Should health insurance/coveragr be a right?

[dairygirl4u2c]

there's a difference between health insurance and health care. basic healthcare is a right, just like basic food access. libertarians like to pretend we are taking money at gun point, but it could be reversed and say they are preventing people from something basic, at gun point. unless the government is willing to give people resources, at the least land to grow food and gather enough to pay for basic expenses, they are being aggresive at gun point by law.

it might be different if healthcare was more scarce or had to be expensive. it doesn't have to be that way. every other developed country spends no more than about ten percent of their GDP on healthcare and we spend like eightteen, which represents a trillion dollars. that savings is like cutting people's taxes in half. and the majority of them have better oucome and quality that we do. that includes lesser wait times. are we ignorant enough to think we have the best health care in the world? of course not. any other country worth comparting to though and who might have it better, has significant government in healthcare. government thus is not inherently incompetent as if it can't make things better. sometimes i wonder i our government is the exception, but i see no reason we can't be like everyone else. there's no need to reinvent the wheel like the republicans are doing, we just need to do what everyone else is doing. there's no practical good reasons to be against government involvement in healthcare, just ignorance, fear, and blind ideology.

it doesn'nt have to be single payer, switzerland does it more like obamacare and spends more than most but still less than eleven percent. france is number one rated in the world and has a mostly single payer system, with some supplemental insurace. i dont see why we wouldn't want to be like the best, but there are more tha one way to do things. i dont see why we can't do it too

 

"Universal health coverage at the hands of the state has been proven to be problematic in many of the countries that have it, so I am not really in favor of completely government funded health care. "

bad results as a result of government in other countries is mostly a myth. no system is perfect, but that doesn't mean we have to have the worst outcomes by being so anti government.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/11/universal-healthcare-doesnt-mean-waiting-longer-to-see-a-doctor/281614/

there's merit to the idea that some things need to be limited or that there are limits to what we can do for people. but that is a small exception to the rule that most things we can make accessible and affordable.

[dairygirl4u2c]

"A new Pew Research Center survey indicated that the number of Republicans making below $30,000 a year who believe the federal government has a responsibility to ensure health coverage for all had risen to 52 percent from 31 percent last year. And while just 14 percent of Republicans who make between $30,000 and about $75,000 last year said the government bore responsibility for health care, now 34 percent of such voters do.

[havok579257]

30 minutes ago, dairygirl4u2c said:

"A new Pew Research Center survey indicated that the number of Republicans making below $30,000 a year who believe the federal government has a responsibility to ensure health coverage for all had risen to 52 percent from 31 percent last year. And while just 14 percent of Republicans who make between $30,000 and about $75,000 last year said the government bore responsibility for health care, now 34 percent of such voters do.

why are you splitting this into republicans and democrats?  last i checked this was a catholic website, not a republican website.

[Amppax]

Can't believe I'm agreeing with Dairy on anything, but I think she's right, there's a distinction that needs to be made between health insurance and healthcare. There are various places you can see the Church call basic health care a right. The USCCB has a section of their website on health care, and you can also find basic health care mentioned as a right in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. 

How exactly a society insures that people are given access to basic health care, what the exact definition of basic health care is; these are prudential questions which can be debated. That society has  a responsibility in this regard, however, can't. 

[cmealer]

1. There is a false premise. That insurance is necessary for some people to receive health care. Even if you argue that there is a positive right (one which obligates others) to all forms of health care, it is possible for the health care to be donated rather than covered by a donated insurance. Since donated insurance and donated health care both result in health care being received I don't think you could argue that a positive right to health care necessitates a positive right to health insurance. 

2. Catholic teaching suggests the lack of a positive right to health care. Particularly when it talks about recognizing that a key element of the human condition is that we will die, and we are allowed to refuse treatment when it would not make a significant difference in the outcome, or would place a heavy burden on the patient or their family. The fact that the treatment can be refused then it is not a necessity that it is provided, if it is not a necessity that it is provided that suggests there is not a positive right to it. 

Further a positive right to health care would reduce health care providers to little more than slaves and deny them the dignity of work. If they are obligated to provide the treatment regardless of whether one can pay, they are obligated to provide the treatment regardless of whether one does pay, and are therefore obligated to provide labor and materials without compensation.

3. The argument that other governments can provide health care at lower costs ignores the fact that other nations (United States) are having to pay more, especially for medicines, specifically because of that. 

[havok579257]

6 hours ago, cmealer said:

1. There is a false premise. That insurance is necessary for some people to receive health care. Even if you argue that there is a positive right (one which obligates others) to all forms of health care, it is possible for the health care to be donated rather than covered by a donated insurance. Since donated insurance and donated health care both result in health care being received I don't think you could argue that a positive right to health care necessitates a positive right to health insurance. 

2. Catholic teaching suggests the lack of a positive right to health care. Particularly when it talks about recognizing that a key element of the human condition is that we will die, and we are allowed to refuse treatment when it would not make a significant difference in the outcome, or would place a heavy burden on the patient or their family. The fact that the treatment can be refused then it is not a necessity that it is provided, if it is not a necessity that it is provided that suggests there is not a positive right to it. 

Further a positive right to health care would reduce health care providers to little more than slaves and deny them the dignity of work. If they are obligated to provide the treatment regardless of whether one can pay, they are obligated to provide the treatment regardless of whether one does pay, and are therefore obligated to provide labor and materials without compensation.

3. The argument that other governments can provide health care at lower costs ignores the fact that other nations (United States) are having to pay more, especially for medicines, specifically because of that. 

i'm completely lost if you think health insurance should be a right or not?

[Nihil Obstat]

17 hours ago, cmealer said:

1. There is a false premise. That insurance is necessary for some people to receive health care. Even if you argue that there is a positive right (one which obligates others) to all forms of health care, it is possible for the health care to be donated rather than covered by a donated insurance. Since donated insurance and donated health care both result in health care being received I don't think you could argue that a positive right to health care necessitates a positive right to health insurance. 

2. Catholic teaching suggests the lack of a positive right to health care. Particularly when it talks about recognizing that a key element of the human condition is that we will die, and we are allowed to refuse treatment when it would not make a significant difference in the outcome, or would place a heavy burden on the patient or their family. The fact that the treatment can be refused then it is not a necessity that it is provided, if it is not a necessity that it is provided that suggests there is not a positive right to it. 

Further a positive right to health care would reduce health care providers to little more than slaves and deny them the dignity of work. If they are obligated to provide the treatment regardless of whether one can pay, they are obligated to provide the treatment regardless of whether one does pay, and are therefore obligated to provide labor and materials without compensation.

3. The argument that other governments can provide health care at lower costs ignores the fact that other nations (United States) are having to pay more, especially for medicines, specifically because of that. 

Reasonable points. You sound like you study philosophy.

[cmealer]

I'd say I have an armchair appreciation, enough to serve as something of a foundation for understanding what the Church believes and to form and articulate my own political views.

16 hours ago, havok579257 said:

i'm completely lost if you think health insurance should be a right or not?

I do not. I believe any ends that a "right" to health insurance would achieve can be achieved by other means (and achieved more efficiently along with the additional benefit of providing the opportunity for spiritual benefit). 

[havok579257]

2 hours ago, cmealer said:

I'd say I have an armchair appreciation, enough to serve as something of a foundation for understanding what the Church believes and to form and articulate my own political views.

I do not. I believe any ends that a "right" to health insurance would achieve can be achieved by other means (and achieved more efficiently along with the additional benefit of providing the opportunity for spiritual benefit). 

what other means can be used to achieve healthcare for all that is feasible in our current society?

[dairygirl4u2c]

On 4/12/2017 at 5:50 PM, cmealer said:

1. There is a false premise. That insurance is necessary for some people to receive health care. Even if you argue that there is a positive right (one which obligates others) to all forms of health care, it is possible for the health care to be donated rather than covered by a donated insurance. Since donated insurance and donated health care both result in health care being received I don't think you could argue that a positive right to health care necessitates a positive right to health insurance. 

2. Catholic teaching suggests the lack of a positive right to health care. Particularly when it talks about recognizing that a key element of the human condition is that we will die, and we are allowed to refuse treatment when it would not make a significant difference in the outcome, or would place a heavy burden on the patient or their family. The fact that the treatment can be refused then it is not a necessity that it is provided, if it is not a necessity that it is provided that suggests there is not a positive right to it. 

Further a positive right to health care would reduce health care providers to little more than slaves and deny them the dignity of work. If they are obligated to provide the treatment regardless of whether one can pay, they are obligated to provide the treatment regardless of whether one does pay, and are therefore obligated to provide labor and materials without compensation.

3. The argument that other governments can provide health care at lower costs ignores the fact that other nations (United States) are having to pay more, especially for medicines, specifically because of that. 

what can legitimately be called a right if not healthcare? if you have a right to work to get food, you have a right to work to get healthcare. just like if work was pointless to try to get food cause it was inaccessible, it'd also be pointless to get healthcare if it's inaccessible. being inaccessible invalidates the right.

just because there are people willing to donate healthcare doesn't make it not a right. it's a burden they shouldn't have to bear.  also read my point about denying healthcare by gun point if you are one  who says taxation is taken at gun point an all that jazz. (usually those who argue for charity make the argument about taxation being theft and such

the united states doesn't have to be so expensive.... it's not necessitated by it being cheaper in other counties.  only to the extent that we are innovaters and have to be a little more expensive, but it's not an either or proposition. there is a reasonable balance. the argument you made is theoretical... just like pretty much all the arguments against governement a crucial role, just theoretical problems are possible. there are no practical reasons to be against it. just theoretical and pure ideology, along with the more typical ignorance and fear, perhaps greed.
 

1 hour ago, havok579257 said:

what other means can be used to achieve healthcare for all that is feasible in our current society?

i think he'd say it's the role of charity, ad if charity doesn't do it that's charity's fault. if people die, so be it. at least, i'm assuming he's not so naive as to think charity will take care of it, which they haven't , here or for any other issue where there is a right to something.

" The fact that the treatment can be refused then it is not a necessity that it is provided, if it is not a necessity that it is provided that suggests there is not a positive right to it.  "

a person can refuse to eat but that oesn't mean that food isn't a right. they can refuse to raise their kids but that doesn't invalidate the right. it looks like you are manufacturing reasons to be against it being a right. cause really it is a judgment call, a value statement, either you think it is or it isn't. if you think it's not just say so and dont jump through so many hoops tryin to get there. (of course you still should explain why it's not a right when we have other things that are rights that are no different

Edited April 13, 2017 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

maybe i should be more accomodating. maybe you can find an argument that healthcare is not a right that sounds intelligent to someone. but why would you want to?  reasonable people htorugh out history have found reasons to do things he are adamentaly opposed to. the holocaust etc. perhaps i'm being too nihilistic on the power of logic, but if you can reason yourself into such an array of positions, why would you choose to say healthcare isn't a right? at its base it's a judgement call, an inherent value statement.  when you could have just said people houuld have reasonable healthcare but choose not to say that, it just makes you out to be an A hole, to be overly blunt.
 

Edited April 14, 2017 by dairygirl4u2c

[Anomaly]

 

That is an example why humanity only gets better in gradual and fluctuating cycles.  

Reasonableness based on principles is perceived as just being a cold orifice. 

[Nihil Obstat]

Reasonable does not necessarily mean correct. But it does mean that the thoughts are good and worthy of rational debate.

[dairygirl4u2c]

"If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin."
-Darwin

[little2add]

On 4/18/2017 at 8:26 PM, dairygirl4u2c said:

 

"If

 

The laws of nature are always harsh.  Not  necessarily  so with institutions