Jump to content
Kingdom of Adventistan
8thdaypriest

Is healthcare "a right" ?

Recommended Posts

8thdaypriest
5 hours ago, RichardRuhling said:

"the curse causeless shall not come."

Proverbs 26:2 Like a sparrow in its flitting, like a swallow in its flying, So a curse without cause does not alight."

Richard, You sound like one of Job's accusing friends. 

Isaiah 24:6 "Therefore the curse has devoured the earth"

If "the curse" has devoured the whole earth, and we live on the earth - does "the curse" not effect all of us (unless we are especially protected by the LORD) ? 

My question for this thread concerned WHAT should be done for those in need of healthcare, and HOW can this best be accomplished?

If I understood your comments, you think healthcare should be denied IF it can be determined that the condition was the FAULT of the person in need. 

Maybe we should have FAULT courts, to determine just how much FAULT can be ascribed to the petitioner.  Based on the percentage determined (50% at fault), that percentage of the cost should be denied. 

 

 

 

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.

8thdaypriest
5 hours ago, JoeMo said:

Excellent question.  I would hope that - after a certain age - I would refuse really expensive stuff - like a transplant or chemo, especially if it was palliative rather than curative.  You're as old as I am.  What do you think?

Joe,  if I get a big cancer I will shout "Thank you LORD!"  No way will I seek to extend my tenure here.  Paul said that he would "rather depart" - and he was only 60.   (Guess that was much "older" back in his day.)  I'm glad Paul wrote that.  I don't have to feel guilty for feeling as he did.

I will stay as long as the LORD has work for me.  When I can no longer work - LET ME NAP til the SC !  

No one had better "prolong" my life here.  I want quality (while I'm here), but NOT QUANTITY (length) of life. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wanderer
3 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

The U.S. did not end the Draft due to those who were drafted giving a lower level of service.

It was ended, in part, for financial reasons,  It is costly to train someone who will only serve for 24 months, total, when if enlisted would server for 36, 48 60 and 72 months for the same training.

This kind of thing does makes sense to me. There does have to be some kind of business plan in place to handle the need in the military

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wanderer
1 minute ago, 8thdaypriest said:

No one had better "prolong" my life here.  I want quality (while I'm here), but NOT QUANTITY (length) of life. 

we will do our best as fellow forum members to keep you going for a long time. Why would you go anywhere when you and I still have so much debating to do? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RichardRuhling

Double misunderstanding. #1. Healthcare is what we do for ourselves and everyone has a right, privilege and duty to do it well. 

Medical care is available to a large segment also and has serious limitations when dealing with chronic diseases that came usually by what we've eaten all our lives. We have a right to it if we can pay for it. I just don't think everyone should be taxed to pay for everyone because health is so simple if done right. I'm 76 and filled one Rx on a trip when I got intestinal flu 30 years ago and I paid for it. I'm glad I'm not paying for TRILLIONS  You can split hairs all you want, but let the car insurance pay for accidents or home-owners. 

Churches do help members and there is Medi-Share which works for some. This is a biblical website. When God took Israel from Egypt He said if they would keep His laws, He would put NONE of the diseases of the Egyptans on them. Exod 15:26. Today we have those diseases and we aren't living well. 

Share this post


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

Richard, You sound like one of Job's accusing friends. 

thats the kind of response I have felt the wrath of a number of times from "church people,"  but there are still some who dont worry about all that and they simply try to help where they can. Each one reach one and what we are unable to do; God does not expect of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wanderer
1 minute ago, RichardRuhling said:

Double misunderstanding. #1. Healthcare is what we do for ourselves and everyone has a right, privilege and duty to do it well. 

I want to respect your healthcare knowledge and professional standards; but this point I am having trouble agreeing with. It is not clear to me the specific difference between "medical care" and "healthcare." It would seem that they are synonymous with each other; and it appears to me that your stated opinion on this is simply another way to promote gentrification and biased "medical care" where only those who have get more.

I can speak for nursing care, better than doctor care, yet there are things that your version of "medical care" would certainly be the only way to promote the health and well-being of certain types of patients. The way I read what you are saying is that "medical care" should only be given to ones who are deemed worthy or deserving of or, if they have the money, to have a right to and that leaves us with those who have, taking from those who have not so that they can have more. Its an unbalanced equation.

Maybe you could help me to understand better by telling us how the current-day medical profession defines the difference between "medical" and "health" care? If done correctly, they would both serve the same purpose. To extend life or to promote better quality of life and health.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest

There IS an aspect of this, where my view is closer to Richard's.  Cause and effect is very real.  It is common knowledge that eating too much results in obesity, or smoking causes cancer.

I am ALL in favor of a TAX on identified primary causes of health problems.  Candy, sodas, cookies, chips, beer, cigarettes, grilled meats, etc. etc. etc. etc.  Congress can argue over the causes, asses the risks and tax accordingly. The money MUST go to pay for healthcare.  That way - abusers would PAY MORE - which is just.  Why should they abuse only their own bodies?  They abuse our wallets! 

Libertarians argue the government has no right to regulate our behaviors.   True.  But such a tax would not stop people indulging the behaviors.  It would just help all the rest of us, PAY FOR healthcare for those who OVER INDULGE.   Very fair. 

I'm in favor of an individual consumption TAX, rather than an income tax.   Everyone - including drug lords, and prostitutes, and (yes) illegal aliens - buys things.   Those with more money, buy more things.  The "rich" would pay more tax.  Such a tax would encourage saving. 

Businesses can be taxed differently.  I like the flat tax.  So every business pays the same percentage - of their earnings. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest
13 minutes ago, RichardRuhling said:

This is a biblical website. When God took Israel from Egypt He said if they would keep His laws, He would put NONE of the diseases of the Egyptans on them. Exod 15:26. Today we have those diseases and we aren't living well. 

When I was little, my Dad was a heavy smoker.  My Mom (an SDA) wouldn't let him smoke in the house.  I loved my Dad, so I went out to garage to sit with him - where I inhaled a LOT of secondhand tobacco smoke.  To this day, I have reactive airways.  Was THAT my fault?  

Abuse of the laws of health can affect more than just the individual. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest
5 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

There IS an aspect of this, where my view is closer to Richard's.  Cause and effect is very real.  It is common knowledge that eating too much results in obesity, or smoking causes cancer.

I am ALL in favor of a TAX on identified primary causes of health problems.  Candy, sodas, cookies, chips, beer, cigarettes, grilled meats, etc. etc. etc. etc.  Congress can argue over the causes, asses the risks and tax accordingly. The money MUST go to pay for healthcare.  That way - abusers would PAY MORE - which is just.  Why should they abuse only their own bodies?  They abuse our wallets! 

Libertarians argue the government has no right to regulate our behaviors.   True.  But such a tax would not stop people indulging the behaviors.  It would just help all the rest of us, PAY FOR healthcare for those who OVER INDULGE.   Very fair. 

I'm in favor of an individual consumption TAX, rather than an income tax.   Everyone - including drug lords, and prostitutes, and (yes) illegal aliens - buys things.   Those with more money, buy more things.  The "rich" would pay more tax.  Such a tax would encourage saving. 

Businesses can be taxed differently.  I like the flat tax.  So every business pays the same percentage - of their earnings. 

That makes too much sense.  Congress - dependent on money from big business - will never pass such a law. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RichardRuhling

In my Internal Medicine training, it was about the diagnosis and treatment of disease with drugs that are now seen a a leading cause of illness and death. They are not trained in healthcare. I taught Health Science in a doctoral program at LLU where graduates could talk about health and help people without prescriptions.  The Dean came to me more than 40 years ago and said, "They are starting to call medical care "healthcare!"   Subtle deception  that works well for Big Pharma and their ads--"Ask your doctor" though he probably knows less about nutrition than the average secretary with a weight problem who is reading about it. 

Share this post


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

There IS an aspect of this, where my view is closer to Richard's.  Cause and effect is very real.  It is common knowledge that eating too much results in obesity, or smoking causes cancer.

I am ALL in favor of a TAX on identified primary causes of health problems.  Candy, sodas, cookies, chips, beer, cigarettes, grilled meats, etc. etc. etc. etc.  Congress can argue over the causes, asses the risks and tax accordingly. The money MUST go to pay for healthcare.  That way - abusers would PAY MORE - which is just.  Why should they abuse only their own bodies?  They abuse our wallets! 

This would result in a major national disaster though. People would literally strangle themselves wrangling over the fine points in defining "abuse," as it pertains to healthcare. It kinda leaves out people who are unknowingly victims of BIG Money business entities that are trying to throttle the food chain with preservatives and many other processing ingredients. This seems like it would single out the individuals over the big corporations who would cry all the way to the courthouse and to the bank about how what they did was "legal." The individuals or "abusers" as you have called them would be left to shoulder all of the blame that you have insinuated here because they dont have the resources to duke it out in court. IF that kind of tax were to be levied; I would be OK with it in limited circumstances, and as long as it was equally spread out for all concerned parties and the accountability tax was equal for all who are "abusers."

(A Parenthetical Comment: the first ones that should get such a tax are the BIG Pharma folks who are responsible for much of what ails people today. They should be charged according to the enormous damage they have done).

I agree; I dont mean to minimize Richards point about cause and effect. It is well-taken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RichardRuhling

The laws of health are impartial. It doesn't matter if you wanted to be close to your dad or not, breathing 2nd hand smoke or jumping off a building--there are consequences to what we do, even if we did them with the best of intentions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wanderer
1 minute ago, RichardRuhling said:

In my Internal Medicine training, it was about the diagnosis and treatment of disease with drugs that are now seen a a leading cause of illness and death. They are not trained in healthcare. I taught Health Science in a doctoral program at LLU where graduates could talk about health and help people without prescriptions.  The Dean came to me more than 40 years ago and said, "They are starting to call medical care "healthcare!"   Subtle deception  that works well for Big Pharma and their ads--"Ask your doctor" though he probably knows less about nutrition than the average secretary with a weight problem who is reading about it. 

Thank you for clarifying that. You make sense there. BUT you and I seem to have different ideas about what defines "medical care?" To me, (in my non-professional judgment) Pharmacy and drugs are not medical care. I dont know yet what to call it, but I always thought pharmacology to be a separate thing.

But you are right about addressing as much as possible regarding "without prescriptions."  I was once diagnosed with "holo-systolic deep prolapse of the mitral valve" and told never to climb mountains or lift weights!" Plus I was given a prescription for Inderol (is that spelled right?) to supposedly increase the force of heart contractions which were compromised by the enlarged valve...I believed what I was told for years...Please, allow me to summarize the rest of this post with a picture of the latest mountain I climbed!! (just two weeks ago! no Inderol needed!!) I was inspired by Hulda Crooks who  waited till she was 65 to get in shape and climb her first mountain! The Quiet Hour used to sell videos about her.

www.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wanderer

PS I would never have been able to climb that mountain had I still continued to smoke, do drugs and eat spray on cheese and the like. Two years after stopping all that I cycled 2500 miles across Canada to raise money for a church project! PTL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RichardRuhling

Good for you--we all should climb a mountain, literally or spiritually. I've come to see that many things like my headaches, maybe even a prolapsed valve (?) can be a result of a food or chemical that we've become at odds with.  I was abusing the pasta, pastry and whole wheat granolas, etc. The problem is that medical care can give it a name, but usually has no clue as to the cause which in my opinion is still not a complete diagnosis.

Share this post


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

I believe I wrote earlier that a very large segment of the healthcare workforce is nearing a retirement age. Schools can not push out new grads fast enough. With all the craziness in healthcare funding and all the other regulations and paperwork, many are just tired of it and hanging it up. When it comes to nurse staffing it was not unusual to be short staffed with the result of putting patients in danger of nurses just too busy to keep up with the demands. Coming on shift was often catching up with what the last shift couldn't get done. I have also seen situations where the populations was so sick that in a busy metro area with many hospitals there was not an open ICU bed anywhere to be found. Not unusual to see patients flown out to the next nearest metro area 400 miles away (Phoenix to San Diego) for a critical care bed. Try working in a critical care area sometime where patients are being cared for in hallways surrounded by sheets hung as curtains for "privacy".That was not safe for many many reasons. I suspicion I have an idea about hospitals after almost 35 years at bedside in intensive care. So, now try and answer my question!

Well; here is my answer. Sorry for being late but at least I am here now.

I have already posted my answer. I see it as a right for all, based on the Bible's examples that Jesus Himself taught by example as in the "Good Samaritan" story and others I remember in my early years at church being amazed at that Samaritan did.

Reduced access to health care is already a reality for homeless, and very low income people. Here are a few stats on homeless in America:
 

Quote

 

They seem to be almost everywhere, in places old and new, no age spared. Sleeping on cardboard or bare ground, the homeless come together under bridges and trees, their belongings in plastic bags symbolising lives on the move.

Many have arrived on the streets just recently, victims of the same prosperity that has transformed cities across the US West Coast. As officials struggle to respond to this growing crisis, some say things are likely to get worse.


Exact numbers are always hard to come by but 553,742 people were homeless on a single night across the US in 2017, the Department of Housing and Urban Development said, the first rise in seven years. (The figure, however, was still 13% lower than in 2010.)

Declines in 30 states were overshadowed by big surges elsewhere, with California, Oregon and Washington among the five worst. Los Angeles, where the situation has been described as unprecedented, had more than 50,000 people without homes, behind only New York City, which had some 75,000. SOURCE

 

We can see already the major extent of the homeless problems as it pertains to reduced or eliminated access to health care.

Some more details about reduced access and who it affects:

Quote

The most likely explanation for the Johnson survey's finding of reduced access to health care compared with that 5 years ago, especially for low-income Americans, is the substantial increase in the number of people without health insurance. Although the numbers are subject to interpretation and are not derived from entirely consistent data sources, the number of Americans without health insurance at any given time has increased from roughly 25 million in 1977 to perhaps as many as 37 million or 38 million today. Slightly more than half of the uninsured live in households with incomes that are less than 150 percent of the poverty level. More than half of the uninsured live in households that have at least one employed person (Sulvetta and Swartz, 1986). In addition, as Table 4-1 indicates, those people without health insurance coverage are concentrated primarily in the younger segment of the U.S. Population and among minorities, two subpopulations that are disproportionately represented among the homeless. SOURCE

 

Quote

 

The Unmet Health Care Needs of Homeless Adults: A National Study

Seventy-three percent of the respondents reported at least one unmet health need, including an inability to obtain needed medical or surgical care (32%), prescription medications (36%), mental health care (21%), eyeglasses (41%), and dental care (41%). In multivariable analyses, significant predictors of unmet needs included food insufficiency, out-of-home placement as a minor, vision impairment, and lack of health insurance. Individuals who had been employed in the past year were more likely than those who had not to be uninsured and to have unmet needs for medical care and prescription medications.

Conclusions. This national sample of homeless adults reported substantial unmet needs for multiple types of health care. Expansion of health insurance may improve health care access for homeless adults, but addressing the unique challenges inherent to homelessness will also be required.

 

A good study on ways to deal with homeless health care needs

There were points regarding how equal access to health care or healthcare rights for all are "Catholic" in nature, so here is a brief insight on that:

Pope's Message On Good Samaritan

So, now I am curious as to what others would say. Am I being "Catholic" with my posted position on "healthcare" rights?  I agree with some ideas such as rights go hand in hand with responsibilities.

All I know is that I would feel very guilty if I refused to help someone "when its within my hand to do." 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RichardRuhling

Medical care has three main divisions. Mostly medicine (drugs) and too often surgery when drugs fail. Less often radiation (cancer) Drugs are a leading cause of illness and death due to Adverse Drug Reactions which is not an overdose or wrong Rx. One doesn't know who will react or how. My former wife took an Rx for a bladder infection. It wiped out her platelets in bone marrow; she died of a stroke. I'm happily remarried. I went through the US Senate offices to talk to senators until one said, You are wasting your time--they own us (speaking of donations the drug companies make to their re-election.  In the Oath of Hippocrates that many young MD's take on graduation, it says they will do no harm, but that's impossible to predict with prescription drugs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wanderer
11 minutes ago, RichardRuhling said:

In the Oath of Hippocrates that many young MD's take on graduation, it says they will do no harm, but that's impossible to predict with prescription drugs. 

I agree; I think far too often Doctors are literally prescribing blind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wanderer
On 10/6/2018 at 11:16 PM, RichardRuhling said:

Wanderer: You are wanting everyone to be responsible for paying as the Good Samaritan did, but he did it voluntarily,

There has been a misunderstanding in what I meant by what I said; however, we are in agreement that what the "good" Samaritan did and why. What I mostly mean when I say "everyone has a right to healthcare is that sometimes, it is not within our power to help all who ask and the Bible does not condemn that. Neither do civil authorities always show an eagerness to follow counsel from scripture, so "healthcare" as we know it is a strange melting pot of all manner of factions in society. I posted the above stats on homeless and reduced access to health care/medical care to show the enormous extent of the problem. I dont see how it can be said that all of these "do not merit" health care/medical care. Its just a question of who we can help and how.

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

×