Health Care Is Not A Right"

[Fashion Lad!]

Why you believe society has no responsibilities to each other as a whole is beyond me. Again, your whole "It's my money, don't use it to benefit others" stance completely baffles me.

The United States is the most generous nation in the world, hands down. Our government is grossly inefficient. Disgustingly bought out by special interest groups.

I'm not saying don't benefit others. I'm really not. I'm addressing the first and foremost issue at hand. Not only would a single payer health care system in the United States be unconstitutional, it'd be too damn expensive.

This is where I would be willing to let my money do more, and it'd actually be by doing less. Until government stops giving money to ACORN. Giving money to different religions and churches. As a matter of fact, they can stop giving money to the Boy Scouts of America. Any type of special interest group, the government needs to cut ties with immediately.

Why should they have to do this, that would cut down on a lot of taxes and government waste. When the government can operate on a nominal federal income tax for everyone. I mean absolutely nominal. Some people pay nearly 40% just to the Federal government and I don't think that's fair. Until the government can operate efficiently and to the point where more people can keep their own money (which, that benefits anyone no matter how you slice) I will be against social programs such as universal health care.

People don't want to help themselves. People don't want to vote out these politicians that spend our money like it's going out of style. People voted for Obama because he promised them the moon and the stars but someone has to pay for it. Right now, it's looking like when I'm 70, my income tax would have to be nearly 75% to keep the government going. When my kids are older, the person who is speaking about the $34 trillion problem said their tax rate could be nearly 90%.

So, it's not about not helping people. In the long run, I do think more people can be helped if the government does less.

[radiocerk]

Governmentally supplied health care is not a right, at least not according to the US Constitution. In fact, according to that document, the federal government is involved in a lot of things that are none of its business. The duties and responsibilities of the federal government are enumerated in the Constitution with everything remaining being the jurisdiction of the states.

Now that I have remember my high school government class, I have my doubts about a singer payor system, mostly due to my working in a pharmacy. Anyone who thinks Medicare works perfectly should ask someone in the middle of the "donut hole", they'd hear a very different tale. The VA system works, but with a minimal of personal choice. Don't want to be on Prozac, and would like to try one of the similar newer drugs? Tough, Prozac's cheaper, so that's what you get.

There's a fine line between necessary treatment, and money-wasting. At a giant government level, you're bound to get a rationing effect, if only because it's a silly idea for testing for something you probably don't have, or aggressive treating a condition with some expensive technique that rarely has serious side effects, or is only occasionally fatal.

Why treat someone over 80 for prostate cancer when old age will likely kill them first. Do you give a hip replacement to the little old lady who hardly walks around anyway? Do you give the liver transplant to the heavy drinker when he's just going to screw it up again? Where is the line drawn?

The waiting list for some procedures is already years deep, and that's with only some people being able to pay for them.

I agree that health care needs to improve in the US, and that some countries government run systems work, and work well. I'm just not certain if I trust my government not to screw it up. I mean, look what they've done with education....

[Fashion Lad!]

There's a fine line between necessary treatment, and money-wasting. At a giant government level, you're bound to get a rationing effect, if only because it's a silly idea for testing for something you probably don't have, or aggressive treating a condition with some expensive technique that rarely has serious side effects, or is only occasionally fatal.

Why treat someone over 80 for prostate cancer when old age will likely kill them first. Do you give a hip replacement to the little old lady who hardly walks around anyway? Do you give the liver transplant to the heavy drinker when he's just going to screw it up again? Where is the line drawn?

I was thinking about this while taking a shower. (It's quiet time) I work out (well, try to. I'm going on 4 months with an ankle injury that has kept me sidelined) and I also eat healthy. I have health insurance, but it's one of those things I never want to use. If you need to use your health insurance, it sucks because there's something wrong with you.

Then I see people who smoke, eat McDonald's more than a few times a week, they don't exercise and just generally make poor decisions when it comes to their health. If we have a single payer option, we'd all be relatively be paying the same amount. It'd be in accordance with our income, I'd assume. Why should I pay the same amount as someone who doesn't take care of them-self when they're more than likely going to drain more money out of the system from use? I know insurance companies do this today. But, my insurance company looks at your health and tries to bill you accordingly.

[Pedersen]

Again, your whole "It's my money, don't use it to benefit others" stance completely baffles me.

Actually, this one I think I might be able to explain a little bit. First, even though the term used is money, it's not actually so much money as it is time. Like it or not, time literally equals money in quite a few aspects of life. How does one get money? By spending time doing work.

As a result, it's not so much "It's my money, don't use it to benefit others" is really closer to "I spend my time trying to improve my quality of life somewhat, and now I'm hearing about people wanting to forcibly take away the benefit I gained from that time to give to someone else. What the fuck?"

I think that's the part that gets to people the most: The element of forcible removal of assets they deem personally valuable.

Note that, right now, I'm torn on the whole federal healthcare issue. But maybe I can help clear up the mentality a bit, at least.

[AFPheonix]

Governmentally supplied health care is not a right, at least not according to the US Constitution. In fact, according to that document, the federal government is involved in a lot of things that are none of its business. The duties and responsibilities of the federal government are enumerated in the Constitution with everything remaining being the jurisdiction of the states.

Now that I have remember my high school government class, I have my doubts about a singer payor system, mostly due to my working in a pharmacy. Anyone who thinks Medicare works perfectly should ask someone in the middle of the "donut hole", they'd hear a very different tale. The VA system works, but with a minimal of personal choice. Don't want to be on Prozac, and would like to try one of the similar newer drugs? Tough, Prozac's cheaper, so that's what you get.

There's a fine line between necessary treatment, and money-wasting. At a giant government level, you're bound to get a rationing effect, if only because it's a silly idea for testing for something you probably don't have, or aggressive treating a condition with some expensive technique that rarely has serious side effects, or is only occasionally fatal.

Why treat someone over 80 for prostate cancer when old age will likely kill them first. Do you give a hip replacement to the little old lady who hardly walks around anyway? Do you give the liver transplant to the heavy drinker when he's just going to screw it up again? Where is the line drawn?

The waiting list for some procedures is already years deep, and that's with only some people being able to pay for them.

I agree that health care needs to improve in the US, and that some countries government run systems work, and work well. I'm just not certain if I trust my government not to screw it up. I mean, look what they've done with education....

Look what they've done with mail. It's many times more efficient than any private company.
Look what they've done with national parks. I've been to several this week in my own state, I can say pretty well that no private company could keep them as nice, clean, cheap and welcoming as a private company.

If you're going to use Medicare as an argument against single payer, then don't use Medicare Part D. That is separate from A and B as you probably know if you're in a pharmacy. You also know that it's not proctored by the government, but by multitudes of private companies, I can think of at least 20 in my area alone.
Part D is generally regarded as a failure because it's bloated, it's expensive, and the Republican Congress that passed it didn't bother to take this golden opportunity to be able to negotiate with drug companies for cheaper prices and pretty much made the whole plan a giveaway to insurance companies at the expense of the elderly. People with A and B are generally the happiest with their health care. Let's provide that same chance for satisfaction to all people.

Further, when you say "some" countries have successful universal plans for their citizens, make that "every other first world nation", plus Afghanistan and Iraq. The latter two have coverage on our dime. We're willing to provide for their people but not for ourselves? Classy.
Every other first world nation has these sorts of plans, and they manage to pay so much less and get so much more than we do. Why are we denying ourselves savings? It's absolutely mind-boggling to me.

[Nyoibo]

Why you believe society has no responsibilities to each other as a whole is beyond me. Again, your whole "It's my money, don't use it to benefit others" stance completely baffles me.

I will waste neither time nor effort nor money to help someone else, unless they've tried to help themselves, nothing in this life is free, you have to earn it.

The United States is the most generous nation in the world, hands down.

Actually it really isn't, it's a fair way down the list, about equal with Australia.

[BroomJockey]

I will waste neither time nor effort nor money to help someone else, unless they've tried to help themselves, nothing in this life is free, you have to earn it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjami...udy_.281899.29

Read that. You might find it interesting. Things haven't changed that much, in that people still for the most part cannot simply remove themselves from poverty without help. So as a caring human who doesn't want to see others suffer needlessly, I trust the government to oversee some redistribution, with safeguards in place to prevent excessive abuse of the system, and hopefully move the people to the point where they don't need help. This includes paying for health care such that a major illness doesn't bankrupt an entire family.

[Nyoibo]

I can understand health care sending people under the poverty line in the US, it's freaking ridiculous in cost.

I do still stand by the comment that "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer because they keep doing what got them there in the first place" to some extent.

[Slytovhand]

Coming in late, as usual...

Firstly - Smiley.. well played!!!!!

Secondly, Fashionlad.. long time and all! Welcome back!

Thirdly, I don't recall anywhere in the OP of the person making the statement pertaining solely to the US. It may (or may not) have been implicit in the argument, but it certainly wasn't made explicit.

Thus... let's look at the concept of 'rights' (as has been done to death on other threads....).

Do we have any rights? Even these so called 'Basic Human Rights'... some say yes, some say no (from a philosophical point of view). Are you going to argue that a person has a right merely because 1 country says it in a piece of paper?? That seems a bit tough to me. After all, that can change (as it has). It can also be mis-intrepreted (or re-interpreted, depending on the argument).

You may be interested to know that Australia is now the only western country to not have a bill of rights of any sort. Last time I looked, we're doing pretty damn well! We have Medicare (whic, while not perfect, is still pretty damn good... I think a few of us have posted here about it).

How's the UN's Charter on Human Rights in this argument???

The argument against because it's the unhealthy ones who benefit at the expense of the healthier people ( eg smokers)... that's why there's high taxes on cigarettes. It would make more sense to have tax breaks for things like gym memberships and sporting fees. Sure, they may not get used, but still... it's a start!

[Fashion Lad!]

Secondly, Fashionlad.. long time and all! Welcome back!

Thirdly, I don't recall anywhere in the OP of the person making the statement pertaining solely to the US. It may (or may not) have been implicit in the argument, but it certainly wasn't made explicit.

Thank you!!

And I know the OP wasn't just making a statement solely about the US, but I can't imagine commenting on other countries. One part of me wants to say that health care is a right because I honestly do think everyone should have it, but at the same time, I know it's not a right. It's a need. I'm looking at primarily at a constitutional standpoint. I argue against a single payer system because I do feel it'd do more harm than good.

Actually it really isn't, it's a fair way down the list, about equal with Australia.

Here's a good site for you to put it all into prospective.

[Nyoibo]

Per capita the US is one of the worst, Now, I won't complain, because they do give a crap load, but $100 from Bill Gates Vs $100 from Joe Schmo off the street, which is more generous?

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/25/41724314.pdf

[Fashion Lad!]

If you read the article entirely, it says that the per-captia is based on government spending. The largest amount of private donations and time donated is by the US citizens by a landslide.

[Slytovhand]

Hmmm... well, as a quick comparison, there are about 280 million US citizens, and only 20 million Australian. By that bit of math, US spending should be 10 times Australia's...

Also, and a big angst of mine, a lot of 'funding' is in the form of kickbacks.. ie, we'll give you this, but only if you give us that back later. Often in the form of bad debt arrangements and trade (naturally, completely to the detriment of the nation that is in need).

I donate to MSF - which has no political connections, and just gets in, does what's needed, and (often) stays a lot longer than other agencies. They often get in before any other aid agencies do, as well... that's my type of aid!!!

[Nyoibo]

A lot of aid is usually in the form of debt relief rather than actual aid too.

[Flyndaran]

I think it is a human right.
Modern society creates many problems that don't exist in some mythical natural state of mankind, so why shouldn't it create a few benefits not previously known?