Is health care a right?

[Votto]

Well? If so why?

 

[xband]

Well? If so why?

I am going to get a tattoo on my chest that says DO NOT RECUSSATE

 

[Mac1958]

No, it's not a "right". Some folks just love to turn everything they want into "a right".

It is, however, good economics. A healthier populace decreases the stress on a health care system, as does a system that identifies diseases sooner.

Erasing the current arbitrary 65 age point for our Medicare/Medicare Supplement/Medicare Advantage system would accomplish that quickly. It would also end our current beyond-absurd "system" of 7 different delivery/payment systems that don't directly communicate with each other, and open up vast new markets for insurance companies so that competition and innovation can thrive without the massive costs of low-end provider compensations.
.

 

[Pete7469]

THERE IS NO RIGHT to anything that requires an endeavor from other people to provide it.

That includes food, water, housing, clothing or anything else.

PERIOD.

 

[MisterBeale]

Is life a right?

 

[midcan5]

Whenever the word 'right' is used, raise your feet. In a civilized society, nation, having access to healthcare make sense on so many levels there is no need to use words when actions cover the topic. Language and ideology make some people stupid, time we thought about life in another way than the contemporary American world of dichotomous nonsense used only to divide.

"The map above shows the top 10 healthiest states in gold color....Vermont, once again, ranked as the number one healthiest state in America, followed by Hawaii, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Minnesota.

Among the least healthiest were Alabama, South Carolina, West Virginia, Arkansas, Louisiana, and at the bottom of the list, Mississippi.

The report cites successes in preventable hospitalizations, occupational fatalities, air pollution, infectious disease, premature death, cardiovascular deaths, cancer deaths, high school graduation, and violent crime.

Among troubling challenges were children in poverty, lack of health insurance, immunization coverage, and low birth weight."
New Report on America's Health Rankings Indicates Progress But Troubling Challenges | HelpingYouCare®

http://cdnfiles.americashealthrankings.org/SiteFiles/Reports/Americas-Health-Rankings-2012-v1.pdf
Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


"So consider: elderly people of limited means in the United States who are dependent on Medicare for their basic well-being—there are tens of millions of them—are rather clearly “vulnerable people.” Why, then, is it not equally problematic when a powerful congressman, Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, advocates effectively eliminating the program that benefits these vulnerable people, indeed, keeps them alive? “Hatred,” after all, is not the issue as Waldron says, and no one, I assume, thinks Rep. Ryan “hates” the elderly or the poor. He may simply be stupid, or in thrall to an ideology, or defective in empathetic capacity, or beholden to special interests; whatever the explanation, it is clear that his proposals, if enacted, would eventually result in elderly people in need being unable to afford essential healthcare." Brian Leiter review of 'The Harm in Hate Speech' by Jeremy Waldron, Waldron on the Regulation of Hate Speech by Brian Leiter :: SSRN

 

[TNHarley]

It isn't a right. Healthcare is a result of capitalism. Nothing more. People that say its a "right" are entitlement munchers.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Don't know if it is a "right", but it is a national security concern.

In the first draft of 1940, about 1/2 of the inductees needed some minor health care needs and 3/4 needed some dental needs.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Don't know if it is a "right", but it is a national security concern.

In the first draft of 1940, about 1/2 of the inductees needed some minor health care needs and 3/4 needed some dental needs.

In 1940, health care was still using lobotomies and shock treatments to deal with the "mentally disadvantaged".

Red is not green.

 

[longknife]

Well? If so why?

Not only NO but HELL NO!

The constitution is not there to support citizens - citizens are there to support the constitution. Nowhere does that document say anything about health, education, job training, or anything similar. It's up to the individual families.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Actually in the USA it's a huge tax

 

[Seawytch]

Depends on where you live. Some countries have written it into their Constitutions. Guess it's a right there.

We are guaranteed a right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". It could be argued that it falls in there somewhere.

Was it a slow news day that the "is healthcare a right" "go to" had to be gone to? This is the "is it raining where you are" question.

 

[Votto]

Whenever the word 'right' is used, raise your feet. In a civilized society, nation, having access to healthcare make sense on so many levels there is no need to use words when actions cover the topic. Language and ideology make some people stupid, time we thought about life in another way than the contemporary American world of dichotomous nonsense used only to divide.

"The map above shows the top 10 healthiest states in gold color....Vermont, once again, ranked as the number one healthiest state in America, followed by Hawaii, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Minnesota.

Among the least healthiest were Alabama, South Carolina, West Virginia, Arkansas, Louisiana, and at the bottom of the list, Mississippi.

The report cites successes in preventable hospitalizations, occupational fatalities, air pollution, infectious disease, premature death, cardiovascular deaths, cancer deaths, high school graduation, and violent crime.

Among troubling challenges were children in poverty, lack of health insurance, immunization coverage, and low birth weight."
New Report on America's Health Rankings Indicates Progress But Troubling Challenges | HelpingYouCare®

http://cdnfiles.americashealthrankings.org/SiteFiles/Reports/Americas-Health-Rankings-2012-v1.pdf
Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


"So consider: elderly people of limited means in the United States who are dependent on Medicare for their basic well-being—there are tens of millions of them—are rather clearly “vulnerable people.” Why, then, is it not equally problematic when a powerful congressman, Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, advocates effectively eliminating the program that benefits these vulnerable people, indeed, keeps them alive? “Hatred,” after all, is not the issue as Waldron says, and no one, I assume, thinks Rep. Ryan “hates” the elderly or the poor. He may simply be stupid, or in thrall to an ideology, or defective in empathetic capacity, or beholden to special interests; whatever the explanation, it is clear that his proposals, if enacted, would eventually result in elderly people in need being unable to afford essential healthcare." Brian Leiter review of 'The Harm in Hate Speech' by Jeremy Waldron, Waldron on the Regulation of Hate Speech by Brian Leiter :: SSRN

So you would agree that health care is a right?

If so, what does this mean? For example, we have a right to bear arms, at least until Dims pack SCOTUS with their drones, so does that mean the government needs to run out and buy us arms to use?

Also, what should government pay for when it comes to health care? Should the government turn us down for health care for anything if it is a right? If it is not a right then do we want to trust a bureaucracy with full control in deciding what is worth treating and what is not?

It seems to me that we are doing with health care what we did with social security which is just empower the government to decide what we should have and what we should not. There are not promises, just the hope that they will always to the right thing by us.

 

[Votto]

Depends on where you live. Some countries have written it into their Constitutions. Guess it's a right there.

We are guaranteed a right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". It could be argued that it falls in there somewhere.

Was it a slow news day that the "is healthcare a right" "go to" had to be gone to? This is the "is it raining where you are" question.

FDR came out and said he thought health care was a right, along with a whole host of other rights he called positive rights.

It then surprises me that more Dims don't come out and defend their man FDR.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Don't know if it is a "right", but it is a national security concern.

In the first draft of 1940, about 1/2 of the inductees needed some minor health care needs and 3/4 needed some dental needs.

In 1940, health care was still using lobotomies and shock treatments to deal with the "mentally disadvantaged". Red is not green.

Minor health care and dental needs are not your extreme hyperbolic examples, Billy.

The state of American health and health care are national security concerns.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's Monday and yet this will be the silliest statement of the week: "It then surprises me that more Dims don't come out and defend their man FDR."

 

[Votto]

When I see people advocate for a single payer system, I think about our vets and how they are treated with a single payer system.

Poor treatment of vets is an epidemic in the US, and has been since I can remember. Everyone has heard of vets getting the dirty end of the stick after coming home from Vietnam and being denied care for such things as agent Orange syndrome.

Today vets who served over seas in the Middle East are in the same boat. I know of several who were essentially made to leave the service because of health problems and then denied treatment. When they sought legal help the JAG lawyers would just smile and tell them this is happening everywhere.

Is the government really going to treat the average citizen better than our vets?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well? If so why?

It should be. Access to basic healthcare regardless of one's ability to pay should be essentially the same as one's access to a basic education regardless of one's ability to pay. We already have the latter.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well? If so why?

Not only NO but HELL NO!

The constitution is not there to support citizens - citizens are there to support the constitution. Nowhere does that document say anything about health, education, job training, or anything similar. It's up to the individual families.

So if we end Medicaid and public education tomorrow,

how and how soon will our country become a better place?

 

[Votto]

Well? If so why?

It should be. Access to basic healthcare regardless of one's ability to pay should be essentially the same as one's access to a basic education regardless of one's ability to pay. We already have the latter.

What does "equal access" mean? Does it mean that we should have equal access to medical care like those in Congress who opted out of Obamacare?

Does it mean that we can be turned down for medical treatment so long as everyone is turned down for the same thing?