• 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
Catawba said:
Lets take a review the purpose of the Constitution which I submit trumps your opinion on health care:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Preamble to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security have all been upheld under our Constitution.
Click to expand...

The Preamble isn't justification for any law. As far as the Constitutionality of the law, Nearly as many Justices ruled it unconstitutional as ruled it constitutional. And the at least one of the majority said it was in fact unconstitutional as written. I would bet money the final chapter isn't written by the Supreme Court on this one. Now, however the SCOTUS can't accept another case until someone has paid the tax.
This thread however asks is it a right privilege or responsibility, not if it's Constitutional. My point is how do you provide a "right" to one person (a patient) if it can ONLY be provide by a second person (a doctor)? What if the doctor refuses?
 
Phoenix said:
The Preamble isn't justification for any law. As far as the Constitutionality of the law, Nearly as many Justices ruled it unconstitutional as ruled it constitutional. And the at least one of the majority said it was in fact unconstitutional as written. I would bet money the final chapter isn't written by the Supreme Court on this one. Now, however the SCOTUS can't accept another case until someone has paid the tax.
This thread however asks is it a right privilege or responsibility, not if it's Constitutional. My point is how do you provide a "right" to one person (a patient) if it can ONLY be provide by a second person (a doctor)? What if the doctor refuses?
Click to expand...

An excelent point. You can provide no right to a good or service, especially to a PRIAVTE good or service. The MOST that the gov't can do is to provide you funds, via a payment or tax "prebate" that it HOPES that you use for this intended purpose, like they do for "food" with SNAP.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
An excelent point. You can provide no right to a good or service, especially to a PRIAVTE good or service. The MOST that the gov't can do is to provide you funds, via a payment or tax "prebate" that it HOPES that you use for this intended purpose, like they do for "food" with SNAP.
Click to expand...

We could make it public, like police and fire departments. :coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
We could make it public, like police and fire departments. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

Universal individual basic needs should never be public. If we vastly reduced what is medically covered to something specific, rare and unlucky, such as, say, traumatic accidents and containment of highly contagious lethal pathogens, I'd be less adamant. The need for police and fire is uncommon, as are needs for emergency hospital interventions for traumatic accidents.

But illness and death in old age are universal inevitabilities, so socializing all those costs and calling it "insurance" is silly. No insurance money should ever spent on old age, because at that point it's not insurance against a rare unlikelihood, but rather an act of squandering money on life-prolonging hail maries that are ultimately futile.
 
Boo Radley said:
We could make it public, like police and fire departments. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

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.
 
Boo Radley said:
We could make it public, like police and fire departments. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

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?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
Leo said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is much misinformation and fear mongering here. Sadly.
 
Leo said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
Neomalthusian said:
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.
Click to expand...

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. :)
 
Leo said:
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!"
Click to expand...
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.

Leo said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Phoenix said:
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.



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.
Click to expand...

PPACA seeks to CONTROL (or destroy) the "private" medical care insurance market, by imposing both mimimum and maximum benefits, limitting overhead/profit and controlling premiuim costs. It is ONLY possible by using gov't mandates, that are simply controling the activities of a THIRD PARTY. What in PPACA, has ANY control over the cost of the actual medical care provided, other that the IPAB, which can only REMOVE care or mandate that it be "free" to the patient?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
PPACA seeks to CONTROL (or destroy) the "private" medical care insurance market, by imposing both mimimum and maximum benefits, limitting overhead/profit and controlling premiuim costs. It is ONLY possible by using gov't mandates, that are simply controling the activities of a THIRD PARTY. What in PPACA, has ANY control over the cost of the actual medical care provided, other that the IPAB, which can only REMOVE care or mandate that it be "free" to the patient?
Click to expand...

The taxes on medical equipment and pharmaceuticals will certainly make the cost of them go up. ;-)
 
Phoenix said:
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.
Click to expand...

I've never claimed it to be a right. in fact, I think the entire train of thought is largely missing the point. I suggest like fire departments, instead we're trying to solve a complex problem by working together. And firefighters and police officers get paid. So, your last part seems largely non-responsive.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
PPACA seeks to CONTROL (or destroy) the "private" medical care insurance market, by imposing both mimimum and maximum benefits, limitting overhead/profit and controlling premiuim costs. It is ONLY possible by using gov't mandates, that are simply controling the activities of a THIRD PARTY. What in PPACA, has ANY control over the cost of the actual medical care provided, other that the IPAB, which can only REMOVE care or mandate that it be "free" to the patient?
Click to expand...

This is largely mindless rhethoric.

No care cannot be removed from anyone. Deciding what you will pay for is not removing care. The care is still there. And you can still buy it. You will likely find more people will get more more care, not less.
 
Phoenix said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...

If you had read my posts more carefully, instead of simply reacting to what you thought I said, you would have found that I was not referring to the The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, but the matter of Universal Health Care in principle. From what little I know of the The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, it is an appalling travesty of a health care act, which has nothing to do with UHC. It is simply corporate welfare for the health insurance industry, with the sop of some slight control thrown in.

As far as personal freedoms are concerned, I, as a Brit, am not aware of missing out on any freedoms an American enjoys, unless you consider that ludicrous 'bearing arms' thing a 'freedom'. So, apart from that, can you enumerate the freedoms you enjoy that a Briton does not?

Are you seriously suggesting that healthy people are penalised by having health care available as and when they should need it? Are they, and the wealthy, similarly penalised by having police, fire services, and defence forces available? I doubt many of even your most conservative compatriots would agree with those views. Keep it real! :)
 
Your Star said:
Everyone should have the right to proper medical care.
Click to expand...

I wonder where it stops..........Is a job a right? Is a car to drive to the job a right? Is a free house to live in a right...........Is free food a right....Are we not responsible for anything? I believe we have a name for that.
 
johnny_rebson said:
Exactly. They need to call an insurance company and get a policy.
Click to expand...

As Mitt Romney and Barack Obama says, personal healthcare should be a mandate. Mitt Romney likes mandates. Can't dog out Obamacare without dogging out Romney too.

Here's the funny part. Rightwingnuts hate Obamacare. But you never hear much out of them regarding Romneycare, which is a spitting image of Obamacare. This is all just partisan hackery.

Here's one for the rightwingers. Watch and cringe. Mitt Obama..er...Romney at the 2008 GOP New Hampshire debates.

 
Last edited:
Captain America said:
As Mitt Romney and Barack Obama says, personal healthcare should be a mandate. Mitt Romney likes mandates. Can't dog out Obamacare without dogging out Romney too.

Here's the funny part. Rightwingnuts hate Obamacare. But you never hear much out of them regarding Romneycare, which is a spitting image of Obamacare. This is all just partisan hackery.

Here's one for the rightwingers. Watch and cringe. Mitt Obama..er...Romney at the 2008 GOP New Hampshire debates.

Click to expand...



It's just fine if a republican supports it, but it is evil Marxism if a democrat supports it. You just have to get this stuff down Captain.
 
Leo said:
As far as personal freedoms are concerned, I, as a Brit, am not aware of missing out on any freedoms an American enjoys, unless you consider that ludicrous 'bearing arms' thing a 'freedom'. So, apart from that, can you enumerate the freedoms you enjoy that a Briton does not?
Click to expand...
You are completely free except those chains?

Leo said:
Are you seriously suggesting that healthy people are penalised by having health care available as and when they should need it? Are they, and the wealthy, similarly penalised by having police, fire services, and defence forces available? I doubt many of even your most conservative compatriots would agree with those views. Keep it real! :)
Click to expand...

Absolutely! I person stays healthy and has to pay for others unhealthy lifestyles? Merely because they are wealthy. That is certainly a penalty. (even the healthcare law says its a penalty). Police and fire are local functions not the federal government. National defense is part of the Constitution of the United States. Health Care...not so much.
 
Boo Radley said:
It's just fine if a republican supports it, but it is evil Marxism if a democrat supports it. You just have to get this stuff down Captain.
Click to expand...

Stop sipping the koolaid and take a REAL look at RomneyCare, paying particular attention to its REAL costs, and continued abuses (temporary use of coverage and continued free ER care use) when put into actual pratice (page down to OUTCOMES and read it). It is easy to make generalizations and rosy predictions, even to say the two are the same, but then to deny reality, takes true partisanship.

Link: Massachusetts health care reform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom