Healthcare is a privilege or a right?

[cpwill]

Also, when you speak of unions you only refer to how the ones in America are today.

no, i speak of unions in general. Unions wherever they are are corporatist entities that serve to reduce growth and harm the general interests of the lower and lower middle classes; the only group they help are those who are already members, and they do so at the expense of everyone else, often at the expense of everyone else's jobs.

for example, there has been one period in American history marked by the rapid increase of unions to a dominant role, when the workers elected groups which actually had a major hand in formulating economic and business policy.

we know that period as the Great Depression.

Unions had great intents and did do a lot of good

no, Unions have objectively done alot of net harm to the economy, and even over time to their own members. lower growth and innovation harms everyone in the economy.

 

[liblady]

no, i speak of unions in general. Unions wherever they are are corporatist entities that serve to reduce growth and harm the general interests of the lower and lower middle classes; the only group they help are those who are already members, and they do so at the expense of everyone else, often at the expense of everyone else's jobs.

for example, there has been one period in American history marked by the rapid increase of unions to a dominant role, when the workers elected groups which actually had a major hand in formulating economic and business policy.

we know that period as the Great Depression.



no, Unions have objectively done alot of net harm to the economy, and even over time to their own members. lower growth and innovation harms everyone in the economy.

lol.....yeah, a lot of harm. safe working conditions, fair wages, decent benefits. how awful. we need to go back to the days when men were routinely killed or maimed in factories, don't we?

 

[imagep]

Yet almost 45,000 people die every year due to lack of healthcare. Seems to me that having good healthcare should be as much a right as defense against aggression.

Everyone dies. I suspect that the number of people dieing each year would be equal, whether or not we have health insurance.

 

[Paschendale]

Everyone dies. I suspect that the number of people dieing each year would be equal, whether or not we have health insurance.

Seriously? Then why have medical care at all? You really think that a person without access to medicine will still die with that medicine?

 

[imagep]

Seriously? Then why have medical care at all? You really think that a person without access to medicine will still die with that medicine?

Eventually, yes. Everyone eventually dies. I don't think that there is yet an "immortal" pill.

 

[Boo Radley]

lol.....yeah, a lot of harm. safe working conditions, fair wages, decent benefits. how awful. we need to go back to the days when men were routinely killed or maimed in factories, don't we?

Terrible, terrible stuff. The imoorality of it.

:sigh:

 

[imagep]

18 pages of posts and not a single one of you "gets" it.

Why is it that we are discussing whether health care is a right and not food or transportation or internet service? It's because the COST of health care is inflated and not in-line with the cost of other industries. A room in a hosptial, excluding any actual medical care, can cost $1,000 a night, I just rented a hotel room for $35/nt. The cost of an asprin administered by a nurse can be $80 yet I can buy a single asprine in a pack at a convience store for 69¢. The cost of an initial consult with a doctor can be $100+, yet an initial consult in most any other industry is FREE. 20 minutes use of a half million dollar medical machine can cost $3,500, yet I can rent a half million dollar crain for a day (with operator) for less than $1,500.

The REAL issue is "why the heck does something that is so vital and important to us cost so much"?

Ask that question and you will get all types of answers, most of them legitimate, but none of them amounting to more than a percent or two of the cost.

The REAL answer is that health care in America does not exist in an economically competitive environment.

Insurance is actually the largest CAUSE of inflated health care prices, not the solution for it. When we have insurance, we don't shop for price, and we don't make cost a part of the consideration on what we consume. What if we all had "food insurance" that automatically paid for the cost of food, would we even bother to look at the prices on the menu? Ever wonder why our doctors offices don't have menu's? It's because they know that we don't care what we pay.

I make signs, and I probably give a dozen quotes for every actual sign that I make. What if most people had sign insurance? I'd probably make hundreds of signs for evey price quote that I did. People simply wouldn't care how much signs cost, and I would accomidate their lack of price shopping by raising my prices ten fold or more.

If we were to get rid of health insurance, then we wouldn't even be asking if "health care is a right". We'd just all pay up our $6 for our 5 minute doctors visit, or our $250 for a minor outpatient surgery, or the $50/hour cost of physical therapy, or the $2,500 for a brain surgery, or $50/night for staying in a hospital.

 

[WeAreReborn]

Eventually, yes. Everyone eventually dies. I don't think that there is yet an "immortal" pill.

Everyone dies eventually so Hitler wasn't a bad guy! See the fallacy?

 

[cpwill]

'fair wages' are best determined through competition. sadly, the actual "minimum wage" is zero; and unions have a bad habit of increasing unemployment in order to pad their members pockets.

"High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns," Ohanian said. "As we've seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market's self-correcting forces."

The policies were contained in the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which exempted industries from antitrust prosecution if they agreed to enter into collective bargaining agreements that significantly raised wages. Because protection from antitrust prosecution all but ensured higher prices for goods and services, a wide range of industries took the bait, Cole and Ohanian found. By 1934 more than 500 industries, which accounted for nearly 80 percent of private, non-agricultural employment, had entered into the collective bargaining agreements called for under NIRA.

Cole and Ohanian calculate that NIRA and its aftermath account for 60 percent of the weak recovery. Without the policies, they contend that the Depression would have ended in 1936 instead of the year when they believe the slump actually ended: 1943....



The most visible effects of unionization in the U.S. economy are, first, the migration of the workforce away from unionized industries and professions toward nonunion employment, and second, the decline in those unionized firms and industries that have been unable to escape their unions... Throughout the 20th century, labor law in the United States has reduced the ability of individuals to contract for the terms of their employment, and has reduced the ability of employers to contract with the individuals they employ. Labor law has not only solidified the rights of unions to bargain collectively for their employees; it has compelled employees to be party to collective bargaining whether they want to or not. Meanwhile, employers have no freedom to avoid entering into collective bargaining with unions. They are required to bargain “in good faith,” which essentially means arriving at an outcome satisfactory to union leaders...

The rhetoric in labor law tends to be couched in terms of workers rights, but review of U.S. labor law shows that in fact workers have lost a substantial amount of their freedom to contract for the terms of their employment, because labor law has given union leaders the right to dictate conditions of employment. Baird (1984, chap. 3) gives a list of individual freedoms that have been compromised by U.S. labor law. It gives unions the right to be “exclusive representatives of all the employees” in a bargaining unit,
taking away individuals’ freedom of contract; makes it illegal for employers to refuse to bargain with unions, taking away employers’ freedom of contract; and requires employers to bargain “in good faith,” which has been interpreted to mean arriving at an outcome that is satisfactory to the union. The developments in 20th century U.S. labor law clearly show the erosion of individual rights and economic freedom, especially through the middle of the century. The 1947 Taft-Hartley Act and 1959 Landrum-Griffin Act did give some control of employment conditions back to workers, but the restrictions on freedom of contract imposed by labor law clearly reduce economic freedom for employees whose conditions of employment are governed by a union. There can be no doubt that the result of 20th century labor law was to give economic power to union leaders while reducing the economic freedom of both employers and employees... The literature shows that, as Gwartney and Lawson (2005) note, labor market restrictions not only reduce the economic freedom of employers and employees but also result in higher unemployment and slower economic growth...




yeah, unions consistently push to increae the minimum wage; many of their contracts are built around multiples of that figure. however, as has been repeatedly demonstrated, raising the minimum wage hurts the poor and raises their exposure to unemployment. on top of decreasing gowth and economic efficiency.

 

[cpwill]

The REAL issue is "why the heck does something that is so vital and important to us cost so much"?

the system is built on third-party-payments. handled this pages back.

If we were to get rid of health insurance, then we wouldn't even be asking if "health care is a right". We'd just all pay up our $6 for our 5 minute doctors visit, or our $250 for a minor outpatient surgery, or the $50/hour cost of physical therapy, or the $2,500 for a brain surgery, or $50/night for staying in a hospital.

yup.

 

[imagep]

Everyone dies eventually so Hitler wasn't a bad guy! See the fallacy?

But Hitler selected certain people based on ethnicity to exterminate. Totally different situation than with health care. No one is having health care withheld from them due to anything other than their ability to pay.

Modern man has existed for tens of thousands of years, it's only been during the past 100 years or so that we have had any significant health care. If it wasnt a right for our our great grandparents, then why would it be a right for ourselves?

 

[Boo Radley]

the system is built on third-party-payments. handled this pages back.



yup.

And you were wrong then as well, also handled in many different threads.

We would never handle most health care with five dollar visits. Before insurance, people were left out of health care and mostly relied on home remedies, or traded fruits and vegatables to a town doctor or someone who pretended to know medicine. Most actual care was beyond reach for the majority. Insurance came about to help this and allowed the growth and advance of medicine even faster than it was going.

We won't go back. That's just a fact.

 

[imagep]

And you were wrong then as well, also handled in many different threads.

We would never handle most health care with five dollar visits. Before insurance, people were left out of health care and mostly relied on home remedies, or traded fruits and vegatables to a town doctor or someone who pretended to know medicine. Most actual care was beyond reach for the majority. Insurance came about to help this and allowed the growth and advance of medicine even faster than it was going.

We won't go back. That's just a fact.

Why not? Up until recently I had been going to a doctors office that was owned by a hospital, twice a year to get my blood pressure pills filled. There was litterally no examination other than a blood pressure check and standing on the scales. The doc would walk in, pull out her script pad, write me one, and then I would have to pay $120. The entire time spent with me by the receptionist, the nurse, the doc, and the payment lady was less than 5 minutes (although I may have spent more than an hour in the office).

Recently I had started going to a "minute doc" type place, half the cost. Again, I am spending less than 5 minutes with their personnel (not actually a doc, but a nurse who can write scripts).

The reality is that I would be getting just as good of medical care if I used an on-line automated doctor website where I entered my weight and bloodpressure and was sent a PDF for the script. Someone would make a killing at $5 per "visit".

Imagine having a blood presure clinic, thats all they do, it could even have a drive through window. At $5 per 5 minutes, a qualified nurse could make a pretty decient living.

I can check my blood pressure for FREE at my local grocery store or drug store or walmart. Why not have those machines just print out the script for free? It's not exactly like there is a big black market for blood pressure pills.

It's all a matter of incentivising the health care industry to become more efficient, and that does not neccesarally mean a reduction in care, just a more sensible way of administering that care.

As long as they can get $120 or even $60 for five minutes of labor, and the customer doesn't care how much it cost because the customer is not paying the bill, then there is no incentive for our health care providers to be cost competitive.

 

[Boo Radley]

Why not? Up until recently I had been going to a doctors office that was owned by a hospital, twice a year to get my blood pressure pills filled. There was litterally no examination other than a blood pressure check and standing on the scales. The doc would walk in, pull out her script pad, write me one, and then I would have to pay $120. The entire time spent with me by the receptionist, the nurse, the doc, and the payment lady was less than 5 minutes (although I may have spent more than an hour in the office).

Recently I had started going to a "minute doc" type place, half the cost. Again, I am spending less than 5 minutes with their personnel (not actually a doc, but a nurse who can write scripts).

The reality is that I would be getting just as good of medical care if I used an on-line automated doctor website where I entered my weight and bloodpressure and was sent a PDF for the script. Someone would make a killing at $5 per "visit".

Imagine having a blood presure clinic, thats all they do, it could even have a drive through window. At $5 per 5 minutes, a qualified nurse could make a pretty decient living.

I can check my blood pressure for FREE at my local grocery store or drug store or walmart. Why not have those machines just print out the script for free? It's not exactly like there is a big black market for blood pressure pills.

It's all a matter of incentivising the health care industry to become more efficient, and that does not neccesarally mean a reduction in care, just a more sensible way of administering that care.

As long as they can get $120 or even $60 for five minutes of labor, and the customer doesn't care how much it cost because the customer is not paying the bill, then there is no incentive for our health care providers to be cost competitive.

Different issue. Hospital overhead is often more than clinic overhead, though I wouldn't have accepted the treatment you report from the hospital. And any clinic can handle most of this stuff, as can a doctor's office. And we have those now with insurance, just as cheap as they would be without insurance.

There's plenty of incentive in medicine for both efficinecy and abuse, and always will be. If I can get wealthy people to pay me $120, wouldn't I be better to serve the wealthy? If profit is the goal, then why would I want cheap customers?

We can have efficiency and insurance or third party payers, but the real change will only come when we no longer look at medicine as a comdity or service, but a public health concern.

 

[winston53660]

Health Care Healthcare is a privilege or a right?

For me it is a necessity if I'm going to live.

 

[Paschendale]

Maybe a better question is, "Is profit a privilege or a right?" If profit is a right, then any kind of services are subordinate to it and are thus not rights. If profit is a privilege, then basic rights like life, health, and security take precedence.

Were it not for pursuit of profit, there would be no argument about whether or not everyone should have all the healthcare they want. It is the clash of desires between those who need medicine, and those who want money. I truly can't imagine how greed can be paramount while life and health are subordinate.

 

[Boo Radley]

I think a good majority of doctors want to do good and do well. I don't begruge them that. But those needing care, espeically serious or emergent care, can't really negotiate. Not like they can for other comodities or services. Going without is too often not really an option.

As I have said, I see it a s public health concern, and belive it should be treated as such. There's room for those wnating more to pay for more, and room for private payers. But, overall it is a public concern. And as such, we should have a minimal amount and standard of care available for all.

 

[WeAreReborn]

But Hitler selected certain people based on ethnicity to exterminate. Totally different situation than with health care. No one is having health care withheld from them due to anything other than their ability to pay.

Modern man has existed for tens of thousands of years, it's only been during the past 100 years or so that we have had any significant health care. If it wasnt a right for our our great grandparents, then why would it be a right for ourselves?

Because we have the capability to provide it for everyone, we also have modern medicine that can treat and prevent diseases unlike not too long ago. So if we have not only the technology, the ability and the need then why not do it? And yes inability to pay is a massive obstacle, people don't choose to be poor remember that.

 

[cpwill]

And you were wrong then as well, also handled in many different threads.

We would never handle most health care with five dollar visits. Before insurance, people were left out of health care and mostly relied on home remedies, or traded fruits and vegatables to a town doctor or someone who pretended to know medicine. Most actual care was beyond reach for the majority. Insurance came about to help this and allowed the growth and advance of medicine even faster than it was going.

We won't go back. That's just a fact.

well i'm not saying get rid of insurance. i'm just saying, you know, let it function as insurance. what we have now is as ridiculous as expecting ones' auto insurance to fill up the gas tank; and about as efficient.

 

[winston53660]

I do have something to give back to the medical community other than money. For one I go to a teaching hospital and I let all the students examine me and talk with me. They get to learn this in turn I hope helps people in the future. I have what is now termed a very rare condition (although it has been speculated it might not be so rare) that is believed to have its beginings in the womb. If doctors can learn more about this condition from my body I'm all for it and I do think they will learn. At the very least hopefully this means at a younger age this condition can be recognized and a treatment regime can be formulated and morbidity can be improved. At the best a solution can be found for this condition.

 

[cpwill]

Maybe a better question is, "Is profit a privilege or a right?" If profit is a right, then any kind of services are subordinate to it and are thus not rights. If profit is a privilege, then basic rights like life, health, and security take precedence.

you are still mistaking negative for positive rights. profit is not a right; pursuing it is.

 

[Boo Radley]

well i'm not saying get rid of insurance. i'm just saying, you know, let it function as insurance. what we have now is as ridiculous as expecting ones' auto insurance to fill up the gas tank; and about as efficient.

No one has suggested anything but. Moving it from the employer to the government maybe. But no one is asking it do something akin to filling up the gas tank.

 

[cpwill]

it is currently filling that kind of function. insurance is supposed to cover unforseen costs that have a probability; not regular costs that are a certainty. having insurance cover (for example) checkups - which are both regular and forseen - is like having your auto insurance cover gas refills; or at the very least oil changes.

 

[Boo Radley]

it is currently filling that kind of function. insurance is supposed to cover unforseen costs that have a probability; not regular costs that are a certainty. having insurance cover (for example) checkups - which are both regular and forseen - is like having your auto insurance cover gas refills; or at the very least oil changes.

I use the car on a regular basis. I fill every week. Sometimes twice a week. I don't go to the doctor or refill meds that regular, nor is the function the same. By the time I need meds regular, I've contracted some condition, something I likely didn't plan or know with certainty I would have. Insurance is me preparing for the possibility.

Car insurance serves a similar function. It covers not just the worse of accidents, but the little fender benders as well. I don't plan on hitting my garage door, and it's not an unforseeable possibility, but auot insurance does cover it (I know as my wife did hit the garage door).

What insurance is suppose to cover is not something written in stone. It is something negotiated. A person could actually negotiate an auto policy that covered gas. But to to make wild statements about medicial insurance not doing what is desgned to do or suppose to do is kind of silly. Health insurance is what it is. You may argue, I think, that you want it to cover only the worse of situations, but don't suggest there is something in the nature of insurance that limits it so.

 

[Hancock]

For a nation as rich and as privileged as our is, healthcare should be a right. Healthcare should be a universal right. It should in no way be linked to your income. As the current economy indicates, jobs and employment may come and go. Our economy is highly unpredictable at this point. You could be working this week and unemployed next week. Then to tie healthcare to employment would be socially irresponsible. We uphold and maintain quality health before investing in the space program or purchasing another military jet.