Do People have a right to good health?

I think a lot of people's political standpoint comes down to the belief that humans have a right to have good health. IMO many people are democrats because it is the only party that is pushing for mandatory health care for all people.

To get a better idea where the rest of you are coming from, I'd like to know if you think that people have a "right" to health care. I'd also like to know why you feel that way.

BTW, while thinking about this, I'm reminded of that guy, I forget his name, but everyone who has been to college knows who I'm talking about. Anyway, the guy was against government aid and thought that each class was for it's own. I wonder if that is ultimately why people fight for healthcare. If the stuff about "for the good of humanity" is bullshit, and they are fighting for it because they want to force someone else to help insure their survival and the survival of their family/community. I may be full of shit though, it was just a random thought.

Anyway, do you think people have a right to others insuring their good health? Why, or why not?

Well we provide emergency services anyway. This is pretty expensive in a world where its usually cheaper to treat a problem before it becomes major problem. So to provide an ethical service like saving a human's life while being fiscally responsible we should provide basic care as well as emergency care.

Or we could just turn away anyone who cannot pay. Thats also fiscally responsible.

Because in the end, it comes to ethics vs fiscal responsiblity. Is it worth the public's tax dollars to provide for the public health? I think so. And aparently most societies do too, otherwise governments wouldn't provide for anything other than the defense of borders and its own propigation of power.

What do people really have the right to have? Nothing. That would be a really shitty world to live in, though (for those that get the worst of it, anyway).

I think some minimum level of health care maitained by society would be a good thing for all involved, but I have no idea what or where that line would be. However, if someone else is dumb enough to pay for a higher standard of living for me, more power to them.

-Dippy

People have every right to take care of themselves.
If they fail to do so, fuck 'em.

The only time the gov't should step in is in the case of accidents or violence.

I guess diseases and whatnot should be covered to, come to think of it.

I just don't like the idea of paying to take care of all the junkies, fatties, and morons that don't look after themselves.

My arguement is this. We've got an ethical responsibility as a society to look after our weakest. That includes junkies fatties and morons. But in the end that costs money, which means a fiscal responsibility.

If we follow our ethical responsibility and provide life saving care for these people then it costs money. Lots of money, and in the end it is fiscally responsible to provide preventitive/regular care for them so that problems care be addressed earily and taken care while it is signifigantly cheaper.

Remember fatties, junkies and morons do all the shitty jobs no one wants. Society needs them anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarsKitten

My arguement is this. We've got an ethical responsibility as a society to look after our weakest.

---

why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarsKitten

If we follow our ethical responsibility and provide life saving care for these people then it costs money. Lots of money, and in the end it is fiscally responsible to provide preventitive/regular care for them so that problems care be addressed earily and taken care while it is signifigantly cheaper.

---

I don't know if it would really play out like that. People are more wasteful when it isn't their money. You'd have more people going to the doctor and more people getting things done that they really don't need if it wasn't them paying for it. I imagine it would cost about the same in the end, if not more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarsKitten

Remember fatties, junkies and morons do all the shitty jobs no one wants. Society needs them anyway.

---

Like run for political offices?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarsKitten

We've got an ethical responsibility as a society to look after our weakest.

---

But don't you think that people have a responsibility to look after themselves as best they can?

I would argue that it's their greatest responsibility, and if they neglect that responsibility, then they can deal with the consequences.

Of course, compassion and kindness compels us to help those who truly can't care for themselves, and I wouldn't want that to change.

Well if we're no responsibility to care for society's weakest why both providing things like emergency services. Those who are well off can easily get access to emergency services.

But I'm sure no one here ever benifited from an ambulence trip to the emergency room.

I think I like this arguement of no responsibility to care for society's health, means anyone who wrecks on the highway doesn't require an ambulence, just a wrecker with a shovel to clear the mess. Serves em right for slowing me down (^-^). Does that sound right?

There's a big difference between caring for someone unlucky enough to get in a car crash, and giving some bloated pig who's on his fifth heart attack a transplant because he doesn't want to stop eating junk food and smoking and sitting on his ass all day.

Personal responsibility needs to be a factor.

I guess most people don't mind helping others when they really really really need it. But they also don't give two shits about someone who is kind of having a bad day.

It's like the difference between helping someone with a cold, and someone who got shot. The guy who got shot really needs your help.

I also think the choice to help plays a big part in this discussion. People really place a lot of value on the "choice". People want to chose to help or damn each other.

I dont think its a right. But if it can be provided at reasonable cost, fairly, without excessive and huge taxes on anyone (yes, this includes the "rich tax" panacea that liberal blogs love) then yes, it should be provided. But I think there's a flip side, the government shouldnt pay for diseases caused by cigarette/drug/acohol abuse, overeating, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

the government shouldnt pay for diseases caused by cigarette/drug/acohol abuse, overeating, etc.

---

that is just about all of them. This country would probably have maybe 1/2 the doctors it has right now if people would just stop doing those 4 things. Smoking alone destroys your ability to fend off the shit that makes you sick.

Yeah kedawa, but who is going to make that judgement call and when? Should we criminally charge someone with being a "Public Burden" after their first or second heart attack?

But I'll work with yer bloated pig example. I say we should continue to treat the guy, even if he is a public burden. But we already prioritize transplants and shit to people who're most likely to benifit the most from it since human organs fit for transplant are rare.

Even if we deny the guy care, he'll end up right back in the emergency room sooner or later; unless we're going to setup a system to deny care to certain people. That would probally work in small towns but in big cities there's a good chance a few people every year would be wrongly denied care.

The question is, do you do trust government enough to allow it to selectively deny care?

Quote:

---

The question is, do you do trust government enough to allow it to selectively deny care?

---

I dont really trust the government enough to administer healthcare or, really, do much of anything. Its way too big and bloated, cut it down and give us the money we earn. The average person spends 1.5-2.5 days per week working for the government. That is disgusting.

Isn't something like 40% of every buck you earn?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronPlant

Isn't something like 40% of every buck you earn?

---

Yea, but in some states with high local/state tax, you can easily be sending more than 51% of your cash to the powers that be.

You pay taxes and don't get a huge tax refund every year? Your accountants must suck, or you're too rich to avoid them.

Fuck no wonder yall don't want socialized medicine, yall are fucking loaded.

Really tho, I trust the government enough to pay the bill that the doctors send them for care. If nothing else government is good at moving money around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarsKitten

Yeah kedawa, but who is going to make that judgement call and when? Should we criminally charge someone with being a "Public Burden" after their first or second heart attack?

But I'll work with yer bloated pig example. I say we should continue to treat the guy, even if he is a public burden. But we already prioritize transplants and shit to people who're most likely to benifit the most from it since human organs fit for transplant are rare.

Even if we deny the guy care, he'll end up right back in the emergency room sooner or later; unless we're going to setup a system to deny care to certain people. That would probally work in small towns but in big cities there's a good chance a few people every year would be wrongly denied care.

The question is, do you do trust government enough to allow it to selectively deny care?

---

If everyone had a family physician, who knew their medical history well enough to determine whether the person is simply negligent and dependant upon the system, or just an unfortunate victim of circumstance, then I think the problem would be manageable.

Hence why I said it would work in small towns kedawa.

Even with the best account on earth you're still gonna be sending 15-25% of your salary to the federal government, not to mention state taxes, sales tax, gasoline taxes, airplane taxes, capital gains taxes, excise taxes, inheritance tax, social security tax, property tax, energy tax, phone tax, payroll/unemployment tax, car registration tax, state public college tax (tuition & fees = tax), luxury taxes, hunting registration tax, and so forth.

Quote:

---

If nothing else government is good at moving money around.

---

They're good at moving money around, but not at being efficient while doing so or keeping track of it. Corruption would be rampant and costs would rise out of control. Look up "TennCare" on Wikipedia and Google.

It shouldnt be surprising that the most efficient agency in the government is the IRS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

They're good at moving money around, but not at being efficient while doing so or keeping track of it. Corruption would be rampant and costs would rise out of control. Look up "TennCare" on Wikipedia and Google.

---

There's also the Canadian health care system, which doesn't impoverish people with medical debts. Realistically it can go both ways. So why not go for a transparent system.

But I think the solution would be a work in progress like the way American democracy is. We've changed the system which we elect our reps a dozen times since the founding to deal with issues of trust, corruption and representation, why not healthcare. Because the current system sure isn't ethical nor fiscally responsible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarsKitten

Really tho, I trust the government enough to pay the bill that the doctors send them for care. If nothing else government is good at moving money around.

---

actually no, the gov sucks at paying doctors. If I had a dollor for everytime I've had to hear a long bitch fest about just how bad the government sucks at paying what it owes my Dad, I'd be a very rich man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarsKitten

There's also the Canadian health care system, which doesn't impoverish people with medical debts. Realistically it can go both ways. So why not go for a transparent system.

---

Canada is better at managing it's money. That or they don't waste any on trying to be good at anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Look up "TennCare" on Wikipedia and Google.

It shouldnt be surprising that the most efficient agency in the government is the IRS.

---

As a Tennessean, I can attest that TennCare has had a lot of problems and most of them stem from corruption. In fact, one of the biggest problems I always heard of with TennCare was that people were defrauding it, people who weren't even from TN. However, it's still a good program in principle and if utilized properly it could be a real benefit. That's what we're moving towards now with Governor Bredesen's help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronPlant

Canada is better at managing it's money. That or they don't waste any on trying to be good at anything.

---

STFU.
We lead the world in being next to the U.S.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

As a Tennessean, I can attest that TennCare has had a lot of problems and most of them stem from corruption. In fact, one of the biggest problems I always heard of with TennCare was that people were defrauding it, people who weren't even from TN. However, it's still a good program in principle and if utilized properly it could be a real benefit. That's what we're moving towards now with Governor Bredesen's help.

---

Well like I said if the government could manage healthcare efficiently I encourage it. But there's no indication they could do it - after all they cant manage ANYTHING efficiently (except for tax collection, that is), why would they start with healthcare? TennCare is proof of this reality. I could easily imagine yet another program for politicans to bloat and overspend on to gain votes. The government cant manage this shit properly and I dont want them raising my taxes so they could get cash for yet another inefficient, failed project.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Well like I said if the government could manage healthcare efficiently I encourage it. But there's no indication they could do it - after all they cant manage ANYTHING efficiently (except for tax collection, that is), why would they start with healthcare? TennCare is proof of this reality. I could easily imagine yet another program for politicans to bloat and overspend on to gain votes. The government cant manage this shit properly and I dont want them raising my taxes so they could get cash for yet another inefficient, failed project.

---

Right, but what I'm trying to say is that TennCare is still salvagable. If they can actually reform it now, learn from the mistakes that made it a money pit and correct them, then perhaps it could serve as a good model for other states and maybe, someday, a national system. That's a remote possibility, but the point is that programs like this aren't completely unworkable and shouldn't just be abandoned. I understand your pessimism on the subject, you have good reason to feel that way, but I for one think the benefits of a working system far outweight the pitfalls of trying and failing. Maybe that's just me though.

If it's not in the Bill of Rights, people don't have it. Health is not covered under "pursuit of happiness" either. Chick-fil-A sandwiches might be though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

If it's not in the Bill of Rights, people don't have it. Health is not covered under "pursuit of happiness" either. Chick-fil-A sandwiches might be though.

---

More than any other part of the Constitution the Bill of Rights need to be amended, but it's an impossiblity because for every one thing you manage to get added, you'll end up losing two things or adding things that are ridiculous (like defining marriage, a religious institution, as only between a man and a woman). Ah well, I guess we should just be happy with the rights we have.

By the way, though, Chick-fil-A is nasty. They have without a doubt some of the greasiest food known to man.

Ya Canada's quite good at letting our government mismanage money, we just happen to not spend anything on defence so we still avoid deficits. Canadian health care isnt doin so hot right now either.

And health might not be covered under the pursuit of happiness, but it probably does fall under life and liberty.

I'm a bit biased on the subject but I think a general health care system for the public would be a good idea, or at least a certain amount of healthcare in exigent circumstances.

My uncle currently has terminal cancer (colon) and was diagnosed around spring of last year.Apparently, he had medical insurance but happened to apply for it a couple of months before he was diagnosed with the cancer. He's not the kind of person who would scam the system, he just finally had the extra funds to put towards it and did. Well, long story short the insurance company wont pay for his medical bills as they think he had signs of symptoms beforehand or something, and his bills have already racked into the $100,000 area. My other aunt is paying for lawyers to sue the insurance company, but all of that is tied in court , meanwhile the hospital has quit giving my uncle chemotherapy/radiation and has basically kicked him out on his behind which = death sentence. He was remarried to someone ( a couple of years ago, really sweet lady compared to the complete bitch of a wife he had before) who has 3 kids, and 2 of HIS own 3 kids,from his previous marriage are just starting college, so he has bills to pay, a family to feed, and has to still work for a living while vomiting his guts up thanks to chemo.
I think in certain situations like these the government should step in and help out. My uncle is a good hard-working guy and shouldnt have to just roll-over and die because he cant pay for expensive treatments,and wasnt smart enough to handle college and get a decent job.

What can he do in a situation like this? I want to find a means to help him but
I'm just not sure what he can do. I know that he is a mormon and has tithed in his church,sent his son on missions,been on missions himself, and has given a lot of time to his religion - yet the church that kicked him out to die was ,, "surprise,surprise" a Mormon church. Maybe he can appeal to their generous side and get them to readmit him due to all he has given the church, but I seriously doubt it......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

If it's not in the Bill of Rights, people don't have it. Health is not covered under "pursuit of happiness" either. Chick-fil-A sandwiches might be though.

---

Well the constitution doesn't say anything about alot of things. No where does it say we have to provide soldiers with pensions or healthcare. Some parts we do are just good business, others are a part of ethical governence. But I suppose ethical governence means nothing these days.

Overall, I do believe people have a right to have a basic standard of health, given that huge corporations lay waste to our environment and put chemicals in our water, food, and air which severely limit our lifespan without health care. They need to give back.
ON THE OTHER HAND....
I feel people need to stand up in this country and take some goddamn responsibility for their actions. Gorging oneself on fast food, or laying around and getting fat, or smoking two packs a day should not be covered. HOWEVER, treatment or the opportunity to reverse these behaviors ought ot be covered, like a pair of running shoes or something.
Perhaps instituting mandatory "Exercise at Work" programs like I've heard about in Japan, similar to what we had in grade school, would help do the trick. I don't know the answer, but that seems like a decent start.

So, in a way, yes, everyone deserves to have illnesses and defects detected beforehand, and treated if they suddenly raise their ugly head. On the other hand, there's also no need to have it turn into the welfare system that Britain's Health System has fallen into, either.

That's me two cents, matey!

So we all agree that people are too fucking stupid to take care of themselves, health care is important to all Americans, and a visit to a "specialist" costs way too damn much.

Maybe like my teacher's health insurance (which is massively overpriced because the state pays almost all of it) the medical industry counts on people having insurance that they can overcharge knowing that they'll get enough money back from the insurance companies to cover the folks who can't pay.

Like gasoline companies that make BILLIONS of dollars while we spend half our check for fuel - someone is FUUTA and we need to figure out who it is and how to stop it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jetman

What can he do in a situation like this? I want to find a means to help him but I'm just not sure what he can do. I know that he is a mormon and has tithed in his church,sent his son on missions,been on missions himself, and has given a lot of time to his religion - yet the church that kicked him out to die was ,, "surprise,surprise" a Mormon church. Maybe he can appeal to their generous side and get them to readmit him due to all he has given the church, but I seriously doubt it......

---

wtf, why did they kick him out?

I don't think some of you understand the orginal question. I'm not asking about the politics that are part of healthcare. I'm asking, do you have a right, to make others take care of you?

Quote:

---

I'm asking, do you have a right, to make others take care of you?

---

sure.

Quote:

---

Do People have a right to good health?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rezo

sure.

---

http://www.the-nextlevel.com/board/i...ine=1119746041

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronPlant

wtf, why did they kick him out?

---

He just doesnt have the money/means to pay his medical bills. He really should have looked into some insurance earlier, and it sucks that the place he works for doesnt provide any means of help medically for him, but he is pretty much screwed. I was talking with my dad about it the other night, and we couldnt believe there wasnt some sort of welfare hospital or something that he could get into for SOME kind of help. It would be better than just rolling over and dying.His only option now may be to pray to Joseph Smith (or whomever Mormons worship), or go to Mexico and hit up some some alternative medicine (herbs and acupuncture?).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronPlant

I'm asking, do you have a right to make others take care of you?

---

Not a right, no. I don't want to take care of my sister after my mother passes away since it would entail receiving her mental disability check and meting out funds to her, then making sure she spends that money wisely. On top of that, I'd have to make sure she sees her doctors regularly. I don't have to do any of that stuff, even if my mother begs me repeatedly.

However, I'm supposedly a shitty person if I don't, even though I didn't ask for my sister to be born with a mental illness. So no, it's not a right, it's more of an ethical/moral thing.

its not a "right" really i dont believe that there are any actual "rights". we have codified certain things into our government because we beleive that they make our system better than one that dosent have them. a certain basic healthcare system with provisions for those who have significant illnesses and no means to pay for them is not a right, but given that affordable healthcare is right now out of reasonable financial reach of a good portion of americans then it would be better to have than not to have. I am fortunate that my job provides pretty good coverage, a lot of people dont have that luxury.

People have the responsibility to health, not the right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FPM

People have the responsibility to health, not the right.

---

But of course there are contributing factors to health loss that the government or government sanctioned laws and standards can sometimes be directly responsible for, like pollution of the air and water supply. It's a two way street, people are responsible for their health to a controllable degree just like the government is responsible for our general well-being.

I'm not even going to contribute to such a silly topic. oh damn! I just did!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

If it's not in the Bill of Rights, people don't have it. Health is not covered under "pursuit of happiness" either. Chick-fil-A sandwiches might be though.

---

So women's suffrage, equal protection under the law... these are more like guidelines are they?