As I watch the news I hear more and more talk about healthcare being a right. I dont believe it is, but Im curious to those on here who do, why they believe so.

9/28/2007 11:01:20 PM

If a factory moves in to a town and releases a lot of air pollution causing a higher rate of asthma shouldn't they fell obligated to pay for these peoples health problems? If someone gets in a bicycle wreck and isn't wearing their helmet then why should others be for to pay for it?

9/28/2007 11:08:14 PM

sure, why not...

9/28/2007 11:11:24 PM

Sure, just like having food to eat, or housing, or a job for that matter. Everyone knows these are things that should be provided by the government. [/sarcasm].

9/28/2007 11:33:59 PM

It's more fun to blow up brown people than to make sure people aren't getting sick.

9/28/2007 11:52:02 PM

Your rights should never require someone else giving up their rights.

If you have a right to "Free" stuff, that means one person has a right to force other people to provide it..thus violating their rights.

It is simple slavery- if someone else has to involuntarily give up their property or labor in order to fulfill one of your rights.

People are demanding more and more desirable things be re-defined as a right to be imposed by gov't decree and control.

Rights that are granted by the gov't will always have strings. If the gov't can grant you free healthcare, that same gov't can deny it.

9/29/2007 12:03:17 AM

Although I see what you're saying,

Quote :

"Your rights should never require someone else giving up their rights."

can't be true. Rights constantly bump into each other in a society with two or more people. Are you trying to say that rights should never require someone else giving up their property?


And I don't think many people are using "right" in the "civil rights" sort of way. Saying people have a "right" to something isn't necessarily saying they believe it should be a constitutionally protected right.

[Edited on September 29, 2007 at 12:25 AM. Reason : .]

9/29/2007 12:25:40 AM

Quote :

"It's more fun to blow up brown people than to make sure people aren't getting sick."

Speaking generally, blowing people up is one of the few things that is a legitimate role of the federal government.

Operating a national healthcare system, in my opinion, is not.

9/29/2007 12:37:57 AM

At least we know that it is something that they and their mercenary army buddies are good at.

This also makes me wonder. Is education a right? If so, then why are there so many people who claim to love freedom and personal rights but are against the government providing education?

9/29/2007 2:00:24 AM

Where's my food, clothing, and housing coverage? And the government should also provide me with car insurance--hell, why not throw in a car while they're at it?

9/29/2007 2:39:32 AM

^ what a trivial, hackneyed response.

9/29/2007 2:42:04 AM

^ Please just answer the questions instead of attacking me.

9/29/2007 2:51:27 AM

Let's see, they already cover the food part with food stamps and your boy W. wanted a bail out for those who were dumb enough to get duped with the subprime scam. I can't help you with clothes but the govt. extended those lovely tax breaks for companies who buy overly large polluting vehicles while phasing out incentives for buying hybirds. Go figure.

9/29/2007 3:26:55 AM

liberals just dont get it

9/29/2007 7:23:54 AM

^exactly

generally, all liberals want a free lunch

and they're usually either:

ignorant morons that don't realize that they're advocating socialism, (or even understand what it is,)

or

educated evil (often closet) socialists that realize very well that they're attempting to destroy the individual

although most are the former

Quote :

"[Your rights should never require someone else giving up their rights]...can't be true. Rights constantly bump into each other in a society with two or more people"

not if they're actual rights


once again, EarthDogg is 100% correct

Quote :

"I don't think many people are using "right" in the "civil rights" sort of way."

Quote :

"People are demanding more and more desirable things be re-defined as a right to be imposed by gov't decree and control."

Quote :

"government providing education"

isn't government providing education vastly different from government ensuring that education is provided?

9/29/2007 8:55:28 AM

I agree in principle that you do not have a right to something someone else has to provide for you.

And I keep hearing the arguement about spending money at home vs. iraq. It is a valid arguement, however just because they are spending money(we dont have) for something you dont agree with doesnt really give us the green light to spend MORE money. Our govt needs to be cutting the hell out of spending, not drastically increasing it...and then taxing our way out of the debt. In my opinion.

9/29/2007 9:35:31 AM

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Maybe a certain minimum of healthcare is implied in that first one? I’m not saying I really think it’s a right, but I do like its potential to shift healthcare to a more preventative focus which can be cheaper than treatment down the road or having the poor spending so much time in the ER’s on someone else’s dime.


"Im curious to those on here who do, why they believe so"
Here are some reasons why others might:

Quote :

"Common arguments forwarded by supporters of universal health care systems include: Health care is a basic human right[41][42] or entitlement.[43] Ensuring the health of all citizens benefits a nation economically.[44] Coverage should be provided to all citizens regardless of ability to pay.[citation needed] The current US system is already funded 64% by tax money with the remaining 36% split between private and employer spending. A universal healthcare system would merely replace private/employer spending with tax revenues. Total spending would go down for individuals and employers.[45] A single payer system could save $286 billion a year in overhead and paperwork.[46] Administrative costs in the US health care system are estimated to be substantially higher than in other countries and than in the public sector in the US: one estimate put the total administrative costs at 24 percent of US health care spending.[47] For profit healthcare has been shown to have higher expenses and worse results.[48][49] Several studies have shown a majority of taxpayers and citizens across the political divide prefer a universal healthcare system over our current system[50][51][52] Health care is increasingly unaffordable for businesses and individuals.[53] Universal health care would provide for uninsured adults who may forgo treatment needed for chronic health conditions.[54] Providing access to medical treatment to those who cannot afford it reduces the severity of epidemics by reducing the number of disease carriers. Wastefulness and inefficiency in the delivery of health care would be reduced.[citation needed] America spends a far higher percentage of GDP on health care than any other country, and has worse ratings on a variety of subjects such as quality of care, efficiency of care, access to care, safe care, equity, right care and wait times according to the commonwealth fund. New Zealand, which spends one third per capita what the US spends on health care beats the US on every marker of efficiency and care. Although not definitive, this does lend credence to the idea that universal health care is more efficient than our for profit health care system as the US was inferior to Germany, the UK, Australia, New Zealand and to a lesser degree Canada in nearly all health care quality issues. This despite the fact that the US system costs 2-3x more per capita than the systems in these other countries.[55] A universal system would align incentives for investment in long term health-care productivity, preventive care, and better management of chronic conditions.[56] By reducing paperwork a universal system would allow doctors to spend more time with patients, thereby increasing physician productivity.[57] Patients would be encouraged to seek preventive care enabling problems to be detected and treated earlier.[53] A centralized national database would make diagnosis and treatment easier for doctors.[53] Universal health care could act as a subsidy to business, at no cost thereto. (Indeed, the Big Three of U.S. car manufacturers cite health-care provision as a reason for their ongoing financial travails. The cost of health insurance to U.S. car manufacturers adds between USD 900 and USD 1,400 to each car made in the U.S.A.)[58] Managed care networks, with their extensive provisions and guidelines, reduce doctor flexibility and limit patient choice. The profit motive adversely affects the cost and quality of health care. If managed care programs and their concomitant provider networks are abolished, then doctors would no longer guaranteed patients solely on the basis of their membership in a provider group and regardless of the quality of care they provide. Theoretically, quality of care would increase as true competition for patients is restored.[59] The profit motive adversely affects the motives of healthcare. Because an applicant with a pre-existing condition (possibly from birth) would require more care, they are often blackballed from being able to obtain health insurance at a reasonable cost. Health insurance companies have greater profits if fewer medical procedures are actually performed, so agents are pressured to deny necessary and sometimes life-saving procedures to help the bottom line. According to an estimate by Dr. Marcia Angell roughly 50% of healthcare dollars are spent on healthcare, the rest go to various middlemen and intermediates to providing healthcare. A streamlined, non-profit, universal system would increase the efficiency with which money spent on healthcare goes to healthcare.[60] "

-wiki

9/29/2007 10:19:54 AM

I agree that the government shouldn't be required to provide healthcare to everyone. I do, however, think those who literally can't afford it for legitimate reasons should be given help. Mainly, though, I see a government bloated and spending more than it should on killing people and internal spying where it could be spending money on medicine and housing and food for those who need it.

If I have to choose between a bloated, socialist government spending our money on killing innocents and fighting unjust wars and a bloated, socialist government providing things to those who need them, I think the choice is clear.

[Edited on September 29, 2007 at 10:41 AM. Reason : .]

9/29/2007 10:40:31 AM

^good point, although depressing


^^

Quote :

"-wiki"

the only valid reason in that mostly repetitive list is

Quote :

"Providing access to medical treatment to those who cannot afford it reduces the severity of epidemics by reducing the number of disease carriers."

9/29/2007 11:06:57 AM

Quote :

"Boone And I don't think many people are using "right" in the "civil rights" sort of way. Saying people have a "right" to something isn't necessarily saying they believe it should be a constitutionally protected right. "

Perhaps you do not intend that it is a "right" in the sense of a "civil right". However, I would wager that those in leadership/political positions very much intend calling it a "right" is to confuse it with civil rights. Then there need be no debate, after all how can you deny a person their "rights", it's just not right. Am I right?

It is much like the abortion debate and the choice of vocabulary, it is prochoice, antilife, proabortion, or on the other side is it antichoice, prolife, antiabortion ? One's choice of vocabulary is in itself a way of stepping past certain arguments and/or framing the debate. Of course prolife and proabortion are the correct terms from my perspective.

[Edited on September 29, 2007 at 2:54 PM. Reason : added comment.]

9/29/2007 2:50:16 PM

hell no it's not a right

9/29/2007 3:00:20 PM

I dont make enough money to care about this

9/29/2007 6:04:13 PM

Quote :

"It is simple slavery- if someone else has to involuntarily give up their property or labor in order to fulfill one of your rights."

Labor? Sure. Property? Nope.

Quote :

"Speaking generally, blowing people up is one of the few things that is a legitimate role of the federal government."

Well, I can't argue with that.

9/29/2007 8:44:33 PM

Quote :

"I do, however, think those who literally can't afford it for legitimate reasons should be given help."

They are given help, medicare/medicaid.

[Edited on September 29, 2007 at 8:54 PM. Reason : .]

9/29/2007 8:54:25 PM

Quote :

"Labor? Sure. Property? Nope. "

I dont understand this. I am unable to put a roof on my house, that keeps out rain and keeps me safe, so we should force roofers to work on my house? Or have the govt pay for it?

You cant force labor, im sorry..its just not right.

9/29/2007 9:55:10 PM

I agreed that forcing labor is slavery.

However, taking in taxes and using them to pay government workers isn't quite the same.

I disagreed that taking property was slavery.

9/29/2007 10:15:02 PM

Maybe not slavery, but certainly theft. Elsewise one might think it perfectly reasonable for the government to decide that since you and your wife could live nicely in a small one bedroom apartment that they will take your land and home and convert it to a few one bedroom apartment units. For the good of society of course.

9/29/2007 10:42:52 PM

how is it theft when the government makes all of the money and we do not have the right to destroy it because its government property?

barder system ftw!

9/29/2007 11:12:59 PM

Quote :

"I disagreed that taking property was slavery."

60-70% of our income is consumed by the gov't. The rate creeps up higher each year. We may not be complete slaves yet.. laboring for the gov't...but we're getting closer.

Ask a politician, especially a left-wing one, what percentage of taxation is too high...what is the upper-most limit of total gov't taxation.

Taxation is slavery because the fruits of your labor belong to someone else. Refuse to pay and see how long it takes for the IRS to destroy your life.

9/29/2007 11:18:52 PM

shouldnt labor be for the well being of your fellow citizens and for the continuation of mankind as a whole?

the system begans to crap out when everyone is working for personal gain rather than the continuation of humanity as a whole.

this is not a communist or socalist idea. Its an idea which stops us from having lots of investment bankers. Living in nyc has shown me that high concentrations of investment bankers makes an area fucking lame.

9/29/2007 11:28:45 PM

It is not the 10th century any more. Human labor today earns money. If the government takes it away, then the product of their labor has been stolen. It is slavery, sure, but a little bit of enslavement is to be expected among fallible human beings.

9/29/2007 11:32:58 PM

eh money is for chump

9/29/2007 11:40:26 PM

I'm feeling Democratic tonight, so yes.

9/30/2007 4:08:33 AM

Quote :

"shouldnt labor be for the well being of your fellow citizens and for the continuation of mankind as a whole? the system begans to crap out when everyone is working for personal gain rather than the continuation of humanity as a whole. "

That's an extremely idealistic and naive viewpoint.

9/30/2007 8:49:50 AM

I agree. The problem with working for the better of mankind, is mankind is lazy. So you find more and more not working towards anything, just consuming what the workers provide. You cant continue to punish people for working or being successful, while rewarding others who chooose to not be productive and habitually make poor decisions.

9/30/2007 8:56:05 AM

no one is punishing people from working hard or making money. These people still buy million dollar homes drive around expensive cars. No one is preventing them from doing these things. What the government does (which in a perfect world would be a collection of the people, which are for the most part much poorer than these rich people being "punished") is use part of the money earned by individuals making any amount of money and in return use if for the good of the country or community.

no one is being prevented from making money but people than make an amount of money well above the mean must give back to the country which allows them to gain such wealth. Doctors, lawyers and investment bankers would be pennyless if it wasnt for the community and government they work under.

now im not advocating the bloated mess of shit government we have today but dont tell me your faux libertarian views arent pretty fuckin idealistic as well.



[Edited on September 30, 2007 at 9:48 AM. Reason : yes]

9/30/2007 9:37:31 AM

Quote :

"no one is punishing people from working hard or making money."

Anyone with a pay stub would beg to differ.

Quote :

"These people still buy million dollar homes drive around expensive cars."

Who are "these people" that you speak of? I assume that you are referring to what you perceive as rich people, but if you've paid any attention to the news, you know that million dollar homes and expensive cars can be bought by anyone willing to sign a piece of paper.

Quote :

"Doctors, lawyers and investment bankers would be pennyless if it wasnt for the community and government they work under. "

No, they'd be penniless if they didn't provide a service that individuals were willing to pay for. And if you are still living under the fantasy that doctors live some sort of cushy lifestyle of untold wealth, you might want to educate yourself.

--

Hell, lets say something crazy happened and your dream came true and each of the 497 billionaires in the US was stripped of their wealth by the US government. They'd get $1.54 Trillion dollars. Well, that sounds like a ton of money and a victory for the common man! In 2006 the IRS collected $1.044 Trillion in individual income tax revenues. So with all that money taken from the evil filthy rich people, we could save the working man about a year and a half worth of taxes.

The fact is that the bulk of the income in the US comes from the middle class. So if you're in love with taxes and government entitlement programs, it's going to hit the middle class the hardest, no matter how you want to spin it. Yes, individually the rich have more money, but the total amount of money isn't nearly as much.

Quote :

" but dont tell me your faux libertarian views arent pretty fuckin idealistic as well."

My basic view is simple: pull your own weight. I guess in the land of the fat and lazy that is pretty idealistic, but I don't have an ounce of sympathy for the large chunk of our population that has no work ethic and a habit of finding someone else to blame for their own problems.

[Edited on September 30, 2007 at 10:44 AM. Reason : asd]

9/30/2007 10:43:56 AM

hmmm....

we pretty much have the same ideals we just look at it different ways.

if everyone pulled their own weight would we need a government? Is a teacher pulling the same weight as an investment banker even though their pay is competely different?

also im not for government handouts. Im for people contributing what they can to the whole rather than contributing to themselves. This does not mean we're giving money to people who do not work but rather creating a living environment where everyone enjoys a certain standard of living when they are contributing to the whole as well. People are still poor and rich because of their career choices and abilities but no one is penalized for their misfortunes. But im rambling and have no idea who this would be applied.

but seriously people believe some stupid shit so call me idealistic all you want. Maybe jesus will show up tomorrow and then the fun will start.

9/30/2007 11:40:52 AM

Quote :

"no one is being prevented from making money but people than make an amount of money well above the mean must give back to the country which allows them to gain such wealth. Doctors, lawyers and investment bankers would be pennyless if it wasnt for the community and government they work under."

they already give back...the people who work for them don't do it for free.

Quote :

"Is a teacher pulling the same weight as an investment banker even though their pay is competely different?"

i don't see what this has to do with anything. even with a "flat" tax system, they'd still be paying different amounts.

9/30/2007 1:44:57 PM

he said people should "pull their weight"

when are you no longer pulling your own weight and just being a weight on everyone else?

9/30/2007 1:46:32 PM

Y'all are all assuming the legitimacy of property rights.

Property rights, at least as practiced today, are neither automatic nor natural.

9/30/2007 4:14:53 PM

^ What you say is true. Like most common goods, secure property rights are unnatural, but without them any coherent system of production breaks down because people lose control of the product of their labors. Therefore, as Adam Smith pointed out, for the good of everyone our courts and police dispense justice in the name of enforcing an innately unequal and thus unjust system. But, as Adam Smith pointed out, the alternative is anarchy.

That said, after being around young children I find it very hard to believe there is not something innate to the human psyche which leads to the creation and enforcement of private property. Even pure communist societies maintained personal private property in the form of my bike, my loaf of bread, and my money.

9/30/2007 5:03:33 PM

I think something needs be done to overhaul the healthcare system and pharmaceutical industry. After working 40 years their is no excuse for the retired to be raped in the ass by the drug industry. Problems in healthcare are even worse and need a change also.

Completely socializing health care though is not the answer. My parents believe otherwise but I do not see why I should work my ass off to subsidize healthcare for people who are lazy or practice unhealthy lifestyle choices. While we already subsidize these people to a point; if everyone got free health care the problem would just get worse since it eliminates some of the incentive to try and avoid a "leech" lifestyle. Than when something happens to me; I am rushed to the ER i have to wait in line behind every person that comes in for a belly ache since the gov't foots the bill for going to the hospital.

Healthcare is one of the big issues I do not agree with when it comes to the platforms of most of the democratic candidates.

9/30/2007 7:44:55 PM

well, to be fair, it's not the healthcare industry in general that needs reform; it's the gov'ts big fat hand and meddling in the industry that needs to be reformed.

9/30/2007 9:06:37 PM

Our healthcare system is the most expensive in the world, and the results are nothing to shout about. Administrative costs are the highest in the world, because insurance companies are spending billions of dollars trying to figure out how not to pay people's bills. It is a disgrace.

A lot of people like the Australian system - everyone has a basic level of care, but you can buy higher levels.

There is no doubt in my mind that something has to be done, and indeed, I think everyone deserves some level of healthcare. We pay taxes for the roads that everyone drives on, but get sick and you are on your own ....

9/30/2007 9:20:48 PM

this actually turned out to be a good discussion.

In my mind the govt needs to get out of healthcare all together. Deregulate ins, and allow people to shop for their own. Part of the problem is people dont know what company thier ins. is with, much less what it costs or covers. If people could shop and understand their level of care and what they pay for, there would be a better understanding of it.

I dont agree that healthcare is a right, but in a country this rich everyone should have access to basic healthcare, and contrary to what the media tells you providing for acne, hair pills, and erections for the "poor" is pretty damn far from basic healthcare in my book.

Hospitals SHOULD be able to triage a patient and refuse treatment. I know of a cooworker who went to the ER with a sore throat, bc she said primecare costs too much. So 90>400 somehow..oh, but she simply wont pay it. So I suppose she is right. Having that rule where you force people to treat someone, for EVERY minor thing without billing them is part of the reasons those who do pay get reemed. But its like that in every aspect of our society.

Here is the deal. its ins. its expensive, but its YOUR health. If you take care of yoruself, it will be lower. It sucks paying for it, but you either pay it or risk something major. People expect thier ins. to cover from dollar 1, its simply unrealistic.

[Edited on September 30, 2007 at 9:33 PM. Reason : .]

9/30/2007 9:32:38 PM

mines 100 bucks a month for pretty good coverage.

its hard to give up the cash

10/1/2007 8:32:20 AM

100 a month? What is the deductible?

I saw John Stossell's 20/20 special and was convinced: the solution to America's healthcare problem is high deductible insurance. It enables people to care intently how much stuff costs right until the day they get cancer. If the cancer goes into remission, then they go right back to caring how much stuff costs.

At walmart or something, no deductable insurance was $80 a month, but if you accept a $2000 annual deductable then you can get away paying $8 a month! Here is the solution right here! If everyone signed up for this then hospitals would very quickly learn to publish prices and small retail clinics would become the norm for healthcare.

10/1/2007 8:43:18 AM

i think the issue is way to big to just be like the government should provide universal healthcare, or let the free market decide the issues

10/1/2007 9:45:11 AM

I pay for my own health coverage. I don't care to pay for yours as well.

10/1/2007 10:43:07 AM