Jump to content
Kingdom of Adventistan
8thdaypriest

Is healthcare "a right" ?

Recommended Posts

8thdaypriest
On 10/7/2018 at 11:53 AM, B/W Photodude said:

Think outside the box. Military style draft and forced labor in the hospital? Bang on someone's door at 3am and drag someone to the hospital to work? After all, some poor patient's rights are being violated!

If you join the military, you may be assigned to a medical unit, in which case you WILL BE expected to render medical services, or face punishment.

It might come to a draft.  Who knows? 

The US went to an all volunteer force, because those who were drafted gave a much lower - less enthusiastic level of service (unless someone was shooting at them).  To attract such a force, the government has to provide benefits and good salary compared with the private sector (for those with equal education and training).   If one is accepted at a medical school, his/her entire training can be paid for by the government, in exchange for few years of service.  A whopping enticement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest
On 10/6/2018 at 7:24 PM, JoeMo said:
  On 10/6/2018 at 12:31 PM, bonnie said:

Do we have right to free food, free housing, free transportation, etc on de mand?

Some people - it seems - DO.  According to the government. 

But SHOULD they?

Share this post


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

Should we spend $100,000 on transplants or new expensive cancer treatments for aging citizens, when the money could be used to give immunizations to a hundred thousand children? 

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?

That speaks to cancer or organ failure; but what about dementia or Alzheimer's; or people severely injured by someone else's poor life style choices (like being hit by an uninsured drunk driver)?  To we just give them a drool bucket and lock them in a padded cell?  No matter how much it was "their fault", I personally would have a hard time denying care to a loved one suffering from stuff like this.

These are questions that have no simple answers - ethically, economically, or medically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest

Christian charity = folks voluntarily sharing what they have, with folks who need.

Communism or Socialism = folks forced to share.   Big government takes from "those who have more" to share with those who "have less".  BIG government spreads the "wealth". 

Problem with that system, is that folks will do less and less because they know big gov will just take it from them.   Everyone ends up poorer (except the folks who run the big gov). 

In this world, a lot of folks would rather end up with less, IF they could just bring down "the rich".  They resent "the rich" so much, they would sacrifice their own best interest. 

The forces of socialism are growing faster and faster - especially where those who "have not" HAVE the power of the VOTE.   They can VOTE to "tax the rich" and "spread the wealth". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gregory Matthews

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.

 

 

Share this post


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

Should we spend $100,000 on transplants or new expensive cancer treatments for aging citizens,

IF it can be clearly shown that Medicare will inevitably bankrupt the government,  should we begin to cut some of the most expensive services?

Sounds like Obama!

Granny doesn't get her pacemaker!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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
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
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

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...