Is health care a "human right"? (Page 4 of 6)

You don't HAVE to be rich.  Middle class is good enough.  I'm as middle class as they come, and there is nothing wrong with the care I receive.  Same-day CAT-scans, affordable medication (which I don't need too often), I can see a doctor on a moments notice and even a specialist if I need it.  Could it be cheaper?  Sure.  The deductible is a bit high, but it is easily affordable because I have money that I have SAVED in case of emergencies.  People aren't going bankrupt because medical treatment is too expensive.  They are going bankrupt because they did not plan for life's curveballs.  This isn't a condemnation of our health care system, it is a condemnation of our ability to prioritize.

But, in all of that, you have missed the point.  You have said that we can receive the SAME quality care (actually, you seem to believe BETTER care) by moving to a system such as is practiced in Western Europe.  You have shown a list of rankings, and Italy was #2 on that list.  Their own Prime Minister knew that he would receive better treatment in the US.   He isn't on Medicare.  He left his "#2 ranked" system for the "#37 ranked" system in the US.  Again, no other explination except that he received better or more timely care. 

Conclusion:  The United States provides BETTER treatment than Italy or at the VERY LEAST more timely treatment than Italy.  How can this be so if the US is worse "overall in medicine"?

In relation to Medicare:  Most people over 65 are ELIGIBLE, and most take advantage.  And of course most chose to purchase Medigap coverage to suppliment Medicare.  And we should also remember that many purchase supplemental plans because of the large gaps in Medicare prescription drug plans.  Are we to believe that people on the "national plan" will also have to purchase supplimental coverage?  If so, it sort of defeats the purpose it seems.  If nothing else, we are right back to where we started.

Oh, and where did I say "national health care kills innovation"?  I believe it can hinder it (in certain cases).  But I don't believe national health care will stop all medical innovation.  You are being dishonest.

How am I pretending to be a doctor?  I am simply pointing out that the WHO has ranked health care systems, not "medicine overall".  You made an error, I corrected it.  And I also felt like it was important to show why many of the statistics they use must be called into question.  But more on that in a minute........

You put those words in my mouth. Seriously, how are you going to quote something I never said, and then follow it with, "do you actually listen to yourself"?  That is just wrong.

For someone who loves to point out the bad habits of other people's debating styles, you certainly don't practice what you preach.  Did I ever say the Prime Minister of Italy nullified the WHO?  Did I call them dimwits? 

No, I asked you to explain why someone from a country ranked #2 would fly to the country ranked #37 for surgery.  That is it.  You've made the claim again and again that we would not be sacrificing quality, yet I linked a story that calls that claim into question. 

No, again you have misread (or ignored) everything I have posted.  First, I am not pretending anything.  I don't think a national health system is a good idea.  I think it will result in substandard care and is ultimately unmaintainable with an aging population and that the tax burden will only increase.  I think Europe has been able to spend more on their programs because they sacrifice other national endeavors.  I also believe that America has its own unique circumstances for such poor "rankings" and that if European countries had similar problems (of the same magnitude), they would fall significantly on that list.  I don't think that health care is a human right, and this nation can NEVER make that claim.  You've disproven none of those things.

And it "...works best everywhere in the world"?  Alright, if you want to be a fact Nazi:

Russia has free nationalized health care and they rank 130th according to your own treasured report.  Explain to the forum why this is.  They have what you want, and are nearly 100 places lower than the US in "medicine overall" as you like to call it.  Tell me how this is. 

No, they are not. 

No you don't.  You don't even get your own "facts" straight.  Your numbers are just that, numbers.  They do NOT tell the whole story.  You take rankings from WHO and presume that "national health care" will move us higher up the list (as if that even matters).  I have gone to point in order to show you how a statistic like infant mortality is skewed by the sheer number of premature births in the United States.  That isn't feeling or opinion, it is fact, and backed up with a link that you required.  Thus, if something like infant mortality (which makes up a large part of where we are on the WHO rankings) has fundamental factors that skew its results, I don't think we can use them in such an absolute way.

No, they don't - not of the same magnitude.  30.6% obesity in the US as compared with 23% in the UK.  That is a significant difference.  30.6% of the US is over 100 million people that are obese, and 100 million people with all the health problems that come with it.  The UK has to deal with just over 14 million.  That is a GIANT difference.  It has to be included in any substantive debate over health care.

And sure, Britain may have a high teen birth rate.  You skew the importance by saying it is "2nd" on the list, even though that doesn't tell the whole truth.  It may be high, but still only HALF of the US teen birth RATE.  Double the number of teen pregnancies in the UK, premature births will increase, and their infant mortality numbers will likely be a lot closer to ours.  It is most certainly not a stretch to say that.

You like to scoff at the "special America" argument.  And by doing so you ignore a MAJOR factor in why the numbers come out the way they do.  As soon as you lose sight of WHY the numbers are the way they are, you become incapable of drawing valid conclusions.

It may be a MEASURE, but it is not without major flaws.  You can't glean anything from it alone.  You see numbers without understanding them.  Clock speed is a measure of your computer processor's overall performance.  But it is not the whole story; instruction sets, cache, architecture, number of cores, and dozens of other things go into it. 

Which goes to show why many people in this country don't take your health care plan and run with it.  You guys haven't proven a thing.  Whenever someone questions something, you get smug and attempt to ridicule concerns that to many people, are very much valid. 

You then turn to your favorite "WHO report" which you never bothered to read in its entirety, and regurgitate a meaningless ranking as some sort of vindication of national health care. 

You guys want us to believe that national health care will move us up the ranks, but you ignore the countless countries with nationalized health care that fall BELOW the US in those same rankings.  How can you be so sure we won't actually FALL down those same sacred rankings?

Your argument is horrifically unconvincing.  It is based upon false premise, a complete and utter lack of intellectual honesty, no desire whatsoever to explain differentials in fundamental health care statistics, and a biased, partisan scornfulness against anyone who has legitimate questions about it.

Nobody said otherwise, Cybert. It was never disputed, but you brought it up for some unknown reason.

From my link above, "Premature infants in the United States are more likely to survive than those elsewhere."

Those infants are not on national health care, and they are not on Medicare.  Thus your "fact" of us "only" excelling in geriatric care is completely false.

He made a reference to Medicare, but didn't explicitly call out other forms of government subsidized (or provided) health care.  From your comments earlier on this topic, you seem to be of the opinion that health care is a human right.  As Freethinker has pointed out, that seems to be the opinion of a large majority of the world. 

The problem I have with this is that it starts down a slippery slope of what constitutes a human right.  As a few other posters have noted, if health care is a human right, can't just about anything relating to survival and standard of living be considered the same?  Is food a human right?  Is a home?  What about a job, an education, transportation to get to a job, day-care for children, or central heating and air conditioning?  Where do we draw the line?

Next issue, assuming that all of these things are human rights - who ever made it government's job to provide these things because they are human rights?  See, the way our government is set up certainly calls much into question.  Just because something is a "human right" does not mean it is government's job to provide it.  It means that an individual cannot surrender that right to the government.

If "life" is a human right, would it be fair to say that the government "provides" us with life?  If "liberty" is a human right, would you characterize your government as "providing" you with liberty?  I don't think any of us would come to that conclusion.  Perhaps government's duty is to be sure that your "right to life" is not denied.  But then that brings up another question:  If life is a human right, and government is to be sure it is not denied, how can we explain abortion and capital punishment?  The government fails on both counts.  As such, if you could argue that health care was a human right, then we certainly can't trust government to protect it as they have proven incapable and unwilling to protect the most important human right, the right to life.

In conclusion, if we can't say that a human right is provided by government, and we can't say that a human right is protected by government, then does it really matter? 

I've attempted to read it, and you are right it is too long and it is too complex.  I don't know who said, but I like the paraphrase, "a bill to difficult to understand will also be too difficult to implement".  I fear that the people voting on this bill really don't know what is in it.

It is my opinion that the question of whether health care is a human right is irrelevant to the debate.  Does the legislation make any claim that this is the case?

BTW, the interpretation of this document has been changed considerably over the years with massive changes, both philosophical and technological.

Maybe some might suggest, the change might also be relevant to the section of "promoting the general welfare," while the section suggesting "securing the blessings of liberty," should be paramount in a discussion of a provision of health care for all by government.   

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Which then may bring on that old question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Cryptomaniac, while I would suggest shelter and clothing are a question most often related to environment, though water, you didn't mention, lies at the base of much of the hunger and in some cases violence in progress. And the Constitutional mention would also be by those with different opinions debatable, including the current Supremes. 

But where I suspect we agree is on the hope this particular piece of legislation doesn't in the end become law. But there we would also differ. First, it really isn't about "death panels" or much else the various politicians and pundits put out, but because IMHO it is simply a poor piece of legislation with no real positive end results, but for primarily those who provide the funds to lobby for or against it and those who collect the bounty in their campaign coffers.

Most of the value of provision of universal health care for the population of a nation is hardly a factor of this legislation. And until the U.S. and the people who are elected to provide any form of health care "reform" are willing to go to a single payer form, the most costly factor of the current legislation and current system
will continue to remain.  The duplication of effort between the huge variety of various current programs, both public and private is the most costly aspect of the system.  And I forgot to mention for those who talk about "not-for profits" such as Kaiser, I would
suggest they examine last year's Kaiser documents. The profits are really huge, but "interesting" bookkeeping does make the difference.

Well said, you is you ...well said.

Culturally, I think the US is unique in this regard -- just because it works in other countries is no guarantee it will work here.

I'm sure you've heard of the whole "innovator, entrepreneurial spirit" culture over here in the states...a lot of people are in big favor of supporting the small guy, which ironically means that they are against nationalized health care because of the heavy tax burden it would undoubtedly invoke on the small business owner -- I can't say I disagree with this line of thinking. It becomes pointless if you are taxed at twice what it would it costs you yearly to get it on your own.

The major changes (if any) that I *do* want to see at the very least is that people can readily get *GOOD* insurance -- like what we currently get on group plans. Our individual plans for the most part suck...and of course if the price was more competitive that would encourage more people to enroll. I hate having to rely on a job for health care, because they get such a better deal -- during times of un-employment or if you want to go out on your own for a few  months for a break, you aren't even able to get decent coverage unless you setup your own group plan and incorporate.

Who is hoarding resources?  This bill will impose a tax on the middle class.  It isn't about "big business".  It is about taxation, more government intervention in our lives, and the tug-of-war between power and liberty.  People don't like to be taxed.  We are already overtaxed, and we are tired of it.  We want to keep our money so we can take care of our children and live the lives we want to live. 

Liberty and private property cannot exist without one another (not in any large society).  It has been proven throughout history and the founders of this country (every single one of them) stated it time and time again.  More on that in a minute.

Policing and defense have ALWAYS fallen to government because they are best able to organize a national defense.  The same way government is in charge of our court systems.  There are certain things that government does because nobody else can - health care is NOT one of those things. I have had health care and never needed the government for it.  I cannot however defend myself against an invading army.  That is for government.  That is why there is a difference.  It has nothing to do with rich vs. poor.

I can tell we are going to have a lot of fun together.........If you have property, it does NOT interfere with my RIGHT to have that property.  I can buy it from you.  No rights have been violated.  Also, I do NOT have a right to YOUR property, only property in general. 

You already know that the United States fought a war and declared its independence because of property.  You may be amazed to learn that one of the first slogans of the revolution was "Liberty, property, and no stamps!"  Property is FUNDAMENTAL to our freedoms. 

Property rights ARE the same as OTHER RIGHTS.  We didn't "elevate property rights to the status of unalienable rights" - our FOUNDERS did that for us:

Some history:

Virginia Bill Of Rights (1776):
"SECTION 1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

But what does John Adams have to say about it?
"The moment that idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the Laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be sacred or liberty cannot exist."

Alexander Hamilton?
"A power over a man's subsistence amounts to a power over his will"

Thomas Jefferson?
Our wish is that equality of rights be maintained, and that state of property, equal or unequal, which results to every man from his own industry or that of his fathers."

Jefferson is essentially putting the axe to the notion of "redistribution of wealth".

And more importantly,
"The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management."

Now, to be fair - and this is important as I am a huge fan of Jefferson, perhaps you would agree with this one:

"Whenever there is in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right."

Jefferson wrote this to James Madison as a way of opening the door to government regulation so that an aristocratic element of society didn't "hoard resources" as you have described.  In other words, government may have a duty to make sure there is a level playing field (hence the reason we have laws against price gouging as well as anti-trust laws). 

And why do I mention anti-trust laws?  Because that is one spot where the government has let us down in health care.  Health insurance providers have an anti-trust exemption (our brilliant government gave that to them).  This exemption essentially allows gigantic corporations to gobble up other gigantic corporations and has the effect of driving out competition.  So in this instance you, me, and Jefferson all agree. 

The government has a role, but it is NOT to provide health care.  The government has a role to make sure business is conducted fairly and honestly.  Regulation (as long as it is not over-regulation) is necessary and acceptable.  That is essentially where government plays its part.

Who is it exactly that cannot afford private care? The working poor and now increasingly members of the middle class.

Private insurers will continue to operate under this current plan, though with greater regulation and subsidies from the government. The "public option" is not intended to replace existing services, but only to offer an alternative to expensive insurance.

Is IamMe an anarchist? I guess that would make some sense.  I thought he/she was more on the communist bandwagon.

Whatever it is, one thing I am pretty sure of - IamMe does NOT have the same view of government as the founders.  In fact, I don't think IamMe is an American. 

Nothing wrong with that - just sayin' (to borrow from Ahk).

Would you disagree that inability to prioritize has something to do with people being unable to "afford" health care?  As a society, we have this remarkable trait of requiring instant gratification and as a result, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Americans find themselves with all sorts of creature comforts, but without basic needs.

Buying health insurance is boring to people; in much the same way paying down debt is boring.  You don't "get" anything for your money.  When you pay down debt, you don't "get" anything.  You already have the item that you purchased.  When you buy insurance, you are spending money for something that might happen, but see no immediate benefit from your spending.  This is a tough pill for many Americans to swallow.  And of course there are the countless Americans that can afford health care but choose not to purchase it.  Generally they are young and in good health.  But that is a risk they wish to take and when it backfires, they shouldn't be asking the rest of us to bail them out.

And why are they stagnant?  Incomes are stagnant because skills are stagnant.  We have far too many people out there who go into huge debt only to come out of college no better prepared to contribute to society.  We all know way too many people like that - do just enough to get by and complain that they don't get a raise every year.  Skills, skills, skills - that is how you sink or swim in the world today. 

Yes they have.  All the more reason that skills are so important today.  We aren't manufacturing any more and the brain has never been more important for financial survival.  Our collective brain is shrinking.  We are turning out fewer and fewer graduates that can produce, let alone innovate.  But for those that do produce and do innovate, the financial reward is incredible. 

Indeed, and it is the one place where I am willing to cut some slack.  Kids can't help their circumstances, but they are constantly told about how tough life is, how important school is, and how making good decisions will benefit them.  Few listen.  I do feel bad for kids that grow up in poverty.  But that is not an excuse.  It just makes it harder.  We ALL have something that makes life harder.  Learning disorders, physical handicaps, broken homes, abusive parents, whatever the case may be - that is part of life. 

You may be right.  Everyone may be stretching it.  But there is no way that 40 million people in this country are victims of "the system".  The vast majority, tens of millions of them, are in the situation they are in because of their choices and nobody elses.

We can't become a society dependent on handouts.  It is unsustainable and will wreck any chance we have of thriving in the future.