Universal Health Care

[estradling75]

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.

That is only when you assume that a person that disagrees with you can't be bothered to care.

Which isn't a given if they are arguing against 'how' it is being done. (Instead of why)

[Windseeker]

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

What was the situation and what did you see?

Did you really just stand there and watch someone die in a gutter?

If you are attempting to hyperbolize a situation where someone or their family could not afford a treatment that might have prolonged their life, I agree that this occurs.

But that does not equate to people crawling into gutters and dying. The same thing occurs in countries with Socialized Medicine, if that was not the case the wealthy from those countries wouldn't be coming to the U.S. in droves for treatment the less fortunate can't afford.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Windseeker

[yjacket]

I would argue that no health care is not a right. IMO when talking about health care as a right people in general do not distinguish between negative and positive rights. If health care is a right it is most definitely a positive right. I would argue that positive rights can only come about at the infringement of negative rights.

Many of the arguments for universal health care are trying to solve the problem of positive rights with more positive rights. For example, the reason health care is tied to employment in this country is because of the government and the IRS.

Why Tie Health Insurance to a Job? - WSJ.com

So for the 1st bullet point by the OP, for health care to be untied from employment would require a rewrite of the tax code.

Besides the emotional claim that health care prevents me from buying "things I need".The 2nd bullet point is again because of government regulations. The same goes for the 3rd bullet point, swap health care for raising a family.

Universal Health Care is a social policy. I would argue that it is very different than police, fire, infrastructure, etc. All of those are operated at a very local level that provides the best ability of the individuals directly involved to interact with those providing the service.

I understand the desire of individuals to provide for those less fortunate and I too have the same desire; but UHC will actually do less for the less fortunate, it will-over time-cause a lower level of health care than would have otherwise been available had it not been implemented.

The number one issue with health care right now is price transparency-there is none. In no other interaction in ones daily life does one have so little information about what things cost. In order to have a functioning health care system the consumer of the good must know what it costs. Everything comes with costs and benefits. Should I do x or y, without price, should I get metal fillings or white fillings. So many options exists that without price it is impossible to determine the best solution.

Oh well someone will say they should get the best operation . . . well what determines what is the "best" operation. The one the is the cheapest, the one that heals the best, the one that has the least side-effects??? Who makes the decision and how?. Without price one cannot determine value!! It is why Socialism fails, should we produce 1 million blue shoes or 1 million blue shirts, it is impossible to make that determination without price. It's why price controls do not work and cause shortages. And UHC is a form of price control.

Not only will UHC cause a lower standard of health care it will cause lower morals and ethics. Charity no longer exists as charity when it is forced by threat. Forcing individuals to pay for someone else's health care will make society less willing to give to others. In fact, by having UHC one deprives individuals of the opportunity to be more charitable than they currently are.

[yjacket]

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.

Who is the we?

It has nothing to do with not caring if they suffer or die, it is the immutable fact of life that besides air nothing in life is unlimited (one might even argue breathable air is limited). And because everything is limited, especially in health care, someone will suffer, someone will die because they did not get what they needed.

Because health care is a limited resource rationing will occur and when I say rationing I mean someone will suffer because they did not receive the care they needed.

To my knowledge, only 3 ways exist to ration a finite resource, you either ration by price, ration by parts, or you ration by time. In all these situations someone suffers. If you ration by price someone cannot afford it, if you ration by time someone will suffer who would not have suffered had price existed, if you ration by parts someone will suffer because they receive less than they would have otherwise.

I'd love for everyone to have their own in-home personal doctor that cures every ail, but until we are living in paradise it won't happen without penalizing someone at the expense of someone else.

[Just_A_Guy]

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

You know that scripture in the D&C about men being kept from the truth because they don't know where to find it? I've found, in the last couple of years of dealing with bankruptcies, divorce, and some criminal defense, that the same thing is true about government benefits.

In the current American system--indeed, in the system that existed even when Darth Dubya was in office--no one needed to die in the gutter; because Medicaid/CHIP exists precisely to deal with those kinds of situations. But it happens sometimes, because people don't have the know-how, wherewithal, or just plain persistence to deal with the byzantine bureaucracy that administers these programs.

[mtnbikemom]

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.

I have not met a single person who is opposed to UHC and simultaneously believes that those who can't afford medical care don't deserve help. I've never even seen nor heard that suggested. The argument is ALWAYS that yes, people do need assistance and we need to find the best way to deliver that "help". Government and "help" are not interchangeable or synonymous terms. It's not a issue of using pretty or ugly words but an issue of assigning accurate or inaccurate motives.

And this is coming from someone who has been uninsured for years because we just can't afford it. I would love nothing more than to have my badly herniated discs fixed or even looked at. Heck, I would love to just have a yearly exam, once every 10 years. Maybe a mammogram.

Just in case the rebuttal is (not specifically you, Anne) that it's easy to object when you have all the money, help, coverage, etc. you need.

[bytor2112]

A far more frightening prospect is the fact that a policing organization.the IRS will be used to enforce Obama Care. I would note that England does not have a single payer system and does not use a policing organization to enforce their health care system.

Canada does have a single payer system and I understand that physicians can be fined for operating outside of their system.but, they do not have a policing organization like the IRS enforcing healthcare.

Scary stuff if you ask me.....

[Windseeker]

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?

Where are you getting your facts that "the majority of health conditions that people suffer from are not the direct result of poor life style choices"?

I can't imagine anyone believing this. It flies in the face of science and let alone the Word of Wisdom. Not everything is genetic, there have been thousands of studies involving identical twins. Behavior has a major affect on health.

A study by University of Purdue found that 74% of health care costs are due to lifestyle related behavior. A study by Emory University states that 91% of type 2 diabetes, 80% of heart disease and 40% of cancer relates to health and lifestyle behavior.

[Windseeker]

I have not met a single person who is opposed to UHC and simultaneously believes that those who can't afford medical care don't deserve help.

Neither have I, and yet everyone who pushed for it truly does not believe it's an equal right despite their lies.

“If you don’t have health insurance, you’ll be able to get the same kind of health insurance that members of Congress give themselves.”

Heller Amendment

[Wordnerd]

A far more frightening prospect is the fact that a policing organization.the IRS will be used to enforce Obama Care. I would note that England does not have a single payer system and does not use a policing organization to enforce their health care system.

Canada does have a single payer system and I understand that physicians can be fined for operating outside of their system.but, they do not have a policing organization like the IRS enforcing healthcare.

Scary stuff if you ask me.....

There is a limited amount of private care allowed in Canada, I'm not sure exactly what the rules are but I think what it boils down to is that doctors can't charge to bump people up the waiting list, but they can charge for things not paid for by the government, like notes, drivers licence physicals, filling out forms. However there are private clinics for MRI's and CT scans, and if you pay to go, you are definitely getting in faster. We are dealing with this right now because my husband has been having chest pain, and two trips to emergency only determined that its not a heart attack. He had a one week wait for a CT scan which was supposed to have been two, but he called and asked for an earlier appt, which we were able to get by going to a rural hospital. He has now been referred to a cardiologist, which is a three week wait for the consultation and another two for the tests needed. This is fast considering that he is not incapacitated, because the family doctor knows how to work the system. However, if he were admitted to the hospital, all this would have been done already, we operate on a triage system, the sickest are dealt with first. Someone who waits 18 months for an MRI is doing so because they are not as sick as everyone before them. They have the option to pay if they want it done faster (why this is allowed for this and not many other things I don't know) or to get their doctor to attempt to move them up the list if their health is deteriorating. All I know is that I am grateful, that this isn't costing us thousands of dollars, because we are self-employed, and would likely be the uninsured, but not covered by Medicaid who are paying through the nose if we were in the US.

[Smeagums]

The free market will always provide a better quality service for a lower price. I am absolutely against ObamaCare. Premiums are already up in exact opposition to what the politicians said. I haven't had health insurance, and do not make large amount of money, for probably 9 years. That's my choice.

Health insurance in the 50s could be purchased for $7 a month and covered at most $5,000. People who had heart attacks never needed the full amount. I don't understand why the older folk don't speak up. They grew up during the time when government was very minimally involved but then again people ate better and hospitals were less needed.

Call me a "conspiracy theorist" but it is much more profitable to keep people sick than healthy.

[Anddenex]

I dont agree those are natural instincts. Since when do we have any instinct to kill other people?

I suppose we disagree, in light of this question, how many mammalian species are you able to identify who do not instinctively kill other species for survival, either for food, territory, and/or leadership (alpha) roles?

Just look at history and how many wars have been waged for territory, typical response within bi-pedal species. Through the eyes of evolution, our closest cousins, will kill to survive, and will kill invading bi-pedal groups (same species) if warnings are not heeded.

Killing other species, or ones own species, appears to be very much a natural instinct within all mammalian species.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Anddenex

[Just_A_Guy]

The free market will always provide a better quality service for a lower price.

I don't disagree; but let's bear in mind that what we had pre-PPACA was not a free market. It was, in many ways, a cartel.

In a truly free market, you can ask someone for a price quote and they'll give it to you. And, you know exactly what you're buying before you get it.

Health insurance in the 50s could be purchased for $7 a month and covered at most $5,000. People who had heart attacks never needed the full amount.

That's because they usually died.

Again, I'm as anti-PPACA as the next conservative; but health care today is exponentially better now than it was sixty years ago. And, though we've been spoiled by computers and smart phones, the more general trend is that better stuff is usually more expensive. (Perhaps it shouldn't be THIS much more expensive; but the days of paying our kids' pediatricians with a couple of chickens from the back yard are long past.)

[Smeagums]

I don't disagree; but let's bear in mind that what we had pre-PPACA was not a free market. It was, in many ways, a cartel.

In a truly free market, you can ask someone for a price quote and they'll give it to you. And, you know exactly what you're buying before you get it.

That's because they usually died.

Again, I'm as anti-PPACA as the next conservative; but health care today is exponentially better now than it was sixty years ago. And, though we've been spoiled by computers and smart phones, the more general trend is that better stuff is usually more expensive. (Perhaps it shouldn't be THIS much more expensive; but the days of paying our kids' pediatricians with a couple of chickens from the back yard are long past.)

I'm not familiar with PPACA but just know that when government gets involved prices go up. I have to disagree with what I placed in bold and underlined. Technology is far, far superior to what it was sixty years ago and is a fraction of the price.

One, of many, example is hard drives. They use to be the size of a dryer, cost a fortune and held maybe 5mb or so. I am not sure on the exact amount of storage so lets say 500mb. Now we have thumb drives that hold thousands more memory for a fraction of the cost.

[Traveler]

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

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

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?

Something you may not know is that many citizens of the USA are opting for another alternative. There are American doctors that have set up clinics just across the border in Mexico. While on a consulting job in Phoenix I met a US doctor that told me that he no longer works in the USA for many reasons but mainly because he makes more money. He does not see anyone in Mexico except US citizens. He has no malpractice costs. He told me that he was the chief hart surgeon for a prestigious hospital in the USA.

He told me that his business in Mexico is thriving because he can fly a patient in from the US East Coast perform open heart surgery - put the patient up in a care facility for a week and fly then home for less than the patient would have to pay for a year of health care insurance.

I find it ironic that increasing numbers of Mexican citizens are crossing the border into the USA to get free health and at the same time increasing numbers of American citizens are crossing the border into Mexico to get health care they can afford.

Often in my consulting business a customer will ask me to do some extra work for them. I always respond that I am glad to help but I do not want to waist my time doing things they really do not want. Then I ask how important is the additional work to them - would they please tell me how much they would be willing to pay for the extra work.

If they say that they thought that I should add it for free - I respond by saying - "If it is not worth a dime to you - why should I offer my time for something that really does not mean anything to you." Often they will jump in surprise and then come back and say that they will pay so many $$$$. Then I respond - "Sounds reasonable to me - but I will not charge you - I just wanted to make sure it was really important to you to have the work done."

I feel the same about someone's else personal health care. If they are of reasonable intelligence and are not willing to invest anything themselves in their own care - Why should I or for that matter - anyone else?

The Traveler

[Backroads]

Did not read the whole thread because I got bored...

I believe health care to be a civil right only as far as the civilization in question deems it to be such. It is not a "human right" because an individual human must work for it and without the right social organization no other human really has any benefit in assisting another person with their health.

The question inspired by Andenex's question is if universal health care always benefits the society. Only if it were completely beneficial could I think anyone begin to call it a civil right.

My opinion on it? I'm generally against the concept personally, but I believe if a group of people decide it is beneficial to that group, so be it.

[Backroads]

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.

I've yet to meet anyone who is against universal health care who supports letting people die. In fact, most of the people I know who are against universal health care are the most charitable and fellow-minded people I've ever met. They simply choose to carry the burden of helping other people rather than shifting that burden to the state.

[dahlia]

Rights given under the Constitution and the Amendments,

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.

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

Amen. There is no Constitutionally mandated right to health care. No right to abortion. And LBJ effectively decimated the black family by instituting a welfare system that required men to leave the home in order for children to receive benefits.

When I hear 'right,' I get itchy and want people to show me their special copy of the Constitution with that so-called 'right.'

[talisyn]

The US constitution is not and will never be a perfect document. Trying to say that health care isn't a human right is like trying to say eating isn't a human right, either.

[jerome1232]

*a bit of a side track*

I get itchy when people think the constitution is a finalized list of rights, it's not, and some of the founders opposed the Bill of Rights just because the government might decided that's exactly what it is.

[Just_A_Guy]

*a bit of a side track*

I get itchy when people think the constitution is a finalized list of rights, it's not, and some of the founders opposed the Bill of Rights just because the government might decided that's exactly what it is.

Well . . . sort of.

The thing is, the bill of rights wasn't a list of stuff that the citizen didn't previously have, that government had to give the citizen. It was the list of natural rights the citizen theoretically had from birth that government must not take away.

The anti-federalist concern about establishing an enumerated bill of rights was that it may establish a mindset where government might use it to justify taking away any natural right not expressly granted in that document. The fact that the bill of rights might tie the government's hands was a feature, not a bug; because the founders understood that sooner or later powerful centralized states tend to go bad.

[Just_A_Guy]

The US constitution is not and will never be a perfect document. Trying to say that health care isn't a human right is like trying to say eating isn't a human right, either.

I think that may be why Finrock (I think it was him) was trying to draw the distinction between a basic or natural right, versus a civil right. The term "human right" isn't very helpful without that distinction. Using his definitions as I understand them, eating may be a civil right in our particular society, but I'm not sure it's a basic or natural right.

As I understand it, part of determining a civil right is determining whether the society can afford to give that right to each of its inhabitants. PPACA is already proving to be massively financially unsustainable, and I'm not aware of any nation with universal health care that isn't also massively in debt (even Australia, whose national debt seems to have quadrupled since 2007 if Wikipedia is correct).

Edited May 31, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[Windseeker]

The US constitution is not and will never be a perfect document. Trying to say that health care isn't a human right is like trying to say eating isn't a human right, either.

Trying to say that healthcare is a right is like saying that goverment should purchase firearms for every citizen to ensure our right to keep and bear arms or provide each citizen airtime on TV and Radio and columns in newspapers in order to exercise their right of free press or pay for our church buildings to provide our right to freedom of religion.

Why is is acceptable that your "rights" further and further infringe on a citizens right to enjoy the fruits of their labors?

[yjacket]

The US constitution is not and will never be a perfect document. Trying to say that health care isn't a human right is like trying to say eating isn't a human right, either.

No it is not a perfect document.

But eating isn't a human right either. Claiming that eating is a human right is confusing positve and negativet.

No one has the right to steal my food that I earned so that I can eat-that is negative (i.e. one may not do x).

Claiming that eating is a human right means that I may steal someone else's food to eat, it is legalized theft-that is positive (i.e. one may do x). If eating is a human right and I may steal as I please to eat, then that means everyone may steal everyone else's food. If everyone can steal everyone else's food why should I work to earn food? I would be a utter and complete fool to plow a field and plant a garden when I simply can steal someone else's food legally from their field and garden. Eventually when everyone steals from everyone else very few individuals work and societies collapse.

Human nature is very simple, we are by nature selfish, and when I say selfish I mean we all act in what we perceive to be in our own best interest. Until we are all angels, we will always have varying degrees of selfishness. Unfortunately, one cannot force morality, morality has to be taught, understood, and comprehended that to be moral is in one's own best interest. It is good to help the poor, care for the needy, etc. because it helps ground us, it helps bring us closer to God, etc. It is something we should all do. And that is what religion does for us, it teaches us how to be moral.

Forcing one to be moral is actually the anti-thesis of being moral. Forcing one to give to the poor, to feed the hungry is immoral. It takes away the ability to choose, it takes away all the self-benefits of giving to the poor. When we give to the poor voluntarily, we feel good, we know we have done God's will, etc. A whole host of benefits are given to both the giver and the receiver. When it is forced, the giver and receiver are diminished instead of enhanced.

When boiled down to it's simplistic form one must ask at what point is it morally just and right to force someone to do something (regardless of whether they want to do it or not). I argue that it is only morally just to force someone to do something when they have (without provocation or reason) forced someone else to do something.

When we take away all the emotional strings to UHC, what it really boils down to is force. UHC uses the power of the gun to force individuals to do something. It takes away free agency and the power to choose to not do something.

Satan's plan is well alive in today's world, he wanted to force everyone to do what was right so that no one would be lost. The thing he didn't realize is that by doing so everyone would be lost.

[Windseeker]

When we take away all the emotional strings to UHC, what it really boils down to is force. UHC uses the power of the gun to force individuals to do something. It takes away free agency and the power to choose to not do something.

Satan's plan is well alive in today's world, he wanted to force everyone to do what was right so that no one would be lost. The thing he didn't realize is that by doing so everyone would be lost.

Agree 100%

When you deny the right (agency) of someone to be selfish you inhibit the ability for people to be selfless in the same stroke.