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

[8744]

The answer is that medical care, like water or power, is neither a right nor a privilege but a service that someone has to and should pay for. If we choose to give it away that's just a function of our desire to take care of people who can't take care of themselves but since nobody works for free, somebody has to pay.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

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.

But, you said anything you relied on a third party for was not a right, didn't you? So, when you don't like the rules you made you just change them?

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

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

Look up "georgia drought 2007".

 

[zenlike]

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?

I think the question is more of: Do I have to take some of my hard earned money to pay for a poor person's health care in the same way that I have to pay for their roads, fire protection, police protection, libraries, schools, and so on.

 

[bozz]

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.

I get what you're saying. It might seem like I'm relying on little semantics here and there to prove a point based on the definition of a right.

Let's ignore my definition and use yours/how many people view rights. I just feel like viewing healthcare as a right would be a problem since it's not necessarily going to be guaranteed when you need/want it.

What happens when a doctor simply doesn't want to treat a patient b/c he's tired? Does he have to? If he doesn't, does the patient who wants to see the doctor still have a right to healthcare?

 

[stereo]

The answer is that medical care, like water or power, is neither a right nor a privilege but a service that someone has to and should pay for. If we choose to give it away that's just a function of our desire to take care of people who can't take care of themselves but since nobody works for free, somebody has to pay.

But the argument isn't that people shouldn't pay for health care. It's that we should treat health care the same way that we treat public education (we do pay for that).

 

[medking]

Are you suggesting we invest less in medical research?

If an existing treatment is not adequate, then no, but if there is already adequate treatment, then yes for that.

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

I get what you're saying. It might seem like I'm relying on little semantics here and there to prove a point based on the definition of a right.

Let's ignore my definition and use yours/how many people view rights. I just feel like viewing healthcare as a right would be a problem since it's not necessarily going to be guaranteed when you need/want it.

So a right is now defined as anything available in a large, ready supply?

Wow, McDonalds and anything sold at Walmart is a right now? Sweet, I guess next time I'll just tell Walmart I'm not paying for something that is my right.

 

[deleted106503]

If it's man-made (good or service), it's a privilege. Simple as that. Healthcare, running water, electricity, highways, military defense, jobs, school, etc, are all privileges. You're not entitled to anything upon birth and nothing is free.

 

[Wordead]

Look up "georgia drought 2007".

That's...not really a lack of access to potable water. Nobody has died. People can't water their lawns...that's about it. Plus the government is building reservoirs for the future. I don't see how this pertains to your points. Unless potable water also means the right to grow flowers anytime I wish.

 

[bozz]

So a right is now defined as anything available in a large, ready supply?

Wow, McDonalds and anything sold at Walmart is a right now? Sweet, I guess next time I'll just tell Walmart I'm not paying for something that is my right.

Huh? you sure you quoted the right post?

I don't get the practical benefit of calling something a right if you are not guaranteed to receive it when you need it. I've lived in Canada, and trust me, healthcare is definitely not a right no matter how you define it.

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

That's...not really a lack of access to potable water. Nobody has died. People can't water their lawns...that's about it. Plus the government is building reservoirs for the future. I don't see how this pertains to your points. Unless potable water also means the right to grow flowers anytime I wish.

Please read-up on the drought. It was far more than "not being able to water lawns". There were communities who had to have federal relief in order to have water to drink and clean themselves. You don't think that's considered a lack of potable water in a first world nation?

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

Huh? you sure you quoted the right post?

You said healthcare isn't a right because it might not be available to you when you need it. Using your logic, anything that IS available when you want/need it IS a right, hence the funny McDonalds/Walmart reference.

 

[mdmarty]

It's a right. Please don't go into this profession if you think otherwise.

 

[zenlike]

It's a right. Please don't go into this profession if you think otherwise.

What good is a right if you have to pay for it? I mean what if you were charged $10 or $1,000,000 every time you wanted to exercise your right to free speech, or right to liberty, or right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure?

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

What good is a right if you have to pay for it? I mean what if you were charged $10 or $1,000,000 every time you wanted to exercise your right to free speech, or right to liberty, or right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure?

You do pay for those rights. You are a citizen, thus your rights are paid for by supporting your nation through taxes and service (jury duty, selective service, etc.).

 

[bozz]

It's a right. Please don't go into this profession if you think otherwise.

Is witholding care for the elderly to make room for the young okay with you?

 

[zenlike]

You do pay for those rights. You are a citizen, thus your rights are paid for by supporting your nation through taxes and service (jury duty, selective service, etc.).

Alright. I'll take one liberty and two sides of free speech. More seriously, a right is not a commodity. And, by your logic, someone who pays $0 in taxes has no rights.

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

Is witholding care for the elderly to make room for the young okay with you?

Why would we deny care for the elderly? They're citizens, too, you know.

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

Alright. I'll take one liberty and two sides of free speech. More seriously, a right is not a commodity. And, by your logic, someone who pays $0 in taxes has no rights.

Read the rest of my post. Rights are paid for by taxes AND service. Even those who pay $0 in taxes serve jury duty, register for the selective service, vote (voting is a service, yes), and generally contribute to society.

 

[mdmarty]

What good is a right if you have to pay for it? I mean what if you were charged $10 or $1,000,000 every time you wanted to exercise your right to free speech, or right to liberty, or right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure?

That's a problem with implementation of the system, not the idea that everyone has a right to treatment. Most other well-off countries get similar outcomes to the US with much smaller benefit levels. In other words, treatment outcomes are just as good, for example in Scandinavian countries and Japan, as they are here in the US, with only a fraction of the cost. See Kotlikoff's 'Healthcare fix' for details.

The main culprit is Medicare, which is just too generous with benefits. A universal policy that covers everyone (and removes Medicare and Medicaid) through goverment-subsidized vouchers is a solution. Kotlikoff's book is like 100 small pages and describes this in detail.

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

The main culprit is Medicare, which is just too generous with benefits. A universal policy that covers everyone (and removes Medicare and Medicaid) through goverment-subsidized vouchers is a solution. Kotlikoff's book is like 100 small pages and describes this in detail.

 

[Livingapparatus]

Read the rest of my post. Rights are paid for by taxes AND service. Even those who pay $0 in taxes serve jury duty, register for the selective service, vote (voting is a service, yes), and generally contribute to society.

 

[zenlike]

Read the rest of my post. Rights are paid for by taxes AND service. Even those who pay $0 in taxes serve jury duty, register for the selective service, vote (voting is a service, yes), and generally contribute to society.

So, how about foreign citizens in the U.S.?

 

[bozz]

That's a problem with implementation of the system, not the idea that everyone has a right to treatment. Most other well-off countries get similar outcomes to the US with much smaller benefit levels. In other words, treatment outcomes are just as good, for example in Scandinavian countries and Japan, as they are here in the US, with only a fraction of the cost. See Kotlikoff's 'Healthcare fix' for details.

The main culprit is Medicare, which is just too generous with benefits. A universal policy that covers everyone (and removes Medicare and Medicaid) through goverment-subsidized vouchers is a solution. Kotlikoff's book is like 100 small pages and describes this in detail.

Have you considered the role of culture? Traditionally, the Japanese have led healthier lifestyles than Americans. Is UH really the solution to many of the lower-class, overweight, plasma-tv buying Americans who rely on "free" cures to their problems rather than prevention?

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

So, how about foreign citizens in the U.S.?

They're more than welcome to use our emergent healthcare (which is already paid for by the state for those who can't pay), but no, they would not benefit from nationalized healthcare as far as family practitioners and specialists. This is common in universal healthcare systems.

 

[zenlike]

The main culprit is Medicare, which is just too generous with benefits

That is completely contrary to pretty much every experience I've ever had with Medicare. I don't know how many times I've seen a PCF struggle to find medications for a patient that Medicare will cover--and this is relatively basic stuff, like inhalers.

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

Have you considered the role of culture? Traditionally, the Japanese have led healthier lifestyles than Americans. Is UH really the solution to lower-class, unhealthy, overweight, plasma-tv buying Americans who rely on "free" cures to their problems rather than prevention?

If we tell people that they can no longer go to the doctor for every runny nose and that doctors will not prescribe for every little issue, don't you think that might change the culture to some extent?

 

[zenlike]

They're more than welcome to use our emergent healthcare (which is already paid for by the state for those who can't pay), but no, they would not benefit from nationalized healthcare as far as family practitioners and specialists. This is common in universal healthcare systems.

I was thinking more along the lines of already established rights like life, liberty, etc. I'm really trying to prove that you don't owe anyone anything for basic human rights.

 

[zenlike]

If we tell people that they can no longer go to the doctor for every runny nose and that doctors will not prescribe for every little issue, don't you think that might change the culture to some extent?

Dude, if ass cancer won't make you eat a salad, I don't know what will.

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

I was thinking more along the lines of already established rights like life, liberty, etc. I'm really trying to prove that you don't owe anyone anything for basic human rights.

Well, it just depends on how we model the system. A lot of nations have the qualification that you must either be a tax-payer, a minor, or a tax-exempt citizen in order to have health rights. It's a cost-saving measure more than a statement on the nature of rights.

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

Dude, if ass cancer won't make you eat a salad, I don't know what will.

 

[Wylde]

(Playing a bit of devil's advocate)

Maybe I am not understanding the question properly because, to me, "privilege" and "right" can be ambiguous in this situation. But I basically assumed:

"right" = entitlement or something else will help you with it

"privilege" = your own responsibility and no one will give it to you

I believe it is a "right" to be educated and informed about diseases/illness/etc. (ie how germs work, how to prevent STDs, how harmful smoking or increasing fat/cholesterol can be). However, I believe that access to healthcare is a privilege. Healthcare is an industry that is fueled by demand and responds accordingly, it is no different from other industries (ie transportation, entertainment, etc.). We are not given a car or entitled to have our movie tickets subsidized and we should not expect anyone to give us healthcare either. The fact that healthcare apparently affects human-life on a more direct level should be irrelevant.

 

[circulus vitios]

Everyone has the right to be concerned with their health and treat it with what they have. It's not a right to go up to a doctor and say "I DEMAND you treat me".

 

[Livingapparatus]

If we tell people that they can no longer go to the doctor for every runny nose and that doctors will not prescribe for every little issue, don't you think that might change the culture to some extent?

This I agree with however; people need to take better care of themselves and suck it up before handouts start going out.

I dont want to waste my time for slobs and people who are abusive to the system. I shouldnt have to take care of every person financially just because I can support myself.

 

[PreMedPrincess]

Privelage. Other than the pseudo "rights" given by government, nothing is a right.

To suggest it is your god given "right" to have a doctor treat you is absolutely foolish.

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

Privelage. Other than the pseudo "rights" given by government, nothing is a right.

To suggest it is your god given "right" to have a doctor treat you is absolutely foolish.

Well, then count me in the ~60% of Americans who are "foolish" enough to want a standard of care not based on greed and profit =/
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html

If you don't want universal health care, I suggest you start looking for somewhere to live outside of Western Europe and (soon) North America.

 

[PreMedPrincess]

Well, then count me in the ~60% of Americans who are "foolish" enough to want a standard of care not based on greed and profit =/
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html

If you don't want universal health care, I suggest you start looking for somewhere to live outside of Western Europe and (soon) North America.

No one said americans were smart.

If you think there is going to be universal healthcare anytime soon then you are in the top 5% of that 60% you just quoted.

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

No one said americans were smart.

If you think there is going to be universal healthcare anytime soon then you are in the top 5% of that 60% you just quoted.

Ah, right, so you are the type of person who thinks "Screw what the MAJORITY want, only I know what is right for the country!"

You know who else thought like that? Hitler and Stalin. You are willing to ignore the will of the people (in a democracy, no less) in pursuit of an ideology. Awesome.

 

[PreMedPrincess]

Ah, right, so you are the type of person who thinks "Screw what the MAJORITY want, only I know what is right for the country!"

You know who else thought like that? Hitler and Stalin. You are willing to ignore the will of the people (in a democracy, no less) in pursuit of an ideology. Awesome.

Let me guess, you are in your second year, you've taken some sociology courses and you think you know the ins and outs of our economy.

FYI, if it was up to the "MAJORITY" we'd still be paying taxes to england and having our slaves fetch us some water. THANK GOD the majority doesn't matter. MOST people are stupid, end of that discussion.

A doctor provides a service, and should be compensated according to the demand and supply of his/her service. It is NOT your RIGHT to demand a doctors service. What part of that do you not understand?

 

[Lukkie]

Let me guess, you are in your second year, you've taken some sociology courses and you think you know the ins and outs of our economy.

FYI, if it was up to the "MAJORITY" we'd still be paying taxes to england and having our slaves fetch us some water. THANK GOD the majority doesn't matter. MOST people are stupid, end of that discussion.

A doctor provides a service, and should be compensated according to the demand and supply of his/her service. It is NOT your RIGHT to demand a doctors service. What part of that do you not understand?

will you marry me

 

[zenlike]

A doctor provides a service, and should be compensated according to the demand and supply of his/her service. It is NOT your RIGHT to demand a doctors service. What part of that do you not understand?

A police officer also provides a service.

 

[amph119]

I got about halfway through the first page and I felt it necessary to pose the following question...

With the rise of new scary crap like VRSA, why is it that the U.S. is the central hub of most, in fact nearly all, groundbreaking new drug research advances? Because there IS PROFIT to be made from it.

In fact I think the better question would be:

How far behind would we be from where we are right now in 2008 in treatment and medication advances if profits and, admittedly, fame were severely limited by having to extended the aforementioned advances to every single person in the country?

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

Let me guess, you are in your second year, you've taken some sociology courses and you think you know the ins and outs of our economy.

Hmm, nope, I've graduated (a couple years ago, now), and I've never claimed to know the "ins-and-outs" of our economy. Let me guess, you were a bio major that took psych 101 and thinks you know all about human nature?

FYI, if it was up to the "MAJORITY" we'd still be paying taxes to england and having our slaves fetch us some water. THANK GOD the majority doesn't matter. MOST people are stupid, end of that discussion.

Hmm, well, let's review history. You say a majority of people supported slavery. Well, the fact of the matter is, they didn't. A small percentage of people actually owned them, and the majority of people fighting in the Civil War were fighting for the states' rights to rule separately from the federal government. I would have thought you'd learn that in American History I or whatever the intro course is called at your university.

As for the majority being against the revolutionary war, only 15-20% of (what would later be called) Americans remained loyal to the crown
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution#Factions:_Patriots.2C_Loyalists_and_Neutrals

Again, please reread your intro American History text before throwing around false information in an attempt to justify fascism.

A doctor provides a service, and should be compensated according to the demand and supply of his/her service. It is NOT your RIGHT to demand a doctors service. What part of that do you not understand?

No one is DEMANDING the doctor's service, as you put it. The government can't force them to work. Doctors, just like any other citizen, are free to take their services elsewhere ro open private clinics. This happens in every nationalized healthcare system. What part do YOU not understand?

 

[FutureInternist]

Before we even try & get everyone health care, wouldn't it make sense to first try & get everyone some food/shelter. I think most people would agree that those are rights, so why not tackle the hunger/homeless problem first. What's the point of treating the local homeless drunk for ruptured esophagus, only to turn him back to the streets, where the problem would just continue to occur?

Also, if it's OK to ration care in certain instances (deny organs to someone - liver to an EtOHer) why can it not be done on a broader basis? "No Mr. Child Rapist I am NOT going to waste 5 units of blood trying to save you, when I can use that to save more deserving people"
Usually ER patients are triaged according to severity & you treat the worst first BUT in times when the ER is overwhelmed you kind of give up on the severely injured & try to save as many of the others as you can. Why can this not be a usual happening. Why must my care be delayed because the drunk idiot who hit me was not wearing a seat belt....I say let him die in the interest of preventing more deaths in the future.

Someone posted that the "right" to health care is in the Constitution but from what I know the only people guaranteed health care are criminals in federal prison.

 

[PreMedPrincess]

will you marry me

whats you VR score?


"A police officer also provides a service."

And my dog is a german shepherd. whats your point? If you are suggesting that police officers are exempt from the laws of supply and demand then you are mistaken. They, like doctors, are compensated according to service they provide. However, I would suggest that a policeman's service falls more under the function of a "psuedo" right by the government as I illuded to earlear.

I mean, I get it. You guys are suggesting we make healthcare universal. OK, fine. But this still doesn't make healthcare a "right". Government workers are bound by the law and the law is man-made. If an officer feels he or she does not want to help you, he is not physically bound by the laws of nature to help you.

 

[VneZonyDostupa]

Wasn't there a time when a majority in this country thought slavery was the way to go ???

See post above.

Before we even try & get everyone health care, wouldn't it make sense to first try & get everyone some food/shelter. I think most people would agree that those are rights, so why not tackle the hunger/homeless problem first. What's the point of treating the local homeless drunk for ruptured esophagus, only to turn him back to the streets, where the problem would just continue to occur?

I wasn't aware things could only be worked on in a linear fashion, rather than in tandem. And here I thought Congress could vote on more than one bill per term

Also, if it's OK to ration care in certain instances (deny organs to someone - liver to an EtOHer) why can it not be done on a broader basis?

Why would we need to?

Someone posted that the "right" to health care is in the Constitution but from what I know the only people guaranteed health care are criminals in federal prison.

Sad but true.

 

[Elephantastic]

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

Your definition of "right" is too narrow. For example, someone (i.e. a public defender) has to PROVIDE protection for a defendant under the law. This is an inalienable right for arrestees. The law recognizes inalienable rights which by definition can't be taken away. The question here is whether good health is an inalienable right.

 

[PreMedPrincess]

VneZonyDostupa,

what are you talking about? at one point, all of the US was is support of slavery. It took a VERY long time (hundred plus years) for slavery to end in the north.

Civil war? why are you suggesting the civil war? is there no US history before then? my my, you are a silly goose.

"No one is DEMANDING the doctor's service, as you put it. The government can't force them to work. Doctors, just like any other citizen, are free to take their services elsewhere ro open private clinics. This happens in every nationalized healthcare system. What part do YOU not understand?"

To claim it as a right is to suggest you can demand at your will. It is not your right to demand a service from another.

 

[mdmarty]

Have you considered the role of culture? Traditionally, the Japanese have led healthier lifestyles than Americans. Is UH really the solution to many of the lower-class, overweight, plasma-tv buying Americans who rely on "free" cures to their problems rather than prevention?

No cure is free. Everyone pitches in. Just because you cannot afford an HIV pill because you flip burgers in In-N-Out, does not mean you should not get the treatment. Believe it or not, being a physician or other well-off professional is a privilege afforded by few. To the lower-class you refer to, the idea that I can become a doctor is almost non-existent. UH would work if you deduct $ from payroll taxes (like we do for social security now) based on income. If you do not make enough (say <$30K), the government picks up this fee.

Prevention is the best form of medicine, and I agree that we should be putting more resources into it.

That is completely contrary to pretty much every experience I've ever had with Medicare. I don't know how many times I've seen a PCF struggle to find medications for a patient that Medicare will cover--and this is relatively basic stuff, like inhalers.

Medicare covers A LOT. If you are not happy with your doctor, you can just go to another one. And you can repeat this as many times as you want. In 1965, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security (MMS) spending averaged only 28 percent of per capita income; in 1980 it was 63; today it is 79; and in 2030, it is predicted to be 91% due to the baby-boomers. To put this in perspective, in 2030, the MMS benefit (per year) will be $50,540 in today's dollars . In other words, the government is spending $50K per year on every medicare enrollee (~77 million baby-boomers in 2035). This will total to just above 20% of our GDP! Will we be able to afford this? Absolutely not.

Ref: Kotlikoff 'Healthcare Fix'