights that belong to citizens of country x, y, or z.

31

What an awful essay. Horribly thought out argument, poorly written, and weirdly layed out.
He confuses health insurance with health care. Does not address where rights come from or why that is important. He mentions opposing arguments then waves them away with addressing them. Equates people who disagree with him with Nazis. Worst of all is he assumes the answer to his question comes with certain implications but does not even present that argument.
For example, the right to bear arms is in the constitution. That does not mean the government buys everyone in the country a gun. It does not mean that poor people who can not afford a gun are cockroaches that no one cares about. If healthcare is a right why would that obligate government to pay for it anymore than the right to practice religion obliges the government to provide Santeria followers with chickens to sacrifice.

32

Governments do not grant human rights, they recognize pre-existing rights or fail to recognize them. Someone who gets jailed for speaking their opinions has had their human rights violated regardless of the laws in their country.

33

I voted “Yes”, but was a bit troubled by it.

I see it as being the same as food, or air. People have a right to food or air, but if there isn’t sufficient to go around, some people will get screwed. And I’m not entirely certain about frivolous applications, like breast enhancement or delicious cakes. Food (and healthcare) should not be held to deliberately bland and minimal levels in an effort to punish the poor or whatever, but on the other hand we don’t need to give people better than ‘good’ care either. Unless we really, really can afford to, I suppose. And no, don’t ask me to decide how much delicious cake is enough delicious cake.

I guess I’m saying, it’s complicated.

34

Based on the conservatives I know, that’s inaccurate. It’s not a notion that someone else is getting more than them at all. They know full well that they’re better off than most people who would benefit most from it.

Rather, it’s a notion that it’s going to cost them disproportionately; sort of a “Why should I pay for their health care and my own?”

And from a certain vantage point, they’re not wrong. Most of the arguments for UHC are essentially do-gooder arguments, and if you’re not making more money than you think you should, do-goodery is going to fall on mostly deaf ears. People aren’t going to agree to paying more taxes without a tangible, clear benefit to them, unless they are do-gooders. I mean in all likelihood a real UHC program would cost me more for the same or less service. So short of do-gooding, what’s in it for me?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

35

It’s difficult for me to think of anything as a basic human right when there isn’t even enough of it to go around, as with healthcare. I could imagine a very, very basic set of health services that could be provided to everyone but I don’t think that is in line with the OPs question, so I said no.

36

As for the OP’s question, I’m in the camo who thinks that it’s a right, in the sense that the govt shouldn’t restrict it or suppress healthcare availability, but it’s also not something that they’re bound to pay for either.

There are lots of rights we enjoy that are of the “not infringe” variety, instead of the “must provide” kind. For example there are a lot of references to a “right to work” out there, but nobody sane believes that obligates governments to provide universal employment.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

37

It is, and basic concepts in this debate like “health care” (like cosmetic surgery? Or liver transplants for alcoholics?) or “rights” (where do those rights come from? What about when inalienable rights conflict?) are endlessly contestable, because the terms of debate are Not Definitively Defined – and, per Wittgenstein, can’t be. Words mean what we collectively agree that they mean, and if we don’t agree on what they mean … well, we’ll end up going round and round.

(Especially with this crowd, who – let’s face it – are prone to overthinking and overarguing basic concepts.)

And I’m one of them! For example, I don’t actually believe in the concept of “rights,” fundamentally-- I’m a utilitarian atheist. I think ethical decisions are good because they have good results, not because they adhere to a rule or general principle.

Still, I find “human rights” a handy shorthand way of talking about rules of thumb that I think will generally lead to outcomes I consider good. So I would say “I support the right to free speech” even though I don’t think such a right “exists” outside of social agreement. It seems to work better than not having a strong concept of “free speech.”

Anyway, I voted “yes,” because of course health care is a “human right,” if we have to talk about rights. Heck, if you put it to a poll, I believe cheap and easy internet access is a “human right,” in societies (like ours) that can afford to provide it.

But I can’t prove it. To paraphrase Wittgenstein, “whereof one cannot speak, thereof one should remain silent.” This is a question that can’t be settled with words, because the words themselves are contested.

38

We’ve already decided it is. Look at Medicare, Medicaid, the VA system, and the fact hospitals have to stabilize anyone who comes in regardless of ability to pay. Is anyone in the political mainstream suggesting we abandon all those efforts?

We just do a bad job of providing it in a sensible, cost-effective manner.

39

I wrote an astoundingly long and detailed (Grestarian-style, what else would you expect) essay about public education and I’m pretty sure I posted it at least once around here. I’m not going to repost that here, so be thankful. The point was that public education systems began as an institutionalized babysitter when laws against child labor were passed and people needed a place to keep their kids from running amok. As the years passed, a minimum standard of education became a parental/societal obligation. It’s still possible to refrain from sending your kid to school, but that kid has to be able to demonstrate a certain level of knowledge on certain subjects, usually by a certain age. Private and charter schools, as well as home schooling organizations are set up to try to fulfill those requirements and how you choose to educate your kid is still your choice. No government agency will take you to task on that issue unless your kid fails to meet the minimum standards on or before the established deadlines.

I kinda think basic healthcare is like that, as well – not an individual right, but a societal obligation which is not (necessarily) based on a do-gooder ideal but rather established via evidence and research.

It’s not like we haven’t done that before.

In addition to setting age- and grade- related educational standards, governments have set minimum educational standards for exiting the educational system. Not surprisingly, the standards are different in different countries, and the minimum rises over time. In the 1970’s some of my neighbors dropped out of school after 8th grade and it was perfectly legal. I think the minimum for California is 10th grade now – and just about every parent would like his/her progeny to do more than just the minimum standards and go all the way through 12th grade and earn a diploma. Some would even like their kid to get a degree from a college or university.

Over decades, biologists and medical experts have been able to develop drugs that can prevent people from catching deadly diseases. Along with those preventive measures we have developed timelines and minimum standards for vaccination of our children – not just to keep them safe but also to keep them from harboring and transmitting those diseases to others. And the ultimate goal is to eradicate the disease sources altogether.

Decades ago economists started with Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, correlated the lowest level of Basic Needs (food, water, shelter) with observations and survey results of the population of the United States and came up with a Minimum Standard of Living. Then they calculated the cost – at the time – of achieving that minimum standard and that became the Cost of Living Index. Not surprisingly, that figure is different* in different parts of the country. Furthermore, that figure changes (usually going up) year after year. Wage and Salary negotiations often include a “Cost of Living Adjustment” (COLA) for this reason – and there are those who would like our society to support more than just the minimal essentials of survival and move to the next level (safety/security/health) of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. We go all the way through safety and security by training people# to use weapons, vehicles, special techniques and tactics, and special authority. We even support health by maintaining personnel (EMTs) for the most urgent matters. Some would even like the next generation to have their health supported beyond just essentials and emergencies.

The USA, which is a First World nation, is shamed by failing to do this while nations that it calls ‘Second World’ powers have been ensuring and insuring their constituents’ health for decades. It’s pitiful to be a third world nation that is simply unable to do that. But to boast of being the planet’s dominant First World superpower and simultaneously just plain unwilling to provide healthcare for your people is actually quite disgusting. And to do so because there’s no apparent and immediate profit from it, well that’s just Capitalism at its best!

–G!
*Take arguments about The Minimum Wage to another thread.
#Face them out toward other countries and we call them a militia; face them in toward our neighbors and friends and we call them a police force.

40

Literally every country with a functional UHC system is Capitalist.