jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (21 posts)

Should healthcare be a right?

  1. 0
    Mtbailzposted 4 years ago via iphone

    Healthcare has been a pretty large piece of this campaign season, so I though I'd ask if healthcare should be a right. By this I mean should government take the reins and offer health care to everyone?

    1. Mighty Mom profile image92
      Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It actually is a "right" from the perspective of the providers, who have an obligation to treat regardless of ability to pay.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Have you ever tried to get a crown put on without paying for it?  Or an eye exam with a new set of glasses? 

        The doctors I see all have a sign on the reception desk: "Payment is expected at time of service" - to me that doesn't mean they will do the work for free if I don't want to pay.  It means pay them for the work they do, and if I won't pay go somewhere else.  A nonprofit hospital, presumably.

    2. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      ONLY when they can pay for it, and to whatever extent you consider reasonable care for the whole population.  Keep in mind that whatever level of care you decide is reasonable it won't satisfy anyone that needs or wants more but doesn't want to pay for it.

    3. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yes it should be a right... There is no way that America should have people dying of treatable conditions because they can't afford treatment.

    4. jacharless profile image81
      jacharlessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I say no.
      That right of every citizen, according to the [still existent but not respected] Constitution, to pursue life, freedom//liberty and happiness, should not be mandated by the governing bodies -be them the Executive, Legislative or Judicial branches. Health is a natural element. What should be enforced, by the three, is a collective clean air, clean water, clean food action that only heightens or ensures the aforementioned right. That is the true purpose of governing the Constitution. To protect and ensure the rights within are upheld, versus enforcing agendas or amendments that impose//enforce the propaganda of one or more economic facilities of health and welfare of the population.

      If an individual desires or does not desire to receive or reject health services, they should be allowed to do so and not be lawfully scolded for their decision either way.

      Like it or not, America is rapidly becoming an Imperialistic country, using democracy as its face. It is not democratic to force individuals, adult or child, to take medicine, be subject to various tests, screenings, economic parameters for eligibility, etc. They must retain the right to decide what is best for themselves, which is the point of the document and civilian rights document as well. That is a direct violation of their Constitutional right and their human right to exist as they please.

      But, sadly, imperialistic democracy is winning and has won many areas already. It is simply a matter of time before the complete enforcement takes effect.

      Apart from this, as oddly have been discussing elsewhere, $800 million -not including OTC meds, surgery, emergency care AND non-profit fundraisers, for multiple illnesses, was collected as profit in 2011. Of the population treated for sicknesses -fatal or otherwise- only 2000 out of 250 million were cured of said ailment with no after effects. that is less than .000008% or 00000008 of the entire population. Someone is getting hugely wealthy from this and now the Fed wants to bargain for a piece of the pie.


  2. Wayne Brown profile image85
    Wayne Brownposted 4 years ago

    Sorry but you address healthcare here like it is some can of rations sitting on a shelf to be handed out without any costs.  What do we do...enslave the medical personnel in that industry with a government takeover of it?  Obamacare will do more than enough damage if it is allowed to run its course.  The taxpayers in America have to pick up the tab and by bringing the government into it, that tab just gets bigger not smaller.  What is it that the government runs that is now more efficient and less expensive than it was when the government was not involved.  There are no free lunches. At present only about half of the wage earners in America are picking up the tab for everybody so why not throw this in the cart too.  Who cares if it doubles or triples the tax rate as long as I don't pay any!  The answer to affordable and reliable healthcare lies in the private sector with competition and free-enterprise as levers to holding quaility and consistency in place.  Do you realize how many class-action lawyers will go hungry if the government takes over healthcare and refuses to be sued in all these frivilous law suits which are currently populating the books across America...something which Obamacare does not even address.  A significant part of today's medical costs are driven by that very factor and many physicians who labor under the burden of the ultra-high liability premiums weigh whether or not it is all worth it in the end.  Those talented individuals will likely disappear as the government imposes itself more and more over the industry in the years to come.  It is a prescription for mediocrity at best.... you can forget saving the leg, the panel says "save some time" and just saw it off.  We keep down expenses that way.  The only thing related to "medical care" with regard to rights as they exist in this country is the "right to pursue it and the right to choose who will provide it".  Automatically, Obamacare takes part of that away so if we are going to involve government in healthcare, as a nation, we need to quit using the word "right".  ~WB

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      But Wayne, Obamacare will cost the country as a whole less than it is paying now.  We know that because Obama has told us so. 

      Wait a minute here....

    2. Dr Billy Kidd profile image92
      Dr Billy Kiddposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Are you aware that the federal government already paid for half of all healthcare costs in America before ObamaCare?

      That resident at the hospital--his or her salary is paid by the government. So are much of the costs of running most hospitals. Same with research. Same for Veterans and Medicare.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image92
        Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Do you ever wonder where all this misinformation comes from?
        I mean, this is not a topic that most people would, on the natural, have much (or any) knowledge of.
        Yet somewhere there is "Obliterate Obamacare Central."
        I simply marvel at how effective the brainwashing is.

  3. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    In theory healthcare is a right, at least emergency and acutely life-saving healthcare. 

    All "right" means is that the community has decided it must be provided to all people without exception.

  4. Wayne Brown profile image85
    Wayne Brownposted 4 years ago

    "Rights" are very specifically spelled out in the "The Bill of Rights" associated with our Constitution.  We may make some laws requiring that medical care be provided in an emergency regardless but not following that directive is a violation of law....not rights.  Man does not grant man rights.  Man recognizes that God granted certain unalienable rights to mankind which include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Those are our "rights" guaranteed recognized and protected by the Constitution.  I don't see medical care listed there.  Conversely, I believe that those in emergency and life threatening situations should be given all the help that can be administered.  I also believe that our public hospitals should not turn people in need away on the basis of whether or not they can pay.  I just do not see it as a "right".  We don't have the "right" to drive a car...we are granted the priviledge to do so under the law once we prove that we can safely pass the test and operate the vehicle.  It is a priviledge that can be take away if we are found to be in violation of the laws associated with that priviledge.  ~WB

  5. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    "Right" is a word with a long and international history. 

    The Bill or Rights is a specific set fo rights decided on by a specific community.  The community is not limited to providing only those rights.

    They then enact laws to mandate they duties corresponding with those rights *and* any other rights they wish to protect.

    If you think hospitals should be forced to treat any people in need, you think those people have the right to be treated.

  6. Johnkadu123 profile image80
    Johnkadu123posted 4 years ago

    Yes healthcare should be a right especially given the fact that some people consider tax cuts a right as well. It is absolutely appalling that the richest nation on earth fails its citizens when they need it most and yet is more than willing to spend money on hopeless foreign adventures.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You mean that because people feel they have a right to keep money they've earned that others should have a right to that same money, that they have NOT earned? 

      Seems an odd line of logic...

  7. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    Rights shouldn't hurt other people... that's one of the limitations of rights... no right extends to the point of infringing on the rights of others.

    The problem with healthcare is that it isn't an equal thing, and it isn't free. It doesn't cost anybody anything to let me walk around and talk. But if healthcare is a right, then I can eat junk food, processed food, fatty food, not enough fruits and vegetables, sit around the house playing Xbox, and when I need a triple bypass, other people will be picking up the bill for me.

    So, let's ask this question: Does everybody have the right to take away money from other people?

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      On the contrary, free speech most definitely does have a cost, the extent of which we may well have seen recently with the youtube video that has caused so much pandemonium the point is we see the cost as worth the benefit. Same goes for healthcare, absolutely there are costs, I would say the cost is lower than the cost of free speech actually, but the benefits are worth the cost.

      As for the second part of your question, as a society we have democratically decided with the legitimacy that the democratic process implies that while people choose to live in the USA under it's protection they agree to have money taken (taxed) from them for the purposes decided by the people. So yes within the legal boundaries of that system everyone has the right to take away from others in certain circumstances and in a prescribed manner.

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Oh boy...

        First, no. Free speech is not the cause for people who kill over what someone else says. The people doing the killing are the cause. It would be more like if there were a law that gave me the right to rob you if I just slam my head against a wall first.

        Would you support a law like that?

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Of course the people who commit the violence are responsible but to ignore the connection between that and the free speech is just willful ignorance, if it were not for free speech many people might be alive that otherwise are not, it's a high price. I certainly believe it's a price worth paying but it shouldn't be ignored.

          As for the legitimacy of laws enacted by the will of the people being compared to banging your head on a wall that's just laughable.

          There is also simply the utilitarian cost, letting tens of thousands of Americans die yearly from preventable causes or a slight tax increase on those who can afford it. The preferable option is clear to me.

  8. Single With Kids profile image60
    Single With Kidsposted 4 years ago

    Reading these posts from a country where free healthcare IS a right, I fail to see what the fuss is all about.

    If I'm ill, I visit a doctor and don't have to pay. If I need an operation, likewise - the concern is my health and not the bill at the end (there is none).

    Long may it last. It's not perfect, but it's available and it's been the saviour of many of my family members.

  9. kathleenkat profile image90
    kathleenkatposted 4 years ago

    I don't think it should be a right. Having healthcare is basically having someone else pay for some (or all) of your medical expenses. The individual is no longer accountable at this point, even if they smoke and get a respiratory infection, or don't urinate frequently enough and get a UTI.

    THAT being said... I don't think the actual healthcare service itself should cost nearly as much as it does now. The real problem here is how much it costs to get one bottle of medication, or have your blood pressure taken while someone sticks a thermometer in your mouth.