Is healthcare a right? why or why not?

[kellyd]

Well, for starters, because your personal health is not a public good that is being used by other people, the way most of the things paid for by property tax, for example, are. And car insurance which covers YOUR car in the event of an accident is voluntarily paid for by the car owners. In the US, at least, the car insurance which is mandated by the government is to protect OTHER people's property from your stupidity. You're perfectly welcome to leave your own car's damaged uncovered by insurance if you want to, so long as it's not owned by someone other than you, who is then going to suffer financially for your stupidity.

But my personal health IS a public good. It enables me to remain in work and be a benefit to society. The more workers fit for work, the better.

It should be your responsibility to be fit and healthy enough to work, no one else's. I can see where a society has a responsibility to assist those who cannot be fit and healthy enough to work through no fault of their own, but that does not mean health care should be a right or an entitlement. Nor does it mean the gov't is the only way to provide HC for everybody either.

Keep in mind, when you say rights, there are different definitions.

For example, there are fundamental rights that is those that are listed in US constitution as interpreted by the courts. There are also rights specified in state constitutions such as a right to public education which exist in many state constitutions. There are rights as expressed in state laws such a parents rights, patient rights, and right to privacy.

Then there are also rights that pertain to a particular issue or group such as labor rights, LGBT rights, disability rights, prisoner rights, etc... These rights may be defined in or through interpretation of federal and state constitutions or laws. And then there are inalienable rights, such as the right to live or right to protect yourself,...

The right to professional free healthcare will happen but it's years in the future, probably about the time when most of the population is job sharing and the government is paying 80% of the healthcare costs. I don't see this as avoidable. The advances in life saving and life extension healthcare are going to be so expensive, essential no one is going to be able to pay for it except the government which of course means a much larger portion of GDP is going to go healthcare.

The costs aren't so great right now that Canada is unable to provide great single payer health care that is funded by taxpayers. Already Canadians are living longer than Americans, as a result of universal health coverage. I pay just under 600 bucks per year to cover me and the kids. It's good value, because insurance companies aren't driving the costs

You can purchase private health insurance Canada, can't you?

I have a private policyfor the extras, yes, for me and the kids

 

[debbiedowner]

But my personal health IS a public good. It enables me to remain in work and be a benefit to society. The more workers fit for work, the better.

It should be your responsibility to be fit and healthy enough to work, no one else's. I can see where a society has a responsibility to assist those who cannot be fit and healthy enough to work through no fault of their own, but that does not mean health care should be a right or an entitlement. Nor does it mean the gov't is the only way to provide HC for everybody either.

Keep in mind, when you say rights, there are different definitions.

For example, there are fundamental rights that is those that are listed in US constitution as interpreted by the courts. There are also rights specified in state constitutions such as a right to public education which exist in many state constitutions. There are rights as expressed in state laws such a parents rights, patient rights, and right to privacy.

Then there are also rights that pertain to a particular issue or group such as labor rights, LGBT rights, disability rights, prisoner rights, etc... These rights may be defined in or through interpretation of federal and state constitutions or laws. And then there are inalienable rights, such as the right to live or right to protect yourself,...

The right to professional free healthcare will happen but it's years in the future, probably about the time when most of the population is job sharing and the government is paying 80% of the healthcare costs. I don't see this as avoidable. The advances in life saving and life extension healthcare are going to be so expensive, essential no one is going to be able to pay for it except the government which of course means a much larger portion of GDP is going to go healthcare.

The costs aren't so great right now that Canada is unable to provide great single payer health care that is funded by taxpayers. Already Canadians are living longer than Americans, as a result of universal health coverage. I pay just under 600 bucks per year to cover me and the kids. It's good value, because insurance companies aren't driving the costs

You can purchase private health insurance Canada, can't you?

I have a private policyfor the extras, yes, for me and the kids

Is that $600 per year for your private plan?

 

[debbiedowner]

I keep seeing all these threads on health care and not health insurance, you all know there is a difference. You can have health care without insurance or you can purchase health insurance and if so lucky never have any health care but just die.

 

[kellyd]

It should be your responsibility to be fit and healthy enough to work, no one else's. I can see where a society has a responsibility to assist those who cannot be fit and healthy enough to work through no fault of their own, but that does not mean health care should be a right or an entitlement. Nor does it mean the gov't is the only way to provide HC for everybody either.

Keep in mind, when you say rights, there are different definitions.

For example, there are fundamental rights that is those that are listed in US constitution as interpreted by the courts. There are also rights specified in state constitutions such as a right to public education which exist in many state constitutions. There are rights as expressed in state laws such a parents rights, patient rights, and right to privacy.

Then there are also rights that pertain to a particular issue or group such as labor rights, LGBT rights, disability rights, prisoner rights, etc... These rights may be defined in or through interpretation of federal and state constitutions or laws. And then there are inalienable rights, such as the right to live or right to protect yourself,...

The right to professional free healthcare will happen but it's years in the future, probably about the time when most of the population is job sharing and the government is paying 80% of the healthcare costs. I don't see this as avoidable. The advances in life saving and life extension healthcare are going to be so expensive, essential no one is going to be able to pay for it except the government which of course means a much larger portion of GDP is going to go healthcare.

The costs aren't so great right now that Canada is unable to provide great single payer health care that is funded by taxpayers. Already Canadians are living longer than Americans, as a result of universal health coverage. I pay just under 600 bucks per year to cover me and the kids. It's good value, because insurance companies aren't driving the costs

You can purchase private health insurance Canada, can't you?

I have a private policyfor the extras, yes, for me and the kids

Is that $600 per year for your private plan?

The supplemental plan costs me $200/ month for me and the kids

 

[kellyd]

Keep in mind, when you say rights, there are different definitions.

For example, there are fundamental rights that is those that are listed in US constitution as interpreted by the courts. There are also rights specified in state constitutions such as a right to public education which exist in many state constitutions. There are rights as expressed in state laws such a parents rights, patient rights, and right to privacy.

Then there are also rights that pertain to a particular issue or group such as labor rights, LGBT rights, disability rights, prisoner rights, etc... These rights may be defined in or through interpretation of federal and state constitutions or laws. And then there are inalienable rights, such as the right to live or right to protect yourself,...

The right to professional free healthcare will happen but it's years in the future, probably about the time when most of the population is job sharing and the government is paying 80% of the healthcare costs. I don't see this as avoidable. The advances in life saving and life extension healthcare are going to be so expensive, essential no one is going to be able to pay for it except the government which of course means a much larger portion of GDP is going to go healthcare.

The costs aren't so great right now that Canada is unable to provide great single payer health care that is funded by taxpayers. Already Canadians are living longer than Americans, as a result of universal health coverage. I pay just under 600 bucks per year to cover me and the kids. It's good value, because insurance companies aren't driving the costs

You can purchase private health insurance Canada, can't you?

I have a private policyfor the extras, yes, for me and the kids

Is that $600 per year for your private plan?

The supplemental plan costs me $200/ month for me and the kids

It covers prescriptions, dental and other stuff not covered by our health system

 

[task0778]

It just seems like a "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" type argument. It shouldnt be a philosophical argument. Congress should be responsive to the requirements of those who placed it in power. People want health care, not philosophy

They want health care if somebody else pays for it. How many of them are willing to pay 20% of their income for it, like they do in Britain? I saw a report recently that says the average Canadian family pays almost $12,000 a year for their health care, how many people want that?

 

[kellyd]

It just seems like a "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" type argument. It shouldnt be a philosophical argument. Congress should be responsive to the requirements of those who placed it in power. People want health care, not philosophy

They want health care if somebody else pays for it. How many of them are willing to pay 20% of their income for it, like they do in Britain? I saw a report recently that says the average Canadian family pays almost $12,000 a year for their health care, how many people want that?

I know I don't pay that. 2.5k-3k sounds closer to the mark

 

[task0778]

It just seems like a "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" type argument. It shouldnt be a philosophical argument. Congress should be responsive to the requirements of those who placed it in power. People want health care, not philosophy

They want health care if somebody else pays for it. How many of them are willing to pay 20% of their income for it, like they do in Britain? I saw a report recently that says the average Canadian family pays almost $12,000 a year for their health care, how many people want that?

I know I don't pay that. 2.5k-3k sounds closer to the mark

The Fraser Institute has released a study estimating the costs of Canada’s government monopoly, a.k.a. single-payer health system. A typical Canadian family of four will pay $11,735 for public health care insurance in 2015. The study also tracks the cost of health care insurance over time: Between 2005 and 2015, the cost of health care for the average Canadian family (all family types) increased by 48.5 per cent, dwarfing increases in income (30.8 per cent), shelter (35.9 per cent) and food (18.2 per cent).



Moreover, general government revenue—not a dedicated tax—funds health care, making it difficult for Canadians to decipher how much of their tax dollars actually go towards health insurance.

The study finds the average Canadian family with two parents and two children earning $119,082 will pay $11,735 for public health care insurance in 2015. A single individual earning $42,244 can expect to pay $4,222.

- See more at: “Free” Canadian Health Care At $12,000 Per Family | Health Policy Blog | NCPA.org

Canadian health care is popular with healthy Canadians who never really have to use it. But if you’re sick, look out. A 2014 study by the Fraser Institute found that wait times for medically necessary treatment in Canada have increased from 9.3 weeks in 1993—not great—to 18.2 weeks. Wait times were especially bad if you needed hip, knee or back surgery (42.2 weeks) or neurosurgery (31.2 weeks).

 

[kellyd]

It just seems like a "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" type argument. It shouldnt be a philosophical argument. Congress should be responsive to the requirements of those who placed it in power. People want health care, not philosophy

They want health care if somebody else pays for it. How many of them are willing to pay 20% of their income for it, like they do in Britain? I saw a report recently that says the average Canadian family pays almost $12,000 a year for their health care, how many people want that?

I know I don't pay that. 2.5k-3k sounds closer to the mark

The Fraser Institute has released a study estimating the costs of Canada’s government monopoly, a.k.a. single-payer health system. A typical Canadian family of four will pay $11,735 for public health care insurance in 2015. The study also tracks the cost of health care insurance over time: Between 2005 and 2015, the cost of health care for the average Canadian family (all family types) increased by 48.5 per cent, dwarfing increases in income (30.8 per cent), shelter (35.9 per cent) and food (18.2 per cent).



Moreover, general government revenue—not a dedicated tax—funds health care, making it difficult for Canadians to decipher how much of their tax dollars actually go towards health insurance.

The study finds the average Canadian family with two parents and two children earning $119,082 will pay $11,735 for public health care insurance in 2015. A single individual earning $42,244 can expect to pay $4,222.

- See more at: “Free” Canadian Health Care At $12,000 Per Family | Health Policy Blog | NCPA.org

Canadian health care is popular with healthy Canadians who never really have to use it. But if you’re sick, look out. A 2014 study by the Fraser Institute found that wait times for medically necessary treatment in Canada have increased from 9.3 weeks in 1993—not great—to 18.2 weeks. Wait times were especially bad if you needed hip, knee or back surgery (42.2 weeks) or neurosurgery (31.2 weeks).

I cant say I personally have waited for anything medically necessary. My mum just had a knee replacement, and hers took 11 weeks to get done. I know that delivery is more difficult in rural areas, as Canada is very large, but I'm sure the same is true in the US.

 

[Flopper]

I live in Canada, with a single payer health care system, and it isn't free. I pay for it with my taxes every year. Because everyone above poverty line pays into it, costs are low to me. The government forces me to pay it, like the local government makes me pay my property tax. This way, everyone gets to use the services that were purchased using our pooled resources. When you insure your car, you benefit from other payees when you total your car. Why is health care any different?

Well, for starters, because your personal health is not a public good that is being used by other people, the way most of the things paid for by property tax, for example, are. And car insurance which covers YOUR car in the event of an accident is voluntarily paid for by the car owners. In the US, at least, the car insurance which is mandated by the government is to protect OTHER people's property from your stupidity. You're perfectly welcome to leave your own car's damaged uncovered by insurance if you want to, so long as it's not owned by someone other than you, who is then going to suffer financially for your stupidity.

But my personal health IS a public good. It enables me to remain in work and be a benefit to society. The more workers fit for work, the better.

It should be your responsibility to be fit and healthy enough to work, no one else's. I can see where a society has a responsibility to assist those who cannot be fit and healthy enough to work through no fault of their own, but that does not mean health care should be a right or an entitlement. Nor does it mean the gov't is the only way to provide HC for everybody either.

Keep in mind, when you say rights, there are different definitions.

For example, there are fundamental rights that is those that are listed in US constitution as interpreted by the courts. There are also rights specified in state constitutions such as a right to public education which exist in many state constitutions. There are rights as expressed in state laws such a parents rights, patient rights, and right to privacy.

Then there are also rights that pertain to a particular issue or group such as labor rights, LGBT rights, disability rights, prisoner rights, etc... These rights may be defined in or through interpretation of federal and state constitutions or laws. And then there are inalienable rights, such as the right to live or right to protect yourself,...

And then there are things that aren't rights at all, but get labeled so by proponents of the welfare state:

The right to professional free healthcare will happen but it's years in the future, probably about the time when most of the population is job sharing and the government is paying 80% of the healthcare costs. I don't see this as avoidable. The advances in life saving and life extension healthcare are going to be so expensive, essential no one is going to be able to pay for it except the government which of course means a much larger portion of GDP is going to go healthcare.

The attempt to label various services as "rights" is disingenuous propaganda. It's a lever on the common, and correct, understanding that government's primary mission statement is to protect our rights - above all other state interests. But the real goal has nothing to do with rights, some people just want government to control health care, even if it must violate our rights to do so.

No, what most people want is healthcare that will be there when they need it regardless of their financial situation. Whether it is controlled by the state, the federal government, or whoever is not a major concern of anyone accept political pundits.

Although the rights specified in constitution have changed little, people enjoy many rights today that are not listed in the constitution such as the right to an education, the right to marry who you choose, the right to privacy, and the right to vote. Healthcare will become a right, not because it's listed in the constitution but because people will accept it as such and it will be codified in law.

 

[Flopper]

To me there is a certain dignity in rights. They are an expression of our fundamental and mutual humanity. There is nothing dignified in having a sick populace. Nobody is served by it.

You seem to be taking the responsibility for your health and well-being from the individual and placing it with the gov't. Which I have a problem with, for a couple of reasons. First of all, a right has to do with the freedom to do something rather than get something. You don't pay for it and neither should anyone else. I'm not sure there's much dignity in creating a burden on society for the failure to take care of yourself. I get that times are difficult, but if we get into the habit of allowing people to be irresponsible then we've created yet another division between us and we don't need more divisiveness.

where do you get the impression health care isn't paid for? I pay for it, as does everyone else, apart from those who earn too little to pay. But the interesting side effect of universal health care is that more people are WELL ENOUGH to work. Poverty isn't necessarily a moral failing, but a confluence of many factors, state of health being one of them

Isn't that the point of the thread, to make health care a right so everybody gets it for free? How many people are on Medicaid today or are getting HCI wholey or partly subsidized by the taxpayers? How many go to ER across the nation and by law have to receive treatment? Do these people pay for services rendered if they have no insurance? There's a lotta people who do not pay for their healthcare; it's paid for by the taxpayers in many cases, and that would increase exponentially if we had a UHC system.

I'm sure you know that Britain has a UBC system. But everybody there has to pay for it whether they use it or not. And it's everybody who pays, from your first dollar of income up to approx $30k, they pay 20% to support that UHC. You think that would go over well here in the US? I don't think so.

A guaranteed right doesn't make it free. You have the right to keep and bear arms but that doesn't mean you will get a free gun from government.

 

[task0778]

To me there is a certain dignity in rights. They are an expression of our fundamental and mutual humanity. There is nothing dignified in having a sick populace. Nobody is served by it.

You seem to be taking the responsibility for your health and well-being from the individual and placing it with the gov't. Which I have a problem with, for a couple of reasons. First of all, a right has to do with the freedom to do something rather than get something. You don't pay for it and neither should anyone else. I'm not sure there's much dignity in creating a burden on society for the failure to take care of yourself. I get that times are difficult, but if we get into the habit of allowing people to be irresponsible then we've created yet another division between us and we don't need more divisiveness.

where do you get the impression health care isn't paid for? I pay for it, as does everyone else, apart from those who earn too little to pay. But the interesting side effect of universal health care is that more people are WELL ENOUGH to work. Poverty isn't necessarily a moral failing, but a confluence of many factors, state of health being one of them

Isn't that the point of the thread, to make health care a right so everybody gets it for free? How many people are on Medicaid today or are getting HCI wholey or partly subsidized by the taxpayers? How many go to ER across the nation and by law have to receive treatment? Do these people pay for services rendered if they have no insurance? There's a lotta people who do not pay for their healthcare; it's paid for by the taxpayers in many cases, and that would increase exponentially if we had a UHC system.

I'm sure you know that Britain has a UBC system. But everybody there has to pay for it whether they use it or not. And it's everybody who pays, from your first dollar of income up to approx $30k, they pay 20% to support that UHC. You think that would go over well here in the US? I don't think so.

A guaranteed right doesn't make it free. You have the right to keep and bear arms but that doesn't mean you will get a free gun from government.

The right to keep and bear arms is all about your right to own a firearm; the gov't cannot deny you that right without due process. It has nothing at all to do with actually providing one. The right to health care is about providing health care to everyone and that is a different kettle of fish. For that reason, health care is not a right, it is an entitlement that can be modified or even abolished.

 

[Flopper]

I keep seeing all these threads on health care and not health insurance, you all know there is a difference. You can have health care without insurance or you can purchase health insurance and if so lucky never have any health care but just die.

I think what is meant is a right to professional healthcare without regard to your ability to pay. That can be accomplished by socialized medicine in which the government provides the service or by goverment insurance, such as Medicare/Medicaid with private providers, or private insurance with government subsidies and private providers. One of the biggest problems in our system is we use all of the above which results in the most expensive healthcare in the world and not the best care.

 

[Flopper]

To me there is a certain dignity in rights. They are an expression of our fundamental and mutual humanity. There is nothing dignified in having a sick populace. Nobody is served by it.

You seem to be taking the responsibility for your health and well-being from the individual and placing it with the gov't. Which I have a problem with, for a couple of reasons. First of all, a right has to do with the freedom to do something rather than get something. You don't pay for it and neither should anyone else. I'm not sure there's much dignity in creating a burden on society for the failure to take care of yourself. I get that times are difficult, but if we get into the habit of allowing people to be irresponsible then we've created yet another division between us and we don't need more divisiveness.

where do you get the impression health care isn't paid for? I pay for it, as does everyone else, apart from those who earn too little to pay. But the interesting side effect of universal health care is that more people are WELL ENOUGH to work. Poverty isn't necessarily a moral failing, but a confluence of many factors, state of health being one of them

Isn't that the point of the thread, to make health care a right so everybody gets it for free? How many people are on Medicaid today or are getting HCI wholey or partly subsidized by the taxpayers? How many go to ER across the nation and by law have to receive treatment? Do these people pay for services rendered if they have no insurance? There's a lotta people who do not pay for their healthcare; it's paid for by the taxpayers in many cases, and that would increase exponentially if we had a UHC system.

I'm sure you know that Britain has a UBC system. But everybody there has to pay for it whether they use it or not. And it's everybody who pays, from your first dollar of income up to approx $30k, they pay 20% to support that UHC. You think that would go over well here in the US? I don't think so.

A guaranteed right doesn't make it free. You have the right to keep and bear arms but that doesn't mean you will get a free gun from government.

The right to keep and bear arms is all about your right to own a firearm; the gov't cannot deny you that right without due process. It has nothing at all to do with actually providing one. The right to health care is about providing health care to everyone and that is a different kettle of fish. For that reason, health care is not a right, it is an entitlement that can be modified or even abolished.

It can be an entitlement and a constitutional right. In fact, the meaning of entitlement is having a right to something or the amount to which a person has a right. If it is recognized as a constitution right, the entitlement can not be removed. If congress recognizes it as a right but not a constitutional right it can be removed.

 

[task0778]

You seem to be taking the responsibility for your health and well-being from the individual and placing it with the gov't. Which I have a problem with, for a couple of reasons. First of all, a right has to do with the freedom to do something rather than get something. You don't pay for it and neither should anyone else. I'm not sure there's much dignity in creating a burden on society for the failure to take care of yourself. I get that times are difficult, but if we get into the habit of allowing people to be irresponsible then we've created yet another division between us and we don't need more divisiveness.

where do you get the impression health care isn't paid for? I pay for it, as does everyone else, apart from those who earn too little to pay. But the interesting side effect of universal health care is that more people are WELL ENOUGH to work. Poverty isn't necessarily a moral failing, but a confluence of many factors, state of health being one of them

Isn't that the point of the thread, to make health care a right so everybody gets it for free? How many people are on Medicaid today or are getting HCI wholey or partly subsidized by the taxpayers? How many go to ER across the nation and by law have to receive treatment? Do these people pay for services rendered if they have no insurance? There's a lotta people who do not pay for their healthcare; it's paid for by the taxpayers in many cases, and that would increase exponentially if we had a UHC system.

I'm sure you know that Britain has a UBC system. But everybody there has to pay for it whether they use it or not. And it's everybody who pays, from your first dollar of income up to approx $30k, they pay 20% to support that UHC. You think that would go over well here in the US? I don't think so.

A guaranteed right doesn't make it free. You have the right to keep and bear arms but that doesn't mean you will get a free gun from government.

The right to keep and bear arms is all about your right to own a firearm; the gov't cannot deny you that right without due process. It has nothing at all to do with actually providing one. The right to health care is about providing health care to everyone and that is a different kettle of fish. For that reason, health care is not a right, it is an entitlement that can be modified or even abolished.

It can be an entitlement and a constitutional right. In fact, the meaning of entitlement is having a right to something or the amount to which a person has a right. If it is recognized as a constitution right, the entitlement can not be removed.

I don't think so, anything the gov't can give you can also be modified or taken away unless you're talking about a Constitutional amendment. Which requires ratification of what 35 states? I suppose that eventuality is technically possible, but for now we do not have an entitlement that is also a constitutional right.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

One of the biggest problems in our system is we use all of the above which results in the most expensive healthcare in the world and not the best care.

the only problem with our system is it is not capitalist it is socialist or Cuban which we know will not work. Do you understand?

 

[kellyd]

One of the biggest problems in our system is we use all of the above which results in the most expensive healthcare in the world and not the best care.

the only problem with our system is it is not capitalist it is socialist or Cuban which we know will not work. Do you understand?

Do you consider the postal service communist, or Cuban?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Do you consider the postal service communist, or Cuban?

yes, and a good example, like health care and education, of what happens when monopolistic bureaucratic soviet govt runs something.

 

[dblack]

The attempt to label various services as "rights" is disingenuous propaganda. It's a lever on the common, and correct, understanding that government's primary mission statement is to protect our rights - above all other state interests. But the real goal has nothing to do with rights, some people just want government to control health care, even if it must violate our rights to do so.

No, what most people want is healthcare that will be there when they need it regardless of their financial situation. Whether it is controlled by the state, the federal government, or whoever is not a major concern of anyone accept political pundits.

I realize that the popular consensus among liberals is that people form their political convictions primarily from self-interest. They are surprised when voters vote against programs and policies that help them personally - usually pointing to it as a sign of ignorance, and not giving them credit for any kind of broader vision. How many times will liberals be surprised by this before they start to question their assumptions?

Although the rights specified in constitution have changed little, people enjoy many rights today that are not listed in the constitution such as the right to an education, the right to marry who you choose, the right to privacy, and the right to vote.

Can I ask how you define a 'right'? You're clearly using a different definition than I am. My understanding is that rights are freedoms that are off-limits. Whatever else government may be trying to accomplish, it isn't allowed to violate individual rights in the process. Rights protect the freedom of the individual from the will of the people.

 

[dblack]

A guaranteed right doesn't make it free. You have the right to keep and bear arms but that doesn't mean you will get a free gun from government.

That's a good analogy. The right to bear arms also doesn't mean the government has to ensure that you have 'access' to guns, or that gun dealers must provide you with a gun, regardless of your ability to pay. Yet both of these are central to the presumed "right to health care", aren't they?