Healthcare as a Right

[snakestretcher]

If it is a “right”, then like speech, movement, right to an attorney... it applies equally to everyone.

The Coronavirus should it be a pandemic, will illustrate it’s not a right. If it is... the Vietnamese, Chinese and Americans would all be provided equal care.

This is never going to happen.

Healthcare is not a “Right”, and if you want the best service for the lowest cost... get government out of it.

In 35-years we have gone from the first mobile phone being massive (suitcase battery) primitive and expensive to the iPhone 13-years ago, to cheap $250 hand-held supercomputers. Quality increased and prices dropped.

The same would happen with healthcare should the government get out of the way.

Really? Why is it that only certain segments of US conservative society are whining about nationalised healthcare? I don't hear this from any country which enjoys it-and at far less cost than the jaw-dropping sums Americans get shafted for by insurers who have nothing whatsoever to do with healthcare and everything to do with maximising profit for minimal cover.

 

[zimmer]

Yeah, because unlike healthcare, Chinese provide the same right of free speech and movement and right to an attorney as the Americans!

:screwy

You seem to have missed the point, but that’s Ok... maybe next time.

 

[snakestretcher]

Whether it's a right or not, I don't understand why conservatives don't prioritize it more. Insuring that the citizens of our country are healthy is good policy regardless.

Conservatives won't prioritize anything they perceive as costing them a few more cents on the dollar. 'Why should I pay for someone else's healthcare?' is a common whine. They are too stupid to understand that nationalized healthcare, taken out of the hands of venal insurers, would both cost them less and benefit everyone. These are the sort of people who would rather see a neighbour's house burn down than lend them a hosepipe; mean, bitter, tight-arsed bluehairs.
Healthcare is a right.

 

[zimmer]

Really? Why is it that only certain segments of US conservative society are whining about nationalised healthcare? I don't hear this from any country which enjoys it-and at far less cost than the jaw-dropping sums Americans get shafted for by insurers who have nothing whatsoever to do with healthcare and everything to do with maximising profit for minimal cover.

Where did Mick Jagger go for cancer treatment? The NHS?

It would be massively cheaper if the government got their fingers out of it.

LA: Is there an area here in the United States in which we have not been as aggressive as we should in promoting property rights and free markets?

MF: Yes, in the field of medical care. We have a socialist-communist system of distributing medical care. Instead of letting people hire their own physicians and pay them, no one pays his or her own medical bills. Instead, there’s a third party payment system. It is a communist system and it has a communist result. Despite this, we’ve had numerous miracles in medical science. From the discovery of penicillin, to new surgical techniques, to MRIs and CAT scans, the last 30 or 40 years have been a period of miraculous change in medical science. On the other hand, we’ve seen costs skyrocket. Nobody is happy: physicians don’t like it, patients don’t like it. Why? Because none of them are responsible for themselves. You no longer have a situation in which a patient chooses a physician, receives a service, gets charged, and pays for it. There is no direct relation between the patient and the physician. The physician is an employee of an insurance company or an employee of the government. Today, a third party pays the bills. As a result, no one who visits the doctor asks what the charge is going to be—somebody else is going to take care of that. The end result is third party payment and, worst of all, third party treatment.

Milton Friedman at Hillsdale College 2006 (part 1) | The Daily Hatch

 

[Torus34]

First, 'rights', in common parlance, are ill-defined constructs. It takes little more than the on-going discussion over abortion in the present US to see the problems the concept of rights entails.

Perhaps we would do better to step back a little and consider human life itself. Not liberal nor conservative nor American nor Chinese, but human. H sapiens. What would we wish for each human being? Might it not be a number of 'freedom from's'? Freedom from hunger would stand high on such a list, nu?

 

[snakestretcher]

That’s a different story... people are quarantined for health/safety reasons... just like yelling FIRE!!! in a crowded theatre is not protected by free speech when there is not fire...

... The Communists are known for controlling movement of people. They shift them around to change the ethnic makeup of areas. they deny people the right to move back to their homelands. They did it in the USSR, Poland... China... it’s a common Commintactic.

Right, so the brilliant zimmer is equating healthcare as a right with Communism. Man that's sheer genius! I wish I was as clever:lamo

 

[Luckyone]

If it is a “right”, then like speech, movement, right to an attorney... it applies equally to everyone.

The Coronavirus should it be a pandemic, will illustrate it’s not a right. If it is... the Vietnamese, Chinese and Americans would all be provided equal care.

This is never going to happen.

Healthcare is not a “Right”, and if you want the best service for the lowest cost... get government out of it.

In 35-years we have gone from the first mobile phone being massive (suitcase battery) primitive and expensive to the iPhone 13-years ago, to cheap $250 hand-held supercomputers. Quality increased and prices dropped.

The same would happen with healthcare should the government get out of the way.

Your OP does not deserve an answer because what you are saying is that your health should be dependent on your income and if you do not have the ability to earn a good income (the handicapped for example), then you should die. Only the talented and able to work should have a right to live, right? and even then, the kind of health care you get should depend on your ability to make money, right? and even then, if you are intelligent and talented but were born in a poor family you should suffer while those born to a rich family but have no talent and no desire to work should get all the healthcare they want simply because their parents have money, right?

Your OP makes me want to puke.

 

[zimmer]

Conservatives won't prioritize anything they perceive as costing them a few more cents on the dollar. 'Why should I pay for someone else's healthcare?' is a common whine. They are too stupid to understand that nationalized healthcare, taken out of the hands of venal insurers, would both cost them less and benefit everyone. These are the sort of people who would rather see a neighbour's house burn down than lend them a hosepipe; mean, bitter, tight-arsed bluehairs.

Why don’t you pay for my Porsche? Why whine having to do so?

Show me a government program that has come in on budget and delivers what it promised in the time promised and I might think twice about it.

The problem with government running it is multiple:

1. It gets corrupted by those with contacts. Who you know is important... as in any Communist system.

2. newest tech is not invested in because it is a cost.

3. Fewer Dr.’s because who wants to work for the state? And they’ll only work so much because they cannot profit.

4. long wait lists... and suffering. See pt. 3.

5. if the government says NO... you’re ****ed.

Your bit about neighbors not loaning a hose is hilarious. The better example is... your neighbor buys a big house, a lot of ****, and does not insure it... and then after smoking in bed and burning down the house... DEMANDS you pay to rebuild his house and restock it with goodies.

 

[marke]

Really? Why is it that only certain segments of US conservative society are whining about nationalised healthcare? I don't hear this from any country which enjoys it-and at far less cost than the jaw-dropping sums Americans get shafted for by insurers who have nothing whatsoever to do with healthcare and everything to do with maximising profit for minimal cover.

Theorizing about paying the trillions of dollars needed for universal healthcare will not help come up with money which is not there and will never be there in sufficient amounts to pay for the extravagance.

 

[snakestretcher]

Everyone in the country is offered exceptional health care services.

Unless, of course, if you have a pre-existing condition. Then the insurers don't want to know you.

 

[Sweden]

So because the Chinese do not have freedom of speech, freedom of speech cannot be a 'right' anywhere else? 'Rights' are different at different times and in different
places.

From my Brit/Swedish/European perspective I strongly disagree with your views on healthcare.

 

[snakestretcher]

Here are a few questions you failed to ask yourself which explodes your silly theory about healthcare being a right:

If there are no Doctors, how can healthcare still be a right if nobody is there to administer it?

or... on a lesser scale... if healthcare is a right and there is a severe shortage of doctors... far too few to administer care... how is it a right?

Who will be held accountable for denying people their rights? Will they be able to sue the state for denial of their “rights”?

And... when ObamaCare was exposed for its Death Panels... is that not denying someone their right?

Or as Bloomberg said... if you’re 95 and have cancer... and the state tells you to bugger off already and die... is that not the state denying someone their right?

You see... Leftists like you do not think these things through. It sounds nice, but even your own party contradicts its dimwitted pronouncements.

There were no "death panels". What a stupid comment.

PolitiFact | PolitiFact's Lie of the Year: 'Death panels'

 

[zimmer]

Your OP does not deserve an answer because what you are saying is that your health should be dependent on your income and if you do not have the ability to earn a good income (the handicapped for example), then you should die. Only the talented and able to work should have a right to live, right? and even then, the kind of health care you get should depend on your ability to make money, right? and even then, if you are intelligent and talented but were born in a poor family you should suffer while those born to a rich family but have no talent and no desire to work should get all the healthcare they want simply because their parents have money, right?

Your OP makes me want to puke.

WRONG.

I’m saying that if it is a right... everyone throughout the world should have it equally... like speech, movement, right to an attorney.

In the following post I run a few thought experiments which collapse the idea of healthcare as a right:

Here are a few questions you failed to ask yourself which explodes your silly theory about healthcare being a right:

If there are no Doctors, how can healthcare still be a right if nobody is there to administer it?

or... on a lesser scale... if healthcare is a right and there is a severe shortage of doctors... far too few to administer care... how is it a right (when you are not receiving the care you need)?

Who will be held accountable for denying people their rights? Will they be able to sue the state for denial of their “rights”?

And... when ObamaCare was exposed for its Death Panels... is that not denying someone their right?

Or as Bloomberg said... if you’re 95 and have cancer... and the state tells you to bugger off already and die... is that not the state denying someone their right?

You see... Leftists like you do not think these things through. It sounds nice, but even your own party contradicts its dimwitted pronouncements.

 

[snakestretcher]

Where did Mick Jagger go for cancer treatment? The NHS?

It would be massively cheaper if the government got their fingers out of it.

Who cares where one millionaire got treated? He can afford to get care anywhere he wants. The clue is in the word 'millionaire'.

 

[snakestretcher]

So because the Chinese do not have freedom of speech, freedom of speech cannot be a 'right' anywhere else? 'Rights' are different at different times and in different
places.

From my Brit/Swedish/European perspective I strongly disagree with your views on healthcare.

Most people here disagree also.

 

[snakestretcher]

Theorizing about paying the trillions of dollars needed for universal healthcare will not help come up with money which is not there and will never be there in sufficient amounts to pay for the extravagance.

So explain how Britain, strapped for cash after WW2, managed to implement universal healthcare, free at the point of delivery, without bankrupting the country. Explain why every other country with UHC has managed to do so. Explain why the richest country in the world is at a complete loss as to what to do about it's own failing system.

US health care is an ongoing miserable failure | TheHill

Why the U.S. Health-Care System Is So Bad - The Atlantic

 

[Luther]

Of course it's a right

You only have "the Right to remain silent"(lol)

 

[marke]

So explain how Britain, strapped for cash after WW2, managed to implement universal healthcare, free at the point of delivery, without bankrupting the country. Explain why every other country with UHC has managed to do so. Explain why the richest country in the world is at a complete loss as to how to do something about it's own failing system.

US health care is an ongoing miserable failure | TheHill

Why the U.S. Health-Care System Is So Bad - The Atlantic

Democrats: 'How can Britain afford healthcare if we can't? Huh?? Explain that!!! The US has never had money problems. If we need $50 trillion to pay for universal healthcare, then we will just get Treasury to print us the money. How stupid do you have to be not to be able to see that, huh?'

 

[zimmer]

There were no "death panels". What a stupid comment.

PolitiFact | PolitiFact's Lie of the Year: 'Death panels'

Of course they were death panels. When people are deciding who gets what, who lives and dies... that’s precisely what it is.

Bloomberg is for Death Panels. Obama was too with his “go home and take an aspirin” (and die) comment.

I know Leftists do not like it because people know how cold as steel the state is... and hampers your dream of 3rd rate healthcare... but... too bad.

 

[VanceMack]

It could include it. It's a broad statement.

Yet here we are in 2020, 230+ years and counting since the ratification of the Constitution, and it still doesnt and has never meant that despite what you think it COULD mean.

 

[Serenity]

I side with Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Yes.

That being said, the real debate is how you then accomplish the goal for all to have access to health care in an affordable, timely and sustainable way, otherwise the song remains the same.

 

[marke]

Where did Mick Jagger go for cancer treatment? The NHS?

It would be massively cheaper if the government got their fingers out of it.

Who cares where one millionaire got treated? He can afford to get care anywhere he wants. The clue is in the word 'millionaire'.

Exactly. Millionaires are not the problem. The real problem is how are Americans going to pay for healthcare for the billions of poverty-stricken sick people in the whole world in order to fulfill God's wishes for Christians to help the poor?

 

[VanceMack]

Unless, of course, if you have a pre-existing condition. Then the insurers don't want to know you.

And why should they? The lack of logic around this issue is astounding. If you bought a car, DIDNT get insurance, drove it, and got in a wreck, should you THEN be able to rush off, get an insurance policy, and expect the company that you just contracted to pay for your already damaged car? Of course not...because thats not what insurance is for.

Where preexisting conditions exist there should have been only 2 things required. 1-Law passed that prevented an insurance company from dropping you if you developed a condition (provided you maintained your payments) and from raising your rates(again...provided you had maintained your payments) and, 2-for those that didnt have insurance, place THOSE individuals on Medicaid. Problem solved.

 

[marke]

First, 'rights', in common parlance, are ill-defined constructs. It takes little more than the on-going discussion over abortion in the present US to see the problems the concept of rights entails.

Perhaps we would do better to step back a little and consider human life itself. Not liberal nor conservative nor American nor Chinese, but human. H sapiens. What would we wish for each human being? Might it not be a number of 'freedom from's'? Freedom from hunger would stand high on such a list, nu?

Can Americans be made to fork over more of their earnings in order to try to raise the level of poverty and healthcare in billions of homes around the world? No, it cannot be done, so people should stop trying to make it happen.

 

[marke]

Your OP does not deserve an answer because what you are saying is that your health should be dependent on your income and if you do not have the ability to earn a good income (the handicapped for example), then you should die. Only the talented and able to work should have a right to live, right? and even then, the kind of health care you get should depend on your ability to make money, right? and even then, if you are intelligent and talented but were born in a poor family you should suffer while those born to a rich family but have no talent and no desire to work should get all the healthcare they want simply because their parents have money, right?

Your OP makes me want to puke.

Don't get sick. We need you healthy and at work to step up production so you can give more of your earnings towards improving the healthcare and finances of billions of poor people in the world, according to feel good communist dogma.