Universal Health Care

[Finrock]

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act "guarantees that all Americans – regardless of their health status or pre-existing conditions – will finally have access to quality, affordable coverage" (Source). The principle purpose of the PPACA is founded on the idea of universal health care provided by the government.

Just for the record, I am against the PPACA for a number of reasons. However, I want to understand the principle behind the PPACA and in universal health care, in general. So, it seems to me that the moral justification for universal health care is that health care is a right. Now, there seem to be two distinctions here when speaking about "a right". Some contend that health care is a human right and others contend that it is a civil right.

I'm interested in discussing the argument that health care is a civil right, for the time being, because I believe this is the stronger of the two arguments between it being a civil right or a human right (although I might be wrong and maybe that it is a human right is a stronger argument or perhaps they all reduce to the same thing).

So, I came across this article that had the most interesting argument so far that I had read as to why health care is a right. I was only going to copy a small portion, but I didn't know how to do a small portion and not miss out on important context. So, I apologize for the long quote, but, this is the reason given by this author as to why access to health care is a civil right.

"[H]ealth care is a civil right.

Civil rights are what we call those claims necessary to secure free and equal citizenship, secondary to basic rights. For example, we don’t have a right to vote for any natural reason; we have the right to vote because society is ordered in a way that makes voting both possible and essential to our free and full participation in society. Voting is a civil right.

Health care is a civil right because society is ordered in such a way as to make it both possible and essential to the free and full participation of the sick, injured and disabled — i.e. ‘patients’ — in society. I’m a patient, and I can tell you: lack of health care makes it impossible for me to participate freely and fully in society. Among the reasons …

• I can’t choose my work. Because health care is tied to employment, and not all jobs have benefits, I can’t do things that might be socially useful or personally satisfying but lack benefits. I can never start a business, for example, because I wouldn’t have health insurance.
• I can’t buy the things I need. Patients are denied the free purchase of goods and services by restrictions on the healthcare market: FDA regulations, prescription requirements, doctor licensing, insurance rules. These restrictions help make health care safer and more effective, but they also sharply curb supply of medical goods and increase their price, which is paid disproportionately by patients.
• I can’t participate fully in the political process. I rarely volunteer in my community — dealing with my healthcare takes up most of my free time. I can’t give money to causes or candidates I support, because I don’t have any to spare. Moreover, a sick person is less likely to risk losing employer-provided insurance by organizing a union, whistle-blowing against fraud, or reporting discrimination in the workplace.

None of these exclusions is intrinsic to illness, but due instead to the structure of our society. And each reason is more compelling to the extent illness and injury are produced by pollution, toxic products, and other societal causes. A patient’s basic right to justice requires us to respond to the likelihood that we — as a society — had something to do with their illness."

My initial thoughts on this is that the author is equating the right to vote with the right to health care and such a comparison isn't correct. The right to vote is being used to prop up the idea of a right to health care, but the two arguments aren't comparable.

So, I am looking for any thoughts/opinions. Any viewpoints are welcome. My intention is not to argue or to debate a particular point of view. I share my initial feelings but I am open to being corrected if I have reasoned poorly or to be introduced to new ideas. Further, I may comment to make a point or question and ask for clarification, but please do not think that I am being combative or agenda driven because I do so.

Regards,

Finrock

[rameumptom]

Rights given under the Constitution and the Amendments, until recently, were for things that did not create a cost to other people or states. For example, the First Amendment's rights of speech, religion, press, etc., do not infringe on others' rights or create a financial or other penalty to them.

Only in recent years have we begun speaking of additional rights that do require a cost to society. Welfare is now a federal right (where it used to handled by charitable organizations or the states/communities). Education is now a federal right, once managed by communities/states.

Today, things are declared "rights" as part of an effort to increase the power and scope of the federal government. These are not natural nor civil rights. A Civil Right does not impose itself financially on other people. Allowing black people to vote or sit in the front of the bus may ruffle some feathers (as freedom of speech can also), but it has no real impact on anyone's pocketbook. Such is a true Civil (and natural) right.

But inventing new rights, just so government has a mandate to fix something, does not make them rights. Nor does it mean that government can effectively or efficiently provide a solution. LBJ's war on poverty is a failure, as there are more people on welfare today than in his day. The war on drugs also is failing. Since the creation of the federal Dept of Education in Carter's day, test scores have not budged up an inch (in fact, some have declined). Even our mandate to be the world police force is failing, as our military strength is squandered in a hundred different locations elsewhere, bleeding to death from a hundred paper cuts.

No one has a "right" to health care, just as no one has a "right" to an IPad, a house, a steak for dinner every night, or to be married to Angelina Jolie/Brad Pitt. These are not rights. These are government-created mandates that are called "rights" in order to change the discussion from whether we should provide some type of health care to we must provide it and so let's just find a big government solution to it.

[Canuck Mormon]

No one has a "right" to health care, just as no one has a "right" to an IPad, a house, a steak for dinner every night, or to be married to Angelina Jolie/Brad Pitt. These are not rights. These are government-created mandates that are called "rights" in order to change the discussion from whether we should provide some type of health care to we must provide it and so let's just find a big government solution to it.

You're comparing health care to luxury items? So unless you can afford some sort of coverage, you shouldn't be allowed to recieve medical treatment? Sorry, I disagree. The humane thing to do would be to treat everyone equal as far as basic medical coverage and no one should be turned away because they do not have insurance. Is it not our duty as human beings to help those in need? To lift society up? To strive to be/do better? If not, then why are we here?

Now, let me go put on my flame suit as I'm sure I'll get bashed because I'm from Canada where we have universal health care and I don't understand your situation.

[MarginOfError]

I've never considered health care a right. I don't really consider welfare a right.

I do, however, consider health care and welfare to be social policy (not to be confused with 'socialist policy' although there is some overlap). My argument for universal healthcare would be that it is good social policy. Increasing the pool of insured increases the pool of people contributing to the premiums and costs. Done well, it has the potential to reduce (or at least normalize) costs for everyone and help build a healthier and stronger society.

But to be done well, it needs to be run by independent panels, not by legislators. Once you leave it in the hands of legislators, it becomes a disaster (exhibit A: social security).

Anyway, I think the discussion would be a lot more intelligent if we stopped framing healthcare in terms of rights and instead framed it in terms of social policy. Unfortunately, that will never happen because "rights" sound so much more appealing.

[prisonchaplain]

The idea that society's take care of their weak is a noble one--even Christ-like. On the other hand, there are many strong Christ-like arguments for limited government. So, as with most issues, be they about rights, social policy, or just politics in general, there will be well-intentioned believers on both (multiple) sides.

[rameumptom]

Canuck, I'm not saying there shouldn't be health care. I'm saying it should not be considered a "right." The Canadian system has pros and cons to it. Yes, it is "free" as in the system is taxed into existence for all to use. However, it is still conditional. If a person needs an MRI or a hip replacement, he/she may have to wait months or years for the money to be allocated to deal with it. So, in Canada, does the person have the right to immediate health care, or just when the state can afford it?

That is part of the reality, and why it isn't a natural right. I can give everyone free speech, and it doesn't tax the system to do so. But to provide everyone with health care means I must take it from some to give to others. There's also the issue of quality of health care provided. I can get an MRI in the USA in a week, while I know people in Canada who have had to wait 18 months for one. Many Canadians will go to clinics in the USA for such things and pay cash, rather than wait on the government to schedule it. Here, we see that it is the rich and well-to-do Canadians that will cross the border for better health care. How is that any different than what we do in the USA right now, where our hospitals cannot turn away the poor?

Medicare and Medicaid are giant federal bureaucracies with multi-trillion (50-100 T) in unfunded liabilities. Adding an extra layer of bureaucracy on top of a system that is enroute to major bankruptcy is not providing health care to the people. It is only pronouncing a pipe dream that will financially collapse soon after Pres Obama is out of office.

It would be better to give every American a health savings account, and tell them they can spend it on insurance or use it to barter with doctors personally, etc.

Finally, the reality is, we cannot afford million dollar heart transplants for 75 year old people. Nor should we give a hip replacement to an 85 year old person*. If the person can afford these out of his/her own pocket, then fine. However, we need to realize that people die, and we need to allow them to grow old and die, rather than burden their grandchildren with trillions of dollars of debt, just so they can be comfortable for a couple more years.

* I knew an 85 year old man who received a hip replacement at the cost of tens of thousands of dollars, then died a year later. Was it worth it to society to do this? Would giving him a wheelchair make more sense?

[bytor2112]

You're comparing health care to luxury items? So unless you can afford some sort of coverage, you shouldn't be allowed to recieve medical treatment? Sorry, I disagree. The humane thing to do would be to treat everyone equal as far as basic medical coverage and no one should be turned away because they do not have insurance. Is it not our duty as human beings to help those in need? To lift society up? To strive to be/do better? If not, then why are we here?

Now, let me go put on my flame suit as I'm sure I'll get bashed because I'm from Canada where we have universal health care and I don't understand your situation.

Of course that is not what Ram is saying. In America everyone has access to health care, but not without cost. The State's have medicaid for the less fortunate and we all pay medicare tax for medicare which is for seniors.

When we discuss rights, we are discussing rights as enumerated in our Constitution and health care is not a right. I agree with MOE that it should be framed in the context of social policy, but, it is to easy for politicians to get people riled into believing they now have the "right" to something and what they really mean is that it should be without cost and OF COURSE, NOTHING IS WITHOUT COST.........Nothing. They ( those who believe this nonsense) want others to pay for their government goodie and then vote for the side that beats up on those that provide everything......the evile rich people..the 1%. Funny how this group provides the majority of the jobs, pays for our national defense, our roads, our national debt and people still want more, more, more and and continue to demonize them. Ugliness....

People in America do not receive equal medical treatment. If you have great wealth you can obviously afford to have the best Dr's and be treated at the best facilities that your money can buy. The same goes for Canadians I might add. My wife worked for a BC company and the owner and his wife often came to America with his mother for medical attention because they wouldn't have to wait.

I don't know of anyone that is opposed to affordable health care or for a broader safety net for the less fortunate. The scary notion that the government knows best how to set up and administrate and pay for this is what makes most of us in the USA cringe. As MOE mentioned...look at social security.

[lagarthaaz]

No one has a "right" to health care, just as no one has a "right" to an IPad, a house, a steak for dinner every night, or to be married to Angelina Jolie/Brad Pitt. These are not rights. These are government-created mandates that are called "rights" in order to change the discussion from whether we should provide some type of health care to we must provide it and so let's just find a big government solution to it.

Healthcare and Education are not at all comparable with the frivilous items you mention. As someone who pays a means tested tax levy once a year into a pretty decent (though not perfect) public healthcare system, I have no idea why anyone would not want this for their own people. It certainly doesn't give our government any more control over the citizens. In fact, a healthy populace with access to good public healthcare can only benefit society in the long run with higher returns in the form of a healthy and productive labour force.

It's only the privatised health care providers and the wealthy who can afford them, who 'win' in a society that denies the right of health care to citizens. That's great for people who have money either through work or good fortune. For most people though, health insurance costs are crippling and I remember being shocked at how much we were expected to pay for basic insurance when I lived in the US. Imagine if that money was not given to insurance companies, but instead freed up cash for citizens to spend on goods and services to help boost the economy?

It's beyond me why anyone would NOT want to pay the cost of a relatively small yearly contribution to live in a society where EVERY person has the right to see a doctor and receive treatment.

[Smudge]

Being from the UK where we too have "free at the point of delivery" health care. I have never understood why American's are so against universal health care.

This does not mean that the health care is actually free. Everyone who works has to pay something called national insurance which is how both the NHS and our state benefits are paid for.

Given that the majority of health conditions that people suffer from are not the direct result of poor life style choices and the if you suffer from a condition it makes it much harder to get affordable insurance - why should these people be denied health care?

I am grateful that I live in the UK and have the NHS - don't get me wrong I am not naive enough to think our system is perfect - there are plenty of flaws in it. And I have seen the advantages interms of the speed of treatment etc in the current US system compared to ours.

If we are to live the commandment to love thy neighbor as thy self and we want to have access to health care then surely this should extend to necessities like health care not just being nice or shovelling the snow from their drive way.

[Windseeker]

Imagine if that money was not given to insurance companies, but instead freed up cash for citizens to spend on goods and services to help boost the economy?

In Australia do Doctors and Nurses work for free? Where does the money come from that the goverment uses to pay the Doctors and Nurses?

It's beyond me why anyone would NOT want to pay the cost of a relatively small yearly contribution to live in a society where EVERY person has the right to see a doctor and receive treatment.

I'm not sure if your aware of this, but right now in the U.S it's against the law to deny Emergency Care. A matter of fact if any homeless druggie wants drugs and a bed they can go to any Hospital and get a free room for the night and it only costs the taxpayers $5,000 per night. So when we talk about healthcare, we are talking about expanding that coverage.

[lagarthaaz]

But to provide everyone with health care means I must take it from some to give to others.

And if everyone contributes, then others give to you if ever the time comes when you are in need. Win-win.

There's also the issue of quality of health care provided. I can get an MRI in the USA in a week, while I know people in Canada who have had to wait 18 months for one.

I don't know much about the Canadian healthcare system, but my husband and daughter both needed to have an MRI (for different reasons) recently. We waited about a week and it didn't cost us a cent. The only downside was we had to travel about 45 minutes to get to the clinic that offered the 'free' MRI's (or, 'bulk billed' to Medicare as we call it here). It would have taken us just as long to get in to a private clinic that wanted $400 for the same procedure. My husband also spent 3 weeks in hospital recently, with excellent care - again the cost to us was zero.

* I knew an 85 year old man who received a hip replacement at the cost of tens of thousands of dollars, then died a year later. Was it worth it to society to do this? Would giving him a wheelchair make more sense?

I'm not saying you would take your views this far, but using that logic, should we ask people with terminal illnesses not to 'burden' us with their desire for life-prolonging drugs since they probably only have 6 months to a year to survive anyway?

[Traveler]

My problem is that health care in the United States of America does not foster nor encourage or incentive good health. The two greatest problems with health in the USA is systemic and revolves around poor diet and poor activity. The primary offering of health care is almost exclusively drugs and surgery. Obviously there is a serious disconnect.

Second - the reasons for increasing costs in the health care provide (drugs and surgery) are for the following reasons:

1. Increasing numbers of people receiving care (drugs and surgery) without any financial contribution.

2. Because drugs and surgery cannot solve problems of poor diet and poor exercise - there is a large and growing segment of the population receiving health care (drugs and surgery) that has little effect - such that a very small percentage of the population is using up the vast majority of resources and costs.

3. Increases in malpractice costs - because there are increasing numbers suffering from poor health and because the system cannot provide health care there is increasing opportunity for malpractice law suits - even though the health care provider has provided all the drugs and surgery defined for whatever health problems a unhealthy person has. Plus if a doctor prescribes a proper diet and exercise program indicating that if followed the drugs and surgery would not be needed - will be subjected to the greater malpractice costs.

In my mind the Universal Health Care program will - without question make health costs greater (for drugs and surgery) and will not provide any insensitive for better diet or exercise. It will increase the reward of those that prefer poor diets and bad exercise programs and punish (increase costs) for those that strive to live a healthy life style.

The Traveler

[bytor2112]

It's only the privatised health care providers and the wealthy who can afford them, who 'win' in a society that denies the right of health care to citizens.

If you are referring to America, it should be noted that we do not deny heath care to our citizens nor do we expect our medical facilities and the talented physicians that provide the standard of excellence in care to be owned by and controlled by the State. At some point, nobody wins, when your best and brightest take their talents to other professions where their incomes are not controlled by imaginary "rights' dictated by an ignorant populace.

That's great for people who have money either through work or good fortune.

It's been my experience in life that people who have money either work for it or have good fortune.

For most people though, health insurance costs are crippling and I remember being shocked at how much we were expected to pay for basic insurance when I lived in the US.

Agreed. Health insurance costs are very high. Some solutions to this might be a high deductible plan for catastrophic illness or perhaps allowing more competition between the various states to drive down the costs and of course stopping all the frivolous law suits.

Imagine if that money was not given to insurance companies, but instead freed up cash for citizens to spend on goods and services to help boost the economy?

This statement seems to suggest that Insurance companies do not employ thousands of people and have an enormous positive impact on the economy or that by simply paying into a system administered by the government that everything that is so costly in health care is going to magically be reduced in cost. Total non sense. FYI....our government is so deep in debt that we are teetering on disaster.

I would be all in for some sort of basic preventative care at a discounted rate for the less fortunate. Oh wait, we already have that..it's called Medicaid and is administered by the states.

Edited May 30, 2013 by bytor2112

[lagarthaaz]

In Australia do Doctors and Nurses work for free? Where does the money come from that the goverment uses to pay the Doctors and Nurses?

The money comes from the levy we pay from our tax each year - it works.

I'm not sure if your aware of this, but right now in the U.S it's against the law to deny Emergency Care.

Good - that's the humane, decent and socially responsible thing to do.

A matter of fact if any homeless druggie wants drugs and a bed they can go to any Hospital and get a free room for the night and it only costs the taxpayers $5,000 per night. So when we talk about healthcare, we are talking about expanding that coverage.

I would enjoy reading any articles where you can show me where 'homeless druggies' are lining up for their 5 grand a night bed.

And yes, universal healthcare does cover unfortunate people who for various reasons become 'homeless druggies' (there, but for the grace of god, go I) - but again that's where the concept of healthcare as a 'right' regardless of gender, race or socio-economic background comes into play. Humanity is imperfect - people have problems and sometimes they are incapable of caring for themselves. Where would you have them go if they are sick or injured? Into a gutter somewhere to suffer and die out of the sight of we 'decent' people who 'deserve' healthcare because we can afford it?

Edited May 30, 2013 by lagarthaaz

[lagarthaaz]

If you are referring to America, it should be noted that we do not deny heath care to our citizens nor do we expect our medical facilities and the talented physicians that provide the standard of excellence in care to be owned by and controlled by the State. At some point, nobody wins, when your best and brightest take their talents to other professions where their incomes are not controlled by imaginary "rights' dictated by an ignorant populace.

The 'rights' are not 'imaginary' to the rest of the civilised world - only to certain factions in the US.

It's been my experience in life that people who have money either work for it or have good fortune.

And your point?

This statement seems to suggest that Insurance companies do not employ thousands of people and have an enormous positive impact on the economy or that by simply paying into a system administered by the government that everything that is so costly in health care is going to magically be reduced in cost. Total non sense. FYI....our government is so deep in debt that we are teetering on disaster.

I would see it as funds being diverted away from health insurance companies and invested into goods and services to help boost the economy. I should have also clarified that we do have a private health system that operates in this country, so there is still income being generated from that particular industry. We are fortunate to be able to choose which system we want to use, or both if needed.

I would be all in for some sort of basic preventative care at a discounted rate for the less fortunate. Oh wait, we already have that..it's called Medicaid and is administered by the states.

What does that mean - 'basic preventative care at a discounted rate'? Just as an example, and I'm asking this as a genuine inquiry - what medical care would a homeless man with liver disease or a teminal illness have access to? I'm asking because I am sure I read recently about a woman (young mother) in the US who passed away because she did not have medical insurance to cover her breast cancer treatment (it was in an American newspaper, I will try to find it later). Would Medicaid cover this woman's treatment?

[Finrock]

Good morning lagarthaaz. It is a pleasure to meet you! :)

Healthcare and Education are not at all comparable with the frivilous items you mention. As someone who pays a means tested tax levy once a year into a pretty decent (though not perfect) public healthcare system, I have no idea why anyone would not want this for their own people. It certainly doesn't give our government any more control over the citizens. In fact, a healthy populace with access to good public healthcare can only benefit society in the long run with higher returns in the form of a healthy and productive labour force.

The issue in question is not with universal health care, per se, but rather that health care is a right. I provided one argument as to why health care is a civil right.

So, the question is NOT, "Is universal health care good or bad?", but the question IS, "Is health care a civil right?"

Based on your posts, you appear to believe that health care is a right. Will you provide your strongest argument as to why health care is a right (either civil or human right)?

Respectfully,

Finrock

[Windseeker]

I would enjoy reading any articles where you can show me where 'homeless druggies' are lining up for their 5 grand a night bed.

The Real Problem with Healthcare

The vast majority of the calls I answered as an EMT did not even require a hospital, let alone an ambulance. A nosebleed at 2 AM? A toothache at 5 AM? These examples don't include the drunk, high, homeless "frequent-fliers" that didn't quite do anything bad enough to be arrested, but couldn't quite legally stay where they were. These individuals became the emergency department's problem.

It doesn't end there. So many people spend their time learning how to game the system, as anyone who works in the healthcare field can tell you. The homeless know that the ER means a warm bed and a hot meal. The drug seeker with the new iphone, 50 inch HDTV, and medicaid card knows he stands a chance at getting pain meds if he fakes an injury or complaint. The toothache is convinced that if they arrive by ambulance they'll be seen faster (not true) and thus decides to call 911 rather than drive themselves. The same homeless man from above knows that when he is about to be discharged if he states that he wants to kill himself he'll be able to keep his bed and add a few more courses to his meal. Everyone is trying to game the system.

The sad truth is that while responding to calls such as those listed above, others who summoned 911 with a legitimate medical emergency, in many instances, had to wait. These incidents occur around the clock, all over the country. This is what is causing the astronomical healthcare costs in America. These are the issues that need to be tackled.

As a second year medical student I am early on in my medical career, but I have been around long enough to become disgusted with the misuse, abuse, and, at times, downright malice with which our healthcare system is used. Until we tackle the issues that contribute to this abuse and combat the mindset that perpetuates them, shifting money and expanding government coverage is futile.

This my wifes experience (finishes her residency this month) and I've seen it first hand when visiting her on the job. I often get asked for rides to Sunrise Ave from all the homeless milling about outside the hospital, many still in their gowns, after they've been denied the harder drugs they seek.

The healthcare system is broken but Obamacare is not the fix we are looking for.

[bytor2112]

What does that mean - 'basic preventative care at a discounted rate'? Just as an example, and I'm asking this as a genuine inquiry - what medical care would a homeless man with liver disease or a teminal illness have access to? I'm asking because I am sure I read recently about a woman (young mother) in the US who passed away because she did not have medical insurance to cover her breast cancer treatment (it was in an American newspaper, I will try to find it later). Would Medicaid cover this woman's treatment?

I don't know specifically if cancer treatments etc are covered or not. But America as a society is a very charitable and caring people. We are not cold and uncaring, but we do often disagree with one another as how best to address the challenges facing our nation. I do not think the US government does very many things exceptionally well. They like to spend money and pick winners and losers and divide people among races and social classes, but I fail to see any real successes despite the billions of dollars spent on things like the "war on poverty? or the "war on drugs" and our New Health Care Act isn't going to do anything spectacular either....but it will allow some in Washington and on the political left to thumped their chests and us it for campaign fodder.

Florida Medicaid covers medical office visits, inpatient and outpatient hospital care, diagnostic screenings and lab work, prescription drugs, ambulance transfers, emergency room care, family planning services, chiropractic care and mental health care. Medicaid also covers limited dental services for dental exams used to diagnose an existing condition. However, patients can only receive benefits for treatments that include either a tooth extraction or drainage of an abscess. Many services, as of 2011, require a co-pay between $2 and $3 unless the patient is exempt.

To qualify for Florida Medicaid, an applicant must be a U.S. citizen or legal resident and a current resident of Florida. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, children have the widest access to Medicaid in the state, with laws requiring that their household make 200 percent or less of the federal poverty level, FPL, to receive benefits. Similarly, pregnant women must have household income of 185 percent or less of the FPL. Individuals determined medically needy can receive Medicaid benefits if their gross income after medical bills is less than 100 percent of the FPL.

Children have access to expanded benefits unavailable to adults enrolled in Medicaid. These include comprehensive dental benefits, vision screening and routine childhood immunizations. Pregnant women also have an expanded benefits program that includes prenatal and postnatal dental work, as well as a myriad of maternity benefits. Additionally, anyone age 65 and older enrolled in Medicaid can receive coverage for hospice care, nursing facilities and dentures.

Other states provide similarly.

R

Edited May 30, 2013 by bytor2112

[Windseeker]

Humanity is imperfect - people have problems and sometimes they are incapable of caring for themselves. Where would you have them go if they are sick or injured? Into a gutter somewhere to suffer and die out of the sight of we 'decent' people who 'deserve' healthcare because we can afford it?

Your media gorged ignorance is showing here. No one, and I mean no one is dying in the gutter in the U.S due to lack of available Healthcare.

In case you havn't noticed we still lead the world in Heathcare innovation, availability and technology.

[Anddenex]

So, I am looking for any thoughts/opinions. Any viewpoints are welcome. My intention is not to argue or to debate a particular point of view. I share my initial feelings but I am open to being corrected if I have reasoned poorly or to be introduced to new ideas. Further, I may comment to make a point or question and ask for clarification, but please do not think that I am being combative or agenda driven because I do so.

Regards,

Finrock

The article shared appears to me to be more of a "pity party" rather than actually providing a solid foundational argument for healthcare as a civil right.

A "right" appears to me the ability to use it, or not use it, without penalty of law. If I want to use my "freedom of speech" then I can use it or not use it without penalty of law.

If I want to vote, or choose not to vote, I have the option available without penalty of law. Why should a business be penalized for offering or not offering healthcare? The owner who started the business for a time, or still does, is not able to afford healthcare -- yet he/she goes without, while others demand he/she pays for them.

Healthcare is a commodity, thus I don't see how it can be a "right," except by force of those who want to force upon others their view.

I agree with MoE, with this stance, healthcare should be defined as a "social policy" but not a right.

[annewandering]

Your media gorged ignorance is showing here. No one, and I mean no one is dying in the gutter in the U.S due to lack of available Healthcare.

In case you havn't noticed we still lead the world in Heathcare innovation, availability and technology.

Sorry but you are wrong. I have seen it and it is a fact.

One thing I find curious about all this battle against health care for everyone is that it fights against basic human instincts. We have a species survival instinct that seems to have been dissipated or diluted by something. It reminds me of that bible verse about how the fathers will turn against the children and the children against the fathers neither having any NATURAL affection.

If it is a natural instinct then why are we not listening to it?

[Anddenex]

If it is a natural instinct then why are we not listening to it?

I am not sure "natural instinct" supports the argument for healthcare as a "right." We also have natural instincts for murder, fornication, adultery (spreading our seed), and other natural instincts which are harmful and unprofitable for us as humans. I assume you would agree that these natural instincts should not be listened to?

[annewandering]

I am not sure "natural instinct" supports the argument for healthcare as a "right." We also have natural instincts for murder, fornication, adultery (spreading our seed), and other natural instincts which are harmful and unprofitable for us as humans. I assume you would agree that these natural instincts should not be listened to?

I dont agree those are natural instincts. Since when do we have any instinct to kill other people? Propagating is an instinct and our society has, or had ways, to keep that instinct controlled and used for the benefit of society. As civilized people we direct our instincts in ways that satisfy the instincts and maintain order.

There are three basic natural instincts. Self survival, tribe/group survival and species survival. All of those would be served by universal health care. Instead we fall into the group that sees a wounded individual and kill it off. Perhaps that makes the whole stronger but we, being civilized, realize that many who have health issues and are the 'wounded' are there by circumstance not weakness. As an 'advanced' civilization we extend that care to those who do have genetic health issues, not being willing to cull the weak. At least most of the civilized world does.

I would have to argue that we do have a right to health care by fact of birth as human.

[estradling75]

I hate how this types of discussion turn into 'If you disagree with me then you must like killing people because they can't get health care' and its equal from the other side (which I know will happen) Neither of which allows us to have anything close to a productive discussion on it.

On the subject of it being a right... I was taught that my rights ended were another persons rights begin. Thus I have a right to jump up and down and swing my arms like a spaz monkey if I want. But that ends the moment my flailing limbs come into contact with someone else's nose or property. Thus the moment the Healthcare for someone else reaches into my wallet it stops being a right.

So I agree it should be called a Social Policy. It more like Police, Fire, Infrastructure, etc. Things we get taxed for because it is a good idea and it is more efficient for a pooled effort. I could easily see heathcare as part of that group. Please note though that none of those are rights.

So my problem isn't with the idea... My problem is with the implementation. I have no trust or faith that this program will do anything other then waste money, and make the situation worse.

[annewandering]

I hate how this types of discussion turn into 'If you disagree with me then you must like killing people because they can't get health care' and its equal from the other side (which I know will happen) Neither of which allows us to have anything close to a productive discussion on it.

The reason it seems to turn into that type of discussion is that is what it boils down to isnt it? Not so much liking to kill people but just not caring if they suffer or die. It is either we help them or we dont care enough about their welfare to want to be bothered about helping them. We can put pretty words on it to make it not seem so black and white but that doesnt change the basic facts.