• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Health Care; Privlege, Right or Responsibility?

Is access to health care a privilege, right or responsibility?


  • Total voters
    91
A question that may or may not have been asked already is: why do they have to have health care?
 
You can't make health care a right without specifying HOW MUCH health care. You can make it a right but only include aspirin and band-aids, or you can say that everyone is entitled to the same level of care that the richest rich people get, or you can specify something in between.
How can anyone justify taking from one to give to another? How can the state obligate me to pay to take care of someone else? That is not a right. That is a theft, a taking, a plundering of one citizen by the state on behalf of another.

I have a right to defend my life and my property that is inherent in my being. No state is just that would steal from me in order to give something to someone else. Those who want something must work for it.
 
Last edited:
How can you justify taking from one to give to another? How can the state obligate me to pay to take care of someone else? That is not a right. That is a theft, a taking, a plundering of one citizen by the state on behalf of another.

I have a right to defend my life and my property that is inherent in my being. No state is just that would steal from me in order to give something to someone else. If you want something work for it.
You don't need to explain that to me. I'm a health care provider, so I'm offended when people say that they have a right to my labor. My post went right over your head.
 
You don't need to explain that to me. I'm a health care provider, so I'm offended when people say that they have a right to my labor. My post went right over your head.

So you don't think people have a right to health care? That seems contrary to your job.
 
You don't need to explain that to me. I'm a health care provider, so I'm offended when people say that they have a right to my labor. My post went right over your head.
Not at all. I was not addressing it to you. You already understand. I do hope that some others may finally "get it." But I have my doubts.
It is not just about having a right to your labor, which is slavery. The government, through this one decision has said that we no longer have a right to property. Of such things revolutions are born. My generation will not revolt. But the people who are in their twenties today sure better.
 
So you don't think people have a right to health care? That seems contrary to your job.

Every productive/employed person in the country is selling a good or a service. You only have a right to those goods and services once you've paid for them. I have a right to offer to pay you for your services, and I only have a right to receive your services if you accept my offer and we've agreed to the terms of a purchase.

Contract Law for Beginners here.

The very reason the health care industry is so messed up and so astronomically expensive is that there is no contracting between providers and patients. Doc says "you should get this done." Patient says "Mkay, doc." Then the procedure happens and the bill is sent off to a far distant land for processing. If it somehow ends up back in the patient's mailbox, he protests. That's how removed we are from the price discipline that suppresses costs in every other market. As customers of this industry, we clearly expect to get all the health care we need when we need it, and virtually never expect to have to pay for it.

Ever ask a doctor what a test or procedure or medication he's recommending actually costs? I do every time I go and it exasperates them. They never know. It seems like many patients never ask. Think about that for a second. The person offering a service doesn't know what his service costs, and neither does the person buying it. It should baffle no one that health care has become expensive.
 
Last edited:
You don't need to explain that to me. I'm a health care provider, so I'm offended when people say that they have a right to my labor. My post went right over your head.
Based on your feedback I changed several words to make it clear that you were not the target of my post. Thank you for your swift feedback. I think it is a better post now.
 
That's your opinion. I disagree.
Then you are a thief.

If there is a right then who is obligated? And what is the moral precept that you follow where plunder is acceptable to you? If theft is good what about rape? Murder? Or do you draw the line at theft?
 
Then you are a thief.

If there is a right then who is obligated? And what is the moral precept that you follow where plunder is acceptable to you? If theft is good what about rape? Murder? Or do you draw the line at theft?

To entitle all people to medical professionals' services is actually enslavement. It only becomes theft if you take from someone else to pay the person so he doesn't feel enslaved.

And liberals don't see it as theft if it's done through a government taxation and redistribution mechanism. If you take $7,000 from someone, that's a huge theft. The DHHS cost over $1 Trillion in 2012, which averages to about $7,000 per working citizen, however this is not seen as theft. It's, I don't know, what do they call it, "the cost of living in a civilized society" or some **** like that, which is a last refuge defense of any conceivable abuse.
 
Last edited:
People fail to realise that more people will go to the doctor if they are forced to pay for insurance, even for things that otherwise they wouldn't go for.

I personally don't have insurance, if I would have had it when an artillery shell from a firework hit me in the leg you can bet would have went to the doctor. Or when I sliced my hand open on a rusty object, an aluminum broom to be exact. Instead i treated both these injuries myself, I admit I was very worried about my leg haha, you could see the fat and muscles, it took 2 months for the wound to close up without stitches.

I understand that people want affordable healthcare, The Affordable Healthcare Act will not reach the goal it is trying to achieve, no matter the good intention of it.
 
Last edited:
It's none of the above, it's a commodity, plain and simple. If it were a right it would simply exist, this is not the case in that if every doctor just said screw it and closed shop it would no longer be a viable option(hypothetical). If it were a priveledge it would contextually be only for those who can truly afford it, however we have options beyond 100% out of pocket and laws mandating emergency care so that's out of the door. If it were a responsibility then it would dictate that you have a moral obligation to keep yourself fit, healthy, and engage in the activity......I firmly believe we have the right to forgo treatment for any given reason, some may see it as selfish, not our call. With all of the above it can only be "other", a commodity to be sought out at the best value we can obtain if we so choose.
 
Every productive/employed person in the country is selling a good or a service. You only have a right to those goods and services once you've paid for them. I have a right to offer to pay you for your services, and I only have a right to receive your services if you accept my offer and we've agreed to the terms of a purchase.

Contract Law for Beginners here.

The very reason the health care industry is so messed up and so astronomically expensive is that there is no contracting between providers and patients. Doc says "you should get this done." Patient says "Mkay, doc." Then the procedure happens and the bill is sent off to a far distant land for processing. If it somehow ends up back in the patient's mailbox, he protests. That's how removed we are from the price discipline that suppresses costs in every other market. As customers of this industry, we clearly expect to get all the health care we need when we need it, and virtually never expect to have to pay for it.

Ever ask a doctor what a test or procedure or medication he's recommending actually costs? I do every time I go and it exasperates them. They never know. It seems like many patients never ask. Think about that for a second. The person offering a service doesn't know what his service costs, and neither does the person buying it. It should baffle no one that health care has become expensive.

Because it's not worth it. The individual has no bargaining chip. You can say, "**** that bull**** I won't pay it" and they'll send you packing. At least governmental and insurance agencies have the power to bargain over costs of procedures and medicines.

Then you are a thief.

If there is a right then who is obligated? And what is the moral precept that you follow where plunder is acceptable to you? If theft is good what about rape? Murder? Or do you draw the line at theft?

Much like many of our resources, healthcare should be a pool that we all pay into. Pooling of losses is an important aspect of society and it exists for a reason. You just want to cut out a large portion of society who needs it more than you. That would make you the thief, buddy.
 
Much like many of our resources, healthcare should be a pool that we all pay into. Pooling of losses is an important aspect of society and it exists for a reason. You just want to cut out a large portion of society who needs it more than you. That would make you the thief, buddy.
What is sad is that you actually believe that stealing from your neighbors is a good thing.

You try to pretty it up but it remains theft. You are a self-identified liberal. But you use Marxist words, "From each...to each" so it becomes clear what you really are.
 
I don't see it as a right so much as a moral obligation.

Rights in and of themselves are what can be won through dominance. If someone can take it by force, they have won their right to it so long as they can defend it. Of course, few people want to live in that sort of society (I certainly don't as I would likely be much more poor, insecure, hungry, etc in that situation), but in terms of what is natural, that is how it works and consequently why some animals are predators.

Luckily our morality is often quite different from the law of the jungle, as, we as a human race have realized that there are superior ways of organizing society which allow us to gain more wealth, security, freedom or autonomy, etc and allow us to work on interests that do not have immediate survival implications such as art, science, leisure, etc. As we get better and better at finding ways to remove ourselves from a survival situation, we march towards greater pleasure, happiness, fulfillment, and other things along maslow's hierarchy of needs. This is why I see it as a moral obligation, its the direction more and more successful societies inevitably move towards.

However, this moral obligation needs to be balanced against available resources. At this time, I do not believe we have the necessary resources to be going after universal health case, so while it is a good and moral cause, its not realistic at this time. So on balance, I am not in favor of this legislation right now as we have more immediate priorities as a society.
 
I don't see it as a right so much as a moral obligation.

You are trying to pretty up the theft. Who is obligated to pay for your healthcare? Is it the person across the street? And why would anyone other than you be obligated to pay for something you want?

Is the level of plunder determined by how much you want something? Do you get a warm and fuzzy when you think about the people who are plundered so you can have something you want but are unwilling to pay for? Why shouldn't people like you be declared dangerous to the rest of us and locked up? Theft is theft.
 
What is sad is that you actually believe that stealing from your neighbors is a good thing.

You try to pretty it up but it remains theft. You are a self-identified liberal. But you use Marxist words, "From each...to each" so it becomes clear what you really are.

You wish I was stealing from you. It would give you a place to harbor all of that hate. But I pay and have paid all of my life. I just have a conscience and actually care about other people. You could work on that.
 
Because it's not worth it. The individual has no bargaining chip. You can say, "**** that bull**** I won't pay it" and they'll send you packing.

That's precisely the mechanism that controls cost in every other industry.

At least governmental and insurance agencies have the power to bargain over costs of procedures and medicines.

This is not working to control the cost of our health care, in case you had not noticed.

Much like many of our resources, healthcare should be a pool that we all pay into. Pooling of losses is an important aspect of society and it exists for a reason.

When you pool a scarce resource, it still has to be rationed somehow. The government can't just promise ever-flowing revenue to these corporations, mandate they cover anyone and everyone, and expect to watch the price of health care go down. So why would they call it the "Affordable Care Act?" The answer to that is simple. It is a straight up deception.

You just want to cut out a large portion of society who needs it more than you. That would make you the thief, buddy.

By no stretch of the imagination is someone who advocates that people not be entitled to the services or property of others a thief. That takes some major irony and spin.
 
Last edited:
You are trying to pretty up the theft. Who is obligated to pay for your healthcare? Is it the person across the street? And why would anyone other than you be obligated to pay for something you want?

Is the level of plunder determined by how much you want something? Do you get a warm and fuzzy when you think about the people who are plundered so you can have something you want but are unwilling to pay for? Why shouldn't people like you be declared dangerous to the rest of us and locked up? Theft is theft.

You are the one that sees it as theft, not me :shrug:

Heck, given my current situation, what I advocate is actually a financial disadvantage to me. So if I am stealing, than I am stealing from myself as well :shrug:

But such is the way of having a modern society, don't like it? not my problem.
 
I don't see it as a right so much as a moral obligation.
I disagree, but only to an extent. If one is not depended on by anyone, say, single, widowed, etc. and they do not have the desire to seek medical care they assume the risks upon themselves. Now, if someone is a primary income with young children or the owner of a company with many people depending on them it does change slighty on the moral scale, however this is not to be confused with a societal obligation.

Rights in and of themselves are what can be won through dominance. If someone can take it by force, they have won their right to it so long as they can defend it. Of course, few people want to live in that sort of society (I certainly don't as I would likely be much more poor, insecure, hungry, etc in that situation), but in terms of what is natural, that is how it works and consequently why some animals are predators.
Completely disagree, rights exist without any outside influence, they can be infringed by a less than honorable populace or government, but never granted. Look at the right of self defense, whether a government exists or not it is there and falls under the self evident truth of life. Rights exist in a vacuum, IOW, if our government banned all arms the right would still exist, but the government would necessarily have infringed upon it. We have the right to pursue happiness, but not the guarantee, we have the right to liberty, though many are getting in the way of the exercise. It's all about those things that exist, not what can be granted.

Luckily our morality is often quite different from the law of the jungle, as, we as a human race have realized that there are superior ways of organizing society which allow us to gain more wealth, security, freedom or autonomy, etc and allow us to work on interests that do not have immediate survival implications such as art, science, leisure, etc. As we get better and better at finding ways to remove ourselves from a survival situation, we march towards greater pleasure, happiness, fulfillment, and other things along maslow's hierarchy of needs. This is why I see it as a moral obligation, its the direction more and more successful societies inevitably move towards.
This is speaking to things that could dissappear in a heartbeat. If there were a catastrophic event wiping out governance, art would have little value, money none, science would be as effective as the tools present would allow, without infrastructure many advancements would go by the waistside. In an event where survival is the only thing rights still exist.
 
Last edited:
You wish I was stealing from you. It would give you a place to harbor all of that hate. But I pay and have paid all of my life. I just have a conscience and actually care about other people. You could work on that.
You claim to have a conscience. Your position is immoral. It matters little that you claim you do not directly benefit from the plunder that was approved. Rather that patting yourself on the back for your conscience you should consider seeking some professional help as you are unable to discern right from wrong.

If you actually cared about people, as you claim to, you would sell all that you have and donate the money you receive to pay for other peoples' health care. But you are a liberal. Merely thinking that you are superior is sufficient for you, as long as you can get the government to steal on your behalf.
 
Last edited:
I disagree, but only to an extent. If one is not depended on by anyone, say, single, widowed, etc. and they do not have the desire to seek medical care they assume the risks upon themselves. Now, if someone is a primary income with young children or the owner of a company with many people depending on them it does change slighty on the moral scale, however this is not to be confused with a societal obligation.

I see moral and societal obligation as the same thing in this case.

Completely disagree, rights exist without any outside influence, they can be infringed by a less than honorable populace or government, but never granted. Look at the right of self defense, whether a government exists or not it is there and falls under the self evident truth of life. Rights exist in a vacuum, IOW, if our government banned all arms the right would still exist, but the government would necessarily have infringed upon it. We have the right to pursue happiness, but not the guarantee, we have the right to liberty, though many are getting in the way of the exercise. It's all about those things that exist, not what can be granted.

All I can say is your "right to self defense is the key to all other rights" think about that for a minute. Its the ability to inflict violence that creates space for everything else. Now this doesn't mean that someone should because they can, but that is how it works and no rights do not exist in a vacuum, they are dependent on natural things like everything else in life.

This is speaking to things that could dissappear in a heartbeat. If there were a catastrophic event wiping out governance, art would have little value, money none, science would be as effective as the tools present would allow, without infrastructure many advancements would go by the waistside. In an event where survival is the only thing rights still exist.

You are right. Then we would lose a whole host of rights and it would totally suck.
 
You are the one that sees it as theft, not me :shrug:
Are you admitting that you have an inability to tell right from wrong?

But such is the way of having a modern society, don't like it? not my problem.
Yeah. I have never liked theft and have never liked slavery. But there it is...modern society and all.

The saddest part is that those who think as you do cannot even see how dangerous it is for all of us, including yourselves.
 
Are you admitting that you have an inability to tell right from wrong?

I can admit that your idea that you can assert moral stances to me is a bit silly. We all have our own view on the matter.

Yeah. I have never liked theft and have never liked slavery. But there it is...modern society and all.

The saddest part is that those who think as you do cannot even see how dangerous it is for all of us, including yourselves.

Welcome to modern society, I hope you grow up enough to appreciate it.
 
Back
Top Bottom