Health care an earned right?

[Startraveler]

Somehow, this "fundamentally broken" system has managed to keep us safe and healthy for hundreds of years.

That's not an answer to my question. What is being fundamentally transformed? And how?

[Pseudo Intellectual]

Are you kidding me, Startraveler? Are you seriously telling me the government jailing people for not buying health insurance is not a fundamental change? Last time I checked, in the history of this nation, the government's never gone jailing people for not having health insurance. I wonder what the founding fathers would have to say about this.

Or are you gonna give me a link to Think Progress, Daily Kos or the Huffington Post to "assure" me that ObamaCare is all sunshine and rainbows and that I should shut up and let Obama and Co handle everything, because "government knows best"?

Sorry, pal, nobody here but the far leftist, statist minority wants socialized medicine. If you want it so bad, maybe you should move to a socialist paradise like Cuba.

Edited November 27, 2009 by Pseudo Intellectual

[Render]

Fix it? Well, if by "fix" it, you mean radically, fundamentally transform it into something the majority of Americans don't want, then... well, like I said, feel free to move to a nearby socialist paradise.

The majority doesn't want health care to be basic right? Really?

That's so weird.

Many ppl around the world look at the American healt care system as a choatic pile of ...

In most countries in Europe you don't hit the ground if you lose your job or whatever. There's always a net that catches you and helps you get back on your feet.

Of course many take advantage of that.

But how America works..so middle aged. So anti-social. It's ironic it's this super religous nation with their "love thy neighbour" stuff. Hypocrites really.

[Pseudo Intellectual]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Too bad nobody cares what you think.

[Render]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Too bad nobody cares what you think.

except for you apparantly

[Daughter of the Nine Moons]

Pseudo Intellectual, please refrain from snide remarks as they are completely unnecessary and contribute nothing to the topic at hand.

[J Gab]

Sorry to come late to the game, but I had to throw this out there. I'll admit I only read the first page and probably won't return to this thread to retaliate, so take what I say as you will.

The UN has what is called a Declaration of Human Rights that all members of the UN have agreed upon. This includes the US. Now, if we must- let's read Article 25:

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

In the US, we are not abiding by these rules. Yet we agreed to these. But if a man gets sick and is given costly bills, there is little he can do. Some can try welfare or unemployment wages. While both are nice, it wouldn't stop the man from losing his house (or shelter) and not being able to keep his family healthy.

I personally don't think Obamacare is the answer, though. Giving everyone insurance isn't going to solve things. Changing how insurance companies work AND giving everyone coverage is going to solve a lot. Sad to say, but America is being stubborn in it's old ways. Less taxes and more stuff for the citizens. It doesn't work that way.

And in truth, no country has a perfect system. Canada has free healthcare, but people have to wait a long time to see a doctor or get serious surgery. Their hospitals and doctors wind up with a lot of people- due to anyone with a slight cough coming in when they wouldn't in America. It's just how things work, I'm afraid. No real solution forthcoming since America won't be backing the 40% in taxes they have to take out of our paychecks (like in Europe)

[Startraveler]

Are you seriously telling me the government jailing people for not buying health insurance is not a fundamental change? Last time I checked, in the history of this nation, the government's never gone jailing people for not having health insurance.

The penalty for noncompliance with the mandate is not jail time. It's a tax, something the founding fathers put right into the Constitution (with a little clarification from the 16th amendment). You think taxation is a fundamental change in the way our nation works? As I said in another thread, the mandate is not particularly radical:

1) As reform opponents are fond of pointing out, the population of people who don't have coverage is fairly small relative to the population of people who do. So for the large majority of people, nothing changes.

2) Most people are already mandated to pay into a health insurance pool (two, actually) through their payroll taxes. They just don't get to receive Medicare benefits for many years after they start paying for it (and most never receive any Medicaid benefits). Delayed gratification, I suppose.

3) Paying for other kinds of social insurance is both constitutional and common. The difference here is that other forms of social insurance (unemployment compensation, social security, etc) are handled by the government whereas under a health insurance mandate you can pay into private insurance pools (though, hopefully, there would be the option of paying into a public insurance pool). The element of choice in selecting which insurance pool you want to buy into is the reason there's a mandate at all--if there was simply one public health insurance pool that contained everyone (as in a single-payer system), you'd just be taxed and wouldn't have to jump through the hoops of paying premiums and shopping around. But you also wouldn't have choice in insurance providers, which people tend to value.

So, no, I'm still not seeing the fundamental change. In fact, the mandate is there because the reforms don't fundamentally change the current health care system. What's changing is that a fragmented system of regulations for individual health insurance markets (some of which have things like guaranteed issue and community rating laws) is being replaced by a standard set of regulations that do include community rating and guaranteed issue regulations. However, if the goal is to help the people who require insurance/care the most (i.e. those screened out or heavily penalized by the private underwriting process) by limiting the ability of insurers to deny coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions, etc and we choose to bulk up the existing system of fragmented private insurance pools then the logic of the situation leads right to a mandate because: 1) even with risk adjustments, insurance pools that get less healthy need an influx of healthy contributors (or at least they need to prevent an outflux of healthy people) and 2) we need another way to avoid adverse selection (which is what medical underwriting is for right now) so that people don't game the system by not paying premiums until they become a net drain on insurance pools (i.e. get sick or something).

So, again, I'll ask where the "fundamental transformation" is? Just the mandate? The mandate to join virtually the exact same system that exists right now?

Sorry, pal, nobody here but the far leftist, statist minority wants socialized medicine. If you want it so bad, maybe you should move to a socialist paradise like Cuba.

But the center left-ers in charge of the Democratic party don't want socialized medicine. Which is why the reform bills look the way they do.

[mklsgl]

Here are a couple of comments I read on another site:

1. In a civilized society it is unacceptable to leave people to die if they can be helped. I bet most would agree to that. We have Medicare because the insurance companies didn't see enough profit in that age group (at the premiums they could afford at least) Now it's getting that way for young people too, All health insurance is just a pool of money from premiums that get paid out if someone in the pool gets sick. The bigger the pool the less the premiums (it's mathematics) add in the reduction of the 30% overhead the private insurers charge and you have significant savings. This is mostly why countries with national health care have nearly 50% lower cost with better rated care.

Their is nothing socialist about getting the profit motive out of health insurance. It really is more of a nessesity. Can we really afford to give 30% of our healthcare dollar to companies that don't treat or cure a single illness? Is it even moral to support companies that pay people to deny claims of sick people in need of treatments?

You are right private insurance is nonsense and is really a license to steal for those involved.

2. Americans are quick to forward the protestant work ethic, the virtues of a free market economy, and cinch things all together with "personal responsibility" hubris.

When 4 out of every 5 medical bankruptcies involve people who had healthcare insurance at the time of the onset of their illness... a person's ability to pay is demonstratively outpaced with the potential costs of treatment. If an illness is chronic and rehabilitating enough, work falls by the wayside and whatever assets you have disappear in a puff of smoke... The grim side of America is that you're innocent until you're proven broke and you're worthy of transplants and expensive procedures as long as you have cash in your pocket.

When is enough, enough?

By spreading the risk pool out to encompass the entire population, the options for treatment become available to people based on their needs instead of their ability to pay.

If we financed healthcare similar to the way we do social security, workers could contribute a fixed percentage and employers would match them. Everybody pays the same percentage of their income in return for both healthcare and to be part of a country where we all have the opportunity to draw on our system and resources as we build towards our dreams.

Take healthcare off the profiteer's table. By eliminating the conflict of interest we have with a 'for profit' crowd of middlemen, we'd pay no more than we pay right now... nationally... while covering everybody. With a similar amount of money being spent for total care nationally, our GDP would actually look pretty good. Those people who would be displaced would then be available to work in industries where we would be more likely to produce products that could be bought domestically or sold on international markets.

Affordable, portable, and reliable. A healthcare system that asks, "Where does it hurt?" instead of "Who is going to pay for this?" A healthcare system that works towards improving the overall health of the general population rather than counting the number of times they can set you up for appointments and tests to line their pockets.

Responsibility? Are you or are you not your brother's keeper? Do you believe in the lesson taught by the Good Samaritan?

Its cheaper to pay for insulin and blood pressure medication than it is to cover treating people for blindness, heart attacks, strokes, and amputations. Whole people are also more likely to remain a viable contributing part of the work force. Socialized Medicine? Looking at our economy we already have privatized profits with socialized losses. I'm all for capitalism and a free-market economy--just not in this area.

Health care has to change. From how we pay for it to how it is administered... healthcare must be universally accepted in this country as a RIGHT.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[MissMelsWell]

I was poking around on CNN this evening, and found this story... a little 13 year old girl needs a digestive implant for a rare life threatening digestive disorder. It alone costs 40K (which likely does not cover the entire bill for her care) but her insurance will only pay for a feeding tube to be inserted into her stomach. The implant would grant her a normal life. The insurance company just won't pay for the RIGHT treatment. How awful is that? And we think private insurance is great!? This little girl went for almost a year before telling her parents that she was suffering from this condition because she knew that her insurance would not cover the proper treatment (her mother suffers from the condition as well, and HER parents mortgaged their home to pay for her implant).

And people think the health industry isn't screwed up?

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/living/2009/11/30/pkg.kark.stomach.disorder.kark

[UltraThunderMan]

This should not even be a question. If you are living in a society where you are expected to abide by certain rules, the government has a duty to provide healthcare for its people. It's the same as violating any right given in the constitution. They can't just let folks drop dead from no healthcare, or they shouldn't anyways. You can't have laws against people murdering folks and then deny that those same people have a right to healthcare, which would preserve those same lives. It's hypocrisy.

[eqgumby]

This should not even be a question. If you are living in a society where you are expected to abide by certain rules, the government has a duty to provide healthcare for its people. It's the same as violating any right given in the constitution. They can't just let folks drop dead from no healthcare, or they shouldn't anyways. You can't have laws against people murdering folks and then deny that those same people have a right to healthcare, which would preserve those same lives. It's hypocrisy.

AH-HA! Says WHO? That was my ORIGINAL point to this thread! Who SAYS it's a right?

Maybe it SHOULD be, but I don't think it's a law!

The constitution is pretty muddy about what it is liable to provide for it's citizens!

[Startraveler]

Who SAYS it's a right?

Maybe it SHOULD be, but I don't think it's a law!

The constitution is pretty muddy about what it is liable to provide for it's citizens!

That's why we have Congresses. And the current one is working on enshrining in law a principle of near-universal access to health care for American citizens (indeed, one chamber is already done).

[eqgumby]

That's why we have Congresses. And the current one is working on enshrining in law a principle of near-universal access to health care for American citizens (indeed, one chamber is already done).

I agree, they are indeed heading in that direction. So it MAY be a right on some level in the future, but for now it's not. I just HOPE that creating a universal plan for those that need it doesn't lead to trashing the plans in place that already DO work, like the one I have.

But still, I have to ask the question...have these people ALL earned the right to healthcare? If I became unemployed tomorrow and uninsured, I could say "Yes, I have a right to government healthcare, since I have worked full time (and more) for over 30 years, served my country for twenty, and been a productive member of society". What about those who have done NOTHING? Those are the people whose "rights" I question.

[MissMelsWell]

I think the key word that's missing though is EQUAL rights. If we finally (and long overdue) decide health care is a right, then it would need to be an equal right, meaning it applies to everyone. Let's face it, as things are today, the laziest and poorest of this country already get free health care... that won't change. The people who don't get good health care are hard working middle class people.

[THE MATRIX]

Good News. Just found out my health insurance rate got jacked up again by 17%.

[Startraveler]

I agree, they are indeed heading in that direction. So it MAY be a right on some level in the future, but for now it's not. I just HOPE that creating a universal plan for those that need it doesn't lead to trashing the plans in place that already DO work, like the one I have.

First of all, as several people have already pointed out in this thread (starting with me on the first page), the U.S. is a signatory to a document that declares health care to be a fundamental human right. So there is precedent for that claim. But a right written on a piece of paper is worthless if it isn't put into practice so, yes, effectively it isn't treated like a right at present. However, people generally speak of rights as some sort of (God-given?) absolute with which the institutions of man sometimes interfere; that's why you get language like "health care is a right!" even when all the empirical evidence would suggest otherwise.

Also, the reforms on the table right now were designed specifically not to "trash" existing health insurance plans. In that sense, the reforms aren't very ambitious because the system we have now has some fundamental flaws and this isn't doing much to fix them (precisely because doing so would likely disrupt coverage for a great many people). So existing plans are safe, to the detriment of the reform effort.

But still, I have to ask the question...have these people ALL earned the right to healthcare? If I became unemployed tomorrow and uninsured, I could say "Yes, I have a right to government healthcare, since I have worked full time (and more) for over 30 years, served my country for twenty, and been a productive member of society". What about those who have done NOTHING? Those are the people whose "rights" I question.

Americans generally agree that fully-recognized members of society (I phrase it that way so we can avoid an abortion debate) have a right to life. This isn't earned or based on productivity, it just is. As such, it's hard to see how you can have a right to life but not have a right to life-saving health care. To withhold it on economic grounds is a death sentence and, as such, would apparently infringe on one's right to life.

That said, it wasn't too long ago when a certain political figure made an erroneous and inflammatory allegation about the House health care reform bill:

The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

People, right and left, expressed disgust at the idea that one's level of productivity should determine whether one ought to receive health care (a bit strange since that's essentially the definition of an entirely market-based system but whatever). Do you really want to advocate for that position?

[eqgumby]

First of all, as several people have already pointed out in this thread (starting with me on the first page), the U.S. is a signatory to a document that declares health care to be a fundamental human right. So there is precedent for that claim. But a right written on a piece of paper is worthless if it isn't put into practice so, yes, effectively it isn't treated like a right at present. However, people generally speak of rights as some sort of (God-given?) absolute with which the institutions of man sometimes interfere; that's why you get language like "health care is a right!" even when all the empirical evidence would suggest otherwise.

Also, the reforms on the table right now were designed specifically not to "trash" existing health insurance plans. In that sense, the reforms aren't very ambitious because the system we have now has some fundamental flaws and this isn't doing much to fix them (precisely because doing so would likely disrupt coverage for a great many people). So existing plans are safe, to the detriment of the reform effort.

Americans generally agree that fully-recognized members of society (I phrase it that way so we can avoid an abortion debate) have a right to life. This isn't earned or based on productivity, it just is. As such, it's hard to see how you can have a right to life but not have a right to life-saving health care. To withhold it on economic grounds is a death sentence and, as such, would apparently infringe on one's right to life.

That said, it wasn't too long ago when a certain political figure made an erroneous and inflammatory allegation about the House health care reform bill:

The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

People, right and left, expressed disgust at the idea that one's level of productivity should determine whether one ought to receive health care (a bit strange since that's essentially the definition of an entirely market-based system but whatever). Do you really want to advocate for that position?

No, however...

I fear that MY level of health care will suffer because of a potential glut of others clogging a system that may not be ready to handle a large influx of routine care patients.

And face it, if I pay more for the same healthcare, because I work harder to advance myself...that's not really fair is it? If it's EQUAL, it should COST EQUAL as well as be provided equally. If I WANT more, I can pay more, right? And, who is going to set the bar, decide what is an acceptable level of healthcare that ALL people have a right to? And will you be required to be a citizen? Or will it be health-care at will?

I just have quite a few concerns and questions, as you can see.

[MissMelsWell]

No, however...

I fear that MY level of health care will suffer because of a potential glut of others clogging a system that may not be ready to handle a large influx of routine care patients.

And face it, if I pay more for the same healthcare, because I work harder to advance myself...that's not really fair is it? If it's EQUAL, it should COST EQUAL as well as be provided equally. If I WANT more, I can pay more, right? And, who is going to set the bar, decide what is an acceptable level of healthcare that ALL people have a right to? And will you be required to be a citizen? Or will it be health-care at will?

I just have quite a few concerns and questions, as you can see.

And THOSE are fair questions... I can't answer them because I don't have a crystal ball to see into the future... but, we have to start somewhere right?

[eqgumby]

And THOSE are fair questions... I can't answer them because I don't have a crystal ball to see into the future... but, we have to start somewhere right?

I think these are really just a few of the questions out there. I think the debate isn't or at least shouldn't be about health care itself, but the implementation of it, the myriad ethical questions surrounding it, the level of government involvement, among other issues.

I mean I have a REAL problem with potential waste and misuse of the system.

I'll toss out a potentially absurd scenario, one that would leave me torn.

What if someone needed a lifesaving procedure, which costs literally hundreds of thousands of dollars, maybe a few million after all of the post care and routine follow-ups, etc etc., and this lifesaving procedure will leave this person disabled for the rest of their lives, being taken care of by the government til death, costing even MORE in the long run. Add to the insanity that this guy is a convicted felon, living in a half-way house due to his drug and alcohol problem.

Because of this, my back surgery is delayed. Resources are limited after all, right? I'm in pain, I can't work, and my condition worsens. I lose my job. They fire me because I can't go to my job and function for two or three weeks. They have no choice, right? It's economics. Now my condition has worsened and become chronic. Too late for the surgery, now I am partially disabled too and suffer chronic pain and limited mobility.

Who wins here? No one.

If the government can implement a solution that won't jeopardize my care or my families care, or penalize ME for being a good and productive citizen, great! If I have to do more or get along with less, I just don't think it's fair.

[MissMelsWell]

This is why I think we need to look at what other countries have implemented. Geri (Beckys_Mom) talked a bit about some options they have in Ireland (they have similar options in parts of Canada). Not ony do you have your public health, but you can also get private care as well if you choose to pay for it. As Geri explained, her mother pays for additional insurance (it sounded like it was reasonably priced too) and when she needed surgery for a chronic condition, she used her insurance to go to a private hospital, got her surgery in good time, and all was well. Geri says she herself doesn't pay extra for private insurance, she still gets care she's happy with. MattShark of Ireland had a good story about his cancer treatment on publlic health, it sounded like he got as good or better care than we do here in the States.

There are options, and keeping supplimental insurance for private hospitals is one of those good ideas that eliminates the scenario you're talking about here.

You're right, the questions need to be asked and answered, I won't ever deny that. The solution needs to work as well as possible for everyone. The right answer is out there, we just have to find it. We'll find it by looking at the pro's and con's of all other nations with National Health... we have the opportunity to avoid their mistakes. We don't have to invent the wheel, we just have to improve on it.

[IamsSon]

Scott Brown won in Massachusetts!!

Blue Dogs will turn into Republicans

RINOs will decide bipartisanship is not all it's cracked up to be

and Obama will suddenly discover the middle

Oh ObamaCare we hardly knew ya

Na na naaa naa

Na na naaa naa

Hey, hey, hey, goodbyeee!

[Startraveler]

This bill is the middle. A conservative funding mechanism for a private-led system. Liberals get two-thirds of the way to universality.

[IamsSon]

This bill is the middle. A conservative funding mechanism for a private-led system. Liberals get two-thirds of the way to universality.

Yes, please keep telling yourself that. Please, please, please. I hope Dems refuse to learn the obvious lesson writ large in these results.

[Startraveler]

Can you tell me what you find to be especially liberal in these bills? Please?