Jump to content
Kingdom of Adventistan
8thdaypriest

Is healthcare "a right" ?

Recommended Posts

8thdaypriest

Does every person have a right to healthcare?  How much healthcare?  Just basic or the latest and greatest? 

Before modern medicine, everyone was pretty much equal.  Germs did not discriminate between rich and poor.  Both rich and poor women died in childbirth.  Good nutrition did - of course - support health, but then you have to say that every human being has a right to enough good nutritious food.

The LORD commanded that widows and orphans be provided for.  Solomon said "if a man will not work, neither should he eat". 

What SHOULD "the government" (whether state or federal) provide for?  Do the governed have a right to expect their government to provide money for healthcare? 

If the government is to "keep people safe" - then is not healthcare part of keeping people safe? 

We can go on to debate what plan for healthcare might work, but for now I'd like to hear thoughts on whether access to healthcare is a basic human right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you find some value to this community, please help out with a few dollars per month.

rudywoofs (Pam)

while it would be ideal if access to healthcare was a "right," the fact of the matter is, it's a privilege, rather than a right (or entitlement). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CoAspen

It's a 'right' because we pay taxes. And yes, we all pay taxes, even if you don't have a formal job. Everything we buy has some sort of tax involved. Taxes provide us with a great many privileges/rights such as the military, fire and police services, vast park and recreational resources, etc. So I will call it a 'right', not to quibble with other definitions!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest

We want our government to protect us, or rescue us (in the event of a natural disaster), so why not protect our health? 

The LORD is our true government - right?  He has not provided healthcare, except as a special blessing for obedience, and even then we still die. 

IF - all people everywhere have a right to healthcare, does that mean poor nations have a right to expect help from wealthier nations - for healthcare?  Is this a spread the wealth issue? 

And what about the folks who abuse their health?  Smokers, drug addicts, food addicts, etc. etc.  Do they have a right to unending healthcare for conditions caused by their own behaviors?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest

Forgive me if I go on abit.

I tend to agree that folks have a right - these days - to expect healthcare.  But healthcare is EXPENSIVE, so folks should expect to pay for it with taxes.   But taxes suppress the economy. At this point in the US economy, we can't afford more debt.  We are about buried in debt. 

I do think folks who abuse their health with bad habits, should pay more.  I think there should be a high tax on cigs and sweets and sodas and dangerous sports equipment, etc. etc.  That tax should go towards healthcare.  

So what might be the best way for the government to provide for healthcare? 

The government always does a poor job - compared to the private sector where competition is involved.  We in the US, have seen that with the VA scandle. 

Any time big business smells money in the water,  they manipulate prices to serve themselves. 

When the government paid the money to the hospitals, suddenly the hospitals began charging a LOT MORE for their services.  When the government paid the money to insurance companies,  those companies suddenly began raising premiums.  Same with drug companies, and rehabilitation services, etc. etc. etc. 

If the government gives the money to citizens (with the stipulation that it be used only for "healthcare" as defined by the government) then prices will go up, because big business knows that people have money to spend for healthcare.  

If the government then regulates all the prices (to keep them down), then service providers (especially doctors, etc.) will move to other places where they CAN charge more, (like from Canada to the US,  OR the brighter minds will not go into medicine in the first place.  They will go into law, or business investment.  Then the citizens will have doctors trained in other countries (which is already happening). 

I just don't think there IS an answer to the heathcare problem.   Any way you slice it, there are BIG PROBLEMS. 

If an element of competition could be introduced, that would help to bring prices down.  If folks could use their money (or insurance) at ANY hospital, or with any doctor, that would force competition.  Even if they all charged the same, they would compete for business with better service.  THAT would be a plus. 

If folks could buy insurance in groups of their own making THAT would give individuals with small businesses a better bargaining position. 

If folks could buy insurance across state lines, that would create more competition between insurance companies, and eliminate state lobbies and monopolies. 

Has ANYONE seen a plan that might work?

Folks were disgusted with the Republicans because they wanted to repeal the HCA, because they were not ready with something workable to put in its place.  Folks were also disgusted with the HCA because it is NOT the HCA.  It should have been called the UN-Affordable Healthcare Act.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B/W Photodude
5 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Does every person have a right to healthcare?

I think that people do not understand the meaning of some of the words being used here. While some definitions may mix "rights" and "entitlements", they are much different. Entitlements are something that gives you access to the goods of a society, in this case, healthcare. A right would be you cannot be discriminated against in receiving healthcare or be restricted in your life such as being denied the right to vote, etc.

So, some may go out and say that a person has a right to healthcare, but what if on a certain day or in a certain place, all the healthcare personel just decide to take the day off. You show up at the doors of the hospital demanding your right to healthcare and there is no one there to provide it. Shall we send out the sheriffs to arrest these healthcare people playing hooky and drag them in and make them provide this patients right to healthcare? What about the healthcare providers "rights"?

You may think this to be a bit ludicrous, but keep in mind that nationally we are very short of nurses and a huge part of the healthcare workers are closing in on retirement and schools cannot push out enough new grads to make up this slack. Also, keep in mind that over half of med school classes are now made up of women. (It is generally held that women are not going to put in the kinds of hours on the job that men in medicine have traditionally done. Just the reality of it.)  Shall we drag poor doctors and nurses out of the nursing home and make them go to work because you have a right to healthcare? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest
5 minutes ago, B/W Photodude said:

I think that people do not understand the meaning of some of the words being used here. While some definitions may mix "rights" and "entitlements", they are much different. Entitlements are something that gives you access to the goods of a society, in this case, healthcare. A right would be you cannot be discriminated against in receiving healthcare or be restricted in your life such as being denied the right to vote, etc.

So, some may go out and say that a person has a right to healthcare, but what if on a certain day or in a certain place, all the healthcare personel just decide to take the day off. You show up at the doors of the hospital demanding your right to healthcare and there is no one there to provide it. Shall we send out the sheriffs to arrest these healthcare people playing hooky and drag them in and make them provide this patients right to healthcare? What about the healthcare providers "rights"?

You may think this to be a bit ludicrous, but keep in mind that nationally we are very short of nurses and a huge part of the healthcare workers are closing in on retirement and schools cannot push out enough new grads to make up this slack. Also, keep in mind that over half of med school classes are now made up of women. (It is generally held that women are not going to put in the kinds of hours on the job that men in medicine have traditionally done. Just the reality of it.)  Shall we drag poor doctors and nurses out of the nursing home and make them go to work because you have a right to healthcare? 

Nurses and doctors from other countries will be allowed to immigrate.  That's already happening.  They serve 4 years in an "under-served area" and then they can move to a nice place.   The town I presently live in IS one of those "under-served areas".   I've seen a dozen or more docs flow in and out of this little town over the last 18 years. 

Believe me.  I was "dragged" back to the hospital at 2AM more times than I care to remember, for C-Sections, accidents, etc. etc. etc. 

Though I do agree that a lot of women go into specialties like dermatology (with no call). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wanderer

BW I guess you missed Pams warning above :) 

I know you either are or have been a nurse, so you of course would have a view that is possibly different than the average lay person? 

To me; its not a question of who has a right to healthcare, and who doesn't. In MY MIND that does not even come into the equation. As a former nursing professional, and one who is still "nursing" the only thought that crosses my mind is "does this person need help? If the answer is yes, then I just think, "OK How can I help? "

IF for some reason I cannot help; it is my duty as a professional to seek out help or to point the one in need in the right direction for that help, if there is one.

People in the US really like to litigate, and you can best cover yourself by following a similar model.

I obviously left out a bunch of details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wanderer

Rachel; I don't mind you "going on" at all! At least you always make it interesting!

I am wondering about your comment re people who do things that are bad for their health. Do you realize the Pandora's box that would open?

If such rules were in place, it would only be a matter of time before they say certain religions are "bad for your health..."

That one rule alone would be a legal quagmire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B/W Photodude
9 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Nurses and doctors from other countries will be allowed to immigrate.  That's already happening.  They serve 4 years in an "under-served area" and then they can move to a nice place.   The town I presently live in IS one of those "under-served areas".   I've seen a dozen or more docs flow in and out of this little town over the last 18 years. 

What about the right of the people left behind when a foreign doctor leaves their country behind? Raiding the talent of underdeveloped countries has it's own evils.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wanderer
1 minute ago, B/W Photodude said:

What about the right of the people left behind when a foreign doctor leaves their country behind? Raiding the talent of underdeveloped countries has it's own evils.

why would you use the word "raid" here?

Certain foreign governments pay their citizens to go abroad and get an education in health care.

Consistency in both staffing levels and personelll has always been a problem nursing. I am thinking it only exists in the Crozier & Erbb text books. I cannot even count how many times a patient has asked "Oh, what happened to so and so?" And thats not even counting the "foreigners."

I don't see how this relates to who as a "right" to health care. To me, its just who needs it? And can I give it? Why do we even need to worry about who has a right to it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest
20 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Why do we even need to worry about who has a right to it?

I asked the question.   We need to worry about it, because it is a source of deep resentment in our society.  It seems like most regard healthcare as a right.   The sick resent the government (or their employers) when they don't have good insurance.   They feel they have been wronged.   And anything that fires resentment, festers and festers. 

If the LORD commanded us to visit the sick, and help the poor, it seems that He expects us to help the sick get better - and that means healthcare.  That's why so many denominations built hospitals wherever they went. 

Question ONE concerned whether the sick should EXPECT to receive healthcare. 

Question TWO concerns HOW to provide that care

Other questions would involve HOW MUCH care to provide, and to whom. (Should illegal aliens be cared for in the US, equally with citizens?)

We have a lot of brains here at CA.   Can't we come up with a good plan?  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoeMo
3 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

(Should illegal aliens be cared for in the US, equally with citizens?)

Not with taxpayer money.  If a faith-based NGO wants to pick up their bills, more power to them.  Let those who feel strongly about free healthcare for indigent aliens pick up their expenses rather than forcing all American citizens - especially those who can't even afford their own health care expenses - pick them up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wanderer
5 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Question ONE concerned whether the sick should EXPECT to receive healthcare. 

Question TWO concerns HOW to provide that care

OK Superficially, these questions might sound realistic, (not saying YOU are superficial), but they are not. It gets into a very tumultous shooting match of ethics and responsibilities. To me, in my most humble opinion, asking if people should EXPECT to have healthcare rights, is almost like asking, who gets to live and who doesnt.

Not to mention, there are literally hundreds of health-care scenarious that straight-up  health-care ethics will not solve or anticipate.

What it DOES boil down to now is those WITH money get it, and those without money wont get it. Thats actually happening NOW in both our respective countries.

Is it fair or just that it is almost impossible to get some health care services, if you are low-income, or incapable of earning an income?

Your questions, are akin to the one asked of Jesus once: "Who is our neighbor?"  The Bible's answer is "anyone who needs our help."

Why, of course! That certainly DOES fly in the face of policy, practices, and commercial viabilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wanderer
2 hours ago, JoeMo said:

If a faith-based NGO

I have never seen a truly "faith-based" NGO  If it is called NGO, then business units and profit margins are the only subject of importance; and THAT often has little or nothing to do with "health-care."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wanderer
5 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Question TWO concerns HOW to provide that care

getting rid of Big Pharma as a "health-care" talking point/business unit foundation would be a good place to start. They have completely ruined healthcare. THAT ALONE would save taxpayers enough to be able to "allow" everyone to get good basic healthcare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest
47 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

getting rid of Big Pharma as a "health-care" talking point/business unit foundation would be a good place to start.

Big Pharma does all the research - into new drugs.   Guess if folks don't mind just living with what is presently out there - pharmaceuticals wise - then we could control drug prices and they would stop doing research into new ones. 

Then there's the malpractice problem.   Patients carry healthcare insurance.  Doctors, hospitals, clinics, nurses, techs, makers of medical equipment, makers of pharmaceuticals, etc. etc. - all carry malpractice insurance.  That's a whopping lost of cost to pass through to the patients.    All the patients PAY FOR the insurance.  Only those who win a lawsuit get paid.  So millions file lawsuits hoping to cash in big.  This raises costs even more - which are passed through to the patients, driving up insurance premiums for BOTH providers and people.

When Texas passed a law disallowing any claims for "pain and suffering" over $200K, that reduced malpractice costs, and thus charges for services paid by patients. 

The lawmakers are mostly lawyers.  They are NOT MOTIVATED to cut business for lawyers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest

IDEA:   Allow folks to group together in any way they like (beauticians, mechanics, restaurant owners of East Texas, small business owners of Texas,  seamstresses, whatever) to bargain for lower premiums.  Why should big outfits like Walmart and amazon get cheaper insurance because of their numbers, while owners of small businesses are left to pay the high premiums?   Just this, would allow more folks to become insured without completely emptying their wallets.   It would also allow folks who stay in jobs they don't like (just to have insurance coverage for their kids) to find other job they would like better, thus helping business.

IDEA:  Allow folks to buy insurance across state lines.  This would stimulate a lot of competition nationwide, which would drive prices down. 

IDEA:  Require ALL insurance carriers to cover the same minimum services - as listed by the federal government.  Extra services - like organ transplants, or high end cardiac care, etc. would cost extra (for that coverage).  The Feds would list things - minimum services to be covered, but still leave the individual insurance carriers to compete for business. 

IDEA:  Require ALL insurance carriers to cover the same minimum formulary (list of drugs) and listed by the federal government. (Medicare and the VA already have such a list.)   Policies covering an expanded formulary - more expensive brand name or more recently released drugs - would cost more

IDEA:  Require ALL insurance carriers to cover - regardless of prior existing conditions.  No physicals for the folks who apply. 

IDEA:  A three month waiting period (or more, maybe up to six months) before the insurance becomes "active".  This to rule out young people who simply sign up when they get injured or when they are diagnosed with something costly.  If a person already has insurance from an employer, that insurance would carry over until the new policy becomes active.

IDEA:  Allow tax exempt healthcare savings accounts.  The money from the accounts could be used ONLY for healthcare services as defined by the federal government.

IDEA:  Require all service providers - doctors, clinics, hospitals, etc. etc. to treat ALL insured persons, regardless of their insurance plan.  No more denying services to Medicare patients.

Providers of services would compete for those with the more costly insurance plans, by offering those costly services, but that competition would improve conditions for everyone.

That still leaves the truly poor, who can barely afford food, and shelter - who cannot afford ANY insurance.    Medicaid pays even less than Medicare.  It's no wonder service providers don't want to see them.  They are more likely to sue - looking for that jackpot.  They are less likely to follow instructions from their doctors.  They are more likely to be less educated, and to neglect their health - poor diet, drugs,  smoking, etc. etc.  

What to do with them??  Insuring them with ObamaCare drove up premiums for everyone.   It seems that poverty IS a "prior condition".   Medicaid is THE minimum brand of insurance coverage.  Who should qualify for that insurance?  At what cost?  How would the rest of the population pay the cost of that insurance?

Only the disabled?  Or mothers with more than 2 children who earn less than a certain amount?  

I definitely think biological fathers should be found and forced to pay for insurance for their kids (and for the mothers of those kids). 

There I go - rambling again.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoeMo
19 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

I have never seen a truly "faith-based" NGO  If it is called NGO, then business units and profit margins are the only subject of importance; and THAT often has little or nothing to do with "health-care."

I disagree.  Organizations like ADRA, the Red Cross, Salvation Army, and World Vision are hardly money-grubbers. Yes - 10 - 15% of the money they take in goes to administrative costs and fund raising, but I'm okay with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoeMo
19 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

getting rid of Big Pharma as a "health-care" talking point/business unit foundation would be a good place to start. They have completely ruined healthcare. THAT ALONE would save taxpayers enough to be able to "allow" everyone to get good basic healthcare.

I am confident that Big Pharma adds their cost of advertising in the USA as a product cost.  I see so many Big Pharma commercials on TV that they must spend hundreds of millions (if not billions) of dollars on ads, the cost of which is passed on to USA consumers.  If such excessive advertising costs were disallowed, that would probably cut drug prices by a bunch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wanderer
20 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Big Pharma does all the research - into new drugs.   Guess if folks don't mind just living with what is presently out there - pharmaceuticals wise - then we could control drug prices and they would stop doing research into new ones. 

BIG Pharma needs to be axed out of the health care arena. They are literally stealing from the poor to give to the rich. They have been very busy buying up all the old patents they can find, and drugs that formerly were very affordable are suddenly being jacked prices up hundreds of percentage points. Eliminating Big Pharma's  influence and giving it back to the doctors so that people could actually get well instead of getting even sicker WOULD for sure cut health care costs to the point where everyone can get it.

Cancer is another area where they are guilty of theft and worse. There is NO EXCUSE to charge 800 dollars for one bottle of pills that used to cost less than a hundred. And thats just for one bottle, one drug. Cancer patients often have 6 or 7 different meds to take and I have a friend who's "chemo" so called in $20,000 per treatment. No one can tell me thats right.

People DO HAVE a basic right to health care. But its been stolen from them by those who have so that they can have even more. Almost every single doctor appointment now is centered around the prescription pad. And THAT is a major culprit in way too high costs of healthcare.

There are also many other ways to cut health care costs without sacrificing health care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
phkrause

And if the Government allowed competition, prices would also come down!! If I'm not mistaken 60 minutes did a documentary on this problem?????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoeMo
On 10/3/2018 at 7:25 PM, 8thdaypriest said:

Then there's the malpractice problem...that's a whopping lost of cost to pass through to the patients

The doctors I hang out with tell me that the cost of malpractice insurance can cost 10 - 15%  of their annual revenue.  And why? Because of frivolous lawsuits.  If a baby is born with problems, it's the OB's fault for not detecting the problem pre-birth or because the doctor did something wrong during the baby's birth.  If someone quits breathing and/or suffers brain damage during surgery, it's because the anesthesiologist  was incompetent.  Even in cases the doctors win, it can cost them (more likely their insurance companies) a LOT of money, usually resulting in a rate hike.  They ought to pass a law that states if a malpractice suit is found to be frivolous, the plaintiff is required to pay all of the defendant's legal and court fees.  This does not apply if a plaintiff simply loses a case; but if it can be shown that the case is fraudulent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wanderer
13 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

They ought to pass a law that states if a malpractice suit is found to be frivolous, the plaintiff is required to pay all of the defendant's legal and court fees.  This does not apply if a plaintiff simply loses a case; but if it can be shown that the case is fraudulent.

I can agree with this one, in principle. There are so many loopholes that it would be a major pain to try and prove, but I have seen the odd case in Canada where fraudulent litigants end up paying court costs.

Most doctors here make at least $300,000 per year so I dont think they would really have undue hard ships paying for their insurance premiums. I believe doctors make more in the USA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×