Regardless to where you are from is healthcare a human right? Universal Healthcare

[Greyvax]

Have you ever considered that it is exactly this sort of irresponsible thinking that has lead us to the situation where we are.

As you do not have insurance, whenever something unforseen happens to you (accidents, or just getting unlucky on the cancer lottery, or the next Chinese epidemic lottery) and you receive emergency care that afterwards you have zero chance of being able to pay off (due the lack of collective bargaining and regulatory power) the rest of us who do have insurance get shafted with your bill in the form of hidden fees and price hikes.

You are basically free loading off people who have insurance.

Your argument would only ever hold up if everyone without insurance would be left on the side of the road whenever they are in a car crash or something and only receive pay as you go care.

Don't think anyone sane would want to live in that world.

I have health insurance that I pay for through my work. In the past, when it wasn't offered to me i paid for a private insurance plan thru Cigna.

My question is, why would someone in my position support changing to a universal healthcare plan (which people from countries who utilize it, has lesser quality of care, and lengthy wait times for procedures).

[Lorgar Aurelian]

I know this site is basically a liberal echo chamber, but i don't see why someone who practices a healthy lifestyle and rarely uses their health insurance, would support universal healthcare which would incur a tax increase for them.

On a basic selfish level less people being destitute from not being able to pay there bills and less people dying from not being able to afford care would in theory help the work force thus the economy would be better likely being an increase to you and off setting any slight tax increase.

Unless your gonna have a massive unethical work force like say China making your work force more productive by keeping them alive/out of bankruptcy will be a boon in the long run.

[anveena]

No, I don't think it's a human right. I do however think a single payer healthcare system would be much better than our current one in the United States.

[I Push Buttons]

I support slowly transitioning to single payer, starting with a public option and allowing people to buy into medicaid/medicare.

I don't think healthcare should be a right, however, anymore than I think access to food, or clothes, or housing, etc., should be a right. People who need those things and can't acquire them on their own should be helped, but its a whole other can of worms entirely, in my opinion, to deem access to those things a right.

[Mistame]

Kind of like the "right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Catchy phrase there, eh?

You do realize that those are negative rights, right?

[derpkitteh]

i think that it should be a basic function of advanced human society. i do think we should get some kind of "free" healthcare.

but, as it currently relies on the work of another human, it is not a human right.

now, once we get robots that can fix us up as good as, or better, than a human doctor, it will be a human right.

[Endus]

My question is, why would someone in my position support changing to a universal healthcare plan (which people from countries who utilize it, has lesser quality of care, and lengthy wait times for procedures).

Speaking as someone from such a country, you're swallowing someone else's propaganda and not bothering to fact-check it, because Canadian healthcare is generally on par with American in terms of quality of care, and the only increase in wait times is for non-urgent matters. The USA gets shorter lines because it flat-out kicks people out of the line, and denies them access to that care. That's not an improvement.

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/...es/#item-start

[kail]

It is a right atm. Every one can get the care they need. The issue has nothing to do with rights, the issue is simply costs. We left it to free market mode and the profits became a large factor as to why a simple emergency visit could cost someone thousands.

[d00mGuArD]

What you are basically asking is if I support paying for the healthcare of others in need through my taxes.
The short answer is yes. I do. (I already am, since I am from EU)

The problem is taxes are already too high, and should be reduced.
So the long answer is "yes I do, but they should really take money from useless government spending and reduce my taxes"

[Zan15]

I support the right to access affordable health insurance and treatment. I am not sure exactly how that can be done however. But I am not in support of government take over of health care.

Says the man on govt health insurance/healthcare....two of them I believe.....

I mean the VA is both govt insurance and govt run healthcare.

but...everyone should not have those same benefits. /s

Guys lets just spit off fox/RW talking points and ignore the fact the govt even under medicare for all will not "take over healthcare" no more than Medicare today hasn't. Where in the world is any plan taking over health care.

of course there will be no response because no one who ever says "take over of healthcare by the govt" ever actually responds after quoting those hit and run comments

- - - Updated - - -

I have health insurance that I pay for through my work. In the past, when it wasn't offered to me i paid for a private insurance plan thru Cigna.

My question is, why would someone in my position support changing to a universal healthcare plan (which people from countries who utilize it, has lesser quality of care, and lengthy wait times for procedures).

Because it doesn't have lesser quality of care and lengthy wait times...most of those are a myth or overexaggerated.
As if there are no wait times in the US, laughable at best.

How about the fact the US has the biggest wait time of all, NOT being able to get medical services because you have no insurance or no means of paying for it. Oh wait what do you mean that is not included in wait time statistics vs a country like Canada where there is never a wait time because you have no insurance.....



Also based on multiple multiple actual studies of the plans, you would end up saving a lot of money...so would the vast vast majority of people.

- - - Updated - - -

I think healthcare should be something every developed nation should strive for. I don't think people should be destitute because they lost life lottery. I will say though some health problems brought on by morbid obesity and smoking people should have to dish out some cost.

Agreed, no way should there be single tier pricing.
Smoking should be 1.5x the cost. Drinking, weight issues, etc etc.

I would also include age and gender for as much as people will bitch about it facts are being a female under the normal lifetime expectancies will be more expensive than a man just because of maternity.

- - - Updated - - -

I know this site is basically a liberal echo chamber, but i don't see why someone who practices a healthy lifestyle and rarely uses their health insurance, would support universal healthcare which would incur a tax increase for them.

you left something out....

Would incur a tax increase for them, but would eliminate their premiums and cost sharing (deductibles/etc), thus saving them money.

If your taxes go up by 10,000 a year but you no longer have to pay 1500 a month for insurance....hmmmm "maff are hards."


Also understanding insurance would be helpful. You should read about it. How insurance is a hedge against future claims.

If they charged you next to nothing now, say 200 dollars per month for insurance because you are healthy and rarely use healthcare then you would...…
Be charged 20,000 per month for insurance when you finally get sick.

Instead insurance charges you 500 dollars a month while you are young and healthy in order to hedge future cost.

Just like if they waited till a woman got pregnant to charge for maternity coverage your premiums for that year would be about 40-200k depending on the type of pregnancy and they would have to charge you extreme premiums for multiple years after to cover the cost. Instead you spread that total cost over 40-50-60 years and pay a much lower premium each year.

[Mihalik]

I have health insurance that I pay for through my work. In the past, when it wasn't offered to me i paid for a private insurance plan thru Cigna.

My question is, why would someone in my position support changing to a universal healthcare plan (which people from countries who utilize it, has lesser quality of care, and lengthy wait times for procedures).

Because your coverage is not guaranteed to cover all your needs.

Because your coverage is not guaranteed if you lose your job, if the economy crashes due to matters out of your control and you end up in economic straights or just if the insurance company deems that you cost too much and finds a legal loophole to drop you.

Because you would pay less according to pretty much every study not done by an insurance company.

And this is perhaps the most important part.

Because when compared to developed economies the quality of care you receive is lower, the outcomes are worse and often the wait times are longer, while you pay double or more for lower quality care. Statistically.

[Mistame]

Says the man on govt health insurance/healthcare....two of them I believe.....

Benefits they earned from serving.

I mean the VA is both govt insurance and govt run healthcare.

And run poorly.

[RaoBurning]

I know this site is basically a liberal echo chamber, but i don't see why someone who practices a healthy lifestyle and rarely uses their health insurance, would support universal healthcare which would incur a tax increase for them.

Because even those healthy people occasionally get hit by cars and break both arms, some ribs, and a leg. Even with insurance, those bills can be big shiny bullshit. That's not a hypothetical, either, it just happened to one of my coworkers. She was out riding her bike with some friends, you know being healthy and shit, when some cunt ran a red light and plowed into her group.

Also because most people generally aren't sociopaths and when properly disabused of the US's decades long propaganda campaign against "socialism*" they can usually see "hey maybe not having the constant fear of medical bankruptcy and increased access to preventative care" are good things for everybody."

*Does not usually refer to actual socialism

[Captain N]

Where I'm from it's not considered a human right. I believe it to be one though. Nobody should be forced to die from illness just because they can't afford 6 figure hospital bills.

It's not even the six figure hospital bills. It's the small add-ons to even a visit to the family doctor. As I'm in transition between jobs (same field but different Company) I had to subject myself to all the applicable physicals and tests to make sure I can perform the job. Since my previous Company decided to shrink the time a person has insurance while laid off from 4 months to 2 months I had to pay for this all out of pocket. For the 2 doctor visits and all of the applicable tests it came to $1200. Now I'll be reimbursed by the new company once I start but for an average family without insurance that's a fairly brutal hit.

[Byleth]

All I know is that where I'm from, if I fell and broke my arm a few mins from now, I would have an ambulance pick me up, and I'd be taken to hospital where I'd get treated, and none of this would cost me a cent.

Sure, I pay higher taxes for the privilege of this care, but the peace of mind in the long run is totally worth it.

[Jonnusthegreat]

No, but I believe it should be fairer as a system, and not profitable. Its profitability is a detriment to human society.

[Captain N]

I was specifically speaking about life threatening illnesses that run up 6+ figure hospital bills... even with insurance.

I don't disagree with you. That kind of cost is insane and shouldn't be a thing if you have insurance. I know my wife has mentioned a few times that some of her oncology patients have had to stop coming to get their chemotherapy because their insurance wouldn't cover beyond a certain number of treatments.

[Shadowferal]

hmf...between pharms and the health insurance companies, that's over $100 billion a year. And that's not including hospitals and doctors' fees.

[Very Tired]

Can we stop saying "X is a human right" as a different way to say "X would be really kewl to have!"

Rights are social constructs defined by governing bodies of the countries each individual people live in. There is no governing body for the entire human race that has the authority and enforcement to enact health for every single person on the planet. And there likely never will be in our lifetimes. Even the US has enough problems giving it to their own citizens.

You could argue if healthcare should be something all countries should strive to provide their citizens, which would have some merit to it. But saying it's a human right is something else entirely.

[Spectral]

Can we stop saying "X is a human right" as a different way to say "X would be really kewl to have!"

Rights are social constructs defined by governing bodies of the countries each individual people live in. There is no governing body for the entire human race that has the authority and enforcement to enact health for every single person on the planet. And there likely never will be in our lifetimes. Even the US has enough problems giving it to their own citizens.

You could argue if healthcare should be something all countries should strive to provide their citizens, which would have some merit to it. But saying it's a human right is something else entirely.

This is a crucial point - if something is a "right" and someone is obligated to provide it, who's on the hook if it's not provided? If a man in Mali isn't receiving the appropriate level of medical care for a condition he has, who exactly is responsible for providing that care? If it's a right, presumably someone is responsible, someone must be held accountable for not providing what rightfully belongs to that man. Is it the local government? Probably not, they likely aren't in a position to do that. Their federal government? Probably about the same. Perhaps the "international community" is at fault and thus needs to provide recompense for denying the man his rights. The concept doesn't even really make sense.

If all we mean is "basic healthcare is a thing we want all humans to have access to and we should take steps to further that goal", we should say it plainly.