Should health insurance/coveragr be a right?

[4588686]

On 3/4/2017 at 9:25 PM, Anomaly said:

No.   Essentially health insurance is a group of people contributing money to share the cost of medical expenses.   Unless you are willing to contribute to the best of your abilities, then you don't have a right to have your bills paid.    I pay over $9,000 a year, plus my employer pays an additional $10,000.  The $18,000 a year in premiums gets my wife and I the basic insurance with $6,500 per person deductible and $60 co pay for a doctor. 

I can't afford to go to a doctor but I'm paying for someone else to get free healthcare because they work for a small company that doesn't offer healthcare?.  WTHIUWT?

 

Your healthcare is subsidized by the taxpayers, champ. That's why your employer structures your benefits to include healthcare. Not sure why you get to have health insurance that you wouldn't be able to otherwise afford just because your employer get's a subsidy but people without such a job don't also get a subsidy. 

 

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. 

1-this is obviously a dumb straw man. Of course it's possible for healthcare to be donated. However, in the existent world, a lack of access to health insurance means a lack of access to healthcare. Obviously,  a single payer system would be better in every conceivable way, but since we have this dumb insurance system having insurance is absolutely essential to getting access to healthcare and anybody throwing up dumb straw men about like yours should just be ignored. 

 

2-The first paragraph is just pedantic and devoid of any substance. The second is an offensive straw man that makes a dumb comparison of doctors who are paid through a single payer or government subsidized insurance to slaves. Obviously, since nobody is forced to be a doctor, and, more importantly, since the doctor is not the legal property of another person and is paid for their services, they are not slaves. Saying somebody has a positive right to healthcare means that the government pays for their healthcare. Not that doctors are forced to become someone's property and provide services without compensation. 

 

3-This is, like all your other points, shockingly ignorant. Good government managed healthcare programs, from single payer systems to much more robust versions of Obamacare, are much less expensive that the awful American system of healthcare. 

But thank you for your post and for the reminder of why nobody should mistake this brand of dumb pseudo philosophizing for any kind of serious policy/economic analysis

 

On 4/12/2017 at 11:58 PM, havok579257 said:

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

They don't have a point. You should just ignore them

[Anomaly]

On 4/23/2017 at 1:05 PM, 4588686 said:

Your healthcare is subsidized by the taxpayers, champ. That's why your employer structures your benefits to include healthcare. Not sure why you get to have health insurance that you wouldn't be able to otherwise afford just because your employer get's a subsidy but people without such a job don't also get a subsidy. 

 

1-this is obviously a dumb straw man. Of course it's possible for healthcare to be donated. However, in the existent world, a lack of access to health insurance means a lack of access to healthcare. Obviously,  a single payer system would be better in every conceivable way, but since we have this dumb insurance system having insurance is absolutely essential to getting access to healthcare and anybody throwing up dumb straw men about like yours should just be ignored. 

 

2-The first paragraph is just pedantic and devoid of any substance. The second is an offensive straw man that makes a dumb comparison of doctors who are paid through a single payer or government subsidized insurance to slaves. Obviously, since nobody is forced to be a doctor, and, more importantly, since the doctor is not the legal property of another person and is paid for their services, they are not slaves. Saying somebody has a positive right to healthcare means that the government pays for their healthcare. Not that doctors are forced to become someone's property and provide services without compensation. 

 

3-This is, like all your other points, shockingly ignorant. Good government managed healthcare programs, from single payer systems to much more robust versions of Obamacare, are much less expensive that the awful American system of healthcare. 

But thank you for your post and for the reminder of why nobody should mistake this brand of dumb pseudo philosophizing for any kind of serious policy/economic analysis

 

They don't have a point. You should just ignore them

Lol.  

Yes, the American healthcare system needs change.   Single Payer systems are not the panacea it's imagined to be.   Think of the VA system, government regulation rigidity, and mandated healthcare policies that are determined by politicians for political purposes, not what people want or need.  

[Benedictus]

I don't know if framing it in terms of 'rights' is helpful. But I do think everyone should have universal coverage. The problem in the US is a direct result of choices in the past, and to a large extent, continuing to buy into the current model. Lets be clear it's a US problem -  in the majority of countries the problems aren't as stark or over such basic things as this. It will get worse though, that's the bad news.  Costs will go up because people are making too much money!

It's true that ER costs are high, but it's partly a failure of the system. Those with long term conditions, such as insulin diabetics or epileptics, have to keep being admitted in acute states because they aren't supported well enough in the community. People wait until an illness is really bad before seeking help because they have no choice. This creates an expensive cycle that costs more in the long run for everyone. The only people to benefit are shareholders.

As people get older the costs will drag on and profits will be sought out of it. You'll see this will also soon feed into cultural state sanctioned suicide in the form of assisted dying, based on economic poverty.

The fact that the US, supposedly a developed, rich and Christian country can let its vulnerable citizens die or suffer  because they haven't got enough out of toying with the mammon of this world says a lot! There's always money for the military, wars, bombs, invasions and interfering overseas for its own ends though. But no money for sick children or people dying early from treatable illness. There's enough sermons to make out of all this to last a lifetime and more.

 

 

 

Edited April 26, 2017 by Benedictus

[4588686]

13 hours ago, Anomaly said:

Lol.  

Yes, the American healthcare system needs change.   Single Payer systems are not the panacea it's imagined to be.   Think of the VA system, government regulation rigidity, and mandated healthcare policies that are determined by politicians for political purposes, not what people want or need.  

Well run single payer systems are demonstrable better than systems like ours. That is a fact. You can look at healthcare outcomes/healthcare spending as a percentage of GDP/consumer healthcare spending etc. There's is absolutely no evidence that weakly regulated, market systems work well. None. 

 

Every successful healthcare system is highly regulated. That's not just single payer systems. That includes systems like Singapore. 

 

Government regulation is essential to efficient and effective healthcare markets. Anybody who says otherwise is making an entirely faith based claim 

[dairygirl4u2c]

[little2add]

You left out the word "free" healthcare.   Leaving out the word "free" Totally changes the argument.

besides the second amendment and free healthcare are two totally different subjects

[dairygirl4u2c]

notice the arguments against single payer. it's lacking seriously in substance.

" Think of the VA system, government regulation rigidity, and mandated healthcare policies that are determined by politicians for political purposes, not what people want or need.   "

the VA thing is just ignorance. in a single payer system people can go anywhere and the system is run by private sector, whereas in the VA options are severely limited and the system is ran by beaurocrats.

as was said any real changes to healthcare involves regulations. he just gave vague antigovernment sentiment here. there's no real world examples of healthcare being sucessfully done without regulations as has been said.

then he made vague reference to beaucrats, more vague antigovernment sentiment.

note as i have shown before, the wait times in the US are below average when compared to single payer countries, the way the rest of the world does it mostly.

we've also seen some theoretical problems like starving innnovation. but there are no practical reasons to be against it.

why reinvent the wheel? why not stick with what works? vague anti government rhetoric is pointless, and really just stupid.

[little2add]

In other words, Dairy you could say; It's not broke, nothing to fix.  

Its a fact that nurse's doctors and the other medical specialist earn there pay providing  services.   The more the government try's to regulate the worst it is going to be

 

[cmealer]

On 4/23/2017 at 0:05 PM, 4588686 said:

 

1-this is obviously a dumb straw man. [...] anybody throwing up dumb straw men about like yours should just be ignored. 

 

2-[...]The second is an offensive straw man [...]

 

3-This is, like all your other points, shockingly ignorant. [...]

But thank you for your post and for the reminder of why nobody should mistake this brand of dumb pseudo philosophizing for any kind of serious policy/economic analysis

 

They don't have a point. You should just ignore them

Thanks for reminding me to not expect civilized and thoughtful debate on the internet.

[Anomaly]

Still, thinking the having the Federal Government running all aspects of healthcare as single payer might be problematic is shockingly ignorant.  The Government promised we can keep our Doctors, keep our coverage if we liked it, and would save thousands.  No need for ignorant concern here.   Smarter people got this.

Like a balloon, I have no real point. 

[dairygirl4u2c]

7 hours ago, little2add said:

In other words, Dairy you could say; It's not broke, nothing to fix.  

Its a fact that nurse's doctors and the other medical specialist earn there pay providing  services.   The more the government try's to regulate the worst it is going to be

 

 

1 hour ago, Anomaly said:

Still, thinking the having the Federal Government running all aspects of healthcare as single payer might be problematic is shockingly ignorant.  The Government promised we can keep our Doctors, keep our coverage if we liked it, and would save thousands.  No need for ignorant concern here.   Smarter people got this.

Like a balloon, I have no real point. 

if you guys could provide concrete examples, maybe people would listen to you, for why single payer is so bad. all i see is ignorance fear greed and pure ideology. obviously no system is perfect but why is that a reason to force us to live with a broken system?

maybe i should be more open minded about calling opposition to single payer stupid given intelligent people oppose it, some. but i still contend smart people make stupid decisions, and at any rate, it's close minded.  if all you have is an ideology an no concrete issues with it, how is that so morally superior? there's something to be said about sticking to your principles, but there's more to be said about being open minded to different ways of doing things. god forbid liberals come up with a good idea. maybe ideologically you oppose letting some people pay ten percent of their income on healthcare while others spend more. maybe you recongize that free loaders exist and if it's tax payer funded, some will get away with being lazy. but can't you be pragmatic and recognize you aren't the only one with reasonable views? i see a flat rate of taxes as immoral, but if it meant we had decent healthcare i'd just live with it.
most single payer countries have better health, healtcare quality, it's cheaper, and their waittimes are shorter. how about some pragmaticism?  all the learned poeople i see remaining against it is just ideology and a shallow fear of acknowleding decent views, and for politicians it's fear of looking like a liberal.

here is what an open minded conservative sounds like...

Article: "Why I [a right leaning economic libertarian] Prefer French Healthcare"

" For a dozen years now I’ve led a dual life, spending more than 90 percent of my time and money in the U.S. while receiving 90 percent of my health care in my wife’s native France. On a personal level the comparison is no contest: I’ll take the French experience any day. ObamaCare opponents often warn that a new system will lead to long waiting times, mountains of paperwork, and less choice among doctors. Yet on all three of those counts the French system is significantly better, not worse, than what the U.S. has now. "

Edited April 27, 2017 by dairygirl4u2c

[little2add]

36 minutes ago, dairygirl4u2c said:

dual life, spending more than 90 percent of my time and money in the U.S. while receiving 90 percent of my health care

 Do you contribute to France for your health care?   Do you think it's ethical to use the health care of another country, without contributing ?

I work hard for my money and pay an monthly insurance premium.     My family and I are well taken care of.  

 Don't you think it's odd that  Since the creation of Obama care insurance companies in the United States are making record profits and claiming that they cannot afford to participate in Obama care.  

 Obama care is a disaster and I want no part of it 

 

 

Edited April 27, 2017 by little2add

[dairygirl4u2c]

well we're not really talking bout obamacare right now in this thread, but duly noted.

also for all the ideology i see without specific problems against single payer etc, such as you just gave, i kinda want a response to how you approach...
" there's something to be said about sticking to your principles, but there's more to be said about being open minded to different ways of doing things. "

i should add, if it meant we got something like single payer or an improved healthcare for all kind of thing, i wouldn't mind and would encourage a conservative spin to it to a degree. that's not really surprising though to me, cause while i come off as liberal many times, im actually more fiscally conservative than the average person. and there's always room for improvement. that even means id be okay with a lot of things i dont like as a compromise. i dont see a spirit of compromise or acknowledging when the other side is doing things good, from the conservatives here.

[Anomaly]

52 minutes ago, dairygirl4u2c said:

 

if you guys could provide concrete examples, maybe people would listen to you, for why single payer is so bad. all i see is ignorance fear greed and pure ideology. obviously no system is perfect but why is that a reason to force us to live with a broken system?

maybe i should be more open minded about calling opposition to single payer stupid given intelligent people oppose it, some. but i still contend smart people make stupid decisions, and at any rate, it's close minded.  if all you have is an ideology an no concrete issues with it, how is that so morally superior? there's something to be said about sticking to your principles, but there's more to be said about being open minded to different ways of doing things. god forbid liberals come up with a good idea. maybe ideologically you oppose letting some people pay ten percent of their income on healthcare while others spend more. maybe you recongize that free loaders exist and if it's tax payer funded, some will get away with being lazy. but can't you be pragmatic and recognize you aren't the only one with reasonable views? i see a flat rate of taxes as immoral, but if it meant we had decent healthcare i'd just live with it.
most single payer countries have better health, healtcare quality, it's cheaper, and their waittimes are shorter. how about some pragmaticism?  all the learned poeople i see remaining against it is just ideology and a shallow fear of acknowleding decent views, and for politicians it's fear of looking like a liberal.

here is what an open minded conservative sounds like...

Article: "Why I [a right leaning economic libertarian] Prefer French Healthcare"

" For a dozen years now I’ve led a dual life, spending more than 90 percent of my time and money in the U.S. while receiving 90 percent of my health care in my wife’s native France. On a personal level the comparison is no contest: I’ll take the French experience any day. ObamaCare opponents often warn that a new system will lead to long waiting times, mountains of paperwork, and less choice among doctors. Yet on all three of those counts the French system is significantly better, not worse, than what the U.S. has now. "

Please google "what is wrong with single payer healthcare ".   Don't trust what I say. 

Half my family live in the U.K.   There are some things that are better, but wait times and access to specialists is horrendous for many.   There is also the fact they started their NHC after the war II when there was not the developmed healthcare system the US has now.  Not the same institutions to change. They were able to build cost effectively as medical knowledge developed. There are somepractical realities to deal with now in the US.  Just the difference in how Doctors are trained and paid is a huge issue.   

I only respond on a phone and don't have the desire to educate you on what you can find out for yourself.  Yes, things need changing in the US, but politicians aren't honest enough and people aren't patient enough to consider all the aspects and issues.  

What we have now is something rammed through by one political party and our next choice is change that can be rammed through by another political party.    The first plan was not what was promised, and I doubt the second will be either. 

 

[little2add]

51 minutes ago, dairygirl4u2c said:

not really talking bout obamacare

what are you talking about then

obamacare is government subsidized healthcare.