Healthcare is a privilege or a right?

[imagep]

It's a right. Everyone is entiltled to live healthy with having to worry about whether or not they can afford basic care.

Sure, and "healthy living" is up to them. Neither the government or an insurance company can buy excercise, healthy food intake, appropriate rest, abstance from tobbacco and alcohol and drugs.

 

[imagep]

What? That doesn't even make any sense. Single-payer is, by its very definition, one payer. Are you telling me I have control over every single-payer system? Sweet. I need a new boat.

I'm all for "single payer" as long as that payer is the consumer and not the insurance company or the government.

 

[Gwendoline]

If you’re against universal health care, it’s because you don’t care about each other and because you don’t value human life.

Australia has had universal health care for the last 36 years.

It beggars belief how much some of you don’t care about each other over there. That you don’t care that people whose lives could be saved through UHC, you’d sooner be prepared to see them die than see them being helped and free from suffering.

I’ve paid working taxes towards UHC for all of my life, and have been proud to do so. No one is turned away when they’re sick. That some of you think it okay to turn around sick people to not be helped and see them die is wholly offensive.

If you’re against UHC, no, you’re not Christians, you’re not persons of compassion. You are selfish people shunning and dishonouring the sacred value of a human life.

Is health care a right? Yes, health care is a right in Australia and health care has been a right in Australia for 36 years. The right to health care is a reality in Australia. That it isn’t in America points to how so many people in America don’t value the human life of others but only value their own / and their own selfishness.

Not Christians. God would shun those people prepared and willing to let others die, when those people could be healed / saved. No, not aligned with benevolence but with greed and selfishness. Not Christians. Because Christians CARE about their fellow man and woman.

 

[cpwill]

If you’re against UHC, no, you’re not Christians,

excuse me, but i would love to see your biblical backing for A) government provided health insurance and B) support for such being a test for whether or not one is a Christian.

 

[Boo Radley]

What? That doesn't even make any sense. Single-payer is, by its very definition, one payer. Are you telling me I have control over every single-payer system? Sweet. I need a new boat.

It is only the payor. I've had to point this out before. It controls nothing else. Also, it cna be two tiered, meaning you have the freedom to buy more, and to buy private. Too many, like yourself, don';t seem to understnad the system being dicussed.

 

[Boo Radley]

I'm all for "single payer" as long as that payer is the consumer and not the insurance company or the government.

whyich means you will lose a lot. Do you think most individuals could afford that rescue chopper without a third party payer? Dream on. How about the best medical technology when your life depends on it? Nope, not that either. medicine is far removed from the old family dioctor who'd fix you up for friuts and vegatables.

 

[ksu_aviator]

It is only the payor. I've had to point this out before. It controls nothing else. Also, it cna be two tiered, meaning you have the freedom to buy more, and to buy private. Too many, like yourself, don';t seem to understnad the system being dicussed.

If they have the money, they have the control...regardless of any illusions they use to make you think otherwise.

 

[StillBallin75]

In U.S., 46% Favor, 40% Oppose Repealing Healthcare Law

The Economy was a big issue yes, but the GOP and the Tea Party also ran on the platform of repealing the Health Care law. Which as we saw in during the Midterms that the American Public responded to.

The people who actually voted in the midterms are not a representative sample of the entire American Public, however. Tea Party supporters and Republicans came out in droves while most Democrats stayed home ("enthusiasm gap"). Polls do a much better job of quantifying what the American Public as a whole think.

 

[Boo Radley]

If they have the money, they have the control...regardless of any illusions they use to make you think otherwise.

No. As you have money as well. Nothing changes except we have a sngle payer assuring adequate care for all. More care can be bought. Just as more insurance can eb bought. And all the things doctors and hospitals do now can still be done. They don't work for the government.

 

[Draco]

Should people be entitled to food as a privilege, since it is needed to survive?

 

[Boo Radley]

Should people be entitled to food as a privilege, since it is needed to survive?

Would we let people starve? Don't we feed them now?

 

[Draco]

Would we let people starve? Don't we feed them now?

Is food an entitlement, currently?

 

[Boo Radley]

Is food an entitlement, currently?

It is if you're starving. We will feed you.

 

[Draco]

It is if you're starving. We will feed you.

That is charity, not an entitlement. Rich or poor, an entitlement affects all. Rich and poor both do not recieve entitlements to food. Ergo, food is not an entitlement, but charity to the poor and needy.

 

[Boo Radley]

That is charity, not an entitlement. Rich or poor, an entitlement affects all. Rich and poor both do not recieve entitlements to food. Ergo, food is not an entitlement, but charity to the poor and needy.

Both are words. I don't see either as an entitlement, but something we can work together to tackle. One thing I think we have problems with in this country is trying to frame something in terms that it isn't. No one has a right to much. If you can't be kept alive, for example, you have to entitlement to freedom. You only have what you can enforce. Food and healthcare can be and are problems we tackle.

 

[ksu_aviator]

No. As you have money as well. Nothing changes except we have a sngle payer assuring adequate care for all. More care can be bought. Just as more insurance can eb bought. And all the things doctors and hospitals do now can still be done. They don't work for the government.

How can more be bought with the same amount of money? You can't just create money by having the federal government take over the payments. If anything, you lose money.

 

[imagep]

I personally dont see providing anyone who his capable of producing but doesnt bother to produce with anything. Thats not to say that I would let the severely handicapped starve to death or to go without medical care or housing. I have no issue with providing for those who cant provide for themselves, even if we provide for those people by taxing those of us who do work.

Taxation to provide for those who truely need and cant provide for themselves is actually a lot more "fair" than individual giving and is likely more efficient.

It doesnt matter if you call it charity or if you call it entitlement, as long as we only provide for those who cant provide for themselves, then it is all the same. When we provide for those who are capable but don't bother to provide for themselves, or who just make really stuipid decisions, then it is a drain or our society that can not be justified.

 

[ksu_aviator]

If you’re against universal health care, it’s because you don’t care about each other and because you don’t value human life.

Australia has had universal health care for the last 36 years.

It beggars belief how much some of you don’t care about each other over there. That you don’t care that people whose lives could be saved through UHC, you’d sooner be prepared to see them die than see them being helped and free from suffering.

That's not the case. This isn't a choice of provide UHC or people die. That is a false choice.

I’ve paid working taxes towards UHC for all of my life, and have been proud to do so. No one is turned away when they’re sick. That some of you think it okay to turn around sick people to not be helped and see them die is wholly offensive.

Do you not understand that you have lost your right to life by giving up your control of your own health?

If you’re against UHC, no, you’re not Christians, you’re not persons of compassion. You are selfish people shunning and dishonouring the sacred value of a human life.

If you get away from the emotion and start using some logic, you'd see just how wrong you are. Jesus never once said tax the rich to help the poor. Not once. What he did say is those that don't voluntarily give up their wealth to help their neighbors do not follow him. Being forced, through government taxes, to help the poor is actually the antithesis of Christian beliefs.

Is health care a right? Yes, health care is a right in Australia and health care has been a right in Australia for 36 years. The right to health care is a reality in Australia. That it isn’t in America points to how so many people in America don’t value the human life of others but only value their own / and their own selfishness.

If health care was a right, you wouldn't have a single payer or UHC system. A right can only remain a right if it remains free of government control. For example, if you could only go to church if the church was paid for by the government, would you have the right to practice religion? No. The same applies to health care and your right to life. If the only way you can get health care is through government paid services then you don't have the right to live and sure as can be don't have the right to health care. You have a privilege to health care and have fallen for the propaganda that redefined a right.

Not Christians. God would shun those people prepared and willing to let others die, when those people could be healed / saved. No, not aligned with benevolence but with greed and selfishness. Not Christians. Because Christians CARE about their fellow man and woman.

If you want to help people, in the US, all you have to do is give to charities. Most of us do. I have three charities that I give to. One deals with adoptions and the other two go to treatment and researc for ALS and Cancer. That's the proper Christian way. You will not find one passage in the Bible that tells you to take money from others to use in your own image.

 

[Draco]

Both are words. I don't see either as an entitlement, but something we can work together to tackle. One thing I think we have problems with in this country is trying to frame something in terms that it isn't. No one has a right to much. If you can't be kept alive, for example, you have to entitlement to freedom. You only have what you can enforce. Food and healthcare can be and are problems we tackle.

Words have meaning.

To see it differently is to bend them to your own understanding, exempt from textbook definition.

 

[Boo Radley]

Words have meaning.

To see it differently is to bend them to your own understanding, exempt from textbook definition.

Yes, words do have meaning, but often they are misused. And I think I explained this.

 

[Draco]

Yes, words do have meaning, but often they are misused. And I think I explained this.

"Both are words. I don't see either as an entitlement, but something we can work together to tackle. One thing I think we have problems with in this country is trying to frame something in terms that it isn't. No one has a right to much. If you can't be kept alive, for example, you have to entitlement to freedom. You only have what you can enforce. Food and healthcare can be and are problems we tackle."

I probably misinterpreted the first two sentences of this statement. I had thought you were changing the meanings of "entitlement" and "charity."

Basically, food is not an entitlement; rather, it is donated as charity. Why I state this is because I don't view healthcare as a right. To view healthcare as a right, should food, housing, and transportation and so on be considered as rights, too?

 

[cpgrad08]

"Both are words. I don't see either as an entitlement, but something we can work together to tackle. One thing I think we have problems with in this country is trying to frame something in terms that it isn't. No one has a right to much. If you can't be kept alive, for example, you have to entitlement to freedom. You only have what you can enforce. Food and healthcare can be and are problems we tackle."

I probably misinterpreted the first two sentences of this statement. I had thought you were changing the meanings of "entitlement" and "charity."

Basically, food is not an entitlement; rather, it is donated as charity. Why I state this is because I don't view healthcare as a right. To view healthcare as a right, should food, housing, and transportation and so on be considered as rights, too?

If healthcare is right then so are they. If the government is providing everyone food, housing aad transportation then should provide you clothes? Making healthcare a right that the government provides opens Panadora box that government should give you everything that you can't get on your own. Government does not give you rights the government's job is to protect are rights. So in this government should reform the sytem so that private sector can provide it at a cheaper rate. All UCHC does start American down the road to a controlled economy aka Socailism.

 

[Boo Radley]

"Both are words. I don't see either as an entitlement, but something we can work together to tackle. One thing I think we have problems with in this country is trying to frame something in terms that it isn't. No one has a right to much. If you can't be kept alive, for example, you have to entitlement to freedom. You only have what you can enforce. Food and healthcare can be and are problems we tackle."

I probably misinterpreted the first two sentences of this statement. I had thought you were changing the meanings of "entitlement" and "charity."

Basically, food is not an entitlement; rather, it is donated as charity. Why I state this is because I don't view healthcare as a right. To view healthcare as a right, should food, housing, and transportation and so on be considered as rights, too?

As I said, the only rights anyone has are those they can defend. I have never refered to health care as a right. However, it is a problem we can tackle, and fits under a public health issue IMHO. Taking about entitlements and rights misses the point completely.

 

[Montague10]

hi guys,,,
Yeah in my view leaving health care coverage in private hand counts as unity.Health care is basically a privilege in my eyes.It is attainable by the wealthy, a benefit provided solely at the discretion of an employer, a government subsidized insurance plan for the elderly or a charitable gift provided based on the goodwill of others.