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

[Yelmurc]

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....

First people are people they won't go to the doctor until they have to anyway. Maybe the germaphobes who go to the doctor after every cough will go but they where going to go anyway. And Ebola has 3 cases in the US 3 years ago and none since. I don't think its much of a risk.

Yes and we are the only country in the world that uses that insurability industry to pay for more than 50% of the medical research in the world. Pick your poison. Because if you take the profit out of the industry you will lose progress. And not only will the US lose that progress the rest of the world loses it as well since they all benefit from it. I'm for progress in science and technology, how about you?

- - - Updated - - -

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

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

You go to court to lose your freedom.

[Wyrt]

You go to court to lose your freedom.

Yes, and? You have to go to court to lose your right to go to an airport or lose access to public transportation.

[Yelmurc]

Yes, and? You have to go to court to lose your right to go to an airport or lose access to public transportation.

I don't remember those people on the no fly list going to court.

Public transportation is harder to enforce since you don't use a ID to get a ticket or pass. While you can be removed from a subway or bus, or train, its hard to enforce a actual ban.

[Kolbjorn]

Yes and we are the only country in the world that uses that insurability industry to pay for more than 50% of the medical research in the world. Pick your poison. Because if you take the profit out of the industry you will lose progress. And not only will the US lose that progress the rest of the world loses it as well since they all benefit from it. I'm for progress in science and technology, how about you?

You're assuming that we (and other countries, if required) couldn't fund research. I mean, we already do... most of the actual revolutionary medicines come from university research paid for by various governments anyways, which the pharm guys then license to bring to market...

We're also the only country in the world that allows direct to consumer pharm marketing, so they're pretty good at manufacturing bogus demand as well.

Do you truly believe the list of PPIs that magically pop up out of nowhere right when the previous one fell out of patent are actually better? Hint: they're not, but they count as "R&D" spending. See also: most other chronic condition drugs.


Although, the biggest error in this position is that pharm is a major part of the problem. It's relevant, but it isn't the biggest issue. The biggest issue is that U.S. physicians prescribe both drugs and procedures at 50-200% higher rates than much of the rest of the developed world. Noting that our outcomes are the same (often slightly below) the rest of the world, most of those procedures are not necessary (unless you're going to claim Americans are 50-200% sicker than the rest of the world), but since the insurance industry will pay for them....

[Torto]

Everyone works hard and pays taxes in the USA. People who don't work in the USA tend to starve to death or live in a cardboard box and die there.

Wanna hear something weird.

In Australia you get welfare, medicare, rent assistance, government housing, the lot. It's basically a poor persons paradise where the working man covers you for everything. And yet, you still see people on the street living in cardboard boxes. Go figure.

[Eazy]

Doctors Without Borders. Entire organization right there. They are volunteers in everything they do. Ofc donations are welcome, kinda what they live off, but they are non-profit all the way.

Do you believe that they would be still doing what they're doing if they didn't have donations? Of course not.
And why they have donations? Because people have money.
You think it's fine that they're only doing what they're doing because OTHER people pay them? Instead of having a healthcare which is kinda balanced? That charity is even worse model.

[Deleted]

It's only a right if the people that pay for it decide that it is.

People yelling the hardest that something is a right are always the ones on the receiving end.

[Dangg]

It's only a right if the people that pay for it decide that it is.

People yelling the hardest that something is a right are always the ones on the receiving end.

Nope in this case they're just proper humans instead of wannabe forum villains. Anti-poor people 4chan tough guys or someone like Jaylock are surely paying the big tax dollars.

[Deleted]

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

Education: National or universal right?
Use buses: Does that include private ones?

[Lochton]

It SHOULD be a right, but some countries doesn't believe so, or they do not wish to assist the rest of the public. No need for names.. And I'm talking about healthcare paid by TAXES, all having the same.

[unbound]

Healthcare is a right.

Why do I think that? Mostly because I'm not an uncaring monster. Secondarily because if we approached it like a right, we'd have universal healthcare which would be far more effective than what we have now and actually cost substantially less.

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.

Wow. So there are no doctors in India, Israel, China, Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, United Kingdoms, Canada, Italy, Norway, Australia, etc, etc, etc?

/facepalm

Here is a conservative even stating multiple reasons that healthcare is a right - https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot.../#3c4cdabb4d66

There are other children born with disease and disability, like cystic fibrosis or juvenile diabetes. Unlike our chronic smoker, who has brought about his own health problems, these children face severe disadvantages in life, through no fault of their own. These children—and the many adults who endure similar misfortune—are worthy of our attention, and our charity.

By the classical liberal understanding of negative rights, that mother who bears a child with Down Syndrome has no right to my financial support. But surely, in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, we can afford to pool our resources to care for those who truly need our help. I, for one, would be glad to pay a portion of my earnings to fund high-quality health care for the truly needy.

But that is not what we do in America. We massively subsidize health care for wealthy seniors, through Medicare, and for wealthy workers, through a provision of the tax code called the employer tax exclusion. Those two programs alone cost us over $1 trillion a year, and do much to make American health care absurdly expensive. They also make it much harder to fund health care for the poor and the uninsured, by starving the government of resources it could direct to that purpose.

Did you know that in America—this alleged bastion of the free-market—the government spends more per capita on health care than all but three countries in the world? In 2010, U.S. public entities spent $3,967 per person on health care. That’s far more than Germany, Canada, France, Britain, and all of the other countries we conservatives normally think of as socialist dystopias.

This point is so compelling that it has become a standard talking point on the left. “Not only would a single-payer system provide health care to everyone,” they say, “but it would also reduce the deficit.” And they’re right.

[Spectral]

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.

I'd be entirely fine with that. I think arguing about "rights" clouds the matter and gives people an out that has nothing at all to do with whether it's a good idea. To go back to an earlier example - there isn't a "right" to roads, but arguing that we shouldn't build them at this point would seem downright ridiculous. Arguing about rights is only interesting philosophically - it doesn't lead to policy conclusions.

- - - Updated - - -

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

Where is this right to use an airport codified?

[Orlong]

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.

Not a valid comparison. First of all only people who want to own a car have to buy car insurance, and secondly, nobody gets tax money from the government (subsidies) to pay for their car isurance

[draykorinee]

I read the OP then I read the name and realised why it was so stupid. So only those who misuse bodies need healthcare? My colleague who got bird flu and died was a health freak.

[Daelak]

I should only have to pay money for my loved ones, why should I have to pay out to ppl I've never seen in my life?you tell me. You can't, makes no sense, insurances work just fine here tyvm.

Because you wouldn't be able to pay for your loved ones, hence the existence of both private health insurance and single payer systems all over the world.

[Tyrianth]

your first link is a study done in 1997....in fact i remember reading about that when i was in high school....

And? Being old doesn't make it incorrect. Do you have a more recent source to discredit it?

- - - Updated - - -

I should only have to pay money for my loved ones, why should I have to pay out to ppl I've never seen in my life?you tell me. You can't, makes no sense, insurances work just fine here tyvm.

Lol. I don't think you understand how insurance works. You just completely contradicted yourself.

"why should I have to pay out to ppl I've never seen in my life?you tell me. You can't, makes no sense"

Wtf do you think insurance is? You're opting to use a less efficient, more expense means of insuring yourself. Let me give you a hint: government insurance is the exact same as private insurance. Except it's cheaper for everyone and more efficient.

[triplesdsu]

It's a right in that people shouldnt be deprived access to it, however just because its a right, doesnt mean someone is obligated to provide it to you. In the US, you have the right to free speech, but you can be quite if you choose, you dont have to exercise it. You have a right to bear arms, but the government doesn't provide you with a gun. There is an argument that it is an investment like education, and preventative care would save consumers money in the long run versus emergency care which is more expensive. That's a side issue from whether it is a right or privilege though and more of economic argument.

[Tehshocka]

Throw me in the boat of its a right that everyone has access to purchase a service (healthcare). It is a privilege to have a lower deductible/higher QoS. This is still a service. It does not grow on trees.

[Scathbais]

You must be a lot of fun at parties. Which, I assume, are only ones where you have to pay for your share of everything, cause you wouldn't want to be a filthy moocher or anything.

In fact I am. And I always come with either a dish, a dessert, or a bottle in hand, don't you?

Your analogy is fallacious. In the case of the party, the host is willingly paying and inviting people to attend.
In the case of "free" health care (to use your analogy), you are claiming the right to attend my party even if you weren't invited. Furthermore, you are demanding that I have filet mignon and Veuve Clicquot on the menu, when all I am willing to pay for is hamburgers and beer.

[Deathquoi]

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.

The bolded part is you missing the point extremely hard. Hospitals are already providing medical care to uninsured people who are never going to be able to pay for it. That's part of the problem. It means that when a medical provider has to eat the cost of treating an uninsured patient, they compensate by charging more to everyone else. By providing an affordable way for everyone to be insured, we would be able to better control costs.