Is access to health care a fundamental right

[PBEA]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Maybe we should put a limit on # of times per year you are allowed to show up in the ER and the government still pay for it.

So people understand that the ER is not their primary care doctors. Of course it doesn't mean that you can't show up on the eleventh time.. just don't expect medicaid/medicare to pay for it.

I think this a perfect example of agreement between the government and the doctors, ie limiting frivolous visits, but allowing necessary ones. The "gatekeeper" is you, you both have control over who gets seen and why. The are other ways to limit healthcare as well, for instance someone mentioned CKD, HD surgery or tx etc., provided with certain "criteria" some might and some might not recieve tx. I think this is referred to as a "battlefield decision" in the military. If people want "extras" or uncovered txs, then they pay for it (in cash preferably😉 ).

 

[curious1]

health care is definitely not a right... thats like saying having a strong military for national defense is a right... it depends on someone else to provide it for you... thus disqualifying it... duh

 

[beetlerum]

I think this a perfect example of agreement between the government and the doctors, ie limiting frivolous visits, but allowing necessary ones. The "gatekeeper" is you, you both have control over who gets seen and why. The are other ways to limit healthcare as well, for instance someone mentioned CKD, HD surgery or tx etc., provided with certain "criteria" some might and some might not recieve tx. I think this is referred to as a "battlefield decision" in the military. If people want "extras" or uncovered txs, then they pay for it (in cash preferably😉 ).

You really think an excess of healthcare is the problem? If people had doctors, they wouldn't go to the emergency room. Perhaps we need better screening systems in EDs.

 

[Jejton]

Health care can't be a right because it requires somebody to provide it who may not want to.

Someone can make the same argument in regards to any government provided service. Police and fire service, for example, require the actions of others to protect your right, yet noone questions the governments obligation to provide those. The rights of the service people are not being infringed on, nor are they being enslaved, because they have the freedom to choose the line of work in which they engage.

The question then becomes whether the government has an obligation to provide health service, not whether doctors are required to provide it at their own cost. Once it is agreed that the governement has the obligation to provide some level of health care, then it is the govt's responsibility to pay providers to provide that service which is basically what medicare or medicaid do. Once a doctor agrees to accept medicaid or medicare they are under contract to provide their services whether or not they agree that the government should be paying for it.

 

[Jejton]

I am reading a very interesting book right now that addresses many of the issues brought up here.

" Critical Condition: How Health Care in America became Big Business - and Bad Medicine " - Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele

 

[Jejton]

That 45 million uninsured issue is mostly a behavioral problem. People can afford insurance of some type, they have other priorities. . . their problem in my opinion. We need to stop with the crutch, bs, tell people to sack up and get their priorities straight. We have requirements for car insurance, yet there are many uninsured motorists on the road. Should the government scrap the whole private car insurance model because of the idiots that choose to drive without it? People are stupid, let's not subsidize that by ruining our healthcare system and making people who worked hard for their degrees and career provide free or wage-fixed services for all those stupid people out there.


In no way do I think the health care industry should be administered by the government. Medicaid rates are highway robbery. Do we want this universally? The day that happens, I'm going to a different career.

Let me set you straight. Most of those 45 million people dont make enough to pay for health insurance out of pocket for their families, dont work for a company that offers it as a benefit, but make too much to get government provided health insurance.

Then there are the millions of underinsured people who happily pay their high priced premiums thinking they have adequate coverage. One day a catostraphic illness comes along - say a car accident or as in my case cancer. Then they suddenly find out that their insurance company finds all sorts of interesting reasons why they dont have to cover things. Then they find all sorts of limitations for the things they DO cover, whether it is medication, scans, procedures, etc.

While I know this is a very complicated matter which raises emotions on all sides, please remember that it is that - a complicated issue which has no easy solutions and lots of real people who suffer as a result.

 

[Jejton]

I pay taxes should free food be my right? What about free transportation or free condoms so I can have safe sex?

Actually many students ( at least here in NYC ) get those things.

 

[Faebinder]

Let me set you straight. Most of those 45 million people dont make enough to pay for health insurance out of pocket for their families, dont work for a company that offers it as a benefit, but make too much to get government provided health insurance.

Then there are the millions of underinsured people who happily pay their high priced premiums thinking they have adequate coverage. One day a catostraphic illness comes along - say a car accident or as in my case cancer. Then they suddenly find out that their insurance company finds all sorts of interesting reasons why they dont have to cover things. Then they find all sorts of limitations for the things they DO cover, whether it is medication, scans, procedures, etc.

While I know this is a very complicated matter which raises emotions on all sides, please remember that it is that - a complicated issue which has no easy solutions and lots of real people who suffer as a result.

I hate to say this and I know people will happily shoot me for saying this but in my eyes there needs to be two systems in the US.... for those who are willing to be insured... and those who aren't willing to be insured.

Unwilling to be insured goes to government funded hospitals that do the MINIMUM in accordance to what the physicians feel is in the best interest of the person and the overall system... This would be a government controlled system. Don't expect to have the BEST TREATMENT money can afford with this system... it's what you accepted by being unwilling/unable to be insured. Unaffordable tests might be ordered less.

Willing to be insured on the other hand should have a private system where EVERYTHING is done to the best of system's ability. The private system will vary between different providers/hospitals but it will be at a level above the government system.

Currently, that's what we have.... But the government system BLOWS! Why? Because the people using the government system are expecting the same care as the private system... AND they can sue you for not providing that level of care.

We need to fix that problem.

 

[Jejton]

There is obviously a point where spending on healthcare becomes counter- productive. I'm not sure that the 80 year olds taking 10 meds and showing up in my hospital ER 3 times a week are benefiting the economy. From an economic perspective, there is a correct amount of care that will provide the best quality of life for the most people. Overall, the proper amount of spending on healthcare, like anything else, is best determined in a truly free market. If we got away from both the "right to healthcare," and the "equal access" arguments for 10 seconds, I think we'd find that the overall quality of care would go up (though unequally) and would cost an awful lot less. As long as everyone is still entitled to $300,000 worth of chemo to prolong their lives by 2 months, we will bankrupt the system. That is unfortunately, not the way to do the greatest good to most people.

Since everyone here loves the free market I will bring in an example to counter your argument. Many people devoted their entire adult lives ( and often health ) working for such companies as Ford, Enron, etc. with the expectation that their benefits will continue as stipulated in their contracts. These benefits included health insurance, pensions, etc. I think we can safely assume that most of these people would not have worked as hard or as long for those companies had they any doubts about their future benefits.

Likewise with government services. A citizen that knows his government will provide certain services upon retirement in return for his being a good, taxpaying, medicare, social security paying, law abiding citizen will be more secure and more likely to remain a good citizen of said country.

 

[Faebinder]

Since everyone here loves the free market I will bring in an example to counter your argument. Many people devoted their entire adult lives ( and often health ) working for such companies as Ford, Enron, etc. with the expectation that their benefits will continue as stipulated in their contracts. These benefits included health insurance, pensions, etc. I think we can safely assume that most of these people would not have worked as hard or as long for those companies had they any doubts about their future benefits.

Likewise with government services. A citizen that knows his government will provide certain services upon retirement in return for his being a good, taxpaying, medicare, social security paying, law abiding citizen will be more secure and more likely to remain a good citizen of said country.

Those are the same people who voted for their government and were okay with its style of spending or did they just fall asleep for years?

 

[somemaybedoc]

Someone can make the same argument in regards to any government provided service. Police and fire service, for example, require the actions of others to protect your right, yet noone questions the governments obligation to provide those. The rights of the service people are not being infringed on, nor are they being enslaved, because they have the freedom to choose the line of work in which they engage.

The question then becomes whether the government has an obligation to provide health service, not whether doctors are required to provide it at their own cost. Once it is agreed that the governement has the obligation to provide some level of health care, then it is the govt's responsibility to pay providers to provide that service which is basically what medicare or medicaid do. Once a doctor agrees to accept medicaid or medicare they are under contract to provide their services whether or not they agree that the government should be paying for it.

It is not a matter of obligation.

There is no right to police and fire services.

It is something that people want provided to them.

The reason that police services are provided by the government is because their activites are intrinsically linked to the law of society, and thus must act to police the private sector.

Fire services are often provided by the gov't due to certain characteristics of those services. For example saving one house positively effects the house next to it, even if under a private system that houses owners had not paid for fire services. Also economies of scale often neccesitate monopolies in providing fire services; to have private competition, you would need multiple, independent companies providing fire services to the same area, not too efficient.

 

[flighterdoc]

Someone can make the same argument in regards to any government provided service. Police and fire service, for example, require the actions of others to protect your right, yet noone questions the governments obligation to provide those. The rights of the service people are not being infringed on, nor are they being enslaved, because they have the freedom to choose the line of work in which they engage.

The question then becomes whether the government has an obligation to provide health service, not whether doctors are required to provide it at their own cost. Once it is agreed that the governement has the obligation to provide some level of health care, then it is the govt's responsibility to pay providers to provide that service which is basically what medicare or medicaid do. Once a doctor agrees to accept medicaid or medicare they are under contract to provide their services whether or not they agree that the government should be paying for it.

Police and fire services are not a right, and various court decisions as well as federal and state laws insulate the government from liability when they fail to protect you. Nor is the government liable when they don't provide EMS service (although private EMS services ARE liable under tort claims).

It's called governmental immunity.

Nor is the government liable when the health care provider (or legal aid lawyer, for that matter) that they provide you with screws the pooch and you die.

 

[flighterdoc]

Let me set you straight. Most of those 45 million people dont make enough to pay for health insurance out of pocket for their families, dont work for a company that offers it as a benefit, but make too much to get government provided health insurance.

Then there are the millions of underinsured people who happily pay their high priced premiums thinking they have adequate coverage. One day a catostraphic illness comes along - say a car accident or as in my case cancer. Then they suddenly find out that their insurance company finds all sorts of interesting reasons why they dont have to cover things. Then they find all sorts of limitations for the things they DO cover, whether it is medication, scans, procedures, etc.

While I know this is a very complicated matter which raises emotions on all sides, please remember that it is that - a complicated issue which has no easy solutions and lots of real people who suffer as a result.

How many of your 'many' have cable TV, cell phones, car payments, house payments, $200 sneakers, smoke, drink to excess or take illegal drugs?

And about 12 million of the uninsured are illegal aliens....

Lets take these two groups out of the issue, and then we can figure out how to provide assitance to those who truly need it. Oh wait, we do: EMTALA and Medicare.

 

[flighterdoc]

Since everyone here loves the free market I will bring in an example to counter your argument. Many people devoted their entire adult lives ( and often health ) working for such companies as Ford, Enron, etc. with the expectation that their benefits will continue as stipulated in their contracts. These benefits included health insurance, pensions, etc. I think we can safely assume that most of these people would not have worked as hard or as long for those companies had they any doubts about their future benefits.

Likewise with government services. A citizen that knows his government will provide certain services upon retirement in return for his being a good, taxpaying, medicare, social security paying, law abiding citizen will be more secure and more likely to remain a good citizen of said country.

As LBJ once said "Any government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take it away from you".

And that what is happening in countries with socialized medicine, like Canada and the UK. Rationing, extensive delays, and the option to pay for two systems in the UK, taxes for the NHS and private insurance so you don't die waiting for 'elective' surgery like a hip replacement.

 

[Miami_med]

Since everyone here loves the free market I will bring in an example to counter your argument. Many people devoted their entire adult lives ( and often health ) working for such companies as Ford, Enron, etc. with the expectation that their benefits will continue as stipulated in their contracts. These benefits included health insurance, pensions, etc. I think we can safely assume that most of these people would not have worked as hard or as long for those companies had they any doubts about their future benefits.

Likewise with government services. A citizen that knows his government will provide certain services upon retirement in return for his being a good, taxpaying, medicare, social security paying, law abiding citizen will be more secure and more likely to remain a good citizen of said country.

I don't understand your argument. Are you saying that people with defined benefits work harder? Please go to ANY place at all where workers have defined benefits and immunity from losing them and compare them to those who are paid based on productivity.

Also, an employee CHOOSES to work for Ford. You are taxed by the government even if you would have decided NOT to accept the deal. In the case of Ford, these benefits were provided in a free market in order to attract workers of a certain ethic, skill, and background. The government just takes money and decides what it wants to do.

As a final point, health benefits didn't become widespread through jobs until the depression. Government wage control forced employers to look for alternative ways to attract employees. That whole bizarre system is the result of government intervention into the market. We can all see how well it is holding together.