Premeds: Do you believe access to healthcare is a right or a privilege?

[bozz]

I noticed an interview question that asked the question, "Do you believe healthcare access is a right or a privilege?"

To me, the answer was obvious : It's a right. If you can afford it, you can get healthcare anytime.

Maybe the question should have been, "Do you believe health insurance is a right or a privilege?"

Regardless, what do you guys think?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Retsage]

Right.

 

[mdmdt]

To me, the answer was obvious : It's a right. If you can afford it, you can get healthcare anytime.

Wouldn't that make it a privilege, since it's contingent on adequate funding..?

 

[bozz]

Wouldn't that make it a privilege, since it's contingent on adequate funding..?

edit

 

[193250]

Should probably be a right, unless you're a murderer or something.

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

I never thought of it that way. But to every right, there are contingencies no? If you started yelling at the top of your lungs that you wanted to kill the president, someone is going to take action.

That probably made no sense ^ lol

Yelling that you want to kill the president actually falls under the right of free speech. People do it everyday in verbal or written communication.

Actually planning it is conspiracy to commit murder.

 

[zenlike]

Anything that is free is going to suffer the Tragedy of the Commons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons). And, the burden of anything rationed economically is going to fall on the lower class.

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

Anything that is free is going to suffer the Tragedy of the Commons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons). And, the burden of anything rationed economically is going to fall on the lower class.

You might want to tell Sweden that, as their healthcare system has been fantastic for more than 40 years now.

 

[zenlike]

You might want to tell Sweden that, as their healthcare system has been fantastic for more than 40 years now.

What's the tax rate in Sweden?

 

[Lukkie]

Privilege. Someone (ie a doctor) has to PROVIDE healthcare. Its not a right like voting, which can only be taken away.

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

What's the tax rate in Sweden?

About 47.8%, part of which is paid by your employer. It's 12% higher than my current taxes, but I pay more than 12% of my income in healthcare costs with similar wait times for appointments (~30days).

What's your point?

 

[zenlike]

About 47.8%, part of which is paid by your employer. It's 12% higher than my current taxes, but I pay more than 12% of my income in healthcare costs with similar wait times for appointments (~30days).

What's your point?

I'm not really an expert on Sweden's health care system. I'm just guessing. I've only heard through anecdotal sources that economic mobility is virtually impossible in Sweden and I thought that might be a side effect. How, exactly, does Sweden avoid the Tragedy of the Commons?

 

[bozz]

Anyways... my personal opinion based on the definition of a right:

Anything that requires cooperation by a third party automatically becomes "rightless." You have a right to healthcare if you can pay for it not because you desperately need it... which I guess makes it a privilege.

Under a single-pay government system, IMO, you still can't view healthcare as a right. The person receiving the services must respect the government's ability to deny treatment. That alone voids the "right to healthcare."

Healthcare can never be a right because it requires affirmative cooperation from others.

 

[zenlike]

Anyways... my personal opinion based on the definition of a right:

Anything that requires cooperation by a third party automatically becomes "rightless." You have a right to healthcare if you can pay for it not because you desperately need it.

If the government collectively pools taxpayers' money and decides whom to give care to, healthcare access isn't a right anymore.

So, is having potable water a right or a privilege?

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

I'm not really an expert on Sweden's health care system. I'm just guessing. I've only heard through anecdotal sources that economic mobility is virtually impossible in Sweden and I thought that might be a side effect. How, exactly, does Sweden avoid the Tragedy of the Commons?

They avoid it by having fair taxes (those above certain income levels pay a bit more), and by offering good salaries to government physicians. They also don't allow Big Pharma to make exclusivity deals, which typically drive prescription prices up and waste Medicare money here in the states.

 

[bozz]

So, is having potable water a right or a privilege?

A privilege

When I have the right to say whatever I want, it is only required that you do not harm me/prevent me from acting.

When I want potable water, I am dependant on those who are purifying the water for access to it. I'm not purifying the water myself.

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

a privilege
When I have the right to say whatever I want, it is only required that you do not harm me/prevent me from acting.

When I want potable water, I am dependant on those who are purifying the water for access to it. I'm not purifying the water myself.

I really hope you're being sarcastic. Otherwise, you are a truly sad individual to think drinkable water isn't a basic human right.

You think everything you don't physically fabricate yourself is a privilege? Well, then, theoretically, YOU were built by your mother and father's combined cellular and genetic effort. You have no right to live, and your parents have the right to kill you whenever you want, since THEY made you, right?

 

[FreshOffTheBoat]

Anyways... my personal opinion based on the definition of a right:

Anything that requires cooperation by a third party automatically becomes "rightless." You have a right to healthcare if you can pay for it not because you desperately need it... which I guess makes it a privilege.

Under a single-pay government system, IMO, you still can't view healthcare as a right. The person receiving the services must respect the government's ability to deny treatment. That alone voids the "right to healthcare."

Healthcare can never be a right because it requires affirmative cooperation from others.

interesting way of seeing it....

 

[bozz]

I really hope you're being sarcastic. Otherwise, you are a truly sad individual to think drinkable water isn't a basic human right.

I don't get it. I'm paying for the water. So is everyone else who gets access to drinkable water...

In real life, I probably treat it like a right since I have access to it all the time and don't need to worry about a lack of water.

But if you think about it, isn't it a privilege?

 

[zenlike]

They avoid it by having fair taxes (those above certain income levels pay a bit more), and by offering good salaries to government physicians. They also don't allow Big Pharma to make exclusivity deals, which typically drive prescription prices up and waste Medicare money here in the states.

I should mention that my anecdotal evidence regarding economical mobility is via a Swedish government physician.

Furthermore, I would also guess that there is a fair amount of government regulation of how much and what types of services people receive. For example, how hard is it to receive the latest and greatest treatments?

Additionally, I think they probably also receive a fair amount of help from other social programs. I don't think their system could exist in a vacuum as it would if it were implemented here in the US. For example, I'm sure that they have a more educated populace than we do here (thus their higher per capita GDP).

 

[p30doc]

right

 

[Wordead]

I really hope you're being sarcastic. Otherwise, you are a truly sad individual to think drinkable water isn't a basic human right.

You think everything you don't physically fabricate yourself is a privilege? Well, then, theoretically, YOU were built by your mother and father's combined cellular and genetic effort. You have no right to live, and your parents have the right to kill you whenever you want, since THEY made you, right?

I'm not really sure how to define health care, but I was curious about your position. Since drinkable water is a "basic human right", who is supposed to provide it? I agree that it's unfortunate if people don't have access to drinkable water - but nobody is outright denying them this "right". So how does this work?

 

[medking]

I should mention that my anecdotal evidence regarding economical mobility is via a Swedish government physician.

Furthermore, I would also guess that there is a fair amount of government regulation of how much and what types of services people receive. For example, how hard is it to receive the latest and greatest treatments?

Additionally, I think they probably also receive a fair amount of help from other social programs. I don't think their system could exist in a vacuum as it would if it were implemented here in the US. For example, I'm sure that they have a more educated populace than we do here (thus their higher per capita GDP).

Just cause it's the latest and greatest treatment available doesn't mean patients need them. Some people over here are too prideful in that sense. Yes, it's great to have that cutting edge research producing new treatments, but I don't think the general population needs them at the price that they are being discovered at.

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

I'm not really sure how to define health care, but I was curious about your position. Since drinkable water is a "basic human right", who is supposed to provide it? I agree that it's unfortunate if people don't have access to drinkable water - but nobody is outright denying them this "right". So how does this work?

When a community has no means to produce/transport potable water and the government ignores this, it is a denial of a basic human right.

 

[bozz]

You think everything you don't physically fabricate yourself is a privilege? Well, then, theoretically, YOU were built by your mother and father's combined cellular and genetic effort. You have no right to live, and your parents have the right to kill you whenever you want, since THEY made you, right?

LOL

Strong example there.

Yeah.. my parents have a right to kill me in self-defense... if I approached them with a chainsaw.

Let's get back on topic here...

 

[zenlike]

When a community has no means to produce/transport potable water and the government ignores this, it is a denial of a basic human right.

Yep. Water is a pre-requisite for all other human rights. What rights can you possibly even have without water?

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

I should mention that my anecdotal evidence regarding economical mobility is via a Swedish government physician.

An anecdote is an anecdote. Doctors aren't exempt from hyperbole.

Furthermore, I would also guess that there is a fair amount of government regulation of how much and what types of services people receive. For example, how hard is it to receive the latest and greatest treatments?

Adequate =/= cutting edge.

Additionally, I think they probably also receive a fair amount of help from other social programs. I don't think their system could exist in a vacuum as it would if it were implemented here in the US. For example, I'm sure that they have a more educated populace than we do here (thus their higher per capita GDP).

Of course they have more social programs, which we should have, too. While I'll miss the "illiterate South" jokes, I won't miss the growing ignorance, arrogance, and obesity in our country.

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

LOL

Strong example there.

Yeah.. my parents have a right to kill me in self-defense... if I approached them with a chainsaw.

But you said anything you rely on a third-party for is a privilege, not a right. So, you've either just contradicted yourself (you depend on a third party to be born), or your logic doesn't work.

 

[Wordead]

When a community has no means to produce/transport potable water and the government ignores this, it is a denial of a basic human right.

So it's the government's responsibility. But I assume a place that doesn't have potable water is poor - why is it an assumption that the government is ignoring it? What if the government has no money for such a project (which sounds like it could be rather expensive, especially somewhere hot, dry and far from large bodies of water). Or if the government has other priorities or the government itself is unstable? It doesn't seem like a huge stretch of the imagination to say that areas without access to drinkable water might not have a set government.

 

[Chemist0157]

Privilege.

No one else has any effect on my rights, except me. No one determines whether I can vote or not. With freedom of speech, no one makes me say anything. However, with health care, other people do have an effect on how the system works. Others control the costs and quality of health care. Therefore, the system does set up a hierachy, where some people get health care, and some do not.

If the system was not so corrupted and if normal individuals simply lived responsibly, health care costs would be lower, and this wouldn't even be an issue...

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

What if the government has no money for such a project (which sounds like it could be rather expensive, especially somewhere hot, dry and far from large bodies of water).

That's what taxes are for. At our current tax rate, we probably couldn't afford it, but we can always increase them to promote better social welfare (water, education, etc.).

Or if the government has other priorities or the government itself is unstable? It doesn't seem like a huge stretch of the imagination to say that areas without access to drinkable water might not have a set government.

Then that government is denying a basic human right, which would necessitate relief organizations being involved until the government is able to provide for their people or is changed.

 

[SweetPea07]

Its a RIGHT! Its in the constitution.

 

[zenlike]

So it's the government's responsibility. But I assume a place that doesn't have potable water is poor - why is it an assumption that the government is ignoring it? What if the government has no money for such a project (which sounds like it could be rather expensive, especially somewhere hot, dry and far from large bodies of water). Or if the government has other priorities or the government itself is unstable? It doesn't seem like a huge stretch of the imagination to say that areas without access to drinkable water might not have a set government.

So, it's only a right if your government can afford to protect it? What if you're country couldn't afford to protect your right to liberty and had to enslave the populace to keep it in the black?

 

[Chocolate Bear]

Yes, it's great to have that cutting edge research producing new treatments, but I don't think the general population needs them at the price that they are being discovered at.

This focus on expensive, rare, groundbreaking treatments is very central to the lack of primary care physicians in our country, which essentially precludes any drastic change to universal coverage, anyway.

 

[zenlike]

This focus on expensive, rare, groundbreaking treatments is very central to the lack of primary care physicians in our country, which essentially precludes any drastic change to universal coverage, anyway.

Sure. I would buy that. But I would say that, frequently, a treatment starts off being insanely expensive and then eventually it becomes more reasonable after refining the processes. Should we just throw away everything that isn't immediately affordable?

 

[Wordead]

That's what taxes are for. At our current tax rate, we probably couldn't afford it, but we can always increase them to promote better social welfare (water, education, etc.).



Then that government is denying a basic human right, which would necessitate relief organizations being involved until the government is able to provide for their people or is changed.

The whole system of taxes is more of a first-world kind of thing, isn't it? Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but the kind of places without water don't have actual "work" or sales that are taxed, no? Or did you mean we the wealthier nations should be taxed for these places?

I don't know, this reasoning seems reminiscent of missionaries bringing god to the heathens. Yes, yes, I know water and religion aren't comparable and all that. It's not a good analogy by any means. But the fact is that places without drinking water probably don't have the resources to bring it in, and it kind of seems to me that nobody is infringing on anybody's right since, well, nobody is doing anything. I don't see how inaction can be seen as infringement.

 

[bozz]

Privilege.

No one else has any effect on my rights, except me. No one determines whether I can vote or not. With freedom of speech, no one makes me say anything. However, with health care, other people do have an effect on how the system works. Others control the costs and quality of health care. Therefore, the system does set up a hierachy, where some people get health care, and some do not.

If the system was not so corrupted and if normal individuals simply lived responsibly, health care costs would be lower, and this wouldn't even be an issue...

Completely agree. It wouldn't even be a problem if costs weren't so high.

Let's ignore the definition of a right in this paragraph and assume universal healthcare were to give everyone the automatic "right" to healthcare. What happens when those who need it don't get it?

 

[zenlike]

The whole system of taxes is more of a first-world kind of thing, isn't it? Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but the kind of places without water don't have actual "work" or sales that are taxed, no? Or did you mean we the wealthier nations should be taxed for these places?

I don't know, this reasoning seems reminiscent of missionaries bringing god to the heathens. Yes, yes, I know water and religion aren't comparable and all that. It's not a good analogy by any means. But the fact is that places without drinking water probably don't have the resources to bring it in, and it kind of seems to me that nobody is infringing on anybody's right since, well, nobody is doing anything. I don't see how inaction can be seen as infringement.

Well, I think you could use Haiti as a case study. That country has virtually no potable water and is incredibly poor. It is also one of the most, if not the most, corrupt dictatorships in the world.

 

[Wordead]

This focus on expensive, rare, groundbreaking treatments is very central to the lack of primary care physicians in our country, which essentially precludes any drastic change to universal coverage, anyway.

Without expensive, rare, groundbreaking treatments/research the medical field would become stagnant wouldn't it?

Maybe it's just me, but I like the fact that we do research to find better treatments, even if the opportunity cost is the well-being of part of the population.

I think I read somewhere that the US is responsible for an enormous chunk of the world's health/science research - has anyone else heard this? What are the ramifications for research if we drift towards a universal health care system?

 

[Chocolate Bear]

Sure. I would buy that. But I would say that, frequently, a treatment starts off being insanely expensive and then eventually it becomes more reasonable after refining the processes. Should we just throw away everything that isn't immediately affordable?

No, but if you look at the hundreds of millions just in NIH dollars per each top school per year, it seems kind of ridiculous that so many areas don't have access to health care, while Hopkins finds a cure that will help 23 people next year. Personally I'd rather see a whole neighborhood in better health than to give a couple of years to a kid with some rare genetic disease.

 

[zenlike]

No, but if you look at the hundreds of millions just in NIH dollars per each top school per year, it seems kind of ridiculous that so many areas don't have access to health care, while Hopkins finds a cure that will help 23 people next year. Personally I'd rather see a whole neighborhood in better health than to give a couple of years to a kid with some rare genetic disease.

Are you suggesting we invest less in medical research?

 

[bozz]

Are you suggesting we invest less in medical research?

Unfortunately, less research spending doesn't directly translate to more healthcare spending.

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

The whole system of taxes is more of a first-world kind of thing, isn't it? Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but the kind of places without water don't have actual "work" or sales that are taxed, no? Or did you mean we the wealthier nations should be taxed for these places?

I don't know, this reasoning seems reminiscent of missionaries bringing god to the heathens. Yes, yes, I know water and religion aren't comparable and all that. It's not a good analogy by any means. But the fact is that places without drinking water probably don't have the resources to bring it in, and it kind of seems to me that nobody is infringing on anybody's right since, well, nobody is doing anything. I don't see how inaction can be seen as infringement.

Everything I've posted has been related to healthcare/water in the United States, so I'm not sure why we're talking about third-world countries and missionaries.

 

[Wordead]

Everything I've posted has been related to healthcare/water in the United States, so I'm not sure why we're talking about third-world countries and missionaries.

I actually wasn't aware that places in the US didn't have potable drinking water. Color me naive. Where is this?

 

[Chocolate Bear]

Are you suggesting we invest less in medical research?

I'd rather see lowered costs (read: pharma regulations) and more support for improved healthcare in underserved areas. This way we wouldn't have to move already scarce funds from one aspect of healthcare to another (and yes, bozz, I know this wouldn't necessarily be the case). However, this may or may not happen in this lifetime.

So to answer your question, I think a lot of money goes into very cutting edge treatments that could be better spent elsewhere, yes.

 

[stereo]

Anything that requires cooperation by a third party automatically becomes "rightless." You have a right to healthcare if you can pay for it not because you desperately need it... which I guess makes it a privilege.

Under a single-pay government system, IMO, you still can't view healthcare as a right. The person receiving the services must respect the government's ability to deny treatment. That alone voids the "right to healthcare."

Healthcare can never be a right because it requires affirmative cooperation from others.

I think that's a pretty sound argument.

However, I believe that in a country as rich as the United States, we should think of health care as a right the same way that we think of police and fire protection as a right.

 

[bozz]

But you said anything you rely on a third-party for is a privilege, not a right. So, you've either just contradicted yourself (you depend on a third party to be born), or your logic doesn't work.

I have been talking about American rights the whole time. All my arguments are based on those set of rights. Maybe you don't know but American rights impose the obligation for others to leave you alone. So no, my parents cannot violate my right to live despite the fact that they created me.

If you have a problem with that, blame America.

 

[zenlike]

I have been talking about American rights the whole time. All my arguments are based on those set of rights. Maybe you don't know but American rights impose the obligation for others to leave you alone. So no, my parents cannot violate my right to live despite the fact that they created me.

If you have a problem with that, blame America.

So, does the government abuse your rights when they tax you?

 

[8744]

So when I go home after the end of my shift and there is a waiting room full of people, many of whom will wait for hours and eventually get tired of and leave without being seen, am I violating their rights?

What if I'm the only doctor in town. Do I have to be on call 24-7 and keep my office open for the convenience of the public whose rights I would be otherwise violating?

Suppose I am in private practice. Do I have to continue seeing a patient who refuses to pay his bills for my services?

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

So when I go home after the end of my shift and there is a waiting room full of people, many of whom will wait for hours and eventually get tired of and leave without being seen, am I violating their rights?

What if I'm the only doctor in town. Do I have to be on call 24-7 and keep my office open for the convenience of the public whose rights I would be otherwise violating?

Suppose I am in private practice. Do I have to continue seeing a patient who refuses to pay his bills for my services?

All of your points are moot, Panda, when you realise we are speaking about whether the government should change the healthcare system to reflect whether such care is a right or not. We are not saying that doctors should act like it is a right at present at their own expense.