Is Health Care a Right or a Privilege

[nlax30]

Tricky topic..... but I view it as a Privilege.

Something can't be a right if it requires or depends on a service someone else provides. Just my opinion though.

Beyond this, I think a bigger issue is that people need to take responsibility for their lives. There are always going to be exceptions and those cases where something bad happens to someone and due to tough life circumstances they just need the help and healthcare but can't afford it, the system is already handles that. Then there are those that may be considered "poor", though if they truly wanted to, could afford insurance/healthcare but instead choose not to and then rely on the system to support them.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[DocRawk]

It is absolutely a tricky question. I fall somewhere in the middle. Universal health insurance is not the answer to the problem though. Health insurance IS THE PROBLEM. When we see a physician, half of the reason it costs so much is the fact that we're paying the filing clerk at the hospital or practice, the screeners that approve or deny charges, their bosses, and eventually CEO's and stockholders. If we only paid physicians for health care, the cost would not be so horrible. When you see a health care provider, you should be paying the health care provider...not some douche bag company that contributed half a million dollars to both sides in the last round of elections.

 

[DocRawk]

Then there are those that may be considered "poor", though if they truly wanted to, could afford insurance/healthcare but instead choose not to and then rely on the system to support them.

Exactly. There are those who abide by a broken system, and then there are those that manipulate a broken system. Everyone loses.

 

[t-funk]

It is absolutely a tricky question. I fall somewhere in the middle. Universal health insurance is not the answer to the problem though. Health insurance IS THE PROBLEM. When we see a physician, half of the reason it costs so much is the fact that we're paying the filing clerk at the hospital or practice, the screeners that approve or deny charges, their bosses, and eventually CEO's and stockholders. If we only paid physicians for health care, the cost would not be so horrible. When you see a health care provider, you should be paying the health care provider...not some douche bag company that contributed half a million dollars to both sides in the last round of elections.

This is pretty similar to how I feel. I think health care is a right that should have a fair price, but so many people's hands are held out trying to collect their share that that the prices have become inordinate. This is leading to decent hard working individuals who can not get health care that they deserve w/o sacrificing some of their necessities of life. As someone else mentioned, the insurance companies will try to find any reason to drop someone once that person comes down will a serious illness even if that person has paid their premium for years. This type of behavior should not be allowed. Health care reform should really be health insurance reform, IMHO. Lobbyists in Washington, however, will try to make sure that never happens.

 

[Jack Daniel]

For those of you who don't see healthcare as a right, any comments about this United Nations interpretation?

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, proclaimed that “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one’s family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care.” Source link

 

[predodoc]

They also don't have to pay them benefits (like insurance) or give them holidays and vacations. Those things are usually worth well more than 10% of your salary.

They give her a stipend for insurance but she buys her own. No paid vacations but paid national holidays. I doubt thats worth 10%.

She basicly said it has to do with the govnt not letting cdc hire more employees. But they need ppl to do extra work and they have the money available to spend, so they hire private contractor ppl who do the same work as the actual employee in the cubical next door. Its actually hard to get an official job there(at least with just a masters). This is since its about impossible to get fired, and they cant creat new jobs unless its through private contractors.

 

[look4wisdom]

This is a response to the United Nations resolution. Last time I checked the UN wasn't responsible for setting American domestic policy. If the UN would like to help Americans afford health insurance that would be nice. I wouldn't hold my breath. Thats the great thing about lofty ideals; you can advance all these warm and fuzzy emotional appeals that make the masses weep, but dont have to worry about implementing or paying for them.

 

[FinchHead]

The problem is that medical technology is growing extremly fast. No cutting edge technology is every really availible to lower class people, until a long time after it is created. It has always been the folly of the rich.

Health care is no different, but people want it to be. I believe in free basic care for everyone, but very expensive measures that will simply prolong life for a short period are an extreme burden on the system.

 

[DocRawk]

It's all about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$. But social and personal responsibility should come into play a lot more than they do. Lets say we do away with insurance all together. You pay higher taxes, and you pay for a certain amount of your health care out of pocket based upon a percentage of your overall household income figured into a formula taking into account the number of people in your household and their ages. After this amount is reached, the government pays for you. In my head, though it would never make the cut in such a blame passing society, that amount should also be influenced by whether or not you are over or under weight, whether you smoke, whether you adhere to your Rx regimen (taking cholesterol and hypertension drugs when needed), and a myriad of other things. The worse of a patient you are, the higher the out of pocket amount. You can't afford it? So sorry, you shouldn't have been a dumba$$. The problem here is that the person paying (Uncle Sam) gets to decide what's medically necessary after you hit that mark. You need to be on ventilation with a G-tube? Maybe Uncle Sam says only if you have a 51% chance of survival and recovery. There was a situation on BBC a while back with a man with ALS in Britain. He was scared to death that the National Health Service would unplug him after he looses the ability to communicate. His point was, "Just because I can't communicate doesn't mean I won't be aware of starving to death or suffocating if you unplug my life support." Financially it makes sense to unplug the guy. He won't contribute to society in any way once he is unable to communicate, and the money could go to fund treatment for someone with a better prognosis. Is it humane to unplug him? Will the NHS care either way? There isn't really an easy answer to any of this.

 

[Jack Daniel]

This is a response to the United Nations resolution. Last time I checked the UN wasn't responsible for setting American domestic policy. If the UN would like to help Americans afford health insurance that would be nice. I wouldn't hold my breath. Thats the great thing about lofty ideals; you can advance all these warm and fuzzy emotional appeals that make the masses weep, but dont have to worry about implementing or paying for them.

And I'm sure that's what my great-great-great grandfather, who owned a plantation in the South, said about those pesky nawthenors who advocated for a "lofty ideal" and wanted to free all the slaves. "Free the help?? Why, we can't suh-vive if we free all the help! How can we pay for all this?"

I think lofty ideas should come first. Next should come the resolve to figure out how to make it work.

 

[scpod]

They give her a stipend for insurance but she buys her own. No paid vacations but paid national holidays. I doubt thats worth 10%.

But, if she was an employee, her employer would also have to contribute a separate 6.2% for Social Security and 1.45% for medicare. Then, two weeks of paid vacation is about 4% of your anual salary. Also, employers are required by the state to contribute to unemployment insurance. Many typically pay for a portion of disability and life insurance as well....and don't forget the employer's contribution to the retirement plan. That's way more than 10% of her salary.

 

[look4wisdom]

Actually Jack Daniels there were many southerners who also supported the release of slaves. Copntrary to poular belief very few people, in relation to the population, actual owned slaves. In any event, it was not an economically sustainable method of procuring labor. It actual costs less to pay someone a salary than to house, feed and cloth them, even if, as many slave owners did, you give them the most basic of food etc. Using peoples advocacy of ending slavery is an entirely separate discussion from providing health care services on demand. But thanks for the standard emotional appeal...

 

[PBL DO]

I voted for "right", but I think it's more complex than the two choices presented.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.​

From the Declaration of Independence.​

Obviously people should have access to medical care, (a right), but that doesn't mean they shouldn't help pay for the costs involved. If our country could figure out how to reduce these astronomical costs, it would be a lot easier to work through this issue. But, even if healthcare isn't "a right" philosophically, it should be treated as such because having a healthy population (i.e. productive & happy) is in our nation's best interests.

Going by this logic I would say medical care is a privilege, not a right. You are endowed with the unalienable right of life insofar as no other person has the right to disturb your right of life (and liberty and the pursuit of happiness).

Providing the maintenance or restoration of life (health care), may be interpreted as a service many have the privilege of affording (and I don't mean strictly in the dollar and cents sense).

Just because you have the right to pursue life does not mean you have the right to others maintaining the integrity of that life free of any and all costs, that is a privilege (IMO).

 

[Jack Daniel]

Actually Jack Daniels there were many southerners who also supported the release of slaves. Copntrary to poular belief very few people, in relation to the population, actual owned slaves. In any event, it was not an economically sustainable method of procuring labor. It actual costs less to pay someone a salary than to house, feed and cloth them, even if, as many slave owners did, you give them the most basic of food etc. Using peoples advocacy of ending slavery is an entirely separate discussion from providing health care services on demand. But thanks for the standard emotional appeal...

OK. Sure, what you say may be well and true, though I suspect it's from the benefit of hindsight. I bet people back in the day didn't see it quite so analytically.

I don't see how it changes my argument, though. You were critical of universal health as a "lofty ideal". I'm suggesting that lofty ideas are often met with resistance, even ones that today (like slavery) seem obvious to most people. Regarding universal healthcare, perhaps in the future, our country will look back and wonder how we missed the boat for so long.

From the executive summary of The Right to Health in the United States of America: Despite spending far more per capita on health care than any other country, U.S. has some of the poorest health indicators in the industrialized world. It is the only industrialized nation to deny its citizens universal access to medical services. Fully one-third of the population lacks health insurance for at least part of the year. Of the 44 million who are completely uninsured, 78.8% work full or part-time. The lack of available care is especially acute for those living in rural areas, and for minorities. The disparities are so stark that whites in the U.S. are expected to live six years longer on average than African-Americans.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Going by this logic I would say medical care is a privilege, not a right. You are endowed with the unalienable right of life insofar as no other person has the right to disturb your right of life (and liberty and the pursuit of happiness).

Providing the maintenance or restoration of life (health care), may be interpreted as a service many have the privilege of affording (and I don't mean strictly in the dollar and cents sense).

Just because you have the right to pursue life does not mean you have the right to others maintaining the integrity of that life free of any and all costs, that is a privilege (IMO).

Do we not have in this country the "right" to a fair trial?
How much money does this legal system that the government supports cost?
How many people work for this system in order for the people to have this right?

Why must healthcare be different?

 

[167649]

Tricky topic..... but I view it as a Privilege.

Something can't be a right if it requires or depends on a service someone else provides. Just my opinion though.

You have a right to bear arms in this country. Exercising that right depends on a service that somebody provides, the people who train you to shoot, then the people who liscenced you to carry the gun, then the gunsmith who makes the gun, then the guy who sells it to you.

When you break it down, the exercise of all "rights" depends on the service of someone else in some way. Sufferage, trial by jury, the list goes on. So the argument that it cannot be a right just because it involves the provision of services doesn't hold up in and of itself. We already have a lot of rights that involve that.

I'd also like to retouch that just because something is a right doesn't mean its provision comes free. As far as us having the right to bear arms, that doesn't mean the government is handing out guns nor does it force anybody to give or even sell you a gun. So in a way, eventhough this is a "right" in our constitution, it is almost a priviledge to exercise that right. You have to be able to afford a gun and get a liscence to carry it.

In a hypothetical situation if we were to have the "right" to accesible healthcare, this doesn't mean it isn't priviledge-like to exercise that right and pay for medicine. Nor does it necessarily mean the government would hand out free healthcare, or that a physician is mandated to provide it.

I'd just like to point that out as we are discussing healthcare as a "right." People can confuse what it entails.

 

[PBL DO]

Do we not have in this country the "right" to a fair trial?
How much money does this legal system that the government supports cost?
How many people work for this system in order for the people to have this right?

Why must healthcare be different?

When you suggest the right to a fair trial you no longer go by the logic of your original post citing the Declaration of Independence. I indicated that my opinion was solely based on the logic of your original post.

I think that in order to better debate the subject we must accept a finite definition for "right". In the Declaration of Independence the founding fathers were not concerned with your right to a fair trial, right to travel, right to do anything besides those explicitly stated.

To quote Leonard Peikoff, Ph.D.notice these rights are rights to action, not rewards from other people.I attempted to explain in my previous post that your right to life does not mean that your neighbors have to preserve that right, it means you have the right to pursue it and that no one can forcibly stop your pursuit. You do not possess the right to the actions or products of others, except on terms to which they voluntarily agree.

 

[167649]

Nowhere in the constitution does it say you have the right to vote in a presidential election. Of course you have the right to vote in your local election.

Nobody actually votes for the president, except state electors. The presidential election is indirect. I don't want to get into the complexities of the presidential electoral college system, but when voting for president, you are technically voting in a state election. So are elections for federal congress, you vote for representatives of your state.

Sufferage by law does not rest with the federal government, it rests with the states. It is one of the original intentions of the founding fathers. We have the right to vote eventhough it may not say so in the constitution. (Although later amendments dissallow states (and eventually DC) from limiting sufferage).

 

[Playmakur42]

And I'm sure that's what .... said about those pesky nawthenors who advocated for a "lofty ideal" and wanted to free all the slaves.

Horrendous analogy -1 👎

 

[Jack Daniel]

Horrendous analogy -1 👎

It's certainly not a perfect analogy, but I don't think it's horrendous.
I think it illustrates the importance that many people (including me) attach to this issue.

When you suggest the right to a fair trial you no longer go by the logic of your original post citing the Declaration of Independence. I indicated that my opinion was solely based on the logic of your original post.

I think that in order to better debate the subject we must accept a finite definition for "right". In the Declaration of Independence the founding fathers were not concerned with your right to a fair trial, right to travel, right to do anything besides those explicitly stated.

To quote Leonard Peikoff, Ph.D.notice these rights are rights to action, not rewards from other people. I attempted to explain in my previous post that your right to life does not mean that your neighbors have to preserve that right, it means you have the right to pursue it and that no one can forcibly stop your pursuit. You do not possess the right to the actions or products of others, except on terms to which they voluntarily agree.

Absolutely 👍
My preference in this debate is to emphasize the need to treat it as if it were a right, regardless if it really is (see my very first post).

From the report I mentioned earlier: Despite spending far more per capita on health care than any other country, U.S. has some of the poorest health indicators in the industrialized world. It is the only industrialized nation to deny its citizens universal access to medical services.

I think it's in our nation's best interest to have universal care (in some sustainable form) for everyone.

 

[Ferrismonk]

For those of you who don't see healthcare as a right, any comments about this United Nations interpretation?

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, proclaimed that “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one’s family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care.” Source link

Article 29 Paragraph 3 of the declaration also states: "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." Think about that. It means that any of the rights mentioned are moot if it becomes inconvenient for the UN. Can you think of the problems we'd experience if our bill of rights were the same way? The UN declaration is not exactly the great document it is often made out to be. Nothing like our bill of rights.

Do we not have in this country the "right" to a fair trial?

We also have criminals that wait months, sometimes years, to get that trial. And when the trial actually does takes place, you get a disenchanted overworked underpaid public defender to represent you, unless you want to hire a lawyer yourself. Hmmm, sounds a lot like Canada's healthcare problems to me. 🙄

 

[nlax30]

You have a right to bear arms in this country. Exercising that right depends on a service that somebody provides, the people who train you to shoot, then the people who liscenced you to carry the gun, then the gunsmith who makes the gun, then the guy who sells it to you.

When you break it down, the exercise of all "rights" depends on the service of someone else in some way. Sufferage, trial by jury, the list goes on. So the argument that it cannot be a right just because it involves the provision of services doesn't hold up in and of itself. We already have a lot of rights that involve that.

I'd also like to retouch that just because something is a right doesn't mean its provision comes free. As far as us having the right to bear arms, that doesn't mean the government is handing out guns nor does it force anybody to give or even sell you a gun. So in a way, eventhough this is a "right" in our constitution, it is almost a priviledge to exercise that right. You have to be able to afford a gun and get a liscence to carry it.

In a hypothetical situation if we were to have the "right" to accesible healthcare, this doesn't mean it isn't priviledge-like to exercise that right and pay for medicine. Nor does it necessarily mean the government would hand out free healthcare, or that a physician is mandated to provide it.

I'd just like to point that out as we are discussing healthcare as a "right." People can confuse what it entails.

I'm referring more to the original rights the country was found on: life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.

I don't think we can really compare healthcare to something like the 2nd amendment (Right to bear arms). Like you said, the gov't isn't handing out guns or requiring firearm manufactures to provide free guns to people. We were given the "right" to bear arms, but the rest is left to play out on the free market. And even then, it is very much regulated by the gov't, so even they aren't really treating it as a right if there are all these stipulations and restrictions.

My worry is, if healthcare gets to be setup as a "right" according to the gov't, do you think they'll stay relatively out of it and let the free market operate? That's really my biggest gripe with those who want bigger gov't and things such as universal healthcare...... now it's the gov't deciding what people need and taking control of the healthcare industry.

Interesting article from Leonard Peikoff: http://www.bdt.com/pages/Peikoff.html

 

[look4wisdom]

The problem Jack is that Universal Care is not ultimately sustainable. Take a look at the current state of Social Security. Its full of congressional IOU's as they have borrowed against SS to cover budget shortfalls and finance pet projects. It has already been established by many top economists that SS will not survive without reductions of benefits. Take that same tax deduction from your paycheck and invest in quality mutual funds and you will see a much better return on your investment. Government is a fearsome friend and a terrible master to paraphrase George Washington. Turning over control, decision making, and distribution of a resource people are capable of managing themselves is not the best solution.

 

[Jack Daniel]

The problem Jack is that Universal Care is not ultimately sustainable. Take a look at the current state of Social Security. Its full of congressional IOU's as they have borrowed against SS to cover budget shortfalls and finance pet projects. It has already been established by many top economists that SS will not survive without reductions of benefits. Take that same tax deduction from your paycheck and invest in quality mutual funds and you will see a much better return on your investment. Government is a fearsome friend and a terrible master to paraphrase George Washington. Turning over control, decision making, and distribution of a resource people are capable of managing themselves is not the best solution.

We also have criminals that wait months, sometimes years, to get that trial. And when the trial actually does takes place, you get a disenchanted overworked underpaid public defender to represent you, unless you want to hire a lawyer yourself. Hmmm, sounds a lot like Canada's healthcare problems to me. 🙄

You both make excellent points and I certainly would argue that our current SS and legal systems need much improvement.

Article 29 Paragraph 3 of the declaration also states: "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." Think about that. It means that any of the rights mentioned are moot if it becomes inconvenient for the UN. Can you think of the problems we'd experience if our bill of rights were the same way? The UN declaration is not exactly the great document it is often made out to be. Nothing like our bill of rights.

Again, can't argue with you there.
I was using the UN document merely to suggest that thinking of healthcare as "a right" isn't such a crazy thing to think. It cites some good reasons that are hard to ignore or just explain away.

The UN is notorious for being a bureaucratic labyrinth that has no real authority and yet tries to work with almost 200 sovereign nations. I'm not sure exactly what that line you quoted means, but another explanation might simply be the UN is protecting itself from members who might choose a rigid interpretation of those rights and freedoms to the detriment of the document's intent.

 

[Jack Daniel]

...To quote Leonard Peikoff, Ph.D.notice these rights are rights to action, not rewards from other people. I attempted to explain in my previous post that your right to life does not mean that your neighbors have to preserve that right, it means you have the right to pursue it and that no one can forcibly stop your pursuit. You do not possess the right to the actions or products of others, except on terms to which they voluntarily agree.

...Interesting article from Leonard Peikoff: http://www.bdt.com/pages/Peikoff.html

To you folks quoting Peikoff, have you checked out The Lucidicus Project?
Sounds like something you would enjoy: http://lucidicus.org/lu/index.php

 

[167649]

I'm referring more to the original rights the country was found on: life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.

I don't think we can really compare healthcare to something like the 2nd amendment (Right to bear arms). Like you said, the gov't isn't handing out guns or requiring firearm manufactures to provide free guns to people. We were given the "right" to bear arms, but the rest is left to play out on the free market. And even then, it is very much regulated by the gov't, so even they aren't really treating it as a right if there are all these stipulations and restrictions.

My worry is, if healthcare gets to be setup as a "right" according to the gov't, do you think they'll stay relatively out of it and let the free market operate? That's really my biggest gripe with those who want bigger gov't and things such as universal healthcare...... now it's the gov't deciding what people need and taking control of the healthcare industry.

Interesting article from Leonard Peikoff: http://www.bdt.com/pages/Peikoff.html

If healthcare were made a right, it would be an amendment, like the right to bear arms, and not an original right the country was founded on. So I think healthcare-bear arms are actually more comparable.

I see your point though. One thing I notice though is that you equate "Universal healthcare" with "government takeover." UH does not necessarily mean the government runs the healthcare industry in one large national monopoly, UH simply means everyone is covered and has access. This can be done using free-market principles and the private sector.

Because of the sticky issues with "rights," an often unclear definition and the lack of a fine line between a right and a priviledge, I generally don't even bother thinking about if it should be a right or not. If making it a right means a government takeover, than I would oppose it because I oppose a government takeover. I think a homogenous monstrocity and federal monopoly would be financially unstable and insensitive to the individual patient. And I do not believe our federal govt should directly control 1/6 of our economy. But I am for "universal healthcare," a free-market type, for economic reasons.

The problem Jack is that Universal Care is not ultimately sustainable. Take a look at the current state of Social Security. Its full of congressional IOU's as they have borrowed against SS to cover budget shortfalls and finance pet projects. It has already been established by many top economists that SS will not survive without reductions of benefits. Take that same tax deduction from your paycheck and invest in quality mutual funds and you will see a much better return on your investment. Government is a fearsome friend and a terrible master to paraphrase George Washington. Turning over control, decision making, and distribution of a resource people are capable of managing themselves is not the best solution.

SS was never originally designed to be a form of retierment income (like mutual funds as you compared it to) but was social insurance, meant to keep bread on grandma's table (during the depression when over half of seniors were under poverty). The problem is that the program has expanded vastly over the last 70 years to cover more seniors and provide more benefits due to the general expectation that it should be like a retierment plan (although it was never intended as such). So we keep paying more and more for it, yet with an aging population it's benefits remain small.

It is a problem, but incomparable to most health care plans because it is a system that has long ballooned from it's original purpose, as a result of people expecting it to deliver something it was never designed to do.

 

[look4wisdom]

Actual mutual funds primary purpose is to help one develop wealth, a surplus. If you want to use that surplus to finance retirement, thats up to you. If you want to use it to buy a home, car, or vacation to Tahiti, you may choose to do that. However, you are correct that the original purpose of SS has been greatly expanded from FDR's primary purpose for the fund. That is not though, a situation unique in history. Whenever large pots of money have come under the authority of government they have been abused and spent on things other than what they were designated for. Im merely suggesting that a Universal Healthcare Fund would not be any different. Once we eliminate the private health insurance industry and have to rely solely on UHF, subject to to the wims of government white shirts, you will have no choice. I dont much care for that idea...

 

[hilseb]

A lot of these dire predictions and social assumptions do not happen in any of the other "civilized" countries that have all have universal coverage.

We spend the most money and get the least. Doctors aren't benefiting, patients aren't benefiting, only private insurance companies.

Here is a great (but depressing) study on the thousands of deaths in our country each year due to lack of insurance:

http://www.urban.org/publications/411588.html

 

[RockfordWF]

A lot of these dire predictions and social assumptions do not happen in any of the other "civilized" countries that have all have universal coverage.

We spend the most money and get the least. Doctors aren't benefiting, patients aren't benefiting, only private insurance companies.

Here is a great (but depressing) study on the thousands of deaths in our country each year due to lack of insurance:

http://www.urban.org/publications/411588.html

This is way off. The countries that have universal coverage has less free enterprise and thus less development of technology. This is turn provides lesser quality healthcare than the US can provide. In addition, with the high taxes and lower salaries, there is no competition for the best physicians in these countries, since they can move to the US for a better quality of life.

 

[look4wisdom]

🙂

 

[look4wisdom]

I checked out the link posted above. Dorn is either intellectually dishonest or incompetent. Didn't he learn that a co-relationship does not equal causality. People die for a whole host of reasons, not just due to their ability to afford healthcare insurance. The study is further flawed by the assumptions he makes with the population numbers and his use of statistical multipliers. An interesting study may be to compare the number of deaths of those waiting for treatment, diagnosis, or advanced imaging technologies in those Utopian societys that have embraced UH, since there helping to fund the system thats failing them.

 

[hilseb]

This is way off. The countries that have universal coverage has less free enterprise and thus less development of technology. This is turn provides lesser quality healthcare than the US can provide. In addition, with the high taxes and lower salaries, there is no competition for the best physicians in these countries, since they can move to the US for a better quality of life.

Nice rhetoric, but every analysis of the quality of health care around the world ranks us below all these countries with universal health care. Saying it ain't so and BSing about "competition" doesn't mean doodlysquat when we pay 3 to 6 times more here for inferior health care.

And, physicians are doing great in the EU and Canada - they are not beating down any doors to come here. Our tax rate isn't too low for people making over a certain amount of $$ per year, but we have hardly anything to show for it, compared to these countries. Oh, and most of them pay for your med school. I would move there to avoid crushing student loan debt if I could.

Don't make stuff up.

BTW, that study did a pretty good job explaining causality. Not only are people DYING from lack of coverage, but we are paying for it with - guess what? - our taxes. End stage disease that are out of control are much more expensive to cover with Medicaid than preventive maintenance would be.

 

[homeboy]

Nice rhetoric, but every analysis of the quality of health care around the world ranks us below all these countries with universal health care. Saying it ain't so and BSing about "competition" doesn't mean doodlysquat when we pay 3 to 6 times more here for inferior health care.

Ok, how ‘bout you provide me with some of these “analyses.”
Inferior? Have you ever tried getting a CT in rural England? Ever had to wait on the transplant list in Canada? If our healthcare is “inferior” to that of the socialized nations…whether it be Germany, England, whatever…I’d ask you to explain HOW it’s inferior. Something costing more doesn't equate to inferior.

And, physicians are doing great in the EU and Canada - they are not beating down any doors to come here. Our tax rate isn't too low for people making over a certain amount of $$ per year, but we have hardly anything to show for it, compared to these countries. Oh, and most of them pay for your med school. I would move there to avoid crushing student loan debt if I could.

What’s stopping you? You talk awful big for someone lacking testicles. (figure of speech, so if you're a woman, chill out)

BTW, that study did a pretty good job explaining causality. Not only are people DYING from lack of coverage, but we are paying for it with - guess what? - our taxes. End stage disease that are out of control are much more expensive to cover with Medicaid than preventive maintenance would be.

FYI… our mortality rate for cancer and major end state diseases is several percentage points lower than most EU countries.

 

[Tired]

This:

Nice rhetoric, but every analysis of the quality of health care around the world ranks us below all these countries with universal health care.

plus this:

Saying it ain't so and BSing about "competition" doesn't mean doodlysquat when we pay 3 to 6 times more here for inferior health care.

and these:

And, physicians are doing great in the EU and Canada - they are not beating down any doors to come here.

Our tax rate isn't too low for people making over a certain amount of $$ per year, but we have hardly anything to show for it, compared to these countries.

Juxtaposed with

Don't make stuff up.

= definition of irony

 

[Jpc984]

That's my 10 cents, (due to inflation). I am surprised you made it through this rant - well done.

Caboose.

With all due respect, I do not accept your 10 cents, even with your correction for inflation. I will only accept the Euro or gold.

 

[Pansit]

I know for sure that I am not going to medical school for the money. So of course healthcare is right. It's a right because doctors CHOOSE to go into medicine to help those in need of their services. Nowhere on the hippocratic oath does it say to withold treatment if a patient cannot pay.

 

[Whaty]

I know for sure that I am not going to medical school for the money. So of course healthcare is right. It's a right because doctors CHOOSE to go into medicine to help those in need of their services. Nowhere on the hippocratic oath does it say to withold treatment if a patient cannot pay.

Most of us choose to go into medicine to help others but without reparations for the service rendered? I doubt that very much. Everything in this world has a cost, its just who has to pay the cost is the question. Even back in the day when medicine was killing more people than helping they still got some sort of good for the service they provided.

On another note yes it would be wonderful if everyone had health insurance but its not a right. Just like life insurance, its not a right to own it but it is certianly nice to have so you don't leave the financial burdon on family. Also government seems to screw up just about anything they touch and the government would most likley put even more restrictions on how we as physicians treat patients.

 

[Instatewaiter]

Do we not have in this country the "right" to a fair trial?
How much money does this legal system that the government supports cost?
How many people work for this system in order for the people to have this right?

Why must healthcare be different?

This is an good point. There however is a flaw in the argument. The right to fair trial is there specifically to protect one person from having their liberty seized by another (specifically the Gov't). So not having a fair trial will result in having your liberty seized. While this requires people to supply their services, it is required to preserve our inalienable right to liberty. Heath care is not required to ensure our right to life. Not having healthcare will not prevent you from keeping your right to life. Sure it may shorten your life but then again you arent given the right to live as long as you want. You are just insured that no one can take your life.

I know for sure that I am not going to medical school for the money. So of course healthcare is right. It's a right because doctors CHOOSE to go into medicine to help those in need of their services. Nowhere on the hippocratic oath does it say to withold treatment if a patient cannot pay.

Of course having a nice car is a right. It is a right because auto workers CHOOSE to go into auto making to help those in need of a car. Nowhere in their employment contract does it say withhold the car if a consumer cannot pay.
Where the hell is my mercedes?


In the end, healthcare is going to be like education. It is beneficial for everyone in the country to have the opportunity to go to school. It is not a right but it is probably in the best interest of the country for everyone to have it.

 

[hilseb]

Ok, how ‘bout you provide me with some of these “analyses.”
Inferior? Have you ever tried getting a CT in rural England? Ever had to wait on the transplant list in Canada? If our healthcare is “inferior” to that of the socialized nations…whether it be Germany, England, whatever…I’d ask you to explain HOW it’s inferior. Something costing more doesn't equate to inferior.




What’s stopping you? You talk awful big for someone lacking testicles. (figure of speech, so if you're a woman, chill out)


FYI… our mortality rate for cancer and major end state diseases is several percentage points lower than most EU countries.

I am talking big??

Show me the stats if you are not making it up. Show me ONE international analysis that says our health care is doing better than any country in the EU or Canada.

Here's a good one from the WHO:

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

How about this article?

http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S. HCweb.pdf

Hmm, for life expectancy, it seems that the U.S. is ranked...24th! Hooray for us! That's almost like being the best, right? Oh, no, only if you're making stuff up.

http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/pr2000-life.html

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Sans Serif]"The position of the United States is one of the major surprises of the new rating system," says Christopher Murray, M.D., Ph.D., Director of WHO's Global Programme on Evidence for Health Policy. "Basically, you die earlier and spend more time disabled if you’re an American rather than a member of most other advanced countries.".
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Sans Serif]The WHO cites various causes for why the United States ranks relatively low among wealthy nations..


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Sans Serif]Oh, that silly evidence based information! But, but, what about the competition???.


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Sans Serif]By the way, I am a woman, and the reason I have not moved to Europe for my education is that I am also a mother, and my family is rooted here in the U.S. So, I will keep trying to improve our situation here.
.

 

[look4wisdom]

Response posted below...

 

[look4wisdom]

If the socialist utopias are so wonderful please explain why members of these nations continue to come to the US to recieve treatment. It is because our system has produced technological innovation, great leaps in basic science knowledge, and a first rate medical education system ( including graduate medical education ) found lacking in their home countries. By all means stay and promote your socialist ideals Hilseb, I will continue to oppose and frustrate your attempts to destroy the system that has resulted in innovation, giant leap in medical knowledge, and the best medical education system in the world...

 

[Whaty]

If the socialist utopias are so wonderful please explain why members of these nations continue to come to the US to recieve treatment. It is because our system has produced technological innovation, great leaps in basic science knowledge, and a first rate medical education system ( including graduate medical education ) found lacking in their home countries. By all means stay and promote your socialist ideals Hilseb, I will continue to oppose and frustrate your attempts to destroy the system that has resulted in innovation, giant leap in medical knowledge, and the best medical education system in the world...

I agree look4wisdom👍.

Hilsebs post with links doesn't say anything about how heavily things are weighted and on top of that if people took their own health more seriously they would budget money for health insurance and those that can't are the ones that are on medicaid. The reason the chart is so skewed is that people don't consider their health that important until death is knocking on the door so people decide to have nice things instead of a health insurance plan.

 

[homeboy]

So, I will keep trying to improve our situation here.
.

You’re right, hilseb—compared to some other countries, our life expectancy is not #1, nor is our arbitrary rating by the WHO, nor the mortality rate for treating breast cancer. So what?
Just because we pay for our health insurance rather than have the government distribute it doesn’t mean there is some automatic assumption we should have the #1 ranked healthcare in the world.

Most of the countries on those lists border on or are outright socialistic, and the US has consistently bucked the Marxist trends because that’s what our country is founded upon—individualism vs collectivism. Does that mean we can’t make improvements? Absolutely not—we have a ways to go. But nor does it mean we should jump ship and adopt a principle that is contradictory to the ideals of this country.

Socialized medicine isn’t free, and nor is it a guarantee that our medical problems will magically disappear because our “ranking” might move up a few spots in the eyes of the WHO.

Have you ever worked in the VA or been in the military? I’ve done both. The VA is a microcosm of US government-run health care, and it’s horrible. But not only is it inefficient, it is rationed—rationing is the primary result of government intervention. Look at every government program instituted in the last 100 years: public education, medicare and Medicaid, social security…I could go on. Those programs, despite the billions of dollars, bureaucracy and red tape thrown their way every year, are falling apart or patched yearly by more government bureaucracy.

Is the middle man going to disappear just because the govt takes more taxes and tells us which doctor to see? Not a chance…the government is the largest middle-man we face. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which have been inappropriately referenced throughout this thread, are documents that (on the whole) establish freedom from government control, not authorization for it.

 

[DocFox]

It is my belief that that God has a reason for everything, perhaps we have genetic disorders to teach us something about ourselves and how we relate to the world.D!

Ouch! I would hate for you to be my doc informing me that my poor child had a genetic disorder in order to teach it something.😡

Anyways, I agree with most of what everyone else is saying about healthcare being a privilege however I don't think it's that simple. Health care can also have a large effect on public health issues. Not everyone is informed enough to understand when they need to get their butts in to the doctor and with costs today they have even less incentive. My point being that easily attainable (but not necessarily universal coverage) health care would help to curb the spread of a many diseases. It's a minor point but I still think it's worthy of consideration.

 

[scpod]

Too many of the arguments against the American healthcare system are based on life expectancy. That article that Hilseb quoted where the U.S. is 24th in life expectancy is based on a formula for "healthy" life expectancy. As Americans age they have many more problems than other countries because they treated their bodies like crap for years. The sad truth is that Americans lead a horrible lifestyle. They are going to die earlier than many other countries simply due to the smoking, drinking and eating habits which continue to ruin their lives. However, the healtcare system is NOT to blame for this. The healthcare system is keeping these horribly unhealthy people alive in the U.S. with technology that you can't get in many of the "healthier" nations.

When you actually look at the five criteria the WHO used in that report....some of it is just silly to me. They have criteria like who is paying the bill and how fair the financial distribution is. There's no wonder why socialist nations are at the top of the list. But, the US is a leader in one category, responsiveness, which includes a strong availability of resources and two major components: "These are (a) respect for persons (including dignity, confidentiality and autonomy of individuals and families to decide about their own health); and (b) client orientation (including prompt attention, access to social support networks during care, quality of basic amenities and choice of provider)."

Personally, that means a whole lot more to me than some of the other criteria.

Quote me all the statistics you have, but tell me that you would rather be taken care of in France when you suffer an MI or ovarian cancer than in the U.S. and I....I just don't have words for that.

 

[Old_Mil]

I'm in this really interesting class considering this issue and in light of all the politics going on right now, and I was curious what my future colleagues thoughts were on the subject. Please vote, and if you choose 'other', please explain.

We send $14 billion a year in foreign aid...to Egypt. Start adding in the other countries that we prop up with our taxes and pretty soon you're talking about some real money. As long as these numbers are anything above "zero", we don't have a health care "crisis" in America...or an education crisis...or any other sort of "crisis" the cure for which involves money.

 

[Dr. Pickle]

i think the original question is too vague--- are we talking about people in the US? or that it is a natural born right? because then i feel that it would be a privilege.

I think that every nation should protect its citizens: and that includes health care- therefore in this case- it is a right the citizens have to demand it from their government. but then could the government say that it is only obligated to the citizens that pay taxes?

 

[sexyman]

I am frightened that many of you "right" people are going to be my future colleagues.

 

[typeB-md]

this is such a tired debate... but here are the main points.

leading causes of death in america are: heart attack, cancer (lung being the most prevalent), and stroke. every single one of these has HUGELY modifiable aspects. it's hard to say whether healthcare or personal choice plays a more important role, but to state, outright, that it is a result of our healthcare system simply means you are an ignorant *****.

re: cost of american healthcare, almost half our yearly budget is spent on people in their last year of life. ICU stays aren't free, you know. qAM labs, qAM chest films, the overabundance of helical CT, etc. all pile onto the expenses. Traumas aren't free either. And until our legal and ethical situation changes, there is not going to be any reducation in these expenses. Put more bluntly, a physician would rather waste $1000s of other people's dollars than risk a lawsuit for missing even a potentially remote problem. Also more bluntly, americans are extremely selfish and unrealistic; the average america wants everything done (so long as they're not the one paying) even when there is no appreciable outlook for a quality life.

The bottom line is that our society's social outlook and expectations are what drive the excessively high healthcare costs we have.

Here's what I mean. For the cost of keeping one 25 week preemie alive we could nearly fund entire childhood healthcare (0-18 years) for 1000 kids. Good luck letting a 25 week preemie die when "it could be saved!" You might as well just burn your license on the spot.

Oh, and regarding technology, good luck finding another nation with per-capita CT, MRI, and specialists like the US has.

 

[claudian]

Totally agree, I live in California, where the income tax can reach up to 50%, Brothers and sisters, 50%!!!
It is like every time you eat a piece of bread you HAVE to cut half off and throw it away...
That's why I really think we should all be very careful on who we vote! I don't mean naively watching FOX and getting blood rushing to the head. Like someone mentioned, execution execution execution!!! Do they actually have a plan? If so, What is the plan? We don't need Plato in our current economy state.
I know we are all very busy, but there are easy ways for us to follow up with the campaign,

If you have only 5 mins per day, follow on this Election 2008 site. On this site you can compare and choose your favorite candidate for the 2008 Presidential elections by answering a personalized sequence of questions on policy and programs.

They also host a blog on Election 2008, a great entry point as well. It summarizes major differences between candidates, for example Top Five Issues on which Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama Disagree.

If you can 30 mins this weekend, check Youtube's Youchoose. You can find all the campaign videos from each candidate. I recommend do a search on "Hillary health care", she seems to have a lot of experiences in this field and has a lot of to say about it.

Super Tue is coming up! Hurry Up! Let's at least pick someone who won't make our hard lives harder.