• 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
Accepted. But no one has asked anyone be mandated to work for free. I was merely speaking of a frame of mind, how we look at the service.
I was just pointing out the downside of positive rights.
 
Any specific country you want to talk about?

I don't think badly of these systems in comparison to our current system, but there are more factors involved. Are the lines long? A few ranked higher than us are. Are they good economically? A few countries come to mind. ;) Now also may I ask about regulations? Cash payments instead of insurance?

Edit:
The U.S. has a spending problem right now, medicaid and medicare are doing well for us already! I would state regulation and government intervention has caused this problem.

Well, the two countries with which I have had the most first hand experience are the UK, and Australia. As I am a Brit, I will avoid discussing the NHS for fear of being labelled biased. So let's talk about Australia (which I suspect may have a system more likely to appeal to Americans anyway).

The Australian universal health care system is called Medicare (not to be confused with the US system). It is funded partly by general taxation, and partly by something called the Medicare Levy. The Medicare Levy is, in general, a modest 1.5% of taxable income, rising to 2.5% of taxable income above a certain level.

Full details of the Australian Medicare service is available here -
Medicare

But in general, it works like this -

You, or your parents, pay your income tax and Medicare Levy.

You get sick, and you go to the doctor of your choice.

He treats you or sends you to a specialist or hospital of your choice.

You get better, and you go home - there is nothing more to pay.

If you require pharmaceuticals post treatment, they are heavily subsidised.

The doctor, specialist, or hospital sends the government the bill, and receives payment in due course.

It really is that simple, and all the doctors, specialists, etc. are private practitioners.

But it is not perfect, inasmuch as it does not cover dental services, and only limited optical service - the cost of consultations, but not the cost of spectacles or contact lenses. It should be extended to cover both those items. Although Australians on an old age pension, a disability pension, or a veteran's pension, are eligible for free dental cover and spectacles.

In general, waiting lists are acceptably short, and any life threatening situations are treated immediately.

I don't understand your question - "Now also may I ask about regulations? Cash payments instead of insurance?" Could you elaborate?

I have only given the briefest synopsis of the Australian UHC system, but most details are available on the link I provided. Australia is one of the most economically stable countries in the world at present, so UHC does not appear to have affected it adversely.
 
By WHO rankings, the ranking of the US is 37 and Australia being 35, the UK being higher than both with a rank of 18. Australia pays half of what we pay and they boast a better ranking, bravo. Both the UK and Australia as you stated have a better movement paying system. I don't know how much I trust rankings though. Australia seems to be better than both. With exception to cancer survival rates. Uk tends to lag in elective surgery, same as Canada. I don't really have enough information, even the WHO said screw it, its to hard lol.

I don't understand your question - "Now also may I ask about regulations? Cash payments instead of insurance?" Could you elaborate?

Well when it comes to regs Ill have to take my time to elaborate.

Cash payments tend to be cheaper then going through Insurance companies, due to the fact that our insurance companies are garbage. ;) Out of pocket

Edit:

Really I'm not going to do this lol, I'll leave it to the experts haha... There are way to many factors involved when it comes to medical care, different territories/states have different qualities, regulations, laws, economics, ip laws, licensing, statistics out the yang, elective surgery waits, this are just the ones off the top of my head.
 
Last edited:
By WHO rankings, the ranking of the US is 37 and Australia being 35, the UK being higher than both with a rank of 18. Australia pays half of what we pay and they boast a better ranking, bravo. Both the UK and Australia as you stated have a better movement paying system. I don't know how much I trust rankings though. Australia seems to be better than both. With exception to cancer survival rates. Uk tends to lag in elective surgery, same as Canada. I don't really have enough information, even the WHO said screw it, its to hard lol.



Well when it comes to regs Ill have to take my time to elaborate.

Cash payments tend to be cheaper then going through Insurance companies, due to the fact that our insurance companies are garbage. ;) Out of pocket

Edit:

Really I'm not going to do this lol, I'll leave it to the experts haha... There are way to many factors involved when it comes to medical care, different territories/states have different qualities, regulations, laws, economics, ip laws, licensing, statistics out the yang, elective surgery waits, this are just the ones off the top of my head.
I have stated before here that the WHO uses selective and biased models. Instead of looking at morbidity rates as catagories they kind of simplify things like taking out lifestyles between the different countries. For instance the U.S. has more urban violence leading to murder where Europes violence is often higher but with less murders, much of this comes down to urban gang and drug violence, but, because it falls under mortality it is put into that age groups suvival rates, there are other similar biases(not sure whether these are intentional or unintended biases due to differing models). The people who do the best math on healthcare are insurance industry actuaries, it's actually scary how many people will fall ill to/die of what causes compared to their probability models. I'm not knocking the systems of other countries but rather the data model of the WHO, from what I understand emergency care is sufficient in most models as is chronic illness care but for most life threatening care the U.S. still leads if I remember correctly.
 
Complete free market healthcare is our best bet!

Best bet for what? A nation of indigents at the mercy of prices by health care providers? Yeah, that's working out well for the third world.
 
I have stated before here that the WHO uses selective and biased models. Instead of looking at morbidity rates as catagories they kind of simplify things like taking out lifestyles between the different countries. For instance the U.S. has more urban violence leading to murder where Europes violence is often higher but with less murders, much of this comes down to urban gang and drug violence, but, because it falls under mortality it is put into that age groups suvival rates, there are other similar biases(not sure whether these are intentional or unintended biases due to differing models). The people who do the best math on healthcare are insurance industry actuaries, it's actually scary how many people will fall ill to/die of what causes compared to their probability models. I'm not knocking the systems of other countries but rather the data model of the WHO, from what I understand emergency care is sufficient in most models as is chronic illness care but for most life threatening care the U.S. still leads if I remember correctly.

I was only using this because that was the ranking system that was used by the other, when you investigate it further, it doesnt seem all that reliable. Plus wasnt the last WHO ranking in 2000? Dont think they do them anymore due to the complexity.

Typos out the ying yang
 
Last edited:
I was only using this because that was the ranking system that was used by the other, when you investigate it further, it doesnt seem all that reliable. Plus wasnt the last WHO ranking in 2000? I think they dont think they do them anymore due to the complexity.
Cool. Figured you were using it as an example, I think there was a more recent WHO ranking but not sure, haven't looked at any data since I left the insurance profession but even if it were to be updated it would need a more mathematically proper approach to be any more relevant.
 
Cool. Figured you were using it as an example, I think there was a more recent WHO ranking but not sure, haven't looked at any data since I left the insurance profession but even if it were to be updated it would need a more mathematically proper approach to be any more relevant.

No couldnt fix my typos before you responded lol!!!
 
And none of us chose for them to have disabilities either. How does them not choosing to have the disability make the rest of society responsible for their misfortune?

My beliefs hold me to support them also. My beliefs also hold me not to compel another to do so.

Aid allows them to be productive members of society with a sense of self-worth that every man or woman ought to be given an option. Without the aid you damn them to lives of complete isolation and dependency.
 
It is a absolute right.
Your health is a right
 
To preface, I support UHC and not denying anyone access to medical care. However, I will not go so far as to say receiving healthcare is a "right" due to how that can be defined. If healthcare is a "right" I fear it may impede on the rights of practitioners to deny certain procedures due to their judgement (like cosmetic surgery or abortions). I fear labeling it as such could lead to abuse.

I also think healthcare is your own responsibility and the ability to have access to quality healthcare is a privilege.
 
Last edited:
It is a absolute right.
Your health is a right

You have a right to be healthy? Tell that to genetics and disease. Not everyone is supposed to live, I'm sorry thats the way things work. No one is forcing you to die, but you are forcing people to help you. People should want to help you, but when you hold a gun to my head and say fix me, i lose all compassion for you.
 
So this our first "right" to goods or services that others have always bought and paid for? Just when and how did we acquire this right?

You have the right to have health care no matter what. No matter how much you make, no matter you "pre existing condition", no matter your health. You have the right to your health which should be provided for you.
You acquire this right when you are born.
 
You have the right to have health care no matter what. No matter how much you make, no matter you "pre existing condition", no matter your health. You have the right to your health which should be provided for you.
You acquire this right when you are born.

Nonsense. What do you base this on; pure will? Try telling a doctor that they must treat you for free because you have rights. Are all in the medical profession simply volunteers to serve you, should you happen to request it? Are there any other rights for goods and services that you think that you have? Get real!
 
You have the right to have health care no matter what. No matter how much you make, no matter you "pre existing condition", no matter your health. You have the right to your health which should be provided for you.
You acquire this right when you are born.
What else is new? Socialists support slavery.
 
Nonsense. What do you base this on; pure will?
Humanity. Morality. Civilized society.

Try telling a doctor that they must treat you for free because you have rights.
But its ok if I pay my insurance company a boatload of money or if i dont have insurance i have to pay upwards to $600,000 for surgey then a boatload for medicine, but what happens if i cant afford that? Do i have to loose my house? My possessions? Or do i just not get the surgery?

Are all in the medical profession simply volunteers to serve you, should you happen to request it?
That is there job.
That is why people become doctors, surgeons, nurses. To help people in need.
 
You have the right to have health care no matter what. No matter how much you make, no matter you "pre existing condition", no matter your health. You have the right to your health which should be provided for you.
You acquire this right when you are born.

You have the right to health And it should be provided for you? You mean you have the right to health and it WILL be provided for you, if not you will lock me up, hurt me, steal from me, or even kill me if necessary?
 
You have the right to have health care no matter what. No matter how much you make, no matter you "pre existing condition", no matter your health. You have the right to your health which should be provided for you.
You acquire this right when you are born.
How much health care? aspirin and band-aids? Does everyone have the right to receive the same level of care as the POTUS? somewhere in between? Exactly how much do we have a right to?
 
:doh

Yes because we know that UHC is equivalent of slavery... :shock:
Youre ****ing clueless.
:lamo
Which of us is arguing that some ought to labor, on demand, with no compensation, for the benefit of others?
Let's see, you believe someone ought to work for your benefit. How is that not slavery?
 
I said absolutely nothing even close to that in the post you just responded to. Congratulations.
Really?

When I judge it against my standard for what should be made a "human right," then I think of healthcare as a right. When I judge it against what I think the duties of government are, then I think of it as a responsibility.

In short, it's all three things to me depending on where I'm looking at it.
It's a right that governments have the responsibility to provide for their citizens and it's a privilege to be in a country where it's possible to live up that responsibility.
When you say the government has a responsibility to give citizens something they have not earned where do you suppose they get the resources needed to give you stuff? They take private property from others. That is plunder. Therefore, you do not believe others have a right to private property and you do believe that plunder should be a way of life. Some criminals take the direct route and steal directly. Others insist that government do the theft for them.

You are just confused over whether you should have to do the plundering yourself or have the government to it on your behalf.
 
You have the right to health And it should be provided for you? You mean you have the right to health and it WILL be provided for you, if not you will lock me up, hurt me, steal from me, or even kill me if necessary?

Im going to "kill you, lock you up, hurt you, and steal from you"? What?
 
Back
Top Bottom