View Poll Results: Is access to health care a privilege, right or responsibility?

Voters
111. You may not vote on this poll
  • Privilege

    26 23.42%
  • Right

    49 44.14%
  • Responsibility

    39 35.14%
  • Other

    31 27.93%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 34 of 42 FirstFirst ... 243233343536 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 340 of 413

Thread: Health Care; Privlege, Right or Responsibility?

  1. #331
    Professor
    Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    04-27-17 @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,782

    Re: Health Care; Privlege, Right or Responsibility?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    We could make it public, like police and fire departments.
    They are actually a good example of my point. Those aren't rights. Many places don't even have a fire departments. Where I live it's all volunteers. If they decide not to show up..oh well. My rights aren't violated because they didn't show up. Policemen and firemen are people they have a right to their life and liberty, everyone else has no right to their labor.
    From the ashes.

  2. #332
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,650

    Re: Health Care; Privlege, Right or Responsibility?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    We could make it public, like police and fire departments.
    Right, and a brain surgeon will work for what GS rating? I can see the joy on the faces of the public now as they get to use GOV'T medical care facilities EXCLUSIVELY, with their blankets and lawn chairs as they camp out waiting to see THE doctor. If it takes a few hours to get a driver's license renewed and weeks for a passport, what will a gov't doctor visit be like?
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  3. #333
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: Health Care; Privlege, Right or Responsibility?

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Right, and a brain surgeon will work for what GS rating? I can see the joy on the faces of the public now as they get to use GOV'T medical care facilities EXCLUSIVELY, with their blankets and lawn chairs as they camp out waiting to see THE doctor. If it takes a few hours to get a driver's license renewed and weeks for a passport, what will a gov't doctor visit be like?
    Well a PA can do pretty well at UT Southwestern:

    Physician Assistant Salaries at The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas | Government Employee Salaries | The Texas Tribune


    Name Agency Department Salary
    Lori A Tappen The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY $199,649

  4. #334
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180
    We don't have a right to economic success or to be bailed out of an economic predicament. Whether we are producers/sellers, employers, customers, or patients, we are only entitled to the things we agreed by a contract of sale to acquire.

    A guy goes to the market to sell peaches and needs to make $100 to break even. If people don't buy his peaches, he suffers. But this does not mean anyone should be forced to buy his peaches. And it is not okay for him to get government to do his bidding and force people to buy peaches, or use their tax revenue (gathered involuntarily) to assure he at least breaks even.

    A guy goes to the market to sell his labor. No one will trade his asking price for his labor. He can try to reduce his asking price to increase chances for a trade, but if he can't make a trade, he suffers. If he makes a trade far below his asking price, he also suffers. But the prospect or reality of his suffering obligates no one to pay his asking price if they don't want to. And it is not acceptable for him to convince government to do his bidding and force someone to purchase his labor or use tax revenue to cover his original asking price.

    John goes to market to sell insurance. He gets some customers initially, and the plan covers a lot of services that Dave provides. People use lots of this service because John's plan covers it, and initially they are happy. Dave also is required by law to provide his service whenever someone walks in, no questions asked. So Dave starts raising his prices, which forces John to raise his. John loses customers because they can't afford his plan or find it to be a bad deal, and this causes his prices to rise further.

    This one's more complicated:

    1). Dave shouldn't be required by law to provide his service no-questions-asked, in other words customers of Dave (whether they have John's policy or not) should not be entitled to Dave's services if they can't trade for them.

    2). John cannot ask government to do his bidding and force his customers' loyalty, or use their tax revenues collected involuntarily to support John's enterprise when his customers don't want his product.

    3). Customers are entitled to neither John's insurance nor Dave's services if they can't trade for them.

    All these examples illustrate that the threat of suffering or even death is not sufficient justification for government to force economic transactions to occur. No one has a right to receive peaches, or to have his peach business be supported by tax revenues when no one buys peaches. No one has a right to employment unless the employer and employee agree to a trade. No one has a right to insurance unless the insurer and customer agree to a trade.

    Everyone has a risk of suffering if their offers for trade are refused, if the trades they agree to backfire, if their cost of doing business increases, if the price the market is willing to pay drops, or if they simply don't have the means to trade in the first place. It is not government's a role to try to negate, distort or otherwise influence the risks of failure and suffering in the market. The government's role in regulating commerce on this micromanaging of a scale is inherently corrupt.

  5. #335
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Health Care; Privlege, Right or Responsibility?

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Right, and a brain surgeon will work for what GS rating? I can see the joy on the faces of the public now as they get to use GOV'T medical care facilities EXCLUSIVELY, with their blankets and lawn chairs as they camp out waiting to see THE doctor. If it takes a few hours to get a driver's license renewed and weeks for a passport, what will a gov't doctor visit be like?
    I believe I've mentioned this before, but not all systems are the same. There is no reason we have to have what you describe. none at all. Does your fire department get to your fire?

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  6. #336
    Professor
    Leo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 02:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,674

    Re: Health Care; Privlege, Right or Responsibility?

    The question really should be - "Does publicly funded universal health care benefit society as a whole?" Some such systems extant are better than others, but in an overall sense, I think the civilised world has answered "Yes!"

    A system wherein everyone capable contributes pro rata to the cost, does not penalise any one individual, wealthy or otherwise. No one is paying for someone else who is capable thereof, and we are all paying for our own health care, but in a manner which does not place an unbearable burden upon anyone. I do not know why Americans are the only society still debating this.
    I hate the idea of causes, and if I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country. E.M. Forster

  7. #337
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Health Care; Privlege, Right or Responsibility?

    Quote Originally Posted by Leo View Post
    The question really should be - "Does publicly funded universal health care benefit society as a whole?" Some such systems extant are better than others, but in an overall sense, I think the civilised world has answered "Yes!"

    A system wherein everyone capable contributes pro rata to the cost, does not penalise any one individual, wealthy or otherwise. No one is paying for someone else who is capable thereof, and we are all paying for our own health care, but in a manner which does not place an unbearable burden upon anyone. I do not know why Americans are the only society still debating this.
    There is much misinformation and fear mongering here. Sadly.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  8. #338
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180
    Quote Originally Posted by Leo View Post
    The question really should be - "Does publicly funded universal health care benefit society as a whole?" Some such systems extant are better than others, but in an overall sense, I think the civilised world has answered "Yes!"

    A system wherein everyone capable contributes pro rata to the cost, does not penalise any one individual, wealthy or otherwise. No one is paying for someone else who is capable thereof, and we are all paying for our own health care, but in a manner which does not place an unbearable burden upon anyone. I do not know why Americans are the only society still debating this.
    From each according to ability, to each according to need, is what you're describing. Yes, it sounds like a clever way to take the most amount of money possible from the people, but that's only half the battle. Then you have to start suppressing runaway costs and pricing, over-utilization, pharmaceutical profiteering, and on and on and on... Gotta hand over control of all of that to a government whose trustworthiness and reputation to not do the corrupt thing is, let me say less than sterling.

    And it means giving quite a large number of folks some tough answers, letting some people die sooner, and other things no one likes to admit are needed components of any financially stable, cost-contained, centralized, socialized notion of health insurance.

    Far as Americans go, you wanna entitle the world's least healthy population to the world's most expensive medical care, and you honestly wonder why we still debate it? If you have any wonder why it's still being debated, you must be ignoring some key aspects of our health and medical predicament. The cost has to be addressed before the entitlement.
    Last edited by Neomalthusian; 07-06-12 at 04:46 AM.

  9. #339
    Professor
    Leo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 02:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,674

    Re: Health Care; Privlege, Right or Responsibility?

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    From each according to ability, to each according to need, is what you're describing. Yes, it sounds like a clever way to take the most amount of money possible from the people, but that's only half the battle. Then you have to start suppressing runaway costs and pricing, over-utilization, pharmaceutical profiteering, and on and on and on... Gotta hand over control of all of that to a government whose trustworthiness and reputation to not do the corrupt thing is, let me say less than sterling.

    And it means giving quite a large number of folks some tough answers, letting some people die sooner, and other things no one likes to admit are needed components of any financially stable, cost-contained, centralized, socialized notion of health insurance.

    Far as Americans go, you wanna entitle the world's least healthy population to the world's most expensive medical care, and you honestly wonder why we still debate it? If you have any wonder why it's still being debated, you must be ignoring some key aspects of our health and medical predicament. The cost has to be addressed before the entitlement.
    I don't want to subject Americans to anything - they are big and ugly enough to make their own decisions. I am simply pointing out the principles by which Universal Health Care is operated in the rest of the developed world, and wondering why systems which have stood the test of time for over half a century elsewhere, should be such a challenge for the wealthiest, most powerful, nation on earth.
    I hate the idea of causes, and if I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country. E.M. Forster

  10. #340
    Professor
    Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    04-27-17 @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,782

    Re: Health Care; Privlege, Right or Responsibility?

    Quote Originally Posted by Leo View Post
    The question really should be - "Does publicly funded universal health care benefit society as a whole?" Some such systems extant are better than others, but in an overall sense, I think the civilised world has answered "Yes!"
    First, PPACA isn't publicly funded healthcare. It's a mandate for people to buy services from another person / company.
    Second, the first question should be does it fit into the American way of government?
    Many other countries have many social programs, they also enjoy less freedom than the United States. I personally value my freedom.

    Quote Originally Posted by Leo View Post
    A system wherein everyone capable contributes pro rata to the cost, does not penalise any one individual, wealthy or otherwise. No one is paying for someone else who is capable thereof, and we are all paying for our own health care, but in a manner which does not place an unbearable burden upon anyone. I do not know why Americans are the only society still debating this.
    Sure it penalizes certain people. Healthy people that don't need health care. Wealthy people that may more than they use in healthcare. I don't see how you say those people are not penalized.
    From the ashes.

Page 34 of 42 FirstFirst ... 243233343536 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •