healthcare as a benefit/privilege?

[MoonWater]

I've always believed that healthcare should be a right given to everyone simply because we're all human. Yet throughout this whole ACA thing I've been hearing opponents talk about healthcare as a "benefit" or worse yet a "privilege" as if it's something that should be "earned".

Seriously? We're not talking about a christmas bonus or being able to move into a bigger house. We're talking about people's lives here. I could understand people being against it because they think it will be less effective than our current system or far to costly to maintain (both of which are bogus as has been constantly shown, but that's not what this thread is about). But to be against universal coverage because you consider healthcare a benefit or privilege? That just seems so... heartless to me. Is it just me? Has anyone else come across this? Can any of those who favor it offer any justification?

 

[Revoltingest]

I've always believed that healthcare should be a right given to everyone simply because we're all human. Yet throughout this whole ACA thing I've been hearing opponents talk about healthcare as a "benefit" or worse yet a "privilege" as if it's something that should be "earned".
Seriously? We're not talking about a christmas bonus or being able to move into a bigger house. We're talking about people's lives here. I could understand people being against it because they think it will be less effective than our current system or far to costly to maintain (both of which are bogus as has been constantly shown, but that's not what this thread is about). But to be against universal coverage because you consider healthcare a benefit or privilege? That just seems so... heartless to me. Is it just me? Has anyone else come across this? Can any of those who favor it offer any justification?

Health care is expensive, as are housing, food, & a collection of other necessities (clothing, internet access, phone, vacations). The line is drawn where it is depending upon how productive a society is relative to the cost of the thing to which people are given a "right", ie, what can be afforded. Early on in the country, a right to health care would've been impossible, even with the low cost of primitive medicine. As we become more productive, this line will move, & people will disagree about where it should be. So what you see as obvious (being a right), is not shared by all. How soon will housing, food & the other items be a right, ie, given to all in need? Would you have gov provide them now?

 

[Sunstone]

It's interesting that the richest nation in history does not have universal health care, while many less affluent nations do.

As for whether it's a right, it's probably time for something as fundamental to human welfare as health care be made a right.

 

[Aquitaine]

Health care is expensive, as are housing, food, & a collection of other necessities (clothing, internet access, phone, vacations). The line is drawn where it is depending upon how productive a society is relative to the cost of the thing to which people are given a "right", ie, what can be afforded. Early on in the country, a right to health care would've been impossible, even with the low cost of primitive medicine. As we become more productive, this line will move, & people will disagree about where it should be. So what you see as obvious (being a right), is not shared by all. How soon will housing, food & the other items be a right, ie, given to all in need? Would you have gov provide them now?

The US Government already provides healthcare... to it's military personnel. Bill Kristol even admitted on US television that he believes it's the best healthcare system, hence why he justified his position that only military personnel should receive it since they "earned" it, or something along those lines.

See here:

[youtube]dldIF4yOxNA[/youtube]
Countdown: GOPer Bill Kristol Say's Americans Don't Deserve Good Health Care 7-28-09 - YouTube



*This colour = edited text.

 

[esmith]

The US Government already provides healthcare... to it's military personnel. Bill Kristol even admitted on US television that he believes it's the best healthcare system, hence why he justified his position that only military personnel should receive it since they "earned" it, or something along those lines.

I agree that the military health care system is an excellent system and that military active duty and retired members have "earned" it. However, there are those that say we did not earn it, it was just given to us. I disagree with this assumption but since it was already discussed in a previous subject, I will refrain from discussing it here. The military is somewhat unique when it comes to healthcare. Try and get a civilian doctor in a combat zone or deployed aboard Navy ships. So, if the government is paying the health care professionals why not utilize them. Yes, I know retired members pay very little for their health care and go to civilian doctors. However, that has changed. If yo live more that 40 miles from a military hospital you no longer qualify for the premier health plan. When you turn 65 you lose your military health care as the primary insurer. Guess what, Medicare Part B is considerably more expensive than Tricare. We were always told, verbally, that if we retired from the military we would have free health care for life. Guess what, they lied.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Health care is expensive, as are housing, food, & a collection of other necessities (clothing, internet access, phone, vacations). The line is drawn where it is depending upon how productive a society is relative to the cost of the thing to which people are given a "right", ie, what can be afforded. Early on in the country, a right to health care would've been impossible, even with the low cost of primitive medicine. As we become more productive, this line will move, & people will disagree about where it should be. So what you see as obvious (being a right), is not shared by all. How soon will housing, food & the other items be a right, ie, given to all in need? Would you have gov provide them now?

As it stands now, the government has plenty of programs to get food and shelter to people who didn't obtain them by market forces alone.

 

[Revoltingest]

As it stands now, the government has plenty of programs to get food and shelter to people who didn't obtain them by market forces alone.

There are programs aplenty, but there are also many who are homeless & hungry.

 

[Aquitaine]

I agree that the military health care system is an excellent system and that military active duty and retired members have "earned" it. However, there are those that say we did not earn it, it was just given to us. I disagree with this assumption but since it was already discussed in a previous subject, I will refrain from discussing it here. The military is somewhat unique when it comes to healthcare. Try and get a civilian doctor in a combat zone or deployed aboard Navy ships. So, if the government is paying the health care professionals why not utilize them. Yes, I know retired members pay very little for their health care and go to civilian doctors. However, that has changed. If yo live more that 40 miles from a military hospital you no longer qualify for the premier health plan. When you turn 65 you lose your military health care as the primary insurer. Guess what, Medicare Part B is considerably more expensive than Tricare. We were always told, verbally, that if we retired from the military we would have free health care for life. Guess what, they lied.

Yeah, your armed-forces personnel are getting ripped-off because the USA has completely over-exerted itself militarily, especially since 2001.

Less aggressive Foreign Policy by the USA = less need for military personnel to be placed in high-danger zones = less injuries = less money needing to be spent on prosthetic limbs/PTSD treatment/Suicide Prevention etc = more money left over to actually care for US military personnel when they come home and grow old.

Cut a looooooong story short: the USA needs to stop acting like an Empire and start acting like a Country. Only then will many of it's domestic problems begin to improve steadily.

In my opinion, at least.

 

[esmith]

Yeah, your armed-forces personnel are getting ripped-off because the USA has completely over-exerted itself militarily, especially since 2001.

Less aggressive Foreign Policy by the USA = less need for military personnel to be placed in high-danger zones = less injuries = less money needing to be spent on prosthetic limbs/PTSD treatment/Suicide Prevention etc = more money left over to actually care for US military personnel when they come home and grow old.

Cut a looooooong story short: the USA needs to stop acting like an Empire and start acting like a Country. Only then will many of it's domestic problems begin to improve steadily.

In my opinion, at least.

Just one small bit of information for you. I enlisted in 1961 and retired in 1981. We didn't even get Tricare until 1997. My original ID card had a statement "No Civ Med Care (or something along that line) after 2007 (the year I turned 65). So our medical was not affected by "military over extension" between 1950's and Oct 2013 (the year we lost Tricare Prime). It was just typical political crap that basically could have cared less about the health and welfare of the military. Just we'll send their *** where and when we want and this was the general feeling on both sides of the political spectrum.

 

[LuisDantas]

I have recently come to conclude that the root conflict at work here is between two worldviews that deny each other to some extent.

What is often called a conservative or right-wing view is based on the defense of the right of ownership and prosperity, on the idea that a person ought to be allowed to earn a confortable living out of his work without being pestered by others.

Its natural opposite is the perception that people must be ensured some minimum level of safety and dignity even if they truly don't know how to pursue it.

The hard question for conservatives is how they can justify failing to address social issues. The hard question for liberals is how they can justify denying people the due results of their work.

However the symetry is a false one. It does not automatically follow that a proper balance falls halfway between those stances, mainly because there are no objective, clear points of reference for "typical" conservative or libera stances anyway. It all comes down to social acceptance and varies quite a lot according to both time and place.

Personally, I think that there is little in the way of justification for denying people basic dignity. I also think that such dignity is strongly menaced by significant levels of social disparity (as in, people who don't feel confortable dealing with each other as neighbors).

So in this sense I suppose I will never have a whole lot of sympathy for what is considered the Conservative view. However, it is not altogether wrong; its desire to preserve property and wealth is legitimate, but it can only have a lot of free reign in a world that has a whole lot less social disparity than most countries currently have.

On the other hand, there is a lot to say about the dangers of simply attempting to fill the gaps when the population keeps growing and the demands for earning a confortable, adjusted life keep growing as well. Lack of collective planning and personal responsibility will bring disaster if they keep as unchecked and accepted as they currently are.

Basically, every generation makes the Conservative view less defensable while also making it that much more reasonable.

 

[Aquitaine]

Just one small bit of information for you. I enlisted in 1961 and retired in 1981. We didn't even get Tricare until 1997. My original ID card had a statement "No Civ Med Care (or something along that line) after 2007 (the year I turned 65). So our medical was not affected by "military over extension" between 1950's and Oct 2013 (the year we lost Tricare Prime). It was just typical political crap that basically could have cared less about the health and welfare of the military. Just we'll send their *** where and when we want and this was the general feeling on both sides of the political spectrum.

Aye, sometimes I think politicians who vote for military action should be required to take a significant pay cut (y' know, to help pay for the "war effort" n' all that) or go and fight.

So long as those making the decisions to go to war remain completely insulated from it's consequences, stuff like this will continue.

 

[MoonWater]

I agree that the military health care system is an excellent system and that military active duty and retired members have "earned" it. However, there are those that say we did not earn it, it was just given to us. I disagree with this assumption but since it was already discussed in a previous subject, I will refrain from discussing it here. The military is somewhat unique when it comes to healthcare. Try and get a civilian doctor in a combat zone or deployed aboard Navy ships. So, if the government is paying the health care professionals why not utilize them. Yes, I know retired members pay very little for their health care and go to civilian doctors. However, that has changed. If yo live more that 40 miles from a military hospital you no longer qualify for the premier health plan. When you turn 65 you lose your military health care as the primary insurer. Guess what, Medicare Part B is considerably more expensive than Tricare. We were always told, verbally, that if we retired from the military we would have free health care for life. Guess what, they lied.

and if we had universal healthcare you wouldn't have had to worry about that.

 

[esmith]

and if we had universal healthcare you wouldn't have had to worry about that.

I have what some call socialized health care ...Medicare Part B and Tricare for Life. If they had not done away with Tricare Prime or I lived within 40 miles of a military hospital and I wasn't 65 I would rather have that then universal health care.

 

[hexler]

Health care is affordable. But the super riches are not contributing to the community. They are parasites.

 

[MoonWater]

I have what some call socialized health care ...Medicare Part B and Tricare for Life. If they had not done away with Tricare Prime or I lived within 40 miles of a military hospital and I wasn't 65 I would rather have that then universal health care.

and you are free to have your preferences. It doesn't negate my point

 

[Mister Emu]

Yet throughout this whole ACA thing I've been hearing opponents talk about healthcare as a "benefit" or worse yet a "privilege" as if it's something that should be "earned".

That is exactly what it is, a privilege. One that everyone ought to have access to, but a privilege nonetheless.

Seriously? We're not talking about a christmas bonus or being able to move into a bigger house. We're talking about people's lives here.

Therefore?

Can any of those who favor it offer any justification?

It is intellectual assent to slavery to call any service or product of another's work a "right".

 

[Yerda]

It is intellectual assent to slavery to call any service or product of another's work a "right".

That sounds like a good argument against capitalism.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Healthcare should be universal to all US citzens in a single payer system. I have not yet seen any system yield results in the same manner or quality as socialized medicine.

 

[Mister Emu]

That sounds like a good argument against capitalism.

How so?

 

[LuisDantas]

That sounds like a good argument against capitalism.

Or maybe against some of the most extreme distortions of it.