• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Healthcare is a privilege or a right?

L

lilJimmy

As a society we need to have unity. Does leaving healthcare coverage in private hand count as unity?
I watched my mother-in-law die of cancer for two years while she could not afford to be in a private club of proper health coverage. It was a nightmare to deal with!
The American Christian Society - Home says it is wrong (see what they say) to leave healthcare in private hands.
The strength of a society can be measured by how it treats its weakest members.
So I guess my question is: Should healthcare coverage be a society thing or private hands?
Cheers!
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
As a society we need to have unity. Does leaving healthcare coverage in private hand count as unity?
I watched my mother-in-law die of cancer for two years while she could not afford to be in a private club of proper health coverage. It was a nightmare to deal with!
The American Christian Society - Home says it is wrong (see what they say) to leave healthcare in private hands.
The strength of a society can be measured by how it treats its weakest members.
So I guess my question is: Should healthcare coverage be a society thing or private hands?
Cheers!

I am torn on this issue. I want everyone to have coverage, but the federal plan is too expensive. There have been other ideas suggested, and a combination of these might get most or maybe all of the uninsured decent healthcare coverage.
 

The_Patriot

DP Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
1,488
Reaction score
206
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Health care is not a right nor is it a privilege in the sense that you're thinking of. It does fall under the right to contract, which the states and federal government cannot restrict in any way. Everyone has the ability to engage in contracts at any time. When you see a doctor or go to the hospital you are engaging in a contract between yourself and the doctor/hospital. Socialism is the antithesis of a republic. If you want someone to blame for the costs of your mother-in-law unable to afford reasonable health coverage and prescription drugs then blame the government for enacting regulations that restrict said products and services.
 

FederalRepublic

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
2,942
Reaction score
711
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
I am torn on this issue. I want everyone to have coverage, but the federal plan is too expensive. There have been other ideas suggested, and a combination of these might get most or maybe all of the uninsured decent healthcare coverage.

Neither. Like food, it's not a privelege that someone can take away from you. It's also not a right that you can demand that someone provide to you. We all work to provide the necessities of life for ourselves and our families. Health care is one of those necessities.

If we would simply use insurance the way insurance is supposed to be used, i.e. to cover catastrophic problems of low probability, rather than using it to pay for checkups, health care prices would come down. Prices for everyday expenses are rising because the consumer typically has no feel for what it's costing him. For example, someone in my family had knee surgery scheduled at a particular surgery center. The surgery was rescheduled to a different surgery center about 20 miles away on a different day. On the day before the surgery, we found out the alternate surgery center's fee would be almost double. Since we have a high-deductible plan and pay for everything up to $6,000, we told them to keep their overpriced service and rescheduled again at the other place.

Simple price-shopping that most people don't do because they don't pay the bill. Then they have trouble understanding why insurance rates go up.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
65,620
Reaction score
33,492
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
neither. healthcare is a service and/or a product. you might as well ask if food was a priveledge or a right.
 

MKULTRABOY

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
10,621
Reaction score
2,104
Location
In your dreams...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Healthcare is like buying a cup of coffee, you dont have a right to coffee. If you cant get healthcare you can ****in' die!:roll:
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Healthcare is like buying a cup of coffee, you dont have a right to coffee. If you cant get healthcare you can ****in' die!:roll:

And, Is rights decided on a life and death standing? No, of course not, its based on what is naturally possible for a individual. If we are going to base it on a this idea of what we decide is deadly to live without does that not make it merely an opinion and therefore meaningless? Of course, it does. With your idea in mind, once society creates a new service that is needed we can simply add a new right in the bucket and continue the process of draining all meaning from the term.
 

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I feel it's a right to have access to basic preventative healthcare. We have a responsibility to look after those around us because we rely on those around us to help support the social structure that gives us all these things we enjoy. Like it or not, we rely on the society we're in to do far more work for us than most of us could ever hope to do for it. If we have the capacity to provide basic healthcare to people who need it, then I think we have a responsibility to do so. Demanding that others do the work that props up your society and then throwing a few dollars at them when they're done is not a sustainable or morally acceptable way to run a society.

Looking at it from a purely economical standpoint, providing basic and preventative care makes much more financial sense. If I have a disease that can be cured by $20 worth of medicine in the early stages but will require $20,000 of care if it advances to the later stages, I think there's a massive amount of gain for finding and treating that disease early. If I cant pay my medical bills because they're too much and I cant work because I'm sick, the impetus to pay those bills falls on someone. Even if I gave up virtually everything I owned, I probably still couldn't pay the bills. So who pays it? Usually the hospital itself eats the cost, driving up the cost of healthcare for anyone else.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
65,620
Reaction score
33,492
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I feel it's a right to have access to basic preventative healthcare.

how do you have the right to the sweat of another man's brow? there is a word for that: slavery.

Like it or not, we rely on the society we're in to do far more work for us than most of us could ever hope to do for it.

this is not fully accurate; that descriptor would only apply to net reipients of government pork.

If we have the capacity to provide basic healthcare to people who need it, then I think we have a responsibility to do so.

morally i agree. that doesn't make it a matter for government; nor does it give them a right to force you to do so.

Looking at it from a purely economical standpoint, providing basic and preventative care makes much more financial sense. If I have a disease that can be cured by $20 worth of medicine in the early stages but will require $20,000 of care if it advances to the later stages, I think there's a massive amount of gain for finding and treating that disease early. If I cant pay my medical bills because they're too much and I cant work because I'm sick, the impetus to pay those bills falls on someone. Even if I gave up virtually everything I owned, I probably still couldn't pay the bills. So who pays it? Usually the hospital itself eats the cost, driving up the cost of healthcare for anyone else.

acually there are multiple studies that demonstrate this is not the case.

for example:

Our findings suggest that the broad generalizations made by many presidential candidates can be misleading. These statements convey the message that substantial resources can be saved through prevention. Although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not...
 

Donc

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
9,789
Reaction score
2,587
Location
out yonder
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I believe we had a poll on this subject a while back but it is a right in my opinion.
 

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
how do you have the right to the sweat of another man's brow? there is a word for that: slavery.
It isnt as simple as you are trying to make it.

this is not fully accurate; that descriptor would only apply to net reipients of government pork.
Really? You can keep your lifestyle going without ANY help from anyone?

morally i agree. that doesn't make it a matter for government; nor does it give them a right to force you to do so.
Relying on people to be altruistic at this stage of our development is not feasible. We cant put up a system and then just hope people will contribute enough for it to work. If you want the system to work at all, the initial stages must be compulsory.

acually there are multiple studies that demonstrate this is not the case.

for example:

Our findings suggest that the broad generalizations made by many presidential candidates can be misleading. These statements convey the message that substantial resources can be saved through prevention. Although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not...
Your study is focused on claims made during electoral campaigns, not on the idea in general.

In the initial stages, it will be more expensive because we have to clean up the mess our current healthcare system has left us. But with emerging technologies and with an emphasis on treating conditions when they are still inexpensive to treat, logically you can decrease the cost of healthcare.

If someone needs to come in once every six months for a $40 checkup and receive $100 worth of care in that year, that's infinitely cheaper than not going to the doctor for five years then being hospitalized for tens of thousands of dollars to treat a chronic condition that went undiagnosed. On top of that, the time and resources of the hospital that were not spent on that person's hospitalization are put elsewhere.

This is something that is pushed heavily by the WHO as a way to reduce healthcare costs and increase the effectiveness and overall health of a population.
WHO | Integrating prevention into health care
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
65,620
Reaction score
33,492
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It isnt as simple as you are trying to make it.

when you are talking about wealth redistribution, that is, in fact, what you are talking about. some individuals claiming property rights over other individuals labor. it is only those problems of the commons that represent any other kind of government expenditure.

Really? You can keep your lifestyle going without ANY help from anyone?

1. that's not what you said, what you claimed was that most people got back more from society than they put in; were this the case, society would rapidly collapse.

2. i can maintain my lifestyle without forcing anyone via state coercion to give up their wealth to me. i have qualified for food stamps, wic, and a host of other welfare-esque policies, and have taken none of them; and been just fine.

Relying on people to be altruistic at this stage of our development is not feasible.

incorrect. as our development increases, the need for others to provide sustenance decreases, and the capability of the issues to be handled by either private charity or local governance increases. furthermore, it is empirically demonstratable that private giving shoots downward as the state becomes involved in welfare spending and wealth redistribution.

if i may cite a historical example. Grover Cleveland vetoed the Texas Seed Act, arguing that A) it wasn't Constitutionally allowed for the Federal Government to issue out aid and B) it would depress total aid to those people, as it would lower private giving. instead he vetoed the bill and called for private giving to replace the 10,000; he turned out to be correct and private charity met his call by giving more than the Congress had allotted in the first place.

The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.

this is something that we used to realize in our nation. as President Franklin Pierce put it:

If Congress is to make provision for [paupers], the fountains of charity will be dried up at home, and the several States, instead of bestowing their own means on the social wants of their people, may themselves, through the strong temptations, which appear to States as individuals, become humble supplicants for the bounty of the Federal Government, reversing their true relation to this Union.

which pretty much sums up where we find ourselves moving today.

We cant put up a system and then just hope people will contribute enough for it to work.

we don't need to 'put up' a system at all.

If you want the system to work at all, the initial stages must be compulsory.

then it is no longer morally justifiable. yes robbing peter to give to paul will always be popular with paul, but let's not pretend it falls under the rubric of moral right.

Your study is focused on claims made during electoral campaigns, not on the idea in general.

did you read the study, or just the section i cited? in fact that study did a pretty sweeping assessment of the literature about preventative care, and it matches several others that i have seen which come to the same result: mass preventative medicine does not necessarily represent an efficient use of resources. our dependence on it now is a major part of driving our healthcare costs up, as it needlessly increases demand.

If someone needs to come in once every six months for a $40 checkup and receive $100 worth of care in that year, that's infinitely cheaper than not going to the doctor for five years then being hospitalized for tens of thousands of dollars to treat a chronic condition that went undiagnosed. On top of that, the time and resources of the hospital that were not spent on that person's hospitalization are put elsewhere.

you are mistaking cost-efficiency for a single individual with cost-efficiency for the entire system. if 15,000 people get a test that costs $350 every year, and out of that 15,000, 100 individuals are saved an average of $10,000 because it turns out they had the disease and caught it early; that still leaves you $4,250,000 in the hole system wide.


and just to continue to drive the point home:

Preventive care not always cost effective, experts say

Most preventive care does not result in cost savings

CBO: for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall.

and so on and so forth.
 
Last edited:

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
There is no slavery involved here. No wealth redistribution either. No socialism. Please, try an original tactic.
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,229
Reaction score
14,235
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Healthcare is a right that we are privileged to have :)
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Healthcare is a right that we are privileged to have :)

I like that. More it is a problem we should solve if we can. In a wealthy country, if we can produce a system that provides quality care at reasonable cost, we're all better for it. Still shocks me some think doing this is a bad thing.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal

Do youn really believe that settles this? Please, work on originality. Hyperbolic nonsense is bad enough. But unoriginal hyperbolic nonsense is just lazy.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
65,620
Reaction score
33,492
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Do youn really believe that settles this? Please, work on originality. Hyperbolic nonsense is bad enough. But unoriginal hyperbolic nonsense is just lazy.

 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
65,620
Reaction score
33,492
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I like that. More it is a problem we should solve if we can. In a wealthy country, if we can produce a system that provides quality care at reasonable cost, we're all better for it. Still shocks me some think doing this is a bad thing.

on the contrary; we are all for it. that's why we oppose putting government in charge of it.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
CP, taking a small number of people out of context is not evidence of slavery, redistibution, socialism or any of your other unoriginal hyperbolic nonsense. Please, I gave up on honest in context discussion long ago. Now I just want to see some originality. Step up. ;)
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
on the contrary; we are all for it. that's why we oppose putting government in charge of it.

No. As we have sene with republicans in charge, there is no evidence they are for it. In fact, they did next to nothing. And only give lip service when force to address it at all. Sorry, but we are the government. And doing nothing is doing nothing, which is what your side has done for decades.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
65,620
Reaction score
33,492
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
No. As we have sene with republicans in charge, there is no evidence they are for it.

don't go confusing republicans with conservatives

In fact, they did next to nothing

actually they introduced Medicare D, which was simultaneously the largest expansion of an entitlement program since Lyndon Johnson, and the first time we've applied market rules to Medicare, which resulted in it being the first such program to come in under its' projected budget in modern history.

another good example would be HSA's: invented by conservatives. HSA's excell particularly in providing health insurance for those lower-income folks who can't afford higher premiums (the kind that Obamacare will force them to get); while allowing them to simultaneously build wealth. (what!?! poor people escaping poverty!?! why, they might stop voting democrat!!!) Indiana's government has been offering them to its' employees with great success:

In Indiana's HSA, the state deposits $2,750 per year into an account controlled by the employee, out of which he pays all his health bills. Indiana covers the premium for the plan. The intent is that participants will become more cost-conscious and careful about overpayment or overutilization.

Unused funds in the account—to date some $30 million or about $2,000 per employee and growing fast—are the worker's permanent property. For the very small number of employees (about 6% last year) who use their entire account balance, the state shares further health costs up to an out-of-pocket maximum of $8,000, after which the employee is completely protected.

The HSA option has proven highly popular. This year, over 70% of our 30,000 Indiana state workers chose it, by far the highest in public-sector America. Due to the rejection of these plans by government unions, the average use of HSAs in the public sector across the country is just 2%.

What we, and independent health-care experts at Mercer Consulting, have found is that individually owned and directed health-care coverage has a startlingly positive effect on costs for both employees and the state. What follows is a summary of our experience:

State employees enrolled in the consumer-driven plan will save more than $8 million in 2010 compared to their coworkers in the old-fashioned preferred provider organization (PPO) alternative. In the second straight year in which we've been forced to skip salary increases, workers switching to the HSA are adding thousands of dollars to their take-home pay. (Even if an employee had health issues and incurred the maximum out-of-pocket expenses, he would still be hundreds of dollars ahead.) HSA customers seem highly satisfied; only 3% have opted to switch back to the PPO.

The state is saving, too. In a time of severe budgetary stress, Indiana will save at least $20 million in 2010 because of our high HSA enrollment. Mercer calculates the state's total costs are being reduced by 11% solely due to the HSA option.

Most important, we are seeing significant changes in behavior, and consequently lower total costs. In 2009, for example, state workers with the HSA visited emergency rooms and physicians 67% less frequently than co-workers with traditional health care. They were much more likely to use generic drugs than those enrolled in the conventional plan, resulting in an average lower cost per prescription of $18. They were admitted to hospitals less than half as frequently as their colleagues. Differences in health status between the groups account for part of this disparity, but consumer decision-making is, we've found, also a major factor.

Overall, participants in our new plan ran up only $65 in cost for every $100 incurred by their associates under the old coverage. Are HSA participants denying themselves needed care in order to save money? The answer, as far as the state of Indiana and Mercer Consulting can find, is no. There is no evidence HSA members are more likely to defer needed care or common-sense preventive measures such as routine physicals or mammograms.

It turns out that, when someone is spending his own money alone for routine expenses, he is far more likely to ask the questions he would ask if purchasing any other good or service: "Is there a generic version of that drug?" "Didn't I take that same test just recently?" "Where can I get the colonoscopy at the best price?"

By contrast, the prevalent model of health plans in this country in effect signals individuals they can buy health care on someone else's credit card. A fast-food meal costs most Americans more out of pocket than a visit to the doctor. What seems free will always be overconsumed, compared to the choices a normal consumer would make. Hence our plan's immense savings.

what they didn't do was come up with something like the absolute feces-encrusted pile of fodder that the Democrats dragged across the line last year. every day now almost it seems news comes out about a new way in which Obamacare is destroying chunks of both our healthcare and our economy.
 
Last edited:

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
65,620
Reaction score
33,492
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
CP, taking a small number of people out of context

none of these people are taken out of context, and furthermore, these are the democratic party leaders. in the case of waxman, he's the one who was the primary mover in putting the damn thing together.

this is like if Rice, Cheney, and Rumsfeld all went on national television and said "of course we lied about WMD's in Iraq" small number of people doesn't exactly mean that they don't know what they are talking about.

you claimed that there was no wealth redistribution. the simplest of searches demonstrated that you are utterly incorrect. your continued drive to pretend that terms such as "wealth redistribution" and "socialism" have no actual meaning is commendable in your stamina, but lamentable in its' aim.
 
Top Bottom