Is healthcare a right?

[joG]

Question 1: Is access to healthcare an individual right?

Question 2: If access to healthcare is an individual right, does the government have to must provide a reasonable level of healthcare to its citizens if a citizen can not afford healthcare?

Why should it be? Of course, the Constitution grantees you the right to pursue your own happiness so nobody will stop you from seeing a doctor. But why should others be force to pay your doctors' bills?

 

[joG]

By that standard, there is no civilized nation on earth.

 

[Aristaeus]

Why should it be? Of course, the Constitution grantees you the right to pursue your own happiness so nobody will stop you from seeing a doctor. But why should others be force to pay your doctors' bills?

With single payer, there would be no bills.

 

[RetiredUSN]

I would like to see all hospitals operate non profit.

I would like to see a government & private cooperative in developing medicines.

I would like to see doctors, nurses, and lab tech's get free education and training with a agreement of service contract. They are just as important to the country as the military, even more so in my opinion.

We would still have excellent careers in healthcare without corporate vultures charging $1700.00 a day for a hospital bed.

You can call me a socialist if ya like.

 

[Helix]

we currently have a universal healthcare system delivered via emergency rooms. for the next act, we need to make it a bit more efficient, as every other first world nation has already figured out.

 

[holbritter]

Good thing we are civilized!

 

[holbritter]

No, but I think it should be.

 

[holbritter]

When there is not enough money to pay for these services, what happens? When there are no doctors to perform these requested tasks, what happens?

Just because you put something on a piece of paper. Doesn’t make it a right. See, I have the right to speak. Nothing is required to support that right. Should the entire government just vanish tomorrow, I can speak. Someone has to act to stop me. This right to healthcare, it’s pure fabrication. If there is no money, you don’t get your healthcare. If there are no available doctors, you don’t get your healthcare. That’s not a right. It’s an entitlement.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Never thought of it that way. Makes sense.

 

[holbritter]

1. The National Science Foundation distributed $1.5 million to studying a fish on a treadmill.

2. The National Institutes of Health issued a $5 million grant to Brown University to study fraternities and sororities and came to the shocking conclusion that fraternities and sororities consume more alcohol than other college students.

3. The National Institutes of Health provided $3.4 million to Northeastern University in Boston to have hamsters fight each other in cage matches to examine their "aggression and anxiety."

4. A study on which gender spends more time playing with Barbie dolls. The study came to the obvious conclusion that girls tended to play with Barbie dolls more often than boys do, as the latter preferred playing with Transformers. The National Institutes of Health spent $300,000 on this kind of research.

5. The famous Jaws music causes people to view sharks in a negative manner. The National Science Foundation spent $3 million on a study that concluded this.

6. NASA is spending money on a flying monkey. $206,000.

7. The federal government is subsidizing cheese. The government spent $21.8 million purchasing surplus cheese and providing incentives for companies to enter the cheese industry.


Just a small handful of wasteful government spending, which could easily help others with medical care.

And don't even get me started on the politicians who are spending tax dollars going on honeymoons, etc.


So yes. There is money to be spent on medical care. It just has to be used there instead of stupid programs that have no real redeeming value.

$1.5 million would feed a lot of people for a long time! Disgusting waste.

 

[holbritter]

More money that we dont have. We already spend more money on healthcare than everything else except SS which is about the same. So how much more do we need to spend to make you feel better about yourself and who you want your gov to take it from for you?

I would really like an answer to those 2 questions.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

If I may:

1. $35.2 million
2. The National Science Foundation, The National Institutes of Health, NASA

 

[maquiscat]

Question 1: Is access to healthcare an individual right?

Question 2: If access to healthcare is an individual right, does the government have to must provide a reasonable level of healthcare to its citizens if a citizen can not afford healthcare?

Healthcare is a service/product. As with all such things, your only right is to be able to seek to obtain said service or product from another. They are not obligated to provide it nor to make it affordable. It is a right within that concept that the government is not allowed to prevent you from trying to obtain it, nor is a uninvolved third party. For example, if I am a doctor, I can choose not to treat an individual, for whatever reason. That is part of my freedom of association rights as well as, with regards to my place of business, private property rights. I do not have the right to prevent someone from seeking a rival doctor to obtain their health care services from. Their right to health care is not denied.

The logic of health care being and right in the aspect that it must be provide falls apart when onelooks at the reality that it is possible that none wants to be a health care provider. If healthcare was a right that must be provided, then the government would be able to force someone to become a health care provider, which is a rights violation in and of itself.

 

[maquiscat]

It should be. In most countries it is. Just not in one of the wealthiest, strongest countries in the world. Here we leave people to die because they can't afford medical care.

Yes. Of course. Otherwise, we'd be monsters. Oh wait...

Since you believe that the government must provide health care, or at least some minimum level of it, do you believe that government must force someone to be a healthcare provided if no one elects to assume that role as a their job?

 

[maquiscat]

1. The National Science Foundation distributed $1.5 million to studying a fish on a treadmill.

2. The National Institutes of Health issued a $5 million grant to Brown University to study fraternities and sororities and came to the shocking conclusion that fraternities and sororities consume more alcohol than other college students.

3. The National Institutes of Health provided $3.4 million to Northeastern University in Boston to have hamsters fight each other in cage matches to examine their "aggression and anxiety."

4. A study on which gender spends more time playing with Barbie dolls. The study came to the obvious conclusion that girls tended to play with Barbie dolls more often than boys do, as the latter preferred playing with Transformers. The National Institutes of Health spent $300,000 on this kind of research.

5. The famous Jaws music causes people to view sharks in a negative manner. The National Science Foundation spent $3 million on a study that concluded this.

6. NASA is spending money on a flying monkey. $206,000.

7. The federal government is subsidizing cheese. The government spent $21.8 million purchasing surplus cheese and providing incentives for companies to enter the cheese industry.


Just a small handful of wasteful government spending, which could easily help others with medical care.

And don't even get me started on the politicians who are spending tax dollars going on honeymoons, etc.


So yes. There is money to be spent on medical care. It just has to be used there instead of stupid programs that have no real redeeming value.

Are the NSF, and NIH government agencies or private institutions that receive government funding? As private institutions, they can waste their money however they wish. Now whether or not they should receive government funding or not is a whole different argument. Additionally, if the "wasteful" (a subjective value) spending does not exceed their budget minus the government contribution, then they are not wasting the taxpayer's money.

 

[code1211]

Question 1: Is access to healthcare an individual right?

Question 2: If access to healthcare is an individual right, does the government have to must provide a reasonable level of healthcare to its citizens if a citizen can not afford healthcare?

The answer to the first question is, "No".

Anything that requires the assertive actions of others to be enjoyed is not a right.

If the labor of others is required to provide a "right", then that required labor is slavery.

 

[maquiscat]

$1.5 million would feed a lot of people for a long time! Disgusting waste.

Money is not always the issue. Efficiency is also a factor. We have food banks that are throwing away tons of food before it ever reaches those they are supposed to be helping. Some of it comes from people donating food past or close to expiring, sure, but that isn't alll or even the majority of it. Just because something is a good idea, doesn't mean it can be effectively or efficiently done.

 

[trouble13]

If I may:

1. $35.2 million
2. The National Science Foundation, The National Institutes of Health, NASA

So covering another 3,000 people will satisfy you?

Forgive me if im skeptical of you being honest here

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[holbritter]

So covering another 3,000 people will satisfy you?

Forgive me if im skeptical of you being honest here

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

It it takes 35.2 million to provide healthcare for a mere 3000 people, then we have a much bigger problem.

 

[trouble13]

It it takes 35.2 million to provide healthcare for a mere 3000 people, then we have a much bigger problem.

Thats what the average medicare/cade recepient costs per year $11k

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Fletch]

Question 1: Is access to healthcare an individual right?

Question 2: If access to healthcare is an individual right, does the government have to must provide a reasonable level of healthcare to its citizens if a citizen can not afford healthcare?

Health care is a service, a product provided by other men. It is impossible to have a 'right' to the product or labor of another man. You would think that would be a notion settled back in the 1860's but apparently not.

 

[holbritter]

Thats what the average medicare/cade recepient costs per year $11k

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Guess 35.2 million doesn't stretch as far as it used to

 

[Lovebug]

It should be

 

[Lovebug]

I voted no just before I realized you are asking three different questions.

1. Is healthcare a right? No. It's something you buy...or not. Your choice.

2. Is access to healthcare a right? No. Access to healthcare solely depends upon whether you can purchase it or not.

3. Must the government provide healthcare if a citizen cannot afford to buy it? No, but government can chose to provide it.

IOW, screw the poor.

 

[Mycroft]

IOW, screw the poor.

Huh??

I said nothing about screwing the poor. I simply answered the OP's questions.

 

[molten_dragon]

Not currently, but it should be.

 

[Lovebug]

Huh??

I said nothing about screwing the poor. I simply answered the OP's questions.

The ones who can't afford to buy are not the wealthy. May be your response was poorly worded?