1 edit
I say yes.
Literally anyone can call the police if they're in trouble or to report a crime and receive service, and I think it should be the same for healthcare. Healthcare should be a basic, public service that is provided for all for the good of all.
- Police
- Fire Protection
- Public Education
- Public Roads
- Healthcare
It seems to me treating the sick and injured and providing preventative care should be as basic and fundamental as the other services listed. Nobody should have to go see a doctor and be told, "Buck you, pay me!" Tens of millions of people who can't even receive preventative care, or be treated for chronic or terminal illness is shameful.
Originally posted by badmoonEveryone has a right to a certain amount. We call that medicaid. If you want more than that pay for it.
Anyhting that allows the access to, and also a path to attain them, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a right in the USA.
Does everyone have a right to live in a mansion too because they want housing? Does everyone have a right to eat each meal in a five star restaurant because they need to eat each day?
Everyone should not get everything they want paid for by the government.
Originally posted by badmoonWhat if 5 carat diamonds make me happy?
Anyhting that allows the access to, and also a path to attain them, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a right in the USA.
If I recall, we also have a right to bear arms. Does this mean the government should go out and by me a weapon if I desire one?
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperAbsolutely not.
I say yes.
Literally anyone can call the police if they're in trouble or to report a crime and receive service, and I think it should be the same for healthcare. Healthcare should be a basic, public service that is provided for all for the good of all.
- Police
- Fire Protection
- Public Education
- Public Roads
- [b]Healthcare
I ...[text shortened]... t even receive preventative care, or be treated for chronic or terminal illness is shameful.[/b]
The biggest problem with spiraling healthcare costs is that the consumer, for the most part, does not have to pay for the service, thereby decreasing his incentive to choose carefully before consuming.
If we want to take a vacation we don't need for $2,500, we think carefully and make a decision based on a variety of factors, including economic.
If we want arthroscopic knee surgery that costs $2,500 that we can get along without, what do we care? As long as the insurance company or Medicare will pay for it, we get it without thinking of the economic costs.
Now, I agree with the idea of providing healthcare for those who really can't afford it, but does someone else have a right to every damn procedure his doctor can dream up on my dime? No, thank you.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperThe question involves defining rights. Is a right just something that is desirable, that we think all people ought to have access to?
I say yes.
Literally anyone can call the police if they're in trouble or to report a crime and receive service, and I think it should be the same for healthcare. Healthcare should be a basic, public service that is provided for all for the good of all.
- Police
- Fire Protection
- Public Education
- Public Roads
- [b]Healthcare
I ...[text shortened]... t even receive preventative care, or be treated for chronic or terminal illness is shameful.[/b]
Even in the other four areas you mention, these things are desirable, but not rights. They must be provided by people who work providing them, policemen, firemen, teachers, and road workers. In none of those instances is the service considered an absolute right, nor is the level of services equal and guaranteed.
People are now recognizing that they cannot continue to pay these folks whatever they demand, and at the same time can't demand any standard of performance from those "producers". It is clear from the very examples you give that simply placing the government in charge of providing a service or commodity, doesn't make it a right, nor does it guarantee the delivery of value.
It does, in principle, either place the provider outside of the reach of consumer pressure, or make slaves of the providers, or a combination of both. Do you really want health care in the USA to be the same fraudulent disaster that is public education?
Originally posted by normbenignWhether or not they're technically a "right", the things I mentioned (sans healthcare) a provided for everyone regardless of their income.
The question involves defining rights. Is a right just something that is desirable, that we think all people ought to have access to?
Even in the other four areas you mention, these things are desirable, but not rights. They must be provided by people who work providing them, policemen, firemen, teachers, and road workers. In none of those instances ...[text shortened]... lly want health care in the USA to be the same fraudulent disaster that is public education?
"People are now recognizing that they cannot continue to pay these folks whatever they demand"
Which people are "realizing" this? Since when are they getting paid whatever they demand
"It does, in principle, either place the provider outside of the reach of consumer pressure, or make slaves of the providers, or a combination of both."
Vague hyberpole with no substantive backing.
"Do you really want health care in the USA to be the same fraudulent disaster that is public education"
As someone who currently is under government run healthcare and was previously in the private sector, YES, absolutely.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperCarve the cancer known as state sponsored health care off of the bloated state, those that believe in it can sign on to this wondorous free health care thing you blokes fantasise about and contribute to it voluntary, those that don't believe in it will have no claim on the voluntary scheme.
Whether or not they're technically a "right", the things I mentioned (sans healthcare) a provided for everyone regardless of their income.
[b]"People are now recognizing that they cannot continue to pay these folks whatever they demand"
Which people are "realizing" this? Since when are they getting paid whatever they demand
"It doe ...[text shortened]... government run healthcare and was previously in the private sector, YES, absolutely.
If it's such a great idea you'll have no problem getting people to join. There might be a few nut cases that choose to stand on their own two feet but that's ok because they're not asking for anything except to be left alone in regard to the care of their most private possession, their body.
Everyone's happy, hoorah.
Originally posted by WajomaHow about the same for warfare?
Carve the cancer known as state sponsored health care off of the bloated state, those that believe in it can sign on to this wondorous free health care thing you blokes fantasise about and contribute to it voluntary, those that don't believe in it will have no claim on the voluntary scheme.
If it's such a great idea you'll have no problem getting people t ...[text shortened]... ard to the care of their most private possession, their body.
Everyone's happy, hoorah.
Those who wish to fund the war can (and can fight in it).
Those who don't, don't need to pay that part of taxation...
Everyone's happy, hoorah
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperI'd say yes...Oil companies in America think taxpayer subsidies are there right, so what's wrong with the common folk getting a few crumbs of healthcare??
I say yes.
Literally anyone can call the police if they're in trouble or to report a crime and receive service, and I think it should be the same for healthcare. Healthcare should be a basic, public service that is provided for all for the good of all.
- Police
- Fire Protection
- Public Education
- Public Roads
- [b]Healthcare
I ...[text shortened]... t even receive preventative care, or be treated for chronic or terminal illness is shameful.[/b]
Originally posted by sh76While your thinking seems reasonable, it fails in practise as you probably know from real world data. The main reason for this is that financial incentives are very weak in the health care market, because people think their health is so important. Consequently, introducing financial incentives causes much more overtreatment than it reduces unneccessary treatment - one of the main reasons why US health care is so horribly inefficient (another main reason being the overhead and waste caused by the existence of insurance companies).
Absolutely not.
The biggest problem with spiraling healthcare costs is that the consumer, for the most part, does not have to pay for the service, thereby decreasing his incentive to choose carefully before consuming.
If we want to take a vacation we don't need for $2,500, we think carefully and make a decision based on a variety of factors, including eco ...[text shortened]... have a [b]right to every damn procedure his doctor can dream up on my dime? No, thank you.[/b]
Is getting the very best doctor and treatment for everyone a "right"? No. Does it make sense, economically and morally, to make sure everyone has at least access to decent health care? Yes. Costs are reduced. More people are treated. Overtreatment is reduced. Productivity increases. Bureaucracy is reduced. Crime is reduced. Education is improved. Everyone wins. Except the insurance companies.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperWhen health care was provided by the Church, it was free (donations were expected, I believe, based on means) and available to all.
I say yes.
Literally anyone can call the police if they're in trouble or to report a crime and receive service, and I think it should be the same for healthcare. Healthcare should be a basic, public service that is provided for all for the good of all.
- Police
- Fire Protection
- Public Education
- Public Roads
- [b]Healthcare
I ...[text shortened]... t even receive preventative care, or be treated for chronic or terminal illness is shameful.[/b]
Perhaps you are thinking along those lines?