"Health Care Is Not A Right"...?

[Starsinthesky]

I recently came across this article, http://www.bdt.com/pages/Peikoff.html written in 1993, that attacks "socialized" medicine on moral, rather than practical grounds. I find the author's argument compelling, but I am reluctant to buy into it and I am looking for an out. Am I being naive in my resistance to his ideas?

Please share your thoughts - why do you think health care is a right? Is it ...?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Lukkie]

Keep in mind Leonard Peikoff is a cultist. For more information on the Ayn Rand cult,
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html

 

[medking]

I recently came across this article, http://www.bdt.com/pages/Peikoff.html written in 1993, that attacks "socialized" medicine on moral, rather than practical grounds. I find the author's argument compelling, but I am reluctant to buy into it and I am looking for an out. Am I being naive in my resistance to his ideas?

Please share your thoughts - why do you think health care is a right? Is it ...?

To me it's quite simple.

I think that for most people, one needs to be reasonably healthy in order to even start pursuing happiness and all the other jumbo mumbo he presents. Therefore, I believe it is a right.

But at the same time, it is very sad to see people claiming that they can't pay for insurance spending their money on more or less "luxury" items vs. "necessary" items, and I can see why some people that are more financially stable are against paying for these kinds of people.

Ain't a perfect world, so I don't know what the solution is, but concept wise, that is my stance.

 

[Col Kurtz]

I'll take a stab. The way I understand natural rights (read: inalienable rights) is that a person possesses them from the moment of birth (some would say conception). This presents a problem for Peikoff's line of reasoning.

If a natural right is conferred by birth, then it does not require anything, but birth. He puts conditions on it by arguing that you must EARN the things required by life. That is NOT a natural right; Peikoff turns it into an obligation. Thus if kidney dialysis is required for a person to live, that person has a right to it.

Also, what about the circumstances of a newborn? An infant has yet to "earn" anything through providing "goods and services," so does that mean a dying baby does not have the right to be saved?

Now lets look at a couple other problems. He argues, "Observe that all legitimate rights have one thing in common: they are rights to action, not to rewards from other people." Okay, now everybody try to life. Now try to liberty. Now try to property. You can pursue happiness, but hell, 1 out of 4 ain't bad. Call this semantics if you want, but I think it is a valid argument.

Maybe this will spark a discussion.

 

[Col Kurtz]

To me it's quite simple.

I think that for most people, one needs to be reasonably healthy in order to even start pursuing happiness and all the other jumbo mumbo he presents. Therefore, I believe it is a right.

But at the same time, it is very sad to see people claiming that they can't pay for insurance spending their money on more or less "luxury" items vs. "necessary" items, and I can see why some people that are more financially stable are against paying for these kinds of people.

Ain't a perfect world, so I don't know what the solution is, but concept wise, that is my stance.

I do sort of agree with this in concept. I do think too much taxpayer money is wasted, but I hardly see health care for all as a waste. Too much of our taxpayer money goes to either enrich the wealthy (mostly through business, see link below) or is something that only benefits a small population (see: earmarks).

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sep...s_farming_subsidies_destroy_food_security.htm

This article discusses the problems food subsidies create for the supply chain. The part of interest here: we pay farmers to OVERPRODUCE. I think that is THE definition of inefficiency. The point being that even if we are overtaxed, arguing against universal health care on the basis of the (im)morality of taxation is asinine.

I know that you can be against both universal health care and farm subsidies, but taking care of the health of our neighbors seems like more of a moral imperative than paying a diary farmer to produce a gallon of milk that will be disposed of.

 

[JJMrK]

In before this gets moved to sociopolitical.

 

[Decicco]

"Philosopher" is probably a better word than "cultist," although I can see how there would be a bit of overlap. Peikoff's piece is very well reasoned and I have to say I agree with its general argument. Peikoff himself is quite well researched, and if it offers anything to his credibility, he appears on the Glenn Beck cable show on a weekly basis and in other national media as well.

 

[ringhal]

A problem with saying health care is a right arises when we try to determine the boundary. Technically, some could rightfully argue that if it is a right, then there is no boundary.

If you say it's a right, then every person with end-stage alcoholic liver disease has a right to a liver transplant even if he or she refuses to stop drinking.

Health care is a limited resource. How can every person have a right to something that is limited? As an intern, I had a patient with metastatic gastric cancer. She was weeks away from dying when she developed a GI bleed. We starting transfusing her but couldn't stop the bleeding because she wasn't making any platelets. So, we had to start giving her platelets, too. For several days our hospital blood supply was low because she singlehandedly had used the whole supply of her blood type and all the available platelets. On top of that, her family refused to donate any blood or platelets to the blood bank. In the end, her red blood cell count stabilized about 30 hours before she died.

Did she have a right to use up the entire hospital's supply of her blood type and platelets?

While I have few reservations with the concept of universal health care, I don't think it is a right.

 

[Col Kurtz]

I agree that it is difficult to find boundaries, but other rights defined in the constitution have boundaries as well. For example, you are not allowed you hide behind freedom of speech if you use rhetoric to incite violence or otherwise endanger others. In short, there are situations in which rights CAN be limited. I think the alcoholic liver example fits this. The other problem with this example arises from the fact that you picked the MOST lmited resource in health care--organs suitable for transplant--to make your point.

As far as the dying woman draining the hospital's drug supply, it is not unique to health care as a right. Really this problem cannot be solved by any health care system. I agree that particular use of blood is irresponsible, but people are irresponsible with their use of the right to free speech, but most Americans do not want to do away with that right.

I think the overall problem with the limited resource view is that we have found ways to make capital intensive resources inexpensive (I am thinking mostly of oil here) enough for the majority to afford it. I would think something as important as health care should be treated the same way.

 

[medking]

A problem with saying health care is a right arises when we try to determine the boundary. Technically, some could rightfully argue that if it is a right, then there is no boundary.

If you say it's a right, then every person with end-stage alcoholic liver disease has a right to a liver transplant even if he or she refuses to stop drinking.

Health care is a limited resource. How can every person have a right to something that is limited? As an intern, I had a patient with metastatic gastric cancer. She was weeks away from dying when she developed a GI bleed. We starting transfusing her but couldn't stop the bleeding because she wasn't making any platelets. So, we had to start giving her platelets, too. For several days our hospital blood supply was low because she singlehandedly had used the whole supply of her blood type and all the available platelets. On top of that, her family refused to donate any blood or platelets to the blood bank. In the end, her red blood cell count stabilized about 30 hours before she died.

Did she have a right to use up the entire hospital's supply of her blood type and platelets?

While I have few reservations with the concept of universal health care, I don't think it is a right.

Yes, everyone does have a right to get that transplant if needed. And yes, the supply is limited. That's why there are transplant lists. I understand the criteria used to create these lists may not be perfect, but there is such a list. Just because everyone has the right to something, doesn't have to mean they get it.

And with your example, if the patient doesn't even try their best to get better, then they would definitely not make my list. I know for many things this would be hard to determine but atleast for your example that's what I would do.

Again, for the whole healthcare system I have no idea what to do, but I still think it's a right.

 

[Lukkie]

Yes, everyone does have a right to get that transplant if needed. And yes, the supply is limited. That's why there are transplant lists. I understand the criteria used to create these lists may not be perfect, but there is such a list. Just because everyone has the right to something, doesn't have to mean they get it.

And with your example, if the patient doesn't even try their best to get better, then they would definitely not make my list. I know for many things this would be hard to determine but atleast for your example that's what I would do.

Again, for the whole healthcare system I have no idea what to do, but I still think it's a right.

I think you're asking for a limited right. For example, we have the right to free speech, but that doesn't mean you can yell fire in a theater or post slander/libel. We can consider healthcare a right for everyone provided they don't engage in certain activities such as smoking or drinking against a doctors orders. In any event its an extremely complicated issue.

 

[thiems]

A right is something that doesn't rely on anyone else. Health care as a right requires someone to provide that service. If someone has a 'right' to that service, then the provider is basically a 'slave'. As a healthcare provider, I refuse to be a 'slave'. Health care is a privilege.

 

[BBender716]

On a philosophical level, my disagreement with universal healthcare is that, regardless of whether health care is a "right" or not, I want the right and freedom to choose whether or not I decide to purchase health care insurance. If I do NOT want to pay for health care insurance, I want that right and choice. Even if that option does not seem practical to you or many, it is still a right that would be extinguished with most universal healthcare programs.

I personally would decide to purchase healthcare, but I want the ability and right to choose instead of being forced. Many others should retain that right as well.

 

[Lukkie]

A right is something that doesn't rely on anyone else. Health care as a right requires someone to provide that service. If someone has a 'right' to that service, then the provider is basically a 'slave'. As a healthcare provider, I refuse to be a 'slave'. Health care is a privilege.

im curious if america considers clean water, sanitation and/or shelter a right.

 

[FutureInternist]

Yes, everyone does have a right to get that transplant if needed. And yes, the supply is limited. That's why there are transplant lists. I understand the criteria used to create these lists may not be perfect, but there is such a list. Just because everyone has the right to something, doesn't have to mean they get it.

And with your example, if the patient doesn't even try their best to get better, then they would definitely not make my list. I know for many things this would be hard to determine but atleast for your example that's what I would do.

Again, for the whole healthcare system I have no idea what to do, but I still think it's a right.

So the fact that they wasted their own liver by drinking does not exclude them from the list, even if they promise to not drink in the future ???
Such enormous gifts from other people should be treated with much more care & respect than to be given to some guy who can't control his drinking

Before we start treating people, how about we feed them, then clothe them, then house them.....and IF that can be accomplished THEN we can worry about the next alcoholic wanting a new liver.

Also, does that guy's right to treatment outweigh my right to get paid for my work??

 

[thiems]

im curious if america considers clean water, sanitation and/or shelter a right.

Most people have come to the assumption that many things are rights that are not because of the lifestyle we have come accustomed to.

 

[medking]

On a philosophical level, my disagreement with universal healthcare is that, regardless of whether health care is a "right" or not, I want the right and freedom to choose whether or not I decide to purchase health care insurance. If I do NOT want to pay for health care insurance, I want that right and choice. Even if that option does not seem practical to you or many, it is still a right that would be extinguished with most universal healthcare programs.

I personally would decide to purchase healthcare, but I want the ability and right to choose instead of being forced. Many others should retain that right as well.

Well, I'm sure most people in this world get sick to the extent that they require medical care at some point in their life. If people can afford the big things that are expensive ie: hospitalizations, surgery, expensive medications, etc., then be my guest. They don't need to get insurance. But if a person doesn't have insurance and causes a huge burden on others because they can't afford the medical expenses, then I don't see why forcing them to get insurance would be an issue.

 

[circulus vitios]

I believe that affordable (not free) health care should be a right.

Doctors are not and should not be slaves to society.

 

[medking]

So the fact that they wasted their own liver by drinking does not exclude them from the list, even if they promise to not drink in the future ???
Such enormous gifts from other people should be treated with much more care & respect than to be given to some guy who can't control his drinking

Before we start treating people, how about we feed them, then clothe them, then house them.....and IF that can be accomplished THEN we can worry about the next alcoholic wanting a new liver.

Also, does that guy's right to treatment outweigh my right to get paid for my work??

Bold 1:

I totally agree. Personal responsiblity should be a big part of the criteria for the list (I also agree that this would be very, very difficult). I guess that person would be really really low on the list. Still, this doesn't stop it from being a right, in my opinion.

Bold 2:

That's more of a healthcare system issue. Those two things don't have to be mutually exlusive.

 

[medking]

I think you're asking for a limited right. For example, we have the right to free speech, but that doesn't mean you can yell fire in a theater or post slander/libel. We can consider healthcare a right for everyone provided they don't engage in certain activities such as smoking or drinking against a doctors orders. In any event its an extremely complicated issue.

In theory I think it's simple. In practice, I totally agree with you.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Americans in general will probably abuse anything that is given to them for free, be it health care or free refills at mcdonalds.

 

[Lukkie]

Americans in general will probably abuse anything that is given to them for free, be it health care or free refills at mcdonalds.

anyone will, not just americans

 

[JeetKuneDo]

anyone will, not just americans

True, it's probably a tough time to be a politician right now.

 

[ringhal]

Yes, everyone does have a right to get that transplant if needed. And yes, the supply is limited. That's why there are transplant lists. I understand the criteria used to create these lists may not be perfect, but there is such a list. Just because everyone has the right to something, doesn't have to mean they get it.

And with your example, if the patient doesn't even try their best to get better, then they would definitely not make my list. I know for many things this would be hard to determine but atleast for your example that's what I would do.

Once you as the committee has the ability to decide whether or not someone else has access to a medical procedure, that medical procedure is no longer a right - especially when you can use, as exclusionary criteria, something that is not illegal, i.e. drinking.

I have been to the UCLA transplant committee meetings and have participated in the discussions. I know from personal experience that there are other factors that aren't nearly as stigmatic as alcoholism that can also exclude someone from a transplant list. How about a second or third transplant?

 

[Lukkie]

not as tough as being the Last Polar Bear

 

[Starsinthesky]

Thank you all for the earnest discussion - I am pleasantly surprised that so many people are sympathetic to the article's author, even though I am still reluctant to share his views completely. I'm kind of unfamiliar with posting, but I'd like to comment on a few of the replies, albeit in a low-tech way.

Lukkie - Regardless of whether the article's author is considered a cultist, philosopher, or whatever, the issue he brings up is still something we should think about and answer, for ourselves and for others, as future physicians.

Medking, Ringhal - Medking's choice of the phrase "reasonably healthy" is interesting because I think that is where a lot of the key issues come up. When you let someone else govern your treatment (or non-treatment) of patients, how healthy is reasonable healthy? Ringhal approaches this similarly with the topic of boundaries. Surely there must be a boundary, but who has the authority and ability to put certain treatments/procedures on one side or the other?

Thiems - None of us will be "slaves", unless we are somehow working entirely for free. There is certainly some degree of self-sacrifice, but we still have the freedom to choose this career path. Nobody ever chose to be a slave; a slave is born into slavery or enslaved against his/her will.

Circulus Vitios - "I believe that affordable (not free) health care should be a right." I think that is pretty close to the mark. Affordable healthcare may be a reasonable right, just like affordable education, affordable food, affordable shelter etc. In this consumer-driven society, the pursuit of ANYTHING is possible - the only variable is the cost. Not everyone can afford full tuition at a private university, but society has deemed that to be beyond the "right" of a decent, affordable education. The government provides public schools, even public universities, and those of us who want to pursue more do so at our own additional cost.

Perhaps it is time to consider a two-tier system of health care, similar to what is already in place for education. Like health, education is one of those fundamental resources that enables people to follow all those other pursuits granted to us in the Constitution.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

not as tough as being the Last Polar Bear

Haha, that's a blessing and a curse.

 

[JSJ1313]

A right is something that doesn't rely on anyone else. Health care as a right requires someone to provide that service. If someone has a 'right' to that service, then the provider is basically a 'slave'. As a healthcare provider, I refuse to be a 'slave'. Health care is a privilege.

This is exactly how I feel about the issue.

 

[TooMuchResearch]

Reading this thread reminded me that my insurance is cut at the end of the month. Thanks for the reminder. Time to go insurance shopping

 

[medking]

Once you as the committee has the ability to decide whether or not someone else has access to a medical procedure, that medical procedure is no longer a right - especially when you can use, as exclusionary criteria, something that is not illegal, i.e. drinking.

I have been to the UCLA transplant committee meetings and have participated in the discussions. I know from personal experience that there are other factors that aren't nearly as stigmatic as alcoholism that can also exclude someone from a transplant list. How about a second or third transplant?

I understand that it is very complicated and hard to determine who deserves what and what not. Something we have to consider because of limited resources. But we also have to understand that transplants are a little more on the extreme side of things because organs are so scarce compared to other things.

What I'm saying is that everyone should have the potential to receive a treatment. Whether they actually receive it is a different story. Where theory meets practice.

And also, just as a side note, I think people who are able to receive care should be greatful and always look at it more like a priviledge.

 

[Captain Fantastic]

A right is something that doesn't rely on anyone else. Health care as a right requires someone to provide that service. If someone has a 'right' to that service, then the provider is basically a 'slave'. As a healthcare provider, I refuse to be a 'slave'. Health care is a privilege.

I have a right to a trial by a jury of my peers. Giving me that right enslaves others to serve on the jury, does it not?

 

[Captain Fantastic]

I think you're asking for a limited right. For example, we have the right to free speech, but that doesn't mean you can yell fire in a theater or post slander/libel...In any event its an extremely complicated issue.

Exactly. I have the right to speak freely, but I don't have the right to demand the front page of any newspaper for my platform. If I want the front page I have to pay out of my pocket for it or fund my own competing news rag.

 

[Captain Fantastic]

Well, I'm sure most people in this world get sick to the extent that they require medical care at some point in their life. If people can afford the big things that are expensive ie: hospitalizations, surgery, expensive medications, etc., then be my guest. They don't need to get insurance. But if a person doesn't have insurance and causes a huge burden on others because they can't afford the medical expenses, then I don't see why forcing them to get insurance would be an issue.

The biggest problem with health insurance is that we don't use it like insurance. Do you file a claim against your auto policy when you get your oil changed or tires rotated? No, but if you get a physical or a flu-shot the first question you ask is if they take your insurance. It's insane.

Employer-sponsored insurance came into vogue in the 50's during a very different tax era as companies were looking for unique ways to attract and retain valuable employees. If health care costs keep rising at their current rates I'm afriad it won't be long before it's more profitable to shut the whole line down for a week because of the flu than to pay those premiums.

 

[medking]

The biggest problem with health insurance is that we don't use it like insurance. Do you file a claim against your auto policy when you get your oil changed or tires rotated? No, but if you get a physical or a flu-shot the first question you ask is if they take your insurance. It's insane.

Employer-sponsored insurance came into vogue in the 50's during a very different tax era as companies were looking for unique ways to attract and retain valuable employees. If health care costs keep rising at their current rates I'm afriad it won't be long before it's more profitable to shut the whole line down for a week because of the flu than to pay those premiums.

Yea, I think it sucks that health insurance is still heavily connected to employment. I understand why it happened in the first place, but man, we gotta try and move away from that.

 

[ringhal]

I understand that it is very complicated and hard to determine who deserves what and what not. Something we have to consider because of limited resources. But we also have to understand that transplants are a little more on the extreme side of things because organs are so scarce compared to other things.

You can't use the word "deserves" when talking about a right. Of course cadaveric organs are a limited resource - thousands of people on transplant lists die every year. I use that as an example because if we decide that health care is a right, then everything from aspirin to heart-lung transplants must be included. Any less is a denial of rights.

Additionally, as we make health care more and more available, more things become limited resources. Medicines, equipment, blood products, time in the mri scanner, my time interpreting images, etc. When you get to medical school you will have a better grasp of our health care system.

What I'm saying is that everyone should have the potential to receive a treatment. Whether they actually receive it is a different story. Where theory meets practice.

This is the type of sentiment shared by folks who are not actually in medicine. I made a statement like this during one of my medical school interviews - and I was very gently torn a new one by my interviewer. Somehow, I still got in to that school...

Walk into any county hospital ER in the US and you can get treated - even if you don't speak a word of English and you've only been in the US long enough to get from the airport to the hospital. Most likely the hospital will not get a penny from the patient. My tax dollars will cover the bill. Today, everyone in the US has a potential to receive medical treatment. It's the eventual bill that deters folks from coming...

 

[Jolie South]

Yea, I think it sucks that health insurance is still heavily connected to employment. I understand why it happened in the first place, but man, we gotta try and move away from that.

What remains to be seen is if employers will return that level of compensation to workers when they no longer receive health insurance. I'm not necessarily inclined to think it's a given that employers will do that.

Also, unless community rating is applied, I don't know that switching from employers to individuals will be all that beneficial. There will be no more group effect and people with health problems will pay astronomical premiums or go underinsured.

 

[GeraldMonroe]

On a philosophical level, my disagreement with universal healthcare is that, regardless of whether health care is a "right" or not, I want the right and freedom to choose whether or not I decide to purchase health care insurance. If I do NOT want to pay for health care insurance, I want that right and choice. Even if that option does not seem practical to you or many, it is still a right that would be extinguished with most universal healthcare programs.

Do you mean that if you develop an illness or disease that is expensive to treat, you agree to die? That is, are you willing to sign a piece of paper saying that if the cost of your medical treatment to save your life exceeds what you can repay from your own assets, you agree to be put to sleep?

You can't have one without the other. Either you have to agree to contribute money through some means (taxes or paying insurance premiums) to pay for a form of health insurance, or you are trying to take away other's peoples rights when they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in supplies and labor trying to save your life.

No one is able to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in labor and supplies without being paid for them, and someone has to pay the bill. If you refuse to buy insurance, who pays?

The only way that makes the slightest bit of sense is to make it that everyone who wants the expensive medical treatments has to pay a little bit at a time every month so that if they ever get sick, the money is in a big community pool to pay for said expensive treatments. Anyone who doesn't pay in doesn't get the right to use that pool. Obvious, and there never was another way to do it.

The thing is, since we're generally not willing to let the people who never paid anything die, we have to make everyone pay into the pool somehow. We can do that through taxes or mandatory insurance. 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.

 

[Kaustikos]

Yea, I think it sucks that health insurance is still heavily connected to employment. I understand why it happened in the first place, but man, we gotta try and move away from that.

When your employer offers you a no-deductable up to $3000 with $700 "deductable" (which I call a transitory fee) before going back to a no-limit non-deductable 10/20 copay for drugs and $0 doctors visit and 50$ copay for ER like I do, then tell me you woudln't jump on that offer. That's like being PAID 3k+ on top of your annual salary.

 

[GeraldMonroe]

When your employer offers you a no-deductable up to $3000 with $700 "deductable" (which I call a transitory fee) before going back to a no-limit non-deductable 10/20 copay for drugs and $0 doctors visit and 50$ copay for ER like I do, then tell me you woudln't jump on that offer. That's like being PAID 3k+ on top of your annual salary.

It works like this for a reason.

Simply put, you don't pay taxes on the money used to buy you health insurance. That's a pretty huge factor, especially in upper tax brackets in states with high income tax.

Employer could either give you :

7000 after taxes cash and no health insurance
or pay 12,000 and buy you a family health insurance plan.

Each costs the employer the same, but which would you rather have?

Any responsible citizen with a high paying job who can add numbers together is probably going to choose the latter.

 

[Longshanks]

"Philosopher" is probably a better word than "cultist," although I can see how there would be a bit of overlap. Peikoff's piece is very well reasoned and I have to say I agree with its general argument. Peikoff himself is quite well researched, and if it offers anything to his credibility, he appears on the Glenn Beck cable show on a weekly basis and in other national media as well.

Glenn Beck's insanity hour? The man basically is the human manifestation of the eight circle of hell. Sorry, anyone who goes on that show or even buys into what that snake oil merchant has to say is only fooling themselves. People like Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh just spew poison into the country to make a buck.

And yes, Ayn Rand and her followers are a cult, there's no other way to sugercoat it. Her cult were the kids in the playground who had a really cool football and would cry when the other children wanted to play with it together. Well, what good is a football if you're not going to use it?

 

[Col Kurtz]

You can't use the word "deserves" when talking about a right. Of course cadaveric organs are a limited resource - thousands of people on transplant lists die every year. I use that as an example because if we decide that health care is a right, then everything from aspirin to heart-lung transplants must be included. Any less is a denial of rights.

That's not true. I posted an answer to this earlier, as have others. Saying it is a right does not necessarily mean you are guaranteed to certain forms of health care that are also extremely limited resources. Think of it in terms of the right to free speech. As someone else posted, we have the right to speak, but we don't have the right to put it on the front page, that is an editor's right to choose what s/he prints. Similarly, there is a procedure for deciding how to order the list. If my neighbor is speaking in public, I am not required to give her a megaphone.

In the end this argument is specious, because the problem is not that people are being denied health care, it is people cannot afford health care. I have yet to see anyone answer my argument from above, that we have found ways to make capital intensive resources inexpensive enough to be ubiquitous. I would think something as fundamental to our species as health care would fall under the same category. I actually think Ringhal agrees with this part, but I could be wrong.

 

[medking]

You can't use the word "deserves" when talking about a right. Of course cadaveric organs are a limited resource - thousands of people on transplant lists die every year. I use that as an example because if we decide that health care is a right, then everything from aspirin to heart-lung transplants must be included. Any less is a denial of rights.

Additionally, as we make health care more and more available, more things become limited resources. Medicines, equipment, blood products, time in the mri scanner, my time interpreting images, etc. When you get to medical school you will have a better grasp of our health care system.



This is the type of sentiment shared by folks who are not actually in medicine. I made a statement like this during one of my medical school interviews - and I was very gently torn a new one by my interviewer. Somehow, I still got in to that school...

Walk into any county hospital ER in the US and you can get treated - even if you don't speak a word of English and you've only been in the US long enough to get from the airport to the hospital. Most likely the hospital will not get a penny from the patient. My tax dollars will cover the bill. Today, everyone in the US has a potential to receive medical treatment. It's the eventual bill that deters folks from coming...

Yea, I totally agree. My view is not as practical as yours. I think I'm just saying if pursuit of happiness is a right, then healthcare is a right because I believe that health is needed to start that pursuit.

Now, when you talk about who pays for what, that is not really an issue here because we all know that tax money is already being used to pay for people who don't pay.

 

[Forthegood]

Glenn Beck's insanity hour? The man basically is the human manifestation of the eight circle of hell. Sorry, anyone who goes on that show or even buys into what that snake oil merchant has to say is only fooling themselves. People like Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh just spew poison into the country to make a buck.

And yes, Ayn Rand and her followers are a cult.

It is a right. Can't hardly PURSUE happiness if you're dead. Sure, it is not a guarantee. Which is apparently something that a few of you should google the definition of.

And to the attending above about limited resources... I agree that yes, rationing of limited resources is important, as are the lists and committees that perform this task.

The fault for using the whole blood supply rests solely on the patient and attending physician... not the system and its rights/priviledges. A better argument would be reforms to end-of-life care (which most want, but few verbalize). This example makes it sound like it is a choice, that one can morally decide whether it is a right or priviledge, and then with their decision act and provide or withhold care. However, we all know this is not the case at least from fear of litigation.

The problem is not simply the scarcity of resources, but the fear of being sued for making what most would consider an obligatory moral decision.

 

[Longshanks]

It works like this for a reason.

Simply put, you don't pay taxes on the money used to buy you health insurance. That's a pretty huge factor, especially in upper tax brackets in states with high income tax.

Employer could either give you :

7000 after taxes cash and no health insurance
or pay 12,000 and buy you a family health insurance plan.

Each costs the employer the same, but which would you rather have?

Any responsible citizen with a high paying job who can add numbers together is probably going to choose the latter.

This is the same reason, and logic, as to why McCain and the Republicans "I'll give you $5,000 tax break to buy insurance" was a scam. What insurance will you purchase for $5,000? None.

Additionally, as we make health care more and more available, more things become limited resources. Medicines, equipment, blood products, time in the mri scanner, my time interpreting images, etc. When you get to medical school you will have a better grasp of our health care system.

This is the type of sentiment shared by folks who are not actually in medicine. I made a statement like this during one of my medical school interviews - and I was very gently torn a new one by my interviewer. Somehow, I still got in to that school...

Walk into any county hospital ER in the US and you can get treated - even if you don't speak a word of English and you've only been in the US long enough to get from the airport to the hospital. Most likely the hospital will not get a penny from the patient. My tax dollars will cover the bill. Today, everyone in the US has a potential to receive medical treatment. It's the eventual bill that deters folks from coming...

But using your ER example, isn't this part of the problem? That we as tax payers, and in some instances as insurance payers, are already paying for the uninsured or those that free ride at the ER? And this in turn raises health care costs and our premiums? Of course we should treat these people in the ER, at least in the ideal sense these are the patients who need urgent treatment the most, but at least where I am in NYC, and I'm sure in other places this happens as well, there's a significant population using the ED as their form of primary care which is just insanity. If we could get these people insured either through fixing up the terrible shape labor and the private sector is in, or through a public health care system, and with education to get these individuals to use primary care physicians first rather than go to the ER for a bump or the sniffles, would this not help to control costs? Wouldn't this also allow for better usage of time and care by physicians in the ER? And for the currently uninsured who do go to the ER for a serious issue, and inherently expensive hospital stay, with a national system wouldn't these costs be covered by a funded system with costs spread out more evenly rather than the current state of punishing responsible tax payers and employed individuals with insurance who have to currently pay and support the uninsured?

 

[Kaustikos]

It works like this for a reason.

Simply put, you don't pay taxes on the money used to buy you health insurance. That's a pretty huge factor, especially in upper tax brackets in states with high income tax.

Employer could either give you :

7000 after taxes cash and no health insurance
or pay 12,000 and buy you a family health insurance plan.

Each costs the employer the same, but which would you rather have?

Any responsible citizen with a high paying job who can add numbers together is probably going to choose the latter.

yep

 

[pntgrd]

A right is something that doesn't rely on anyone else. Health care as a right requires someone to provide that service. If someone has a 'right' to that service, then the provider is basically a 'slave'. As a healthcare provider, I refuse to be a 'slave'. Health care is a privilege.

This is correct. Access to healthcare cannot be a right because it puts demands on others even if they do not consent to providing it. Mandating healthcare as a right would force other people to pay for it, and other people to provide it at prices and/or conditions which they would not otherwise consent to.

And they people making a stretch to call healthcare part of the right to "happiness" are wrong. The right to happiness is a negative right, in other words preventing others from impeding your pursuit (like freedom of speech, no one is obligated to buy you a time slot for a television show or buy you a megaphone to protest, but they can't stop you either). By that argument almost anything would be a "right" because people need it for happiness. People need homes, cars, food, recreation, computers, movies, ect., but they aren't rights that the gov't is mandated to provide.

 

[jult24er]

I have a right to a trial by a jury of my peers. Giving me that right enslaves others to serve on the jury, does it not?

I'd put it like this:

You have a right to not be arbitrarily thrown in jail. How is that right secured? You agree to be on a jury when needed and in return others will be available to sit on a jury if you are charged. The right itself does not enslave anyone, although protecting that right may require some work from everybody.

 

[GeraldMonroe]

I'd put it like this:

You have a right to not be arbitrarily thrown in jail. How is that right secured? You agree to be on a jury when needed and in return others will be available to sit on a jury if you are charged. The right itself does not enslave anyone, although protecting that right may require some work from everybody.

By the same logic, if you want other people to pay your $200,000 medical bill when you get cancer, you have to be willing to chip in a few bucks every month during the years when you are healthy. You wouldn't feel entitled to a jury of your peers if you were never willing to serve on one, would you?

 

[Aladdin]

This is correct. Access to healthcare cannot be a right because it puts demands on others even if they do not consent to providing it. Mandating healthcare as a right would force other people to pay for it, and other people to provide it at prices and/or conditions which they would not otherwise consent to.

And they people making a stretch to call healthcare part of the right to "happiness" are wrong. The right to happiness is a negative right, in other words preventing others from impeding your pursuit (like freedom of speech, no one is obligated to buy you a time slot for a television show or buy you a megaphone to protest, but they can't stop you either). By that argument almost anything would be a "right" because people need it for happiness. People need homes, cars, food, recreation, computers, movies, ect., but they aren't rights that the gov't is mandated to provide.

Well said..

 

[jult24er]

By the same logic, if you want other people to pay your $200,000 medical bill when you get cancer, you have to be willing to chip in a few bucks every month during the years when you are healthy. You wouldn't feel entitled to a jury of your peers if you were never willing to serve on one, would you?

What if there's some guy who wants to spend his life on a river listneing to kid rock and fishing out of the back of his truck. Do you put him in jail when he doesnt have $20 to chip in to cover his portion of my cancer treatment?