Is Healthcare a "right" and should it have limits on how much is consumed and by whom?

[Shadow Wolf]

Right there is the problem-"health care keeps us healthy...". I'm sorry, but healthcare does not, nor should it keep us healthy; we are responsible for our own health.

We can't evaluate our cholesterol levels without, we can have routine preventative examinations without, and pretty much any doctor would prefer us to see them so we can stay healthy rather than only seeing them when we are sick. Healthcare is a tremendous tool and asset that tremendously enhances our ability to stay healthy. There is no way for us to have access to the information about the condition of our own health without the tools and equipment a doctor has access to.
And, really, would you rather find your cholesterol levels are out of whack when you have a heart attack or before then? Would you rather know your blood sugar levels at a pre-diabetic level to make adjustments then or just find out upon the onset of diabetes? Would you rather just figure out things on your own and struggle with ailing health, or would you rather have access to a professional who can offer advice and counseling to help you obtain good health and on the road to feeling well?
Like it or not, preventative care is the best care, and though it does start at home having access to healthcare gives us so much more than what we can simply do at home on our own. Personally, I'd prefer a colonoscopy every few years over the alternative of not having them despite a history of polyps and taking a chance of letting per-cancerous tissue form and developing into malignant tissue.

 

[sun rise]

Those rights are about the individual only not the individual having a right to another individuals labour. 2A A right to bear arms not a right to arms. 1A A right to free speech not freedom of consequence nor freedom of platform access. See the difference?



Your frame work is in error as you have confused individual rights with rights to another labour. Dismissed as babble

You ignored my point. Dismissed as babble.

 

[sun rise]

And look up how many live without really needing it.

Almost everyone needs it if they live long enough. Or they live until they die early because they don't have it.

 

[Ellen Brown]

The debate over the provision of healthcare in the US has raged for years and seems to be ramping up. I have had a very narrow view of those who consume it but I am reminded of an incident from my past:

Very unfortunate pregnant young lady with little pre natal care was brought to us in late stages of pregnancy with very very high blood pressures. They delivered the child (since that is the only thing that will allow the patient's pressure to be controlled effectively) but she had a major brain bleed and became a person who exists rather than lives.

No brain activity after several days and the family agonized about what to do. The father wanted the plug pulled and the husband did not. Finally he asked for their pastor. I requested to sit in the conversation as a mute observer. I shall take with me to my grave what the pastor kindly said to the husband: "If God wanted us to live on a breathing machine; He would have sent us all with one. The soul has left; the person you knew as your wife is no longer; it is time to let the body go"

On the flip side I see families of people who have very advanced diseases sometimes like dementia, demand that everything be done to keep them going. What are various religious view points if any?

For my own - if I am not mentating (meaning my brain is irreparably damaged), I am happy to be let go.

Let the stone throwing begin, I guess.

Generally everyone needs Medical care. Practices, done deliberately that damage your health should have consequences. Some self destructive practices can be eased with counseling. Properly governed and regulated counselling can help.

Smoking, Drinking, Drug addiction, Obesity, and other very dangerous leisure activities should impact your right to health care, or the cost of it.

This is a general statement and not intended to be binding.

 

[dianaiad]

Healthcare should be legally defined as a right. It costs more in the long haul to not have it that way, reduces production, and requires more spending when someone foregoes treatment and something easily treated becomes something difficult to treat. There should also not be any limits, as someone's need can be great from birth, or it can become great in a day. And we have healthy people with low needs to help balance out the costs.

I would like it to be viewed, not as a 'right,' the way the rights of US citizens are supposed to be guaranteed by the constitution (a guarantee that is honored more in its abrogation than in its success) That is, I would like to see all have access to the most basic health care. The problem is how society makes that happen.

See, other rights guaranteed by the constitution of the USA don't require the REST of us to fork over money to the government, so that it can decide who gets health care, how much they get, and whether one person is 'worthy' of it according to some arbitrary guideline and who gets tossed out on their ears because some committee somewhere makes decisions that should be made by the doctor and patient concerned.

At least, can you think of one? Freedom of speech? Of religion? of assembly? the right to bear arms? the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures? Double jeopardy and the right to not incriminate oneself? Due process? NONE of those constitutionally guaranteed rights require the government...or the citizenry in general...to pay lots of money. In fact, of those rights which require government interventions, most actually limit how much money the government can spend attempting to void them.

So...the right to healthcare? Do you want everyone to have the RIGHT to a house? Food? Education? ....I'd like to see everybody have those basic living requirements taken care of, too....but making them a 'right' causes some problems. I hope that you can see what those problems would be.

The problem with healthcare (and welfare of all sorts) is that private organizations are so much better at it than the government is. You want great welfare? Look at how the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints does it. The government is LOUSY at it. You want good health care? Look at some of the private HMO's....like Kaiser. You want good housing for those who need it? There are many private groups that do an amazing job on a WHOLE lot less money than the government does. When I compare 'section 8' housing, a government system, with the most poorly administered charity, well....the government does a really bad job.

Government run health care is a disaster. The VA department, the local state and county medical facilities--they are not really good advertisements for the 'single payer' system so many of the left wingers want to foist on us.

No...health care isn't a 'right.' It shouldn't be legally defined as one. I think you can see the difference between the rights we do acknowledge as such, and stuff like healthcare, housing and education.

I guess the basic difference is that a 'right' (at least in the USA) is something we are born with intrinsically and that the government is tasked to NOT MESS WITH, and to keep other people from abrogating. A 'right" isn't something that the rest of us, in the form of the government, have to hand over.

I don't have to give you the right to speak freely, in other words. You already have it. I just have to not prevent you from doing so.

I do think that these things should be only half a step below the category of 'rights,' though, but that 'half step' is a very important one; one that should be provided by private groups whose members volunteer these services because they personally feel morally obligated to do so.

If the government would get out of the way of those groups, it would work, I do think.

 

[David1967]

Health care should certainly be a right. No one should go bankrupt for getting sick.

 

[Salvador]

We've granted affordable health care for years to our senior citizens by way of Medicare; and now is the time to provide everybody with this same care.

I'd favor a $400 monthly universal income benefit ( U.B.I. ) for all legal adult ( over age 18 ) U.S. citizens and universal Medicare Part A for every American citizen ( with $2,500 annual deductible per person ) inpatient hospital medical insurance coverage, which would replace targeted welfare benefits to particularly needy welfare recipients.

The amount of Universal Medicare Part A coverage would be the approximately $1 trillion a year that'd cover the total hospital medical care expenses in the United States.

Reference: Fast Facts on U.S. Hospitals, 2019 | AHA

Medicare payroll taxes currently would cover about $300 billion of this expense.

Reference: What is the Medicare trust fund, and how is it financed?

I believe about 30 percent of Medicaid spending is for hospitalization; the replacement of this Medicaid spending would cover about $165 billion of my proposed Medicare Part A for all.

The $2,500 deductible and co-pays applied to each of the 34 million persons administered to hospitals on average each year would reduce coverage expenses by $85 billion annually.

Reference: Total Number of Medicare Beneficiaries

So now we'd have a $450 billion shortfall that'd I propose be paid for by the following modest tax hikes:
Increasing the top marginal federal income tax rate from 37% to 43% along with increasing the second highest top marginal federal income tax rate from 35% to 38%, an increase of the corporate tax rate from 21% to 25%, an additional 50 cent/gallon fuel excise tax, an additional 50 cent tobacco excise tax on each pack of cigarettes, a 50 percent increase of excise taxes on adult beverage alcohol content, a doubling of federal excise taxes on air travelers and national park visitors, and the reduction of the exemption on the federal estate tax from $10 million to $5 million.

I'll add to my UBI benefit proposal, that'd allow any legal U.S. resident to buy into Medicare Part B ( with a $5,000 annual deductible ) coverage at a $100/mo minimum monthly premium plus 2 percent of his/her most recent reported annual adjusted taxable income with a maximum monthly premium paid at $400/month. Medicare Part B premiums paid by a parent for Medicare Part B health insurance coverage of his/her child would most likely cost $100/month.

My proposed Medicare Part B ( with $5,000 annual deductible per person ) buy-in option would not be mandatory; it'd be optional for those who couldn't find affordable health insurance for his/her child or for himself/herself through his/her employer or on the private market.

The price tax now for my now proposed $400 per month universal basic income ( U.B.I ) benefit program is approximately $1.1 trillion annually: $400 billion of this could be paid for by the total elimination of federal spending on medicaid., $127 billion elimination of spending on food stamps and agricultural subsidies. $112 billion on the elimination of federalized spending on education, $41 billion elimination of urban housing and development spending, elimination of $33 billion of federal spending on unemployment compensation, $60 billion reduction of social security disability payments, $100 billion reduction on Senior medicare spending with increased Medicare part B deductible, $3 billion elimination of renewable energy tax credits, $13 billion reduction in foreign aid spending, $65 billion elimination of military spending by way of ending the overseas contingency operations fund, and a modest 4 percent national sales tax on new vehicles.

Reference: A Plan to Cut Federal Government Spending

Reference: US Federal Spending Analysis - Charts Tables History

 

[Salvador]

I would think eating would be more of a "right" than health care. Maybe we should force the farmers to put food on our tables for free.

I have a garden from which I cultivate some of the food that I eat. ....

 

[Brickjectivity]

The debate over the provision of healthcare in the US has raged for years and seems to be ramping up. I have had a very narrow view of those who consume it but I am reminded of an incident from my past:

Very unfortunate pregnant young lady with little pre natal care was brought to us in late stages of pregnancy with very very high blood pressures. They delivered the child (since that is the only thing that will allow the patient's pressure to be controlled effectively) but she had a major brain bleed and became a person who exists rather than lives.

No brain activity after several days and the family agonized about what to do. The father wanted the plug pulled and the husband did not. Finally he asked for their pastor. I requested to sit in the conversation as a mute observer. I shall take with me to my grave what the pastor kindly said to the husband: "If God wanted us to live on a breathing machine; He would have sent us all with one. The soul has left; the person you knew as your wife is no longer; it is time to let the body go"

On the flip side I see families of people who have very advanced diseases sometimes like dementia, demand that everything be done to keep them going. What are various religious view points if any?

For my own - if I am not mentating (meaning my brain is irreparably damaged), I am happy to be let go.

Part of the issue is that the laws restrict us from getting healthcare through any but very expensive channels. If you are sick and I give you some tylenol, then I become liable if there is a problem. Not only that but if I help you with something else more complex I'll be labeled a 'Quack' and fined or jailed. This creates a medical shortage and jacks up the price. Now any sort of medical care -- even a bandaid -- costs at least 100$ if its done 'Professionally'. Its not sustainable.

Official medical items are stupidly priced, and there are no controls beyond kindness. Simply put if you're going to restrict medicine to licensed practitioners you have to provide them or at least cap the prices.

 

[BSM1]

Almost everyone needs it if they live long enough. Or they live until they die early because they don't have it.

I think you've confused healthcare with please take care of me forever.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

At least, can you think of one? Freedom of speech? Of religion? of assembly? the right to bear arms? the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures? Double jeopardy and the right to not incriminate oneself? Due process? NONE of those constitutionally guaranteed rights require the government...or the citizenry in general...to pay lots of money. In fact, of those rights which require government interventions, most actually limit how much money the government can spend attempting to void them.

Without tax dollars, there are no courts to enforce things like due process, double jeopardy, and proper searches and seizures. The national militia, also provided for by the constitution, runs on tax payer money. A trial by jury of peers is a constitutional right, and the jurors are paid for by tax dollars.

 

[Shaul]

If health care is a right than I should never be taxed or required to pay for anyone else’s health, because when people take my money that makes me depressed. Which impacts my right to mental health.

 

[Lyndon]

If health care is a right than I should never be taxed or required to pay for anyone else’s health, because when people take my money that makes me depressed. Which impacts my right to mental health.

You would hate the national health care in Israel!!

 

[Jumi]

If you're paying taxes, you expect something for it. For me, I expect a working healthcare system, drinkable tap water, police, public libraries, education system, enough defense to deter. For some people, it's fine if others die or suffer. But I think any capable government can handle at least the aforementioned.

 

[Jumi]

If health care is a right than I should never be taxed or required to pay for anyone else’s health, because when people take my money that makes me depressed. Which impacts my right to mental health.

Yeah, that's what it looks like to us looking from outside the US. People making a huge deal about some other citizen getting something on their money.

 

[Shaul]

You would hate the national health care in Israel!!

Why should I? In Israel they don’t take tax my money or require me to pay for others health care. In Israel you are given a choice to buy whichever health insurance plan you want. The Israeli system is one of the best!

 

[Shaul]

Yeah, that's what it looks like to us looking from outside the US. People making a huge deal about some other citizen getting something on their money.

So, I’m reading that you want to pay those taxes for me.

 

[Jumi]

So, I’m reading that you want to pay those taxes for me.

Paying taxes in my country doesn't bother me, I don't need to see pointless suffering or fear getting robbed. I can drink all the tap water I want and know it's safe.

 

[Jumi]

In Israel you are given a choice to buy whichever health insurance plan you want. The Israeli system is one of the best!

Is wikipedia right:
All Israeli residents are entitled to basic health care as a fundamental right

 

[dianaiad]

Without tax dollars, there are no courts to enforce things like due process, double jeopardy, and proper searches and seizures. The national militia, also provided for by the constitution, runs on tax payer money. A trial by jury of peers is a constitutional right, and the jurors are paid for by tax dollars.

Indeed.

The difference...I'm attempting to get this idea out and I'm having problems finding the precise words to illustrate it....

the rights mentioned in the Constitution are rights that are considered to be intrinsic to the human condition, and the government's role is to PROTECT those rights already held, not to privide them in the first place.

It's a fundamental difference in outlook, I guess.

The Constitution was written by men who honestly felt that every person was supposed to have been born with the right to free speech, freedom of religion, etc., already in place. All society and government can to is take those rights away. That is, we all have the right to freedom of speech and religion, and to be treated fairly. It's part of being human. Their quarrel wasn't about whether the government should give those rights to the citizens; they had them already. Their whole point was to limit the ability of the government to infringe upon those rights; to keep it from taking them away.

Access to health care is different; as laudable a goal as it may be, nobody is born with automatic access to healthcare. That must be provided by someone else. The government's roll, then, if it is to follow the example of the rights mentioned in the constitution, isn't to provide health care, but to keep from interfering in the rights of the citizens to get it.

My own view is that our health care system needs attending to, absolutely, but government run health care? Single payer health care? It may work in smaller areas...smaller nations, even, perhaps, states, but the larger and more populous the nation, the more unwieldy, inefficient, costly and unworkable it becomes. I mean, really...the US can't manage the VA health care worth a hoot, why do you think it could manage single payer government run health care for the entire nation?

Do we need to fix it? Sure. Can the government take it over? Not a chance. National Health Care in the USA will turn into the VA and the Post Office, with the worst of both agencies showing up..........and costing more than we have.

OH, just as a btw....I, along with almost everybody else, have been called to jury duty. Jurors get paid almost enough to buy lunch. Almost. .

And I really like your example of the courts. I just thought of a way we should approach this health care problem, and I have you to thank. One of the things our judicial system does is tell the accused that he has the right to a lawyer, and if he wants one and can't afford one, one will be provided to him/her.

Well...isn't that the way we should deal with health care? Get the government OUT of restricting health insurance companies; allow them to cross state lines, for instance (trust me, if I could get Kaiser somewhere other than here, I'd move in a heart beat). Provide BETTER care for those who can't afford, or can't find, insurance. The government's role would be to provide that minimal safety net, and see to it that insurance companies do not break the laws...NOT to provide all the health care for everybody all the time. That's not what the government is for, IMO.

In fact, having the government do that is a bit like telling the cops that they are in charge of all the kindergarten classes in the US. That's not what they are for.