Should medicine be an entitlement?

[jdh71]

It's like I'm taking crazy pills in here.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Mad Jack]

It's like I'm taking crazy pills in here.

You are. SDN doesn't even exist, it's all in your mind.

 

[Roxas]

I'm just excited for each of y'all's taxes to pay for my med school tuition. That is all.

ftfy

 

[Stagg737]

Are you serious? Politicians do this all the time, why are doctors any less susceptible?

I'd like to think physicians are looking out for their patients slightly more than the bloodsuckers in washington...

When we start paying for every individual's needs in spite of their actions then consequences become meaningless. I'm not going to say that we should be turning patients away in emergencies, or in any given situation. However, I find it infuriating when people I know have to have triple or quadruple bypass surgeries and celebrate by going to McDonald's and ordering a few Big Macs, then doing the same thing on a weekly basis. Does an individual that actively and knowingly participates in behaviors which directly lead them to their poor state of health deserve to receive that treatment if they don't change their lifestyle? Not in my book, which is exactly why someone who is a 2-pack a day smoker is placed lower on a lung transplant list than someone who doesn't smoke but is identical in most other aspects.

The problem arises in discerning who the truly irresponsible and unconcerned individuals are versus people who make an effort in their own health. Because this is basically impossible, we cannot assume that a our patients are irresponsible and should give them the best treatment given available resources. The downside to this is that those patients who are completely irresponsible are not held accountable to society, which only encourages them to continue their destructive behavior (assuming something like a heart attack isn't a wake up call, which is often not in my experience). To be blunt, if there were some way to cheaply measure each individual's genetic disposition to conditions, their behavioral risks, and their attitude toward their own health and use those to determine how much funding should be allocated to them, I'd be all for it. Seeing as that's impossible, I really don't have an answer other than treat who you can, as best you can, with the minimal amount of resources that person actually needs.

 

[RJGOP]

The same could be said of smokers, people who eat unhealthy, those that don't exercise, etc.

I think we had this same discussion a while back. Smoking and eating unhealthily, while stupid and imprudent, is not illegal. Heroin and other illegal drugs are illegal, that's the difference.

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

Not what I said. YOU are the guy who decided to involve himself in the discuss and asked about something that had already been recently addressed - it wasn't as if I expected you to read something from a week or a month ago - and you want to make it MY problem?? That's priceless and you are a special special boy.

I'm know I'm usually in a winning position when people start commenting on my post count like it's some kind of problem or something to be ashamed about.

This discussion has been fun. Thanks for participating.

Of course it's not what you said, genius. Did I quote you? I simply reworded your comment to give it an inkling of a point. No one is trying to make something "your problem", did I say that? How's your comprehension?

When you're confusing reading and responding on an internet forum with skills that "help in life" you might have a problem, and don't be ashamed but it might be pathetic.

Also, it's an internet forum, you can't really "win" anything. You know that right?

 

[Successful BM]

Ironic. Your statement is.

yodameme.jpg

My statement that you know nothing about me because this is an internet forum? Is that what you're referring to?

I'm glad you paid some taxes. You're not paying now. Get back to us when you AGAIN have skin in the game.

I'll keep my disenfranchisement in mind when I'm filling out my tax return. Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about the other med students on this board that disagree with me? Are they allowed to have an opinion because they agree with you? Or are their thoughts and opinions equally invalid because they're currently in school and not working?

 

[typoncho]

NHSC?

No, the Hazelwood Act. Technically I'm only using Texan taxes, but I did use federal funds for UG.

 

[typoncho]

ftfy

Lol thanks.

 

[Mad Jack]

I think we had this same discussion a while back. Smoking and eating unhealthily, while stupid and imprudent, is not illegal. Heroin and other illegal drugs are illegal, that's the difference.

Regardless, the Fourth Amendment, coupled with HIPAA, makes it impossible to bar those using illegal substances from medical care, as they would have to have their drug status reported to the government against their will or have to have a drug test that has already been deemed illegal. Both ways, benefit loss would be unenforcible from a Constitutional perspective.

 

[Mad Jack]

No, the Hazelwood Act. Technically I'm only using Texan taxes, but I did use federal funds for UG.

Nothing wrong with that. They can use their oil money how they like.

 

[colbgw02]

Well, I'd say this turned out as expected.

 

[typoncho]

I've come to terms with the fact that I will be subsidizing other people's healthcare while they consistently abuse their bodies (cigarettes, enough carbs to restore 13 people's glycogen stores, etc) and I gasp for air in the gym. However, I do reserve the "right" to knife hand people and chew them out in public as they abuse their bodies.

 

[touchpause13]

Yes. More so than the fellow med student sarcastically telling me that I'm going to have a great time in residency. And no, I know I don't have a full comprehension of what residency is like. How could I? But I have somewhat of an idea based on previous experience.

I just think that's a super arrogant thing to say

 

[Successful BM]

You seriously overestimate the ability of people to make rational and logical decisions. When it comes right down to it, people are just fairly advanced animals- we've got the same basic drives and instincts. Some people can control those drives and instincts better than others, but, if you know anything about addiction, you would understand that for many, that simply isn't an option. I could give you a shot of morphine in the hospital, and you might be fine. Or you might walk away desperately craving it because it was the thing your brain had been longing for all its life and never knew it wanted. Obese patients have seriously impaired impulse control in regard to food because of the hormonal impacts that increased adipose tissue has on hunger, and often have difficulty exercising because it is extremely difficult to physically perform (try going for a jog with the thighs of a 300 lb patient- you'll be chafed raw within minutes).

Basically, you're encouraging punishing people for poor impulse control that is largely determined by genetic and hormonal factors that are often beyond their control. We've been wired by billions of years of evolution to seek food, sex, and pleasure, and you basically want to deny care to those people that happen to be unable to fight that wiring. You want to kill people for flinching in the face of evolution, essentially, which is pretty ****ed up.

Fair argument. And I can see where this would get complicated, especially in the face of complex disorders that are not fully understood. I suppose that if it did come to that, then it would be up to the physician's discretion to determine whether or not the patient was making an honest effort at achieving their health goals. It's easy enough when your patient has a drug addiction, but obesity, heart disease, etc. are harder. I don't think it's possible, so I concede. It's not that I think we should pay for everything, but that there's no consistent way to filter legit healthcare needs from simple apathy.

 

[Successful BM]

I just think that's a super arrogant thing to say

How is it anymore arrogant than a fellow med student telling me that I know nothing about residency?

 

[touchpause13]

How is it anymore arrogant than a fellow med student telling me that I know nothing about residency?

Because we haven't gone through far enough to know what residency is like.
You can think what you want, but your statement bugged me

 

[Mad Jack]

How is it anymore arrogant than a fellow med student telling me that I know nothing about residency?

I think the entitlement level of your patients, coupled with the sacrifices you've made and your personal outlook on life, will make some of them suck the life out of you. It's one thing to be an EMT that sank a few weeks into a course that has to deal with entitled patients for a few minutes before dropping them off at the ED. It's an entirely different one for them to have you by the balls (via hospital policies and good 'ol Press Ganey, and afterward by threat of legal action if you don't do as they wish, despite their being on Medicare/Medicaid and having multiple lifestyle issues, sometimes illegal) for days or weeks on end after you sacrificed 4 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars into your education. I strongly predict it will not make you happy.

 

[Roxas]

I'd like to think physicians are looking out for their patients slightly more than the bloodsuckers in washington...

When we start paying for every individual's needs in spite of their actions then consequences become meaningless. I'm not going to say that we should be turning patients away in emergencies, or in any given situation. However, I find it infuriating when people I know have to have triple or quadruple bypass surgeries and celebrate by going to McDonald's and ordering a few Big Macs, then doing the same thing on a weekly basis. Does an individual that actively and knowingly participates in behaviors which directly lead them to their poor state of health deserve to receive that treatment if they don't change their lifestyle? Not in my book, which is exactly why someone who is a 2-pack a day smoker is placed lower on a lung transplant list than someone who doesn't smoke but is identical in most other aspects.

The problem arises in discerning who the truly irresponsible and unconcerned individuals are versus people who make an effort in their own health. Because this is basically impossible, we cannot assume that a our patients are irresponsible and should give them the best treatment given available resources. The downside to this is that those patients who are completely irresponsible are not held accountable to society, which only encourages them to continue their destructive behavior (assuming something like a heart attack isn't a wake up call, which is often not in my experience). To be blunt, if there were some way to cheaply measure each individual's genetic disposition to conditions, their behavioral risks, and their attitude toward their own health and use those to determine how much funding should be allocated to them, I'd be all for it. Seeing as that's impossible, I really don't have an answer other than treat who you can, as best you can, with the minimal amount of resources that person actually needs.

1. Slightly. But ideally the public servants in Washington should have the interests of the people in mind, which seldom seems the case. History has shown time and time again that lust for power or money trumps altruism. It's a level of control a physician should not have.

2. It's not the government's job to teach me consequences, unless I'm breaking the law. That's why we have freedom.

3. Should they be able to pay for it, then it doesn't matter if they deserve it. From an admittedly morbid perspective, patients like that ensure future work for physicians. Your last paragraph does an excellent job of explaining why the alternative is problematic. If it's going to be on everyone's (taxpayer's) dime, then who deserves it? What constitutes "trying?" As @WhippleWhileWeWork mentioned earlier, demand will quickly exceed supply and we'll be left to ration care.

 

[Successful BM]

I think the entitlement level of your patients, coupled with the sacrifices you've made and your personal outlook on life, will make some of them suck the life out of you. It's one thing to be an EMT that sank a few weeks into a course that has to deal with entitled patients for a few minutes before dropping them off at the ED. It's an entirely different one for them to have you by the balls (via hospital policies and good 'ol Press Ganey, and afterward by threat of legal action if you don't do as they wish, despite their being on Medicare/Medicaid and having multiple lifestyle issues, sometimes illegal) for days or weeks on end after you sacrificed 4 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars into your education. I strongly predict it will not make you happy.

Fair, but does it make anyone happy? It would apply no matter how I felt about universal healthcare. I could either believe tax payers should pay for it or they shouldn't. Either way the patient and the hospital still have me by the balls.

 

[Mad Jack]

Fair, but does it make anyone happy? It would apply no matter how I felt about universal healthcare. I could either believe tax payers should pay for it or they shouldn't. Either way the patient and the hospital still have me by the balls.

There's just a particular sort of person it makes less happy. For the record, I'm also in that category, but for other reasons. I've got more hate for the government and hospital administration, not as much for patients and their lifestyles. There's good in every individual if you look hard enough, but most systems built by groups of people are gilded piles of **** that I can't stand.

I'm against single payer myself, but if we have it, we shouldn't punish the individuals for their faults, because they're only human. Somebody somewhere probably loves them and cares about them, and they've probably got a few things that you'd like about them, even if they seem horrible at first. There's a societal impact to every death, hence why we do our best to protect life, even of heinous murderers (who have no regard for the lives of others) or the suicidal (who have no regard for their own lives). No one loves CMS or the Joint Commission or state regulators. They could burn to the ground and not a single tear would be shed.

 

[Successful BM]

Because we haven't gone through far enough to know what residency is like.
You can think what you want, but your statement bugged me

I don't think it's a stretch to say that I know more about what I'm getting myself into because of my experience than someone that doesn't have that experience. It's perfectly logical. And it's something that med school look for in reviewing applications: experience in the healthcare field. I understand that I know precious little about residency, but I know the field, and I know the population of people I'll be serving. Why is it arrogant to say so?

I'm not sure you're bugged because of my statement. I think it's just me that bugs you, and I'm fine with that.

 

[touchpause13]

I don't think it's a stretch to say that I know more about what I'm getting myself into because of my experience than someone that doesn't have that experience. It's perfectly logical. And it's something that med school look for in reviewing applications: experience in the healthcare field. I understand that I know precious little about residency, but I know the field, and I know the population of people I'll be serving. Why is it arrogant to say so?

I'm not sure you're bugged because of my statement. I think it's just me that bugs you, and I'm fine with that.

I don't see how working as an EMT gives any insight into residency. That's what bugged me

 

[Mad Jack]

I don't see how working as an EMT gives any insight into residency. That's what bugged me

He does know a lot about the bottom-feeder types he'll be dealing with though. EMS sees a disproportionate number of abusers and swindlers of the system, in addition to those that treat their caregivers like **** but expect nothing but the highest level of care. That's a decent insight to have.

 

[touchpause13]

He does know a lot about the bottom-feeder types he'll be dealing with though. EMS sees a disproportionate number of abusers and swindlers of the system, in addition to those that treat their caregivers like **** but expect nothing but the highest level of care. That's a decent insight to have.

I don't disagree with that at all. It's the residency thing that bothered me.

I know what it's like to have patients who treat their caregivers like dirt, trust me I do, but I don't think that corresponds to "knowing what to expect in residency"

 

[Successful BM]

He does know a lot about the bottom-feeder types he'll be dealing with though. EMS sees a disproportionate number of abusers and swindlers of the system, in addition to those that treat their caregivers like **** but expect nothing but the highest level of care. That's a decent insight to have.

This is along the lines of what I was talking about, but I wouldn't describe them as bottom-feeders. I apologize if my meaning was lost in the context of the argument.

 

[touchpause13]

This is along the lines of what I was talking about, but I wouldn't describe them as bottom-feeders. I apologize if my meaning was lost in the context of the argument.

Fair enough

 

[Successful BM]

There's just a particular sort of person it makes less happy. For the record, I'm also in that category, but for other reasons. I've got more hate for the government and hospital administration, not as much for patients and their lifestyles. There's good in every individual if you look hard enough, but most systems built by groups of people are gilded piles of **** that I can't stand.

I'm against single payer myself, but if we have it, we shouldn't punish the individuals for their faults, because they're only human. Somebody somewhere probably loves them and cares about them, and they've probably got a few things that you'd like about them, even if they seem horrible at first. There's a societal impact to every death, hence why we do our best to protect life, even of heinous murderers (who have no regard for the lives of others) or the suicidal (who have no regard for their own lives). No one loves CMS or the Joint Commission or state regulators. They could burn to the ground and not a single tear would be shed.

I agree, and I feel the same way. It just doesn't seem just to require everyone to pay for it.

 

[jdh71]

Of course it's not what you said, genius. Did I quote you? I simply reworded your comment to give it an inkling of a point. No one is trying to make something "your problem", did I say that? How's your comprehension?

When you're confusing reading and responding on an internet forum with skills that "help in life" you might have a problem, and don't be ashamed but it might be pathetic.

Also, it's an internet forum, you can't really "win" anything. You know that right?

I'm pretty sure you did quote me. You reworded things as a strawman. Which. Was stupid. I mean you can argue against things I haven't said as much as you like, you just can't pretend I said them at the same time.

Genius.

Heh.

Again. You are the one who wandered into the discussion not know what was said and you'd like to turn me into the bad guy. It's cute. It's just not intellectually honest.

If nothing can be "won" why do you keep responding? Do you think?

I'm beginning to think the best part of this thread are your responses.

 

[Mad Jack]

This is along the lines of what I was talking about, but I wouldn't describe them as bottom-feeders. I apologize if my meaning was lost in the context of the argument.

The bottom feeders, IMO, were the ones that would abuse hospital services for a place to sleep. The ones that would call EMS for a drunk person laying on the side of the road (when that drunk person was them and they just wanted a warm place to sleep and a "free" meal). These are people that are literally abusing the system, costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands a year in the most wasteful ways possible.

 

[jdh71]

My statement that you know nothing about me because this is an internet forum? Is that what you're referring to?

Nope

I'll keep my disenfranchisement in mind when I'm filling out my tax return. Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about the other med students on this board that disagree with me? Are they allowed to have an opinion because they agree with you? Or are their thoughts and opinions equally invalid because they're currently in school and not working?

It's the internet anyone is allowed to disagree it agree. Free even.

The point was you were making an argument based on your burden as a "tax payer". But you're actually not really. Not right now. So do your really get to have that "tax payer" opinion? Does anyone?

Kind of sucks to be disenfranchised arbitrarily without much say in the matter. Huh?

 

[Stagg737]

1. Slightly. But ideally the public servants in Washington should have the interests of the people in mind, which seldom seems the case. History has shown time and time again that lust for power or money trumps altruism. It's a level of control a physician should not have.

2. It's not the government's job to teach me consequences, unless I'm breaking the law. That's why we have freedom.

3. Should they be able to pay for it, then it doesn't matter if they deserve it. From an admittedly morbid perspective, patients like that ensure future work for physicians. Your last paragraph does an excellent job of explaining why the alternative is problematic. If it's going to be on everyone's (taxpayer's) dime, then who deserves it? What constitutes "trying?" As @WhippleWhileWeWork mentioned earlier, demand will quickly exceed supply and we'll be left to ration care.

!. I agree that washington should have the people's best interest in mind, but I live in reality and not the world of shoulds. What I was trying to say was that I believe most physicians initially go into the field to serve their patients by fulfilling medical needs. On the other hand, significantly less politicians go into their profession to serve all of society, but rather to serve those they choose to. Unfortunately, after a few years this almost always ends up being themselves and I don't think this is the case with most physicians who continue to hope to serve their patients. Then again maybe I'm being naive about medicine.

2. You're right, it's the individual and their family's job, but it is the gov's job to enforce laws and hold them responsible to the rest of society when they use 'our' money. If we're all in this together as many of you have stated, then those who take advantage of the system, illegally or not, should be held accountable for their actions by the rest of the society. I see no other way to enforce this other than forcing them to hold themselves accountable.

3. That's the problem, in our country a universal health system would lead to unrealistic rationing of both supply and contact time. Universal care works in many countries, but many of those countries are significantly different than the U.S. in ways that make a system like that possible. Total universal care here is just not feasible in my mind, and a large reason is because of our population's feelings of entitlement.

I don't see how working as an EMT gives any insight into residency. That's what bugged me

Depends on where you work. If you work in an ER every day alongside residents and not on a rig I would think you would have a *better insight into the life of a resident than other pre-med or med students. You won't truly understand what residency is like, but you would at least have seen it secondhand, which is more than most of us can say.

 

[Meh.meh]

Well, I'd say this turned out as expected.

I decided to take a glance at the last page before I started reading from the beginning.

 

[jdh71]

@touchpause13

Next time you're trying to bring me into a convo that's going to make me sound like a farking hippie you need to warn me.

I thought we were friends.

 

[Meh.meh]

@touchpause13

Next time you're trying to bring me into a convo that's going to make me sound like a farking hippie you need to warn me.

I though we were friends.

Important stuff first: your avatar bothers me. When I see it out of the corner of my eye, it looks like a velociraptor with a top hat on. The robots left arm is the front of the face, and the little meter is the eye. It's disconcerting.

Vaguely relevant statement to keep on topic:

Medicine has pretty much always been an "entitlement" to some degree. Very few of the people I've met think we shouldn't provide care for any of the sick who cannot pay. The issue is where the limit is placed. The other issue is how we are compensated as physicians for our work by society, who allegedly gives a damn about these people.

We shouldn't have to work for free, although I think most of us agree that we would care for a person who needed it even without payment.

Just because I feel this way, doesn't mean I have to agree that the ACA or any other form of legislation is correct. Nor does it man I should have to support universal healthcare.

endrant.

 

[jdh71]

Important stuff first: your avatar bothers me. When I see it out of the corner of my eye, it looks like a velociraptor with a top hat on. The robots left arm is the front of the face, and the little meter is the eye. It's disconcerting.

Vaguely relevant statement to keep on topic:

Medicine has pretty much always been an "entitlement" to some degree. Very few of the people I've met think we shouldn't provide care for any of the sick who cannot pay. The issue is where the limit is placed. The other issue is how we are compensated as physicians for our work by society, who allegedly gives a damn about these people.

We shouldn't have to work for free, although I think most of us agree that we would care for a person who needed it even without payment.

Just because I feel this way, doesn't mean I have to agree that the ACA or any other form of legislation is correct. Nor does it man I should have to support universal healthcare.

endrant.

Blame the lounge werewolf game for the avatar. I'll be changing it to something else soon.

I agree medicine has been and entitlement and it's clearly not a natural right. So no one is actually obliged to get healthcare in the abstract. Also physicians are not slaves. You cannot demand we work for free. You can't demand any one work for free for that matter. With that said, we need to try find a place where those principles meet what we all think a society like ours should do. What is the right thing? I'm asking what is moral here in the big "M" sense. And my assessment of this is that is the *correct* thing to help everyone, even those people who are self destructive, to our abilities and resources to be able to do so. I don't want to live in a society where we let people die in the street because we refuse to help.

 

[Meh.meh]

Blame the lounge werewolf game for the avatar. I'll be changing it to something else soon.

I agree medicine has been and entitlement and it's clearly not a natural right. So no one is actually obliged to get healthcare in the abstract. Also physicians are not slaves. You cannot demand we work for free. You can't demand any one work for free for that matter. With that said, we need to try find a place where those principles meet what we all think a society like ours should do. What is the right thing? I'm asking what is moral here in the big "M" sense. And my assessment of this is that is the *correct* thing to help everyone, even those people who are self destructive, to our abilities and resources to be able to do so. I don't want to live in a society where we let people die in the street because we refuse to help.

I completely agree with everything you've said here.

It seems as though there was an interesting conversation filled with anger and the usual ad hominem attacks, which I skipped entirely because I'm not even a tiny bit interested.

I read the op then skipped to the end, I should have given a disclaimer my comment was not aimed at you, but at the OP. I just wanted to point out the raptor thing because it's bothered me every time I see your name, and it seemed like that comment should be directed at you.

 

[deleted480308]

Blame the lounge werewolf game for the avatar. I'll be changing it to something else soon.

I agree medicine has been and entitlement and it's clearly not a natural right. So no one is actually obliged to get healthcare in the abstract. Also physicians are not slaves. You cannot demand we work for free. You can't demand any one work for free for that matter. With that said, we need to try find a place where those principles meet what we all think a society like ours should do. What is the right thing? I'm asking what is moral here in the big "M" sense. And my assessment of this is that is the *correct* thing to help everyone, even those people who are self destructive, to our abilities and resources to be able to do so. I don't want to live in a society where we let people die in the street because we refuse to help.

But redististributive taxes do require that some people work for nothing. When I work and you take 20% of what I get, you just had me work one day that week for free.

 

[jdh71]

But redististributive taxes do require that some people work for nothing. When I work and you take 20% of what I get, you just had me work one day that week for free.

Incorrect. You haven't worked for free. You've worked a day to help support the the environment that allows you to make the money you do. Drive on paved roads? Appreciate the police presence that keeps the risk of looters out of your place of business at a very low level? Want the fire department to show up if god forbid a fire starts?

I could go on. You help subsidize the society you like and enables you to make all that money.

I mean I'm having to sound like a ducking commie in here but it's true. You aren't just making that money in isolation and it's being stolen. Granted I don't like income taxes because it is a type of extortionate theft but taxes have to be collected somehow. We all have a responsibility to contribute to the society and system that allows us to work and be safe in a reasonable manner every day so we can make money start businesses, etc.

 

[Lifebloom]

Yes it should be.

America is run by corporations, and these corporations control our food source. The meat packing industry is especially all about producing cheap, carcinogenic, toxic food.

Considering the fact that a lot of Americans are forced to buy this "food" because their income is so low, the system automatically sets up part of the population for disaster...so yes I think they are entitled to healthcare.

Even those who can afford to eat healthy and do everything they should to stay healthy, it still isn't enough. GMO's have infiltrated the organic market, and nothing is safe. Pesticides and other chemicals are now found on everything.

And we all know the FDA and the USDA have our best interest when it comes to food safety *eye roll*.

I see healthcare as a right, since from the moment you are born you are pumped with toxic chemicals that have a food label on it.

A little off tangent, I know...but it is how I justify my answer. And I obviously ignored the whole economic side of the argument blah blah blah.

 

[Mad Jack]

Yes it should be.

America is run by corporations, and these corporations control our food source. The meat packing industry is especially all about producing cheap, carcinogenic, toxic food.

Considering the fact that a lot of Americans are forced to buy this "food" because their income is so low, the system automatically sets up part of the population for disaster...so yes I think they are entitled to healthcare.

Even those who can afford to eat healthy and do everything they should to stay healthy, it still isn't enough. GMO's have infiltrated the organic market, and nothing is safe. Pesticides and other chemicals are now found on everything.

And we all know the FDA and the USDA have our best interest when it comes to food safety *eye roll*.

I see healthcare as a right, since from the moment you are born you are pumped with toxic chemicals that have a food label on it.

A little off tangent, I know...but it is how I justify my answer. And I obviously ignored the whole economic side of the argument blah blah blah.

 

[Lifebloom]

What didn't make sense exactly?

Mad because I didn't whip out my economic text book and use it as a war drum?

Healthcare should be a right, since by nature American society sets up Americans for NEEDING healthcare.

 

[Mad Jack]

What didn't make sense exactly?

Mad because I didn't whip out my economic text book and use it as a war drum?

 

[Lifebloom]

Clearly a troll...ignoring the rest of your posts.

 

[Mad Jack]

Says the person who jumped into a thread about healthcare ethics and started spouting crazy organic hippy nonsense. Your post is off topic, that's why I gave it the reaction it did.

 

[Lifebloom]

I believe the question at hand is, "should medicine be an entitlement?"

Not sure how you slapping the word "ethics" on to healthcare changes anything.

Edit: No it isn't off topic...

"I've always believed that every human (and living beings) are entitled to access to medicine as it leads to the fulfillment of the "Life" and "pursuit of happiness" principles set forth by the Deceleration of Independence. Yet, I really want to understand why some people, particularity physicians, might oppose such such a notion." -OP

 

[colbgw02]

As it turns out, even people who eat organically need healthcare. So the idea that healthcare is a right based on systematic poisoning of people from birth leaves a few questions unanswered.

 

[Lifebloom]

As it turns out, even people who eat organically need healthcare. So the idea that healthcare is a right based on systematic poisoning of people from birth leaves a few questions unanswered.

Correct. But the vast majority of heart disease cases and cancer are caused by poor diet, which most Americans can't help. You can't ignore this just because someone who eats organic spinach ended up with some type of cancer.

And what about someone born with a genetic defect...are they not "entitled" to healthcare?

 

[SpinalFusion]

I have recently read and seen some conversations of healthcare professionals and policymakers expressing their "concerns" about the idea that medicine is becoming a "right or entitlement." My first reaction was..why is this even a topic? I've always believed that every human (and living beings) are entitled to access to medicine as it leads to the fulfillment of the "Life"












Hey OP. I always love the tough questions, and I'll apologize beforehand if my comments offend...

In my opinion though, the right to life is the right to not be killed on the whim of some tyrant. Whether that tyrant be some thug dealing drugs or an 18th century Englishman, your life belongs to you and you alone. You accept the responsibility for your life, and enjoy the promise that it won't be taken away from you.
Just like with our right to bear arms or our right to liberty or the pursuit of happiness, The opportunity is provided if you take the responsibility to procure it for yourself. Rights are doors that are open (or at least unlocked), it is completely our responsibility to walk through them. The promise of a right is simply the promise that these doors will not be unjustly closed off to us by the actions of others.

So in providing medicine, I would say I have a Professional Responsibility to provide the absolute best care possible to my patients. But according to my definition, I am in no way the provider nor the insurer of my patients right to Life. I am not responsible for their lives. Instead I voluntarily enter a contract to provide a service that the patient has requested. The patient requesting my services is the patient taking responsibility for their life.

I look forward to the comments.

 

[colbgw02]

Correct. But the vast majority of heart disease cases and cancer are caused by poor diet, which most Americans can't help. You can't ignore this just because someone who eats organic spinach ended up with some type of cancer.

But that shouldn't be a justification for healthcare as a right.