FederalRepublic
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2010
- Messages
- 2,942
- Reaction score
- 711
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
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?
First off, simply because a study doesn't make sense to you, does not mean that there is not a point and purpose behind it. Now I am not going to try to justify the examples given, simply because I am not going to take the time to try to find them and then go in depth to see if there is or is not a good purpose. Because that brings me to my second point of whether or not the study is non sensical or good or whatever, is a subjective value. Finally, if the government is giving them $1 million dollars and private donations is giving them $1 million dollars, and they only spend $.9 million on what you claim as nonsensical, then why shouldn't those who privately gave not get studied what they want studied? Numbers for example sake only.It doesn't matter if they are private or government agencies. The fact remains that they are given a ridiculous amount of money (by our government) for nonsensical studies.
Do we really need to spend millions of dollars to study fish on a treadmill? Hamsters in a cage match? $22 million dollars to try to incentive people to join the cheese industry? How many people could have been helped by that money? How many people are hungry, or homeless, while we spend $3 million dollars to find out that the music from Jaws scares people?
I live in the UK and have never received a medical bill from the NHS. It's free at the point of use.
Healthcare is a service just as legal representation is a service; just mail delivery is a service; just as lawn care is a service, just as a million other things are services provided by individuals. And you have a 'right' to none of them.
The same way I can have a right to anything else. The government recognizes it as a right and takes steps to insure that right is protected.
Name for me one job that people get paid for that isn't for profit. Even within a nonprofit organization, if the individual is paid, they are working for profit. Yes there are people who volunteer and do work without pay, but obviously they can afford to do so, either because they have another job they do get paid for or someone supports them from a for profit job.This debate in pointless. When healthcare is a for profit industry, governed by for profit insurance companies and the doctors and clinicians are supplied by for profit pharmaceutical companies who all have paid lobbyists to get the government to do their bidding, what result is expected? This issue is not the only one that 'we the people' can debate and argue until we breathe our last breath. You pick the issue: defense, education, banking and anything that the government gets into is ruled by those that pay to get their business before the legislators. Back to healthcare, if the rampant fraud was seriously addressed and the penalties fit the crime the level of fraud could be minimized. Money talks and BS walks.......... We won't change anything until we change how we do business, I'm not going to hold my breath, not happening in my lifetime! Rant out!
The problem isn't "how we do business". It's "how we do government".
The solution is for voters to elect people who WON'T do the bidding of big-money business interests.
The problem is that health insurance is no longer like auto insurance, although it used to be. Auto insurance doesn't cover routine maintenance costs, breakdowns, etc. it covers catastrophic events such as collisions. Medical insurance used to cover only that until companies started offering other perks and then people got the government to require all insurance to carry those perks.I think that health care will move in the direction of becoming a right. I think that "good health" is a right. I think that a healthy environment is a right.
The biggest trouble with health care in my view is the cost, it's just unsustainable and that is why we're all fighting about it. Healthcare should be no more expensive that auto insurance: those insurance companies make plenty of money and as long as you're a good driver your rates stay low. So it should be with healthcare: your premiums should be based on to your previous claims for the last year. Newly insured should pay a minimum to get started and then go from there. Chronic conditions and preexisting conditions can be subsidized through medicaid.
Susan Collins was on Face the Nation this morning and I agree with her; the only way to control health care is to control the costs.
She's not going to sign the new bill btw, so that's three "nos" that the Republicans now have to deal with.
I live in the UK and have never received a medical bill from the NHS. It's free at the point of use.
Name for me one job that people get paid for that isn't for profit. Even within a nonprofit organization, if the individual is paid, they are working for profit. Yes there are people who volunteer and do work without pay, but obviously they can afford to do so, either because they have another job they do get paid for or someone supports them from a for profit job.
Additionally when you look at the health care industry are you accounting for all the extra money this field has to spend. We force doctors and even nurses to go through a ridiculous amount of schooling that cost a lot, so they need to charge accordingly to pay that off and hopefully before they retire. Granted the suggestion that the government paid outright for the schooling might help in that direction. But then we have other issues such as where insurance companies refuse to pay for things doctors determine the patient needs. So a doctor has to receive that compensation for his time somewhere else, usually the customers who can pay. Despite your accusations insurance companies are more a headache for a doctor than an ally. They usually have to hire at least one person, if not more just to handle the required paperwork, a cost that gets factored into what you pay. And don't forget liability insurance for those patients who are going to sue because ... well this is a lawsuit era. That also factors into your payment to the doctor. And his equipment. The companies who develop that equipment have to not only make back the money lost of failed developments but also pay liability insurance. And if they do anything where they are paid directly by the insurance company, they also have to compensate for the denied payments as well as the hiring of people to do the paperwork.
As to your fraud assertion, many claims of fraud are not persued because it can cost $100 to track down and prosecute a $25 fraud, with no guarantee of conviction. Numbers for example sake.
The problem is that health insurance is no longer like auto insurance, although it used to be. Auto insurance doesn't cover routine maintenance costs, breakdowns, etc. it covers catastrophic events such as collisions. Medical insurance used to cover only that until companies started offering other perks and then people got the government to require all insurance to carry those perks.
That didn't answer the question, but changed the premise. Please ATQ. If no one elects to be a medical provider, and health care is a right that government is required to supply, then how does the government do that?
Don't you know? Everybody's representatives are lying crooks....except their own.
First off, simply because a study doesn't make sense to you, does not mean that there is not a point and purpose behind it. Now I am not going to try to justify the examples given, simply because I am not going to take the time to try to find them and then go in depth to see if there is or is not a good purpose. Because that brings me to my second point of whether or not the study is non sensical or good or whatever, is a subjective value. Finally, if the government is giving them $1 million dollars and private donations is giving them $1 million dollars, and they only spend $.9 million on what you claim as nonsensical, then why shouldn't those who privately gave not get studied what they want studied? Numbers for example sake only.
So the government can force him to provide services, even should he decide to quit the field?
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?
Answer to question one - as much as necessary.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
Yes, healthcare is a right. However, just because it's a right doesn't mean you can pass laws mandating that I have to pay for someone else's insurance.
Being a right doesn't make it free.
But you can. That is a fact
Can what?
Yes, healthcare is a right. However, just because it's a right doesn't mean you can pass laws mandating that I have to pay for someone else's insurance.
Being a right doesn't make it free.
Yes, healthcare is a right. However, just because it's a right doesn't mean you can pass laws mandating that I have to pay for someone else's insurance.
Being a right doesn't make it free.
Can pass laws that you must pay for someone else's insurance
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?