Is access to health care a basic human right: or a privilege?

No, I am saying that you cite only white examples when you argue for socialized medicine and you never mention non-white countries, or what the socialists call non-white countries. What about Russia, China, and North Korea--are they examples of good healthcare?

 

Is that a "right" given by the government and did the English infant in the news have that right when the English government said that he should be refused further treatment or was that just a political error?

 

There is no such thing as an 'English government'. The UK government, based in Whitehall, has said nothing at all about Charlie Gard's medical treatment. The courts of England and Wales have, as has the European Court of Human Rights. They have ruled that he should not be subjected to treatment that will do him more harm than good - and correctly so based on the evidence presented to them.

I note you haven't answered the implied question as to why some deem it more important to have the right to have assault weapons over and above the right to medical treatment, a stance incompatible with following Christ. Perhaps start with removing that plank from your eye and then maybe we can talk further about whether the Charlie Gard case constitutes a British speck.

 

I would expect that if someone were to desire a good health care system, they would take cues from ones that were successful and avoid the mistakes of ones that were not. Makes sense, right? I'm not sure what white or non-white has to do with successful or unsuccessful systems.

Japan, Singapore and S Korea could also offer some ideas for the US.

 

Your ignorance of capitalism is duly noted.

If you honestly believe capitalism and liberty are based on greed, you should try to find an adult to help you read Milton Friedman's Free To Choose.

Why is it that you anti-American Leftists always insist that capitalism is based on greed, but refuse to acknowledge the greed that motivates your lust for government control?

Precisely why we need to dump your failed Marxist ideas and return healthcare to the free market where it belongs.

And we Christians believe that you don't do right by one person by sinning against another.

Tell that to the family of Charlie Gard. You know, the child your precious socialized medicine bureaucrats are fixing to let die in Great Britain.

The problem, Princess, is that we came to America to be Americans, not to be Japanese, Singaporian, or Korean. We came here for liberty, not for government regulation over every area of our lives.

If you hate America and our ideas of liberty so much, then go to some other country.

 

It used to be that an Englishman's home was his castle but I understand that that is not so any longer. The right to bear arms stems from the God-given right to self defense. Notice that my right to bear arms does not mean that Uncle Sam will buy me a new gun. Of course, women have always had the right to bare arms.

So Charlie Gard was a political decision. Actually, the way I understand it from what you have said, the rich are exempt from the rules and regulations of the English healthcare system but the poor are under the government's control.

I don't think that you or anyone else believes that Americans are going without medical treatment. Welfare does provide medicine. We just don't want to put the entire population under the welfare umbrella of government as is done in communist and socialized countries. And we don't want to just exempt the upper class but also the working poor from state control of medicine. Our politicians are crooks and thieves. Our Veterans Administration should be abolished and Veterans should be given insurance to go where they please. Some are forced to drive long distances for poor government service.

In American, the private system of medicine has delivered the best healthcare in the world.

 

The problem, Princess, is that we came to America to be Americans, not to be Japanese, Singaporian, or Korean. We came here for liberty, not for government regulation over every area of our lives.

If you hate America and our ideas of liberty so much, then go to some other country.

No, socialism fails because its economically untenable.

 

Absolute false. In fact the opposite is true.

U.S. Health-Care System Ranks as One of the Least-Efficient
U.S. Health-Care System Ranks as One of the Least-Efficient

The U.S. health-care system remains among the least-efficient in the world.

America was 50th out of 55 countries in 2014, according to a Bloomberg index that assesses life expectancy, health-care spending per capita and relative spending as a share of gross domestic product. Expenditures averaged $9,403 per person, about 17.1 percent of GDP, that year — the most recent for which data are available — and life expectancy was 78.9. Only Jordan, Colombia, Azerbaijan, Brazil and Russia ranked lower.

The U.S. has lagged near the bottom of the Bloomberg Health-Care Efficiency Indexsince it was created in 2012. Hong Kong and Singapore — consistently at the top — are smaller countries with less diverse populations. Their governments also play a stronger role in regulating and providing care, with spending per capita averaging $2,386 and longevity averaging about 83 years.

The U.S. system “tends to be more fragmented, less organized and coordinated, and that’s likely to lead to inefficiency,” said Paul Ginsburg, a professor at the University of Southern California and director of the Center for Health Policy at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

 

This Englishman's home is still my castle - but we have never existed in isolation from our fellow-citizens, and that's never been what it has meant. I don't have the right, for example, to turn my home into a bomb making factory.

Wrong on both counts. The poor are not under the government's control; in fact, our present government has turned its back on the poor more and more, particularly the working poor

 

I agree. Socialized healthcare has failed. Let's get the government out of it so we can get back to being #1.

 

Ok turning their back on them, i.e. not giving them government handouts is not the same thing as not having control

 

church mouse guy was suggesting that only white socialized medical systems were successful and I was pointing out some Asian systems that are also highly functional. A common theme is wealthy countries have better health care systems, especially when they find a way to ensure that citizens who are poor, elderly and with multiple medical illnesses also get taken care of. Unfortunately those are the people that are unprofitable to insure and they will lose out the more your system privatizes and health care insurance is more profit motivated.

I'm a Canadian living in Australia. I spent several years of my childhood in the US and have an American wife and children with many friends and family in the US. I love the United States and the liberty it represents. And it saddens me as a medical doctor to see this country that I love being unable to provide reasonable quality health care for its people and all the problems of poor education, loss of work and increased crime that comes with poor health care.

Every country has pockets of similar issues, usually in remote parts where access is difficult. But in the United States, the country that spends by far the most per capita on health care than any other, the health outcomes should be significantly better than what they have been (this has always been the case and was worse before Obamacare). I guess if you are ok with the status quo and think that the way to improve one of the most privatized health care systems in the world that isn't working with even more privatization, then go for it. It is your country to do as you wish. My recommendation is to learn from what has or hasn't worked in the past and other parts of the world instead of sticking to an ideology.

I am not tied to socialism or privatization. I see pros and cons to both and I think the balance in Australia is pretty good. I think some aspects of the system in Australia could benefit from more privatization while other aspects would benefit from more government control. My goal is to see quality health care delivered to as many people as possible, regardless of the economic model behind it.

These are the world bank countries by GDP. How many would you call tenable? How many would you call socialist?
http://databank.worldbank.org/data/download/GDP.pdf

Top 20 GDP countries in millions of US dollars

 

No you don't. If you did, then you wouldn't be advocating government regulation and the loss of our liberty.

But its the very system you advocate that is the reason they're not receiving care, Einstein. Get the government out of it and let it return to the free market.

No, it shouldn't. It's expensive and inefficient because expensive and inefficient is the only thing the government does well.

Return it to the free market and costs will plummet and services and care will vastly improve.

It was when it was private that it worked. It wasn't until the government got involved that it started to crumble.

 

I would say the reason medicare and medicaid don't work is because of lack of funding. If the government got out of health care for those normally covered by medicare and medicaid, they would go from under funded to unfunded. Why would insurance companies chose to insure these people who will obviously be unprofitable?

The history of medicare as well as the global rise in medical costs is an interesting story. Understanding that history is pretty important to understanding why medical insurance in the US and around the world has developed the way it has. It was actually the rising cost of medical care that lead to the development of Medicare, not the other way around.

A history of health insurance in the United States: part I

A history of health insurance in the United States: part II

The Advent of Medicaid and Medicare: 1965–1980 - America's Essential Hospitals

 

We spend BILLIONS on Medicare and Medicaid.

The problem isn't the funding. Its the concept.

First of all, it isn't the government's responsibility to fund them in the first place. It isn't Constitutional and it isn't just or moral

Second, your ignorance of economics is showing.

If healthcare were returned to the free market and people were once again allowed to make their own decisions like free men, prices would go down and government healthcare would be unnecessary.

If the government funded it more, then prices would only rise to accommodate the new influx of funding.

Third, you don't know what you're talking about. The problems with these programs, aside from the legal and moral problems, is systemic, not economic.

...which you know nothing about.

 

the problem with your thinking like most liberals is that you have only one solution for the problem which is government. It is this narrow minded thinking that gets countries in trouble like Greece for instance. I believe this is because the liberal wants government to be the answer no matter what. Control of people's lives is the goal.

 

Which part of the US Constitution prohibits federally funded health care insurance?

So it is more moral to let people who can't afford health care to just die from treatable diseases?

Will it go down to zero for those folks that have no income? The homeless? Those who have been bankrupt with medical bills?

I am always willing to learn. Teach me about the history of medicare and medical insurance in the united states.

 

The issue is not that it prohibits it, it is that it does not give government the responsibility for it. That is how our National constitution works.

So who said this? Please provide me the quote.

Do you have any other resolution other than government?