Should health care insurance be a right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by carpro
If true, a far more likely reason is that too many Americans are dying of complications from being obese, not lack of medical care.

We do love our fast food and high cholesterol.

Let's see them.

 

I agree with this reasoning. I hesitate to call it a "right," but I think it is a very good idea that should be expected in nations capable of providing it.

I also support universal coverage because I see it as the only way to sustain the health system in the long term. Hospitals in areas with great numbers of uninsured patients often struggle to keep the doors open because they have to take emergency cases that generate little to no revenue. If we had universal coverage, no hospital would have to worry about whether or not they would receive payment for treatment, and no person would have to worry about not being treated.

NOTE: I am not in favor of an NHS-style system of nationalized health care. I think we can preserve the private delivery system while ensuring universal coverage through a hybrid of public and private options.

 

So, just think of what it'll be like when every hospital is run like this because the government runs them all. All of us will have to wait months for treatment behind everyone else in this country. After all, if one person has to wait that long because they don't have insurance, then the rest of us should suffer as well.

Socialized medicine is a joke...or, it would be if it wasn't so awful.

When I need treatment, I want it now. I don't want a "quick fix" that will hopefully tide me over until I can see the doctor and get really fixed in a month or two.

Just wait until all the best doctors leave the country because they can't make any money. Then tell me how much better the care is that you're getting. Don't think it will happen? Just wait. My doctor is from Canada. He has told that is exactly the reason he left there and came here.

Free healthcare is absolutely not a right.

 

Name one country that would enable them to make more money.

 

You failed to point out how most of this is spent on illegal aliens which by the way take priority over US citizens and which are people the GOP wants to keep in the country. Seems you can't have it both ways. The GOP wants to cut the cost but keep the cause.

 

I had a live transplant and I have not been able to find work where I can have insurance or make enough to pay for insurance. (that well only cover non pre-existing conditions) And even then the insurance policy is so limited it is not worth half my monthly pay check.
I thing something really needs to be done. I have the right to the same health care as a rich person.
:BangHead:
But I also think being a doctor should be a calling and not about being rich. Like that well ever happen.

 

Sure... the problem is rich doctors

So do you think if we give government the task of reining in costs health care it will get better?

Not that long ago, recognizing the problem of those uncovered by healthcare insurance in this state, Pennsylvania Governor (Fast) Eddie Rendell (D) proposed imposing a stiff penalty on employers not offering heath care coverage.
It was eventually pointed out that the penalty was far less than the cost of health coverage.
The proposal, rather than helping, would encourage employers to drop their coverage and simply pay the fine.

Why do we think the health care system is broken?
Mainly because of its high costs.
Why does it cost more?
With more knowledge we have better technology, leading to more procedures and longer lives.

How can government cut costs?
The government can reduce funding to medical schools (already done),
They can limit the availability of newer technological advances (already done),
They can reduce payments to physicians for the procedures they perform (currently in process)
To ensure compliance, burden physicians with endless regulations and needless paperwork (done).

The next logical step will be to limit the type of healthcare coverage, who gets it, where and when.

This is the general practice in those countries that have government run health care.
Remember, politicians know that dead people don't complain and (mostly) don't vote.

Rob

 

Do you any evidence to suggest that MOST of this is caused by illegal aliens?

I know it's a factor, but I'm not sure it's 51% of the problem.

 

KenH.
I love you man. But I really dont understand this sudden change in your ideology. You sound like you have an axe to grind because of Ron Paul's failure to get the nomination. Universal Health Care? Are you serious? Do you think Ron Paul would go for this? The jesuit-like zeal that you displayed for Ron Paul and the Constitution just doesnt square with your sudden decision to fall for a Big Government socialist like Obama. I need an explanation and I am sure that many of your friends hear on BB would appreciate one also. This 180 degree shift in your thinking is scary. I am kind of having my doubts about your previous support for Ron Paul at his point. It must have been a sham.

 

You are so dramatic!

It could be that KenH has simply seen the light concerning how well Obama will do as president. Besides, Ken doesn't owe you are anyone else an explanation as to why he backs one candidate over another.

I love the way you, in the end of your post cast a little doubt concerning Ken's honesty. Anyone who has backed this Bush administration's disastrous policies for the past several years doesn't need to question anyone else's judgment nor their honesty.

 

Well said.

 

So you are not a small govt type then? The reason we are in the shape we are in regarding health care is because there is already too much govt involvement.

I saw today that Obama and Clinton were in an argument regarding NAFTA. Is Obama on record opposing NAFTA?

 

I dont believe that I was addressing you. I may be dramatic but you are a busy-body.

 

How much did we spend when you were against socialist medicine? And was our poppulation healthier then?

And if we did adopt SM, would the % of our expenditures on health care suddenly go down 6% in relation to our GDP? If not suddenly, then how long would it take?

One subtopic that I never see addressed in this debate is the extent to which, in America, medicine is a very lucrative career and very limited in selection of candidates to attend med schools. Years ago I knew one young lady, a serious student with a 3.5 in chemistry, who was rejected for med school after her interviews, and she suddenly went into drinking and promiscuity, then married a year or 2 later, and after that.. I don't know. But anyway, that's one problem I see with a blanket conversion to SM-- it's harder than realized to break such an elitist, country-club atomosphere as the medical profession has become to where it's just another career choice, as in so many of these countries which already have it; longer lifespans or not.

And what are the overall ramifications of longer lifespans? More medicne needed, for one. Crowded nursing homes, half the population receiving social security, the other half in involuntary servitude to them (in spite of the 13th Amendment), more communities that can legally discriminate against younger people and couples to live there, millionaire retirees arguing with clerks or waiters about senior discounts (as I've seen),....

 

Then as the population increases with an ever increasing average age, the next option to control runaway health care cost will be to cull the population. Abortion already does that to an extent but with an elderly population you will have crowded hospitals and nursing homes. The elderly will become a burden that the working public will soon grow tired of. And with our ever increasingly Godless society there will be no respect for life at any stage, embryonic, infant, child, teenager, adult or elderly.
So to relieve the burden the govt will start dehumanizing any group that it will consider as undesirables as well as the elderly to be culled.

I for one do not see a very bright future in universal health care.

 

That's science. Sure, it's economics, too, but these are 2 'progressive' subjects that can't be separated. Scientific research gives us mass rapid transportation; it creates the problem of pollution. Scientific research gives us a weapon to end a world war; it creates the perpetual threat of a war to end all wars by ending us. Scientific research give "us" a few trips to the moon, but the money and resources it took to get there make it one of the worst cost/benefit ratios in our history. Scientific research give us longer lives; the healthier and wealthier of our seniors play golf every day, many pollute the air further with bus tours all over the country, and some are reduced to bed & bingo, to be kept alive because life=good, death=bad, except for pre-born babies and Dr. Kevorkian.