|
Post by gousa1 on May 22, 2010 3:07:13 GMT
Should health care be considered a basic human right?
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on May 22, 2010 4:00:33 GMT
I think so. We guarantee to a reasonable extent the right to protection from fire, crime, and provide many other services through the government such as public education. I think preventative medicine would save us much in costs and make an overall healthier society.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on May 22, 2010 18:38:42 GMT
A right? We can apply a measure to this. We have several rights that are outlined in the Constitution with the qualifier that the list is not exhaustive. In the USA we have the right to freedom of speech, press etc. In the exercise of those rights one does not have to listen to another's free speech nor provide them with a printing press by which an individual can exercise their freedom of the press. The rights that are listed do not require a sacrifice on the part of another. Health care does not grow on trees.
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on May 22, 2010 19:50:29 GMT
Rights come with responsibilities. What would those who receive health care as a right be accountable for?
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on May 22, 2010 20:33:15 GMT
That is a good question. Would those that receive health care as a right be accountable to those that provide the means by which that right is realized? Would those that provide the means be accountable to those that do not provide the means? It is heart warming to talk about the good that can come from a universal system of health care. It becomes less heart warming when we view the heavy handedness by which universal health care comes about. We can call it an entitlement but it is not a right. An invidual's rights do not infringe upon the rights of others. An entitlement can be used to take from others. When we discuss universal health care we must be cognizant of the facts of the matter. Wishes don't make reality. A government can enforce universal health care but it will come at the detriment of some. How many can be sacrificed for the "greater good?"
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on May 22, 2010 20:34:11 GMT
My comments were only general, and I assume they would be accountable for a reasonably healthy lifestyle. The taxpayers would ideally decide this in legislation. As far as rights, the American people are constitutionally guaranteed 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' (note that happiness is not guaranteed nor given a qualifier as to what its pursuit entails.) These three items, while not in our Constitution, are held as 'self-evident' and 'inalienable rights' in our Declaration of Independence.
Let's say a smoker or overeater or a smoker considers this part of their 'pursuit of happiness'. It seems they are within their inalienable rights, yet not particularly entitled to the right of aid without living to the responsibilities required. Be temperate is a good start. Not being myself a lawyer or statesmen, this is just an opinion. I do think this relates both to the 'common defense' and the 'general welfare' denoted in the preamble of the constitution. Good citizenship infers taking care of oneself and integrity in dealings. Let it be said that my comment is an opinion, and it may be right, wrong, or somewhere in between (as I assume it is.) To deal with the individual responsibilities it incurs, an investigation into its practicalities, or its ability to line-up with the constitution are all far deeper questions than I have off-the-cuff responsive ability. I do think a healthier country is stronger and more prosperous. I also have one vote like everyone else in this country. Should the vote go against my wishes, I humbly defer to the will of the people who democratically elect my representative, and once more vote third-party as per usual. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Leo on May 22, 2010 21:58:58 GMT
I think everyone is entitled to health care. Here in Ireland, and indeed other parts of Europe health care is available for all regardless of who they are or what their circumstances in life are. Our Governments all provide some kind of health care for free, but many also choose to buy health insurance.
|
|
|
Post by Leo on May 23, 2010 5:51:42 GMT
I repeat here what I wrote elsewhere:
Please try and remain on topic. Taking the thread in another direction [deliberately or otherwise] is unhelpful. If there is something specific that’s been written that one feels strongly enough to respond to please start another thread on that subject. We have seen far too many decent topics descend into something they should never have been simply because members followed a different line to what was introduced. So, let’s try and keep things on track.
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on May 23, 2010 6:05:03 GMT
I do like Ayn Rand, and keep a copy of THE VIRTUE OF SELFISHNESS on my shelf, along with FOUNTAINHEAD, ATLAS SHRUGGED, and ANTHEM.
One thing about a democratically-elected government is that it is possible for the majority to vote in a Communist state. Our steps as citizens need to be measured carefully to maintain freedom and justice.
I do think that there is a place where Rand's philosophies break down. There was a successful restaurant owner that was forced into bankruptcy from his medical costs after contracting cancer. A shining example of an entrepreneur in perfect John Galt style, even that Atlas shrank against a system that is faulty at its base. From a rational standpoint of 'what works/what doesn't', I think it at least bears closer examination. For one thing, why is the largest group of consumers, the American citizens, not offered a 'group plan' from insurers?
I believe in capitalism and its ability to function. Unfortunately, I think true capitalism has gone by the wayside in this country, and I doubt Rand would approve of current business practices. We bailed out American Airlines three or four times. That is not capitalism. That is not fair market, nor free market. We need to figure out some errors with our medical system. Largely, I agree with many of Rand's assessments, but she is open to disagreement. If a successful entrepreneur and pillar of business society cannot stand up to out-of-control medical costs, what hope the less accomplished? What happened to the restaurant owner was quite akin to what happened to Rand's family when they were forced from their business by the Communists. Something's rotten in Denmark as it was in Gorky Park and it is near Central Park, and it is need of repair.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on May 23, 2010 14:14:51 GMT
Health care may be seen as an entitlement. I don't think that anyone has a right to a product, and health care is a product though one that is quite valuable.
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on May 23, 2010 15:45:39 GMT
I do think that is a danger, which is why an 'American citizen' purchasing group for insurance seems the most rational solution to me. Insurers could compete in the market for the money generated. I honestly do not know, but some action feels necessary. Health care may be seen as an entitlement. I don't think that anyone has a right to a product, and health care is a product though one that is quite valuable.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on May 23, 2010 18:48:43 GMT
Actions are necessary, which is why we are having this discussion. It would be difficult to presume that the American people represent a cooperative purchasing group as there is no guarantee of payment. Medical services do require payment because doctors, lab techs, nurses etc do not grow on trees. I think it would be a great idea to have a group of people set some standards and solicit membership to create a cooperative purchasing group to negotiate a better price. That would go a long ways to addressing the issue without requiring government intervention in the economy.
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on May 23, 2010 19:05:17 GMT
I agree with you here. I *do* think that such a cooperative group would be held to responsibilities and fees in the case of such a public purchasing group. I'm really thinking out loud here, and expect medical professionals to be appropriately compensated. On the other side of the equation is lawsuit reform. Medical professionals can hardly turn around without someone throwing a frivolous lawsuit at them, and the insurance against lawsuits further impedes a doctor's desire to continue in his profession. I see quite a few sticky wickets here. Ideally, reform occurs in the private and government sectors both. Yet, that's like waiting for the water in hell to freeze so we can all go ice-skating.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on May 25, 2010 12:39:43 GMT
Government in bed with business makes ugly children doesn't it. There are far too many frivolous lawsuits tossed around which drives up the operating cost of being a doctor. Limiting the ability to take it to a doctor or hospital over the frivolous lawsuits also limits the guy who had the wrong leg amputated. Reforming the way in which these lawsuits are handled requires tackling the Bar Association. All of this hinges on the health care question. Is it a right or an entitlement?
|
|
|
Post by grigori on May 25, 2010 17:44:44 GMT
"Rights" are defined by nations, so while healthcare is a fundamental right in countries like Canada, Australia, the U.K. and much of Europe, it is not necessarily so in the U.S. (Let's not beat around the bush; what we're really talking about here is the American situation).
According to the oft quoted line from the U.S. Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
If the "right to Life" does not include the right to continue living, (regardless of the size of your bank account), then it's meaningless, and Americans should just take "Life" off their list of rights to avoid any further confusion in this matter.
As for "rights" being tied to "responsibilities," firstly, "inalienable rights" means that they can not be taken away, (except in the execution of justice), but it's an absurdly moot point, because absolutely all of your responsibilities are contingent on you being alive.
Now, as for the perception that Universal Healthcare is “communist,” nothing could be further from the truth. Nobody is talking about collective ownership of the means of production. It's not even close. Healthcare is not production. Even in countries with Universal Health Care, hospitals and practices are run as private businesses. So I can't see any threat to capitalism there...
Nationalizing the pharmaceutical industry would be communist. Guaranteeing the "Right to Life" is not.
More importantly, free-market economics do not apply to the healthcare industry in any way. In fact, the pre-existing healthcare system in the U.S. is far more of anti-capitalist than people are willing to admit.
Firstly, if you’ve just been hit by a bus and you’re laying in the gutter unconscious, you are not able to shop around for the best price on healthcare, and the friendly folks in the EMS Services will send you to the closest hospital, whether you want it or not. You could wake up six months later with an 8-million dollar hospital bill that you never consented to.
How can that even be considered a legally binding contract?
Similarly, if I held a gun to your child’s head and forced you to sign a contract, it wouldn’t be considered legally binding anywhere in the world, (except Kuwait). My point is that no other industry can legally compel you into a contractual obligation on fear of pain or death, or saddle you with a "crippling" contract without your consent, under duress, or while you are unconscious. (Although my phone company tries that approach occasionally).
But even more importantly, the healthcare industry is structured as a de-facto monopoly/oligopoly, which negates all notions of a “free market.” The various State/Provincial Medical Associations have gone out of their way to keep tight controls on the supply of new doctors entering the field. As a former Pre-Med Biology student, I can tell you that it’s not based on your academic standing. The Med School entrance qualifications change from year to year based solely on the number of Doctors who are going to retire this year. This type of monopolistic behavior, (manipulating the supply to deliberately create a shortage), is illegal in just about every other industry. (Check out the DeBeers family for more on that). For example, maybe this year, you need 92% to get into Med School. Next year it might be 87%. In theory, we could have a year where you need 101% to get into Med School, (i.e. if no doctors are retiring this year, then no one gets into Med School).
If there were a set standard, designed to gradually increase the ratio of doctors to patients, then in time, free-market economics would come into play to a limited extent, but as long as the Medical Associations control the supply of doctors, any discussion of communism vs. free-market is meaningless. What we're talking about is monopoly vs. capitalism, and surely, even free-market ideologues must concede that monopolistic or oligopolistic behaviour is every bit as much of an anathema as communism.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on May 25, 2010 18:58:06 GMT
The right to life does not mean that you are entitled to free medical care at the expense of others. The right to life means that another person can not deprive you of life through the initiation of force. The government also can not deprive you of life except through the process of law for the commission of a crime.
Redistribution of wealth is certainly one plank of the communist manifesto, and socialized medicine is wealth redistribution no matter what fancy name you call it.
|
|
|
Post by grigori on May 25, 2010 19:09:27 GMT
The right to life means that another person can not deprive you of life through the initiation of force. It's a little more complicated than that. It's also possible to deprive someone of life through deliberate inaction. In this case, we're talking about withholding the right to life from people based on solely their social strata. Let's just drop the use of the words "communism" or "socialism." They simply don't apply here... If healthcare were a free market then we could start using such terms, but it's not even close. Healthcare has never even remotely resembled a "capitalist" system, and it never could.
|
|
|
Post by grigori on May 25, 2010 19:57:01 GMT
The right to life does not mean that you are entitled to free medical care at the expense of others. The right to life means that another person can not deprive you of life through the initiation of force. The government also can not deprive you of life except through the process of law for the commission of a crime. Technical point here: you're saying that you don't have the "right" to life, you just have a "law," (which is much less than a right), saying that others can't deliberately take your life. Therefore, the continuation of your life is not an inalienable right; it's just a crime to deliberately kill you...
|
|
|
Post by grigori on May 25, 2010 20:06:13 GMT
Redistribution of wealth is certainly one plank of the communist manifesto, and socialized medicine is wealth redistribution no matter what fancy name you call it. It only counts as redistribution of wealth from immortal people to mortals. Otherwise, rich or poor, we're all going to get sick. The costs are just luck of the draw. No one comes out ahead.
|
|
|
Post by letterorhalveit3 on May 25, 2010 21:13:05 GMT
I think I would go a little bit further and say that we have the fundamental human right not to suffer and we have the fundamental human responsibility to relieve the suffering of others. Whats interesting is that we have, in the USA, a federally mandated right not to be turned away from the ER if we are having a heart attack, have been bitten by a dog or shot by a thug, among other emergencies, simply because we cannot pay for life-saving services. However, once we are stable in the ER, if we cannot pay for further service, we do not have the right to be admitted to the hospital if we cannot pay. Should we? Yes. Is that the compassionate thing to do on the part of medical providers? Yes, it is. Will we not have this right until and before the practice of medicine...real, compassionate, healing medicine, ceases to be a corporate, publicly traded stock and becomes what hospitals were meant to be: centers of mercy, compassion and caring for our fellow human beings. I fear the road is long and the path fraught on all sides with bandits.
|
|