Why do YOU think Healthcare is a Right and not a Privilege?

[Detritivores]

Personally I think Healthcare is a privilege and not a right.

If you misuse your body you should have to deal with the consequences unless you have purchased protection in the form of insurance.

Also, in ANY civilized country, no hospital is going to turn you away if you have something life threatening that HAS to be taken care of even if you don't have insurance.

Forcing doctors to see patients under universal health care greatly diminishes a doctors will to continue practicing. It also reduces the will of any people who would be willing to undergo 10+ years of education to become a doctor because the limited ability to make good money in the profession.

Here I am, responding to the guy with an avatar that clearly telegraphs his purpose... But whatever...

This post couldn't be more incorrect. On basically every level. As others have pointed out, most medical problems are not the patient's fault.

The weird string of telepathic insight into the life and motivations of physicians is disturbing. You do realize we see everyone whether universal health care exists or not? It's just without universal health care, the people we see have shitty or no routine and preventive care, which is making them unnecessarily sicker and costing society at large exponentially more to sort out the wreckage of what could have been a healthy life.

Lastly, on the question of "rights," you either believe in rights or you don't. If you think people have "rights" to speech, religion, assembly, water, air, guns (LOL), I don't see why health shouldn't be included. If you are arguing that "rights" are a feel good imaginary human construct that doesn't actually exist, then sure, nothing is a right. But the premise of rights is that they're the things a person needs to live life and pursue happiness. Being healthy is probably top of the list, and access to healthcare is the thing that enables that. It's not even a question worth debating.

Edit: Just so we're clear, if an uninsured person in the US becomes mortally ill, they don't die in a gutter. We do our best to save them, and whether we win or lose, either the hospital or the tax payers (or both) pick up the tab. The whole privilege v. right question is irrelevant. You can pat yourself on the back and declare health a rich person's privilege all you want, but we'll keep treating the unprivileged, at enormous cost to their well-being and the country's financial health (and the physician's sanity, since you seem so concerned about us). Everyone loses with your short-sighted and ignorant world view.

[Kaleredar]

I always find it interesting that the republicans are by and large the ones against helping people in need.

"But whoever has the world's goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?"- John 3:17

Seems conservatives are all too often eager to bible-thump when it comes to telling other people what they can't do, instead of making a point to help anyone.

[Captain N]

You know life sucks sometimes. If I get in a car accident thats my fault I'd rather man up and pay for it myself than ask my neighbors to do so. If it was someone else's fault they should pay for it.

And both of you should be required to have insurance for this very issue.

You understand the argument you're making here is exactly why Liability Insurance is the minimum required insurance on automobiles, right?

Coincidentally the folks who argue the loudest about the ACA requiring enrollment or suffering the fine are the very same people who bang on and on about car insurance.

You're literally making Wyrt's argument for him -- People are required to have car insurance just in case something bad happens and they're at fault. Having mandatory insurance either through a Universal Healthcare or recently the ACA has included Health Insurance to be the same.

Are you even sure what you're arguing for or is this the typical "Personal Responsibility" from someone who certainly would not be paying possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars out of his own pocket if he fell asleep at the wheel and killed someone due to his own negligence.

[Spectral]

If you think people have "rights" to speech, religion, assembly, water, air, guns (LOL), I don't see why health shouldn't be included.

This is the core of argument - people arguing that healthcare is not a right are making the fundamental distinction here that rights are things one can't be deprived of rather than things they must be provided. No one (or nearly no one) who refers to a right to bear arms is claiming that everyone has to be provided with a gun. Arguing for a right to assembly is not tantamount to demanding a government-sponsored building to assemble in.

This is a pretty fundamental distinction and a reasonable Schelling point for defining a "right" - do other people have to buy it, or can you just have it by existing? I agree with you that "rights" are really just a construct, but I think this is a pretty good way to construct that.

To be clear, I'm a proponent of universal healthcare, but I'm a proponent of it in the same way that I think building roads is a good idea. Having a road to drive on isn't a right, but it's a very good policy. I can really strongly favor a policy without saying that it's a right.

[Hiricine]

You forgot "Why do I have to pay for a fire department? I'm not using it."

People that bitch about paying like that should be treated by paramedics only in case of traumatic injury and force to make their own way to a hospital because they didn't pay for the ambulance to take them there.

If thats the deal why isn't there an ambulance or public school opt out? I know people are worried about free riders, but for what some people are paying for public service, they could get an army of paramedics and firefighters. Besides, it would be simple to allow for "a-la-carte" public services that allow you to opt into programs like public schools and fire departments if they really provide that great of a service.

Also the idea of going for ambulances when they're one of the most free rider sensitive problems is kind of cherry picking. You'd probably want to start with Public schools, Public libraries, arts programs, parks, and work your way down to the life and death stuff at the end of the list. If we're talking absolutes, making people pay for nothing at all is morally superior to what we have currently. If we want to pick and choose things, theres probably a middle ground somewhere that you can just sign up for programs you want to pay for.

[Yelmurc]

You understand the argument you're making here is exactly why Liability Insurance is the minimum required insurance on automobiles, right?

Coincidentally the folks who argue the loudest about the ACA requiring enrollment or suffering the fine are the very same people who bang on and on about car insurance.

You're literally making Wyrt's argument for him -- People are required to have car insurance just in case something bad happens and they're at fault. Having mandatory insurance either through a Universal Healthcare or recently the ACA has included Health Insurance to be the same.

Are you even sure what you're arguing for or is this the typical "Personal Responsibility" from someone who certainly would not be paying possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars out of his own pocket if he fell asleep at the wheel and killed someone due to his own negligence.

Yes if I am driving a vehicle and I make a mistake I should be required to cover that possibility. I shouldn't however be required to pay into system for just living. My problem isn't that insurance exists and its useful my problem is that ACA and programs like it is a mandate to pay into a health insurance system just because I work and am alive. You will probably make the argument that we are forced to pay Taxes and Social Security(which I dislike as well). I think the less we have the pay the better but with taxes we at least all benefit from it we get government regulations for companies and industries that need it we get a defense and local taxes we get roads and infrastructure. If i pay into this health system and live 80 years and never have a serious issue I've wasted a lot of resources into a system I never get any benefit from. Thats why insurance is the better system here. Its a freedom of choice. And I will choose more freedom any day of the week.

[Wyrt]

Then explain how it should be run by the government. You call us "Naive" yet don't have a compelling argument that it is a right.

I will say it again. "NO ONE HAS A RIGHT TO SOMEONE ELSE LABOR" Its that simple.

There are many other countries that run it by the government just fine. Not only that, but it's CHEAPER than what we're already paying in the US.

"No one has a right to someone else labor?" Then I guess we should get rid of roads, schools, military, buses, trains, airports, etc.

[Spectral]

"No one has a right to someone else labor?" Then I guess we should get rid of roads, schools, military, buses, trains, airports, etc.

These aren't "rights". They're good ideas. They're good policies. You don't actually have a right to an airport though.

[Regalbeast]

Its a right. Lets get real here.

Strong argument.

[Wyrt]

These aren't "rights". They're good ideas. They're good policies. You don't actually have a right to an airport though.

Everyone has a right to get an education or use buses or be protected by the military or use airports.

[Captain N]

Yes if I am driving a vehicle and I make a mistake I should be required to cover that possibility. I shouldn't however be required to pay into system for just living. My problem isn't that insurance exists and its useful my problem is that ACA and programs like it is a mandate to pay into a health insurance system just because I work and am alive. You will probably make the argument that we are forced to pay Taxes and Social Security(which I dislike as well). I think the less we have the pay the better but with taxes we at least all benefit from it we get government regulations for companies and industries that need it we get a defense and local taxes we get roads and infrastructure. If i pay into this health system and live 80 years and never have a serious issue I've wasted a lot of resources into a system I never get any benefit from. Thats why insurance is the better system here. Its a freedom of choice. And I will choose more freedom any day of the week.

You live in a society that you take advantage of every day. Your arguments are simply you not wanting to contribute to that society because you would rather attack other people for being leeches while you're being one yourself. If you make it 80 years and never visit a doctor for anything you're beyond human. You don't even need a serious issue for preventative care or minor medical emergencies (stitches, broken bone, etc.). You're literally arguing for the choice to have the option of taking a service, declaring bankruptcy, and forcing the payment on taxpayers anyways. Which is what happens when people have to pay large sums of money out of their own pocket...regardless of your empty claim that you'd pay it out of pocket if you were negligent.

You're literally complaining about paying taxes and such that you're getting no benefit out of while arguing that there's a possibility you will never get sick or suffer at least a minor injury in 80 years. All the while claiming you're going to pay astronomical sums of money that would be covered by insurance when that illness strikes,

[Kolbjorn]

I shouldn't however be required to pay into system for just living. My problem isn't that insurance exists and its useful my problem is that ACA and programs like it is a mandate to pay into a health insurance system just because I work and am alive..

You do benefit from paying into the system if someone that catches tuberculosis, measles, ebola, etc., goes to their primary care physician a week or two earlier rather than waiting until they're coughing up blood bad enough to go to the ER.


And no, "well, we can cover free primary care for ebola, but not the flu" does not help. Because everyone will say they thought they had the flu.


We're the only country in the world that frames healthcare as an insurable event instead of something you just have to do to maintain public health....

[Detritivores]

This is the core of argument - people arguing that healthcare is not a right are making the fundamental distinction here that rights are things one can't be deprived of rather than things they must be provided. No one (or nearly no one) who refers to a right to bear arms is claiming that everyone has to be provided with a gun. Arguing for a right to assembly is not tantamount to demanding a government-sponsored building to assemble in.

This is a pretty fundamental distinction and a reasonable Schelling point for defining a "right" - do other people have to buy it, or can you just have it by existing? I agree with you that "rights" are really just a construct, but I think this is a pretty good way to construct that.

To be clear, I'm a proponent of universal healthcare, but I'm a proponent of it in the same way that I think building roads is a good idea. Having a road to drive on isn't a right, but it's a very good policy. I can really strongly favor a policy without saying that it's a right.

While I understand the distinction you're making here, I don't find it relevant. Withholding access to care when most of the civilized world has a plethora of reliable models for universal access to care, is analogous to depriving someone of health deliberately. Yes, it's a more active process than defending most "rights," but at this point, with the array of functioning examples we have across the world, choosing not to do it is choosing to deprive our citizens of improved health, longevity, etc. If I have to stop calling it a right to make that argument, I guess fine, but I really don't care what we call it. The point is that it should happen. And it's unquestionably immoral that it hasn't.

The whole "can't be deprived of x" definition of a right is murky to me as well. There's a whole apparatus of law enforcement, courts, etc, that provide our ability to not be deprived of our various rights. And we all buy that apparatus. Doesn't seem that outlandish that we should all buy our right to not die young from preventable causes. I don't know. I think I'd like to stop talking about "rights." I don't find it relevant to the discussion of what should happen.

[Waynhim]

Depends on the tax and way government is run/funded in your country, and how much insurance and medicin cost.

As long as I pay ~1/3 of my salary as tax, (Norway), I have the right. If I paid less then 1/5, I'd sort myself out by buying health insurance.

[Yelmurc]

There are many other countries that run it by the government just fine. Not only that, but it's CHEAPER than what we're already paying in the US.

"No one has a right to someone else labor?" Then I guess we should get rid of roads, schools, military, buses, trains, airports, etc.

Since when are roads, schools, military, buses, trains, airports labor? Anyway, we do not have the right to use to any of these things they can expel you from schools, airports, buses, trains, roads, while it is public property you can lose your privilege to use them. Even if healthcare is payed for by the government it would not be considered a right unless there are laws passed that require them to spend unlimited money on treatment to keep someone alive as long as they can.

The military is a little more complicated since its the duty of the country to protect you and you don't directly get to use them since people would just borrow tanks and cause chaos .

[Wyrt]

Since when are roads, schools, military, buses, trains, airports labor? Anyway, we do not have the right to use to any of these things they can expel you from schools, airports, buses, trains, roads, while it is public property you can lose your privilege to use them. Even if healthcare is payed for by the government it would not be considered a right unless there are laws passed that require them to spend unlimited money on treatment to keep someone alive as long as they can.

The military is a little more complicated since its the duty of the country to protect you and you don't directly get to use them since people would just borrow tanks and cause chaos .

All those things cost tax dollars. Taxes come from labor.

Is freedom not a right then since it can be taken away?

[Vash The Stampede]

Well you do use the military. If the US didnt have the strongest, most feared military in the world we would be ripe for the picking of any country.

May I remind you we have the right to arm ourselves?

[Jastall]

As for the actual quality of healthcare with costs and obesity rates aside, it's quite good.

''Quite good'' isn't good enough when you have far and away the highest costs in the world per capita if you pool personal and governmental costs together. The US doesn't have a bad healthcare system by any means in terms of quality, but it's hardly the outlier that the staggering prices suggest it should be. In several of the metrics used by the OECD (source for the Wiki article), countries with public healthcare rate higher, including Canada which some would have you believe is a hellhole where we let people wait until they die in the streets because socialism is bad mkay. Not to mention the US's relatively low-ish life expectancy; that's hardly due to healthcare alone, but still.

So since the costs are so high yet do not translate into the treatment quality being as high, it seems you have a serious cost problem.

Albeit, slightly off-topic, I'm confused as to how Cameroon of all places has the best breast cancer survival results in the world.

[Sunseeker]

Because I live in the richest country on earth with the biggest military on the planet and the most nuclear weapons ever built.

So I think we can afford to cover our goddamed health.

Also: because a healthy society is a happier, more productive, more stable society.

[Captain N]

Albeit, slightly off-topic, I'm confused as to how Cameroon of all places has the best breast cancer survival results in the world.

It is one of the easiest to detect at the early stages. Maybe the women of Cameroon actually take their breast exam screenings seriously and their current (I noticed they're setting up for Universal Healthcare) health insurance policies have preventative women's health screenings as a Free Service. I know my wife gets all of her Women's Health Exams and such co-pay free on our insurance plan so I'm assuming Cameroon has something like that for its female citizens?