healthcare as a right: heresy or gospel?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I volunteered to drop myself. Why should I continue giving money back to the government if I am not going to get any kind of service.

Welcome, sir, to the Libertarian party.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think it unconscionable for the richest country in the world to not provide reasonable healthcare.

I'd invite you to go to LA County USC medical center's ER some day to see about "reasonable healthcare" provided to those who can't afford it.

And your point is taht there are many poor people there getting free emerg care? Yea, and your pioint is??????? That still doesn't address:

I think it unconscionable for the richest country in the world to not provide reasonable healthcare.

"From each according to their abilities, to each according to their need" , eh? Thanks, but no thanks. For all your wailing about fascism, I think it's obvious that communism isn't the answer, either.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[pirana 0]

The question points out the fundamental flaw in how many people view healthcare - as a right. It is a responsibility, and like all responsibilities, is rooted in individual choice.

Take care of yourself, take your own risks, and own up to any consequences, whether intended or not. Lack of foreseeability (or predictability) does not equal lack of responsibility for the choices people make.

Healthcare, when provided for free, is nothing short of charity. Ideally, no person should be forced to contribute to charity.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think most people agree that there is some basic level of health care that should be provided to all people regardless of their ability to pay.

Well, Dr Boudreaux and I disagree, so that makes two.

"most people agree that there is some level of basic health care" but nobody agrees on what exactly it is. Even establishing a basis for doing so is morally repugnant according to contemporary, popular belief systems.

Not to mention that it's hugely impractical and inefficient.

So you're in an automobile accident and critically injured. Nobody knows who you are or how you're gonna pay. Do you think someone should save your life? I do... not because it's your *right* to have your life saved, but because it's the right thing for us as people to do for each other.

linz

Good one. Save the life at a minimum. Maybe the approach should be to assume the person can pay until it is established that they can't.

I agree though, even then, you still save the life.

No liposuction, gastric bypass, Lasix, megabuck prescriptions, plastic surgery, or any of that stuff. If they can't pay they get stapled up like Frankentein.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Currently we are spending mega bucks keeping 80, 90, 100 year old veggies alive beyond all reasonable and compassionate standards of quality of life.......

I don't know whether to use the Homer Simpson/Ross Perot quote or just go straight to Logan's Run.

pirana has it right

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

I've seen the results of "Public Housing" and "Public Education"....

...no thanks.

mh

My "public education" ended with a PhD from the #2 ranked university in the world, at age 25. Do you have an issue with that?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

"From each according to their abilities, to each according to their need" , eh? Thanks, but no thanks. For all your wailing about fascism, I think it's obvious that communism isn't the answer, either.

You're using an old technique of demonizing universal health care as communist. It's an unfair label. What it is, is what Lawrocket noted: a Hobson's choice of the best 2 out of 3, at the sacrifice of the 3rd.

People have dismissed and derided, but have cleverly avoided addressing the ethics, behind Lucky's comment: "I think it's unconscionable for the richest country in the world to not provide reasonable healthcare. "

From a standpoint of social ethics, I happen to agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment, too.

I think it's lost on most Americans that virtually every other industrialized nation in the world has some kind of universal health care coverage that the US lacks. In the US, those who have health care are the rich, the poor, and those who have "regular", full-time jobs (although co-pays in that category are growing huge, too), and military veterans (although VA care is nothing to write home about). Laid off? Self-employed/independent contractor? Getting by on multiple part-time jobs? You're probably going to choose food and housing over insurance premiums, and will be uninsured. This boggles the minds of people from countries outside the US.

There is an enormously large category of people who "fall between the cracks" in the US and are simply uninsured, in a way matched by no other prosperous industrialized nation. And that's the part that's unconscionable.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

I've seen the results of "Public Housing" and "Public Education"....

...no thanks.

mh

My "public education" ended with a PhD from the #2 ranked university in the world, at age 25. Do you have an issue with that?

Since John just beat me to it, I'll echo it.
I went to 12 years of public school in a school district that had (and still has) a 90+% college matriculation rate (and is not very affluent, either: basic middle-class), got a BA at a public university, and a J.D. at another public university. My sister went to the same school district and got her BA and MA at public universities. We both got pretty damned good ejumacations.

[pirana 0]

Quote

I think it unconscionable for the richest country in the world to not provide reasonable healthcare.

If you look at those who have provided coverage thru work where they're not paying street prices and huge copays, I bet far less than 1/2 the people in this country have descent health coverage while the richets keep getting richer. It's shameful.

As with any complicated issue, the devil is in the details. One sticking point we run into is how you define reasonable.

Most of the public, when pushed for detail, come up with a definition that makes delivery outrageously expensive.

If we were talking cars, most could be rational and consider the funding side, and factoring that in come up with a reasonable level for reasonable. With healthcare though, the debate gets very emotional, even before you leave the realm of the hypothetical. And when you cross over from hypothetical debate to real world action - - - everybody wants the Cadillac without much concern for how the payments get made.

As far as it being a have and have-not issue; benefit pricing has become very standardized. Nobody gets a very different (or better) deal than anybody else willing to spend the same amount of money. It is a rare employer that can afford full coverage plans anymore. Everybody gets copays and deductibles and most of the standard exclusions. There is very little differentiation in rates these days, other than a carrier trying to buy business with low initial premiums.

So yeah, it is like most things that cost money. If you don't have any money, you can't buy much. I don't think it is a conspiracy or anything like that. If you want more goods and services, go make more money.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I volunteered to drop myself. Why should I continue giving money back to the government if I am not going to get any kind of service.

Welcome, sir, to the Libertarian party.

The flip side to that would be to get services - your point was to quit paying the gov, which will never happen.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think it unconscionable for the richest country in the world to not provide reasonable healthcare.

I'd invite you to go to LA County USC medical center's ER some day to see about "reasonable healthcare" provided to those who can't afford it.

And your point is taht there are many poor people there getting free emerg care? Yea, and your pioint is??????? That still doesn't address:

I think it unconscionable for the richest country in the world to not provide reasonable healthcare.

"From each according to their abilities, to each according to their need" , eh? Thanks, but no thanks. For all your wailing about fascism, I think it's obvious that communism isn't the answer, either.

Quote

"From each according to their abilities, to each according to their need" , eh? Thanks, but no thanks. For all your wailing about fascism, I think it's obvious that communism isn't the answer, either.

Are you trying to culminate Communism to fascism? I know of no Communist countries that were considered fascist. Most early fascist countries were Socialist, as in Italy and Germany.

But fascism has morphed a bit, while some of the basic tenants are the same. The same could be said about conservatism, the GOP's would cringe at the neo-con agenda, so things so morph over 60 years, many times less.

The fascism to which I refer is the busting of unions and giving the right to draft legislation to the corps, which is evident with mandatory seat belts and auto insurance. Not only does the government have to give you permission to drive, but so does a corp. Why is it important to wear a seat belt? Does it reduce the probability that there will be a collision? No, it mitigate sthe injury after the collisions, mitigating dollar damages.

There are many examples of Corporatism out there, Corporatism is a leg of neo-fascism.

Socialized medicine is not an attribute on only Communism, but I do understnd why you need to be extreme here. Virtually all of the industrialized world has some form of Socialized medicine, that is, except for the richest one.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

The question points out the fundamental flaw in how many people view healthcare - as a right. It is a responsibility, and like all responsibilities, is rooted in individual choice.

Take care of yourself, take your own risks, and own up to any consequences, whether intended or not. Lack of foreseeability (or predictability) does not equal lack of responsibility for the choices people make.

Healthcare, when provided for free, is nothing short of charity. Ideally, no person should be forced to contribute to charity.

Quote

The question points out the fundamental flaw in how many people view healthcare - as a right. It is a responsibility, and like all responsibilities, is rooted in individual choice.

Yes, just like those who chose to born rich or poor. Most all industrialized countries define basic healthcare as a fundamental right, the US chooses to define it as a luxury. Again, we define what we're about all the time and the world sees that.

Quote

Take care of yourself, take your own risks, and own up to any consequences, whether intended or not. Lack of foreseeability (or predictability) does not equal lack of responsibility for the choices people make.

Yes and the person born with physical disorders is merely irresponsible. The person hit by a DUI driver w/o insurance, or hell, with insurance @ 40k minimum (joke) is also irresponsible. We are the most unfeeling, incompassionate country in the world in many ways when it comes to caring for our own. Mass Darwinism at the advantage of the rich, then the cons cry when the economy turns to shit and poor people turn to crime so they can make it.

Quote

Healthcare, when provided for free, is nothing short of charity. Ideally, no person should be forced to contribute to charity.

UNless it's corporate charity, as in with the Iraq whatever we call it - war???? See, the Dems require the rich to pay for medical care for people and educational programs, Repubs demand the poor and middle class pay for wars by their buds on no-bid contracts fro which the Vice Pres formerly headed. And you want to fault the left for thinking that is wrong?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Good one. Save the life at a minimum. Maybe the approach should be to assume the person can pay until it is established that they can't.

I agree though, even then, you still save the life.

That's the way it is, then dumo them on the street.

Quote

No liposuction, gastric bypass, Lasix, megabuck prescriptions, plastic surgery, or any of that stuff. If they can't pay they get stapled up like Frankentein.

Well of course. That was what Clinton presented that was shot down. No one credible is proposing elective surgeries, just basic healthcare including dental.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Currently we are spending mega bucks keeping 80, 90, 100 year old veggies alive beyond all reasonable and compassionate standards of quality of life.......

I don't know whether to use the Homer Simpson/Ross Perot quote or just go straight to Logan's Run.

pirana has it right

Quit using EXTREME examples; let's start talking about the family earning 25k/yr orthe college kid trying to get an education to contribute post grad. These are the people who need medical care who can;t afford it.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

which is evident with mandatory seat belts and auto insurance.

This is a bit of a tangent - can you elaborate?

and also, since (perhaps for fun) you equate good and evil as equivalent to the two political parties in power today, do you think that the "good" Democrats would eliminate seat belt and auto insurance laws?

Other -
Unions are a result of bad management practices and start out likely necessary. But, as in any huge power structure they become no different than corporations or political parties, or organized religion. Thus some need to be busted, and frequently. Big unions are "BIG BUSINESS", but in a more insidious way. I understand the reasoning behind unions, but I still think quitting a job and going elsewhere is much more effective than "threatening" to quit (strike) and some of the other tactics used. I hate to hand my fate to some board of representatives that really only have their own interests at heart.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quit using EXTREME examples; let's start talking about the family earning 25k/yr orthe college kid trying to get an education to contribute post grad. These are the people who need medical care who can;t afford it.

I can't believe you'd deny 'reasonable' medical care to senior citizens... (see how these debates progress?)

The "people" will vote themselves cosmetic surgery, or sex changes, or lasik, etc. Because they will see the rich purchase those things and then demand it from the government as 'only fair and equal'.

Politicians will try to give it to them in order to buy those votes.

pirana's comment was on target. And either set of quotes I referenced were for entainment only, I just couldn't choose.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

"From each according to their abilities, to each according to their need" , eh? Thanks, but no thanks. For all your wailing about fascism, I think it's obvious that communism isn't the answer, either.

You're using an old technique of demonizing universal health care as communist. It's an unfair label. What it is, is what Lawrocket noted: a Hobson's choice of the best 2 out of 3, at the sacrifice of the 3rd.

People have dismissed and derided, but have cleverly avoided addressing the ethics, behind Lucky's comment: "I think it's unconscionable for the richest country in the world to not provide reasonable healthcare. "

From a standpoint of social ethics, I happen to agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment, too.

I think it's lost on most Americans that virtually every other industrialized nation in the world has some kind of universal health care coverage that the US lacks. In the US, those who have health care are the rich, the poor, and those who have "regular", full-time jobs (although co-pays in that category are growing huge, too), and military veterans (although VA care is nothing to write home about). Laid off? Self-employed/independent contractor? Getting by on multiple part-time jobs? You're probably going to choose food and housing over insurance premiums, and will be uninsured. This boggles the minds of people from countries outside the US.

There is an enormously large category of people who "fall between the cracks" in the US and are simply uninsured, in a way matched by no other prosperous industrialized nation. And that's the part that's unconscionable.

NIce post. To expound I would give an example of a guy at a place I worked a couple years ago who had 2 kids; he paid 500/month as a co-premium an then of course co-pays when he used it. He could have bought it off the street for about the same price, but people on the conservative side would say his employer provided insurance for him. I think there is easily 30% of Americans in this rut where they technically have employers provide insurance, but it is so worthless that it matters not. But the statistics reveal he is insured, even though he buys it himself by throwing himself into poverty.

Whay you see, Andy, is that neo-cons on this board or elsewhere will use extreme examples to make their point. They will talk 90 year olds, elective surgeries like sex changes and tooth whitening. They avoid teh issue because they know it's unconscionable for the richest country in the world to not provide reasonable healthcare.

It took 100 years for people to yank their head and quit smoking in public places, so how can we expect other issues to get fixed any sooner.

[pirana 0]

Quote

[I'd invite you to go to any Intensive Care Unit in South Florida and see how health care dollars are being spent. Currently we are spending mega bucks keeping 80, 90, 100 year old veggies alive beyond all reasonable and compassionate standards of quality of life.

For the ones that are somewhat sensate, they suffer the pain and indignities of procedures and surgeries for as long as modern medicine can keep them alive ...and modern medicine is very good at prolonging life! Why do we do this? In a word ...money. Medicare dollars, the life's blood of hospital income.

If they should improve, they are shipped back to the Nursing Home they came from where they can continue to lay in their own waste until end of shift cleanups...until the next heart attack or stroke when they are again shipped off to the ER and ICU to be farmed for more Medicare dollars. [google a search for "medicare icu dollars"]

Shifting the billions (trillions?) of dollars spent annually on these people to 'reasonable' free health care for citizens who have a chance to enjoy a quality of life given the benefit of reasonable health care wouldn't cost any additional dollars.

It's a win-win senario with the current much suffering cash crop of geriatrics being provided loving, compassionate end of life care to make their last days peaceful and pain free.

Of course, this won't happen. Why? Because the current system is an extremely profitable industry with waaay too many hospitals, physicians and corporations making fortunes. Their combined political clout is most formidable.

I don't think anybody forces the hospitals to do this. It is almost always the families choice - the patient if they are able or their appointed person.

Seen it happen in our extended family, the elder had not made their desires legally binding and the person of authority refused to let go. It was sad and pathetic watching her being kept alive in pain, even if only for a few days.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I think it unconscionable for the richest country in the world to not provide reasonable healthcare.

If you look at those who have provided coverage thru work where they're not paying street prices and huge copays, I bet far less than 1/2 the people in this country have descent health coverage while the richets keep getting richer. It's shameful.

As with any complicated issue, the devil is in the details. One sticking point we run into is how you define reasonable.

Most of the public, when pushed for detail, come up with a definition that makes delivery outrageously expensive.

If we were talking cars, most could be rational and consider the funding side, and factoring that in come up with a reasonable level for reasonable. With healthcare though, the debate gets very emotional, even before you leave the realm of the hypothetical. And when you cross over from hypothetical debate to real world action - - - everybody wants the Cadillac without much concern for how the payments get made.

As far as it being a have and have-not issue; benefit pricing has become very standardized. Nobody gets a very different (or better) deal than anybody else willing to spend the same amount of money. It is a rare employer that can afford full coverage plans anymore. Everybody gets copays and deductibles and most of the standard exclusions. There is very little differentiation in rates these days, other than a carrier trying to buy business with low initial premiums.

So yeah, it is like most things that cost money. If you don't have any money, you can't buy much. I don't think it is a conspiracy or anything like that. If you want more goods and services, go make more money.

Quote

As with any complicated issue, the devil is in the details. One sticking point we run into is how you define reasonable.

Come on, man. W/o yet reading the rest of your post I can answer that and I think it is a defintion that is a reasonable standard. Basic healthcare includes surgeries such as ligament repair, heart surgery, stiches, tonsilectomy, dental care etc.

Does not include gender reassignment, cosmetic surgeries, tooth whitening.

Quit skewing the issue with technicalities.

Quote

Most of the public, when pushed for detail, come up with a definition that makes delivery outrageously expensive.

I don't what most of the public you are talking to or about, but it will be expensive, perhaps the cost of your little war over there.

Quote

and factoring that in come up with a reasonable level for reasonable.

Quit the ornate language that attempts to confuse. The issue si simple, do as teh rest of teh world and provide basic healthcare.

Quote

With healthcare though, the debate gets very emotional, even before you leave the realm of the hypothetical. And when you cross over from hypothetical debate to real world action - - - everybody wants the Cadillac without much concern for how the payments get made.

1) WHo cares about emotions, let's deal with caring for our people whatever it costs - other counbtries do it, why can;t we?

2) Quit using grandiose metaphore, such as Cadillacs. It's UNREASONABLE to provide people the Cadillac of care, how about the Checy Nova of care?

Quote

Nobody gets a very different (or better) deal than anybody else willing to spend the same amount of money.

This is not a matter of will in most cases, it's a matter of have or have-not.

Quote

It is a rare employer that can afford full coverage plans anymore. Everybody gets copays and deductibles and most of the standard exclusions.

Yep, so to offload the burden to the people is a recipe for people not getting care.

Quote

There is very little differentiation in rates these days, other than a carrier trying to buy business with low initial premiums.

Right, this is the fascist aspect to it, we let corporations decide who gets coverage for how much. I'm thinking the gov has a duty to ensure basic care for its people.

Quote

So yeah, it is like most things that cost money. If you don't have any money, you can't buy much. I don't think it is a conspiracy or anything like that. If you want more goods and services, go make more money.

No money, no vacation. No money, no cancer treatment.... I get it.

No it is not a conspiracy, it is the basic protocol of this, cough, great nation, cough.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Whay you see, Andy, is that neo-cons on this board or elsewhere will use extreme examples to make their point. They will talk 90 year olds, elective surgeries like sex changes and tooth whitening. They avoid teh issue because they know it's unconscionable for the richest country in the world to not provide reasonable healthcare.

What is the Neocon stance on universal healthcare? I didn't really think healthcare was a part of their platform?

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Currently we are spending mega bucks keeping 80, 90, 100 year old veggies alive beyond all reasonable and compassionate standards of quality of life.......

I don't know whether to use the Homer Simpson/Ross Perot quote or just go straight to Logan's Run.

pirana has it right

Quit using EXTREME examples; let's start talking about the family earning 25k/yr orthe college kid trying to get an education to contribute post grad. These are the people who need medical care who can;t afford it.

See, that's the thing. Medical care could be provided from birth to death without spending ANY additional public dollars!!! Stop prolonging the pain and suffering of those at the upper end of the life cycle and provide compassionate quality end of life care. Take the billions/trillions of dollars saved each year and America could easily provide good quality health care for it's citizens throughout the life cycle.

Personally, I believe our government providing health care for it's citizens is right up there with providing education, clean water and roads. We could do it easily ...and it wouldn't cost an additionl dime!

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[pirana 0]

Quote

True sign of a classist nation is one that promotes selective, exclusive care for the well-off while depriving those who don't,"deserve" it.

You can tell volumes about a nation by looking at its poor, and our poor don;t have healthcare. Hell, the Nazi administartion has failed to keep up with costs at the VA hospitals, cutting benefits for veterans. So if they do that for their soldiers, guess what if you're not a retired vet? I'm a non-wartime vet, non-lifer vet so I get zip.

Show me a nation with no classes; no social, cultural or financial divisions that result in some sort of ability to choose the manner in which people live. All people are not created equal, and there is nothing to be gained by trying to make everyone the same (as if that could be accomplished anyway).

What exactly is your point? That it is unfair that people are free to make choices, and that the myriad volume of choices and options ensure that we will end up living life differently - with some materially more well off than others?

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

I've seen the results of "Public Housing" and "Public Education"....

...no thanks.

mh

My "public education" ended with a PhD from the #2 ranked university in the world, at age 25. Do you have an issue with that?

YEAH, I do!!!!

Can you help me with my homework?

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quit using EXTREME examples; let's start talking about the family earning 25k/yr orthe college kid trying to get an education to contribute post grad. These are the people who need medical care who can;t afford it.

I had insurance with a wife and 2 kids making 25k/year. My older sister put herself through college on scholarships and part-time jobs, and had insurance.

I would hazard a guess and say that the majority of full time jobs provide some sort of medical coverage.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

I don't think anybody forces the hospitals to do this. It is almost always the families choice - the patient if they are able or their appointed person.

They don't need to be forced, they want to ...it's money!!!! If the family is around, they usually have the choice, but people in crisis pretty much go along with the professionals.

Quote

Seen it happen in our extended family, the elder had not made their desires legally binding and the person of authority refused to let go. It was sad and pathetic watching her being kept alive in pain, even if only for a few days.

In South Florida alone, there are thousands of geriatrics who are unable to make sound decisions regarding their medical care. They either have outlived all family members or the family has long liqidated anything of value and disappeared. These patients will be kept alive, in ICU, for years, if possible.

For two years, I worked as a court appointed advocate for hospital patients in this situation. Getting them in the program was a lengthy process in and of itself. Getting hospitals to comply with DNR (Do Not Recussitate) was tedious, and actual withdrawal of life support sometimes took weeks.

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".