A right? No.
Something that decent countries make sure it's citizens can affordable access? Yes.
That's fine, and I agree. The question is whether it's something that governments should provide.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A right? No.
Something that decent countries make sure it's citizens can affordable access? Yes.
How good?That's not enough. It needs to be good access.Fact: Every single person in the United States (even non-citizens) has access to healthcare. Period, dot, end of story.
That's not enough. It needs to be good access.Fact: Every single person in the United States (even non-citizens) has access to healthcare. Period, dot, end of story.
A right is something granted to an individual requiring other individuals to honor as morally good and justified in the concept of its benefit to all from the weakest to the strongest. It’s kind of a legal precept of the Golden Rule. But rights and health are two very different things and there is ample confusion in the air surrounding our democracy.
The term "human rights" has always seemed, to me, to run counter to the kinds of rights that I want government to protect - I supposed you'd call them civil liberties. A "right" that stipulates that some service or good must be provided by society (ie a demand that others give you something or do something on your behalf) is actually an attack on individual liberty. In my view, it's the opposite of the kinds of rights government should be concerned with.
Ever had a Public Pretender represent you In court? If you did you were probably found guilty without trial on a plea deal. If you have to rely on a Govt Appointed Dr. in the future they will find the easiest way out with the least amount of effort for what they are paid. Just Like Public Pretenders. They just work for the Prosecutors office to keep the Docket moving. And the revolving door greased!
Great point. Government solicitors are the worst. Government mailing of packages, far worse than FedEx or UPS.
Government healthcare: Sucking the big one.
But remember: What they really mean is government paying for your healthcare insurance. The problem with that is that to cover everybody, the deductibles are so big that its just as bad as not having insurance at all. Worse actually because you are making payments. Its like buying a car and then buying car insurance with a $50,000 deductible for repairs. LOL.
Govt run healthcare would be an absolute disaster. Only the Drs. willing to accept The govts. low ball (net 90?) payment plans will even continue to practice. Which will mean less access to healthcare not more. It can't be done without rules and regulations on what type of care will be given to who. I can Imagine a sliding scale where Social elites get top notch care at the best facilities our money can pay for. And Joe the Plumber or Liz the landscaper has to wait for care based on availability and cost constraints. Imagine 30+% of hospitals going out of business! Because that is what would happen. Everybody knows that so.... they are just lying! I wonder why?
At the point of a gun, if necessary.A right? No.
Something that decent countries make sure it's citizens can affordable access? Yes.
At the point of a gun, if necessary.A right? No.
Something that decent countries make sure it's citizens can affordable access? Yes.
A right? No.
Something that decent countries make sure it's citizens can affordable access? Yes.
That's fine, and I agree. The question is whether it's something that governments should provide.
That's not enough. It needs to be good access.Fact: Every single person in the United States (even non-citizens) has access to healthcare. Period, dot, end of story.
You go to the hospital and you get treated. The same hospital everyone else goes to. They don't turn anyone away.
Neither are we. That is a ridiculously exaggerated number, and i can see you cannot have a rational or honest coversation about this. Have a good one.You may be correct on some level but they are probably not offering healthcare to over 25million illegal immigrants!
Good enough that we arent sending people to ERs for primary care, and good enough that it ceases being the number one cause of bankruptcy in our country. For starters.How good?
Yes, that's what laws do. Glad you're up to speed.At the point of a gun, if necessary.
So? That's not how we should handle primary or preventive care. In fact, that is very stupid. Nor should we be bankruptimg people.You go to the hospital and you get treated.
I do and we once had it and it worked very well. Its called free enterprise and personal responsibility. We had a health care system in place where costs were low and doctors actually went to the sick in their homes. It worked very well and costs were low enogh that charity could take care of the poor while everyone else could pay for their own healthcare. Then the goverment and insurance companies got into the act bringing nothing to the table but spiraling costs, waste, fraud and corruption. All we have to do is eliminate healthcare insurance altogether by making it illegal and get the goverment to hell out of healthcare altogether by shooting medicare, medicade and every other government bullshit program in the head. Costs will then return to earth because there will be no other choice for the providers. The only ones that will leave are the crooks and frauds which will of course increase qualty too and no crap like the current opioid epidemic etc.A right? No.
Something that decent countries make sure it's citizens can affordable access? Yes.
That's fine, and I agree. The question is whether it's something that governments should provide.
If you have a better plan, present it.
My son is a medical doctor who went into the profession to care for people. If his debt were forgiven he would gladly work in the most impoverished areas. Perhaps training people who want to make other peoples lives better rather than going into a profession to become rich would leave us with better providers.Doctors will be government slaves so there won't be any good ones. Imagine Americans flying to india to get treatment.
Democrats aim to "nationalize" healthcare.
I do and we once had it and it worked very well. Its called free enterprise and personal responsibility. We had a health care system in place where costs were low and doctors actually went to the sick in their homes. It worked very well and costs were low enogh that charity could take care of the poor while everyone else could pay for tyeir own healthcare. Then the goverment and insurance companies got into the act bringing nothing to the table but spiraling costs, waste, fraud and corruption. All we have to do is eliminate healthcare insurance altogether by making it illegal and get the goverment to hell out of healthcare altogether by shooting medicare, medicade and every other government bullshit program in the head. Costs will then return to earth because there will be no other choice for the providers. The only ones that will leave are the crooks and frauds which will of course increase qualty too and no crap like the current opioid epidemic etc.A right? No.
Something that decent countries make sure it's citizens can affordable access? Yes.
That's fine, and I agree. The question is whether it's something that governments should provide.
If you have a better plan, present it.
Healthcare is a human responsibility.The notion that healthcare is a human right is gaining traction in United States and perhaps we should explore what that entails. The perception does not say that health is a human right and that’s an important distinction. Health is something that is dependent on a complex set of circumstances some under the control of the individual, some not.
A right is something granted to an individual requiring other individuals to honor as morally good and justified in the concept of its benefit to all from the weakest to the strongest. It’s kind of a legal precept of the Golden Rule. But rights and health are two very different things and there is ample confusion in the air surrounding our democracy.
What happens when one person’s right infringes on the right of another person? If one person smokes and that smoke damages the lungs of another person then the right of that other person to health should supersede the right of the person to smoke and it does in our society. But the smoker’s lungs are damaged and the healthcare needed to treat that damage is an infringement on rights of the individual who does not smoke because smoking and not smoking are under the control of both individuals.
So if the nose of one individual is thumbed at personal responsibility for self-gratification, how can that be a human right to force the others to pay for healthcare? Not that most Americans want to restrict the enjoyment and freedom of others; most say to each his own. But if Joe six-pack goes home every day and puts away twelve cans of sixteen ounce Budweisers, how can Joe’s human right to healthcare require someone else to pay for the carnage to his heart and liver?
This is the problem with defining healthcare as a human right. This is why Venezuela, once a rich and honorable country, is a failed state. The expense is prohibitive and healthcare workers expect to be paid not work for peanuts because some central authority dictates it. Healthcare quality will deteriorate quickly if healthcare is declared to be a human right.
There is no Horn of Plenty that exists on its own in the real world. It exists in Venezuela and Cuba and maybe some should go to those places and experience it. They will likely define healthcare differently.
My son is a medical doctor who went into the profession to care for people. If his debt were forgiven he would gladly work in the most impoverished areas. Perhaps training people who want to make other peoples lives better rather than going into a profession to become rich would leave us with better providers.Doctors will be government slaves so there won't be any good ones. Imagine Americans flying to india to get treatment.
Democrats aim to "nationalize" healthcare.
Not true. Hospitals have indigent treatment costs calculated into their finances, and most of this is covered by charity.It's cheaper if people could go to a doctor before they have to go to the hospital.
There are plenty of free clinics for that. You shouldn't be destroying healthcare for hundreds of millions of Americans.So? That's not how we should handle primary or preventive care. In fact, that is very stupid. Nor should we be bankruptimg people.You go to the hospital and you get treated.