• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Is access to health care a basic human right: or a privilege?

Status
Not open for further replies.

righteousdude2

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Is access to health care a basic human right?

I found the above article to be interesting, and while I disagree with its premise that health is a basic human right; I still contend that it should be something earned and paid for by the person getting the care!

Let me explain ... in California, Junior College was practically free, except for the need to buy books! However, when I attended JC in the dark ages of the mid 1960s, the cost was only for books, and I believe a slight administrative fee to register, which if my memory doesn't fail me, was something like $25.00. And I should note that not paying hard-earned money for my two years in JC, meant I didn't take going to college that seriously, and by the end of my third semester, I made the Dean's list. Not the one for good grades, but rather the one that put me on academic suspension for a semester. It was my own fault. I did nothing but party, go to the beach, surf, and get rays! In fact, I hardly ever attended classes; read portions of the assigned chapters; and very seldom handed in finished homework. I deserved to be on this Dean's list, believe me!

So, after getting out of the US Army and spending several years as a machine operator, I decided that I needed to honor God, and study for the ministry that He called me to on Christmas Eve, 1966. I applied at a local Christian College, and was surprised that I was accepted, especially with all the poor grades I received at JC. The College throughout most of my grades, and I barely met the 2.3 grade average needed for admittance! If it weren't for PE and the performing arts courses, I was part of for three semesters (marching band, concert band and jazz band), which were always "A's" and a few "B's" I never would have been able to get to the minimum GPA of 2.3.

So what does this personal history have to do with the subject of health care: A Right, or EARNED Privilege? Just this. JC was practically free to attend, and I had nothing invested in getting a good education! However, once I was accepted to enter Azusa Pacific College, now a University, there were charges per unit on top of books and charges for labs involved in the course. When I paid $45.00 per unit, my maturity kicked in, and suddenly I was paying the professors to teach me, and I wanted to get my monies worth!

I was paying the college, through student loans, around six-hundred dollars each semester, so there was no more missing classes. No more not studying and reaching for the best in me, as I applied myself like never before, and something special happened after my sophomore year, I was earning. Let me emphasize that in bold, I was EARNING straight "A's" and when I arrived to enroll for my junior year, I was awarded an academic scholarship, that paid more than half of my fees for each of the last four semesters needed to EARN that BA degree!

I may be old fashioned, but I came to understand one thing about this time during my life, and it was that I was going to get the very most out of each course I took, and I even began holding the professors accountable for providing a challenging education.

So, I'll say this again ... I found the above article to be interesting, and while I disagree with the premise that health is a basic human right; I personally believe that which is EARNED, because we are personally and financially invested in it, will be worth investing oneself into to get their money's worth! THUS, I contend that be it health care, clothing, food, housing, a car and gas for said car, a job, life insurance, will be more appreciated by the person purchasing these things in life. Something earned and personally paid for by the person getting the benefit of whatever it is, that they are invested in, gives that person personal respect because it was EARNED by the sweat of our brows and hands.

So sorry for the long entrance, but here is the question: Is access to health care a basic human right: or a privilege?
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Your article is nothing more than a letter to the editor on an op-ed page.

As usual, your question is poorly phrased. Yes, people should have the right to have access to health care. But, no it should not be free.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
 

Deacon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
A friend who is a social service counselor recognizes the importance of people paying for his services.
He tells me the success rate in counseling is largely improved with a buy-in - people paying for his service.

Free health care means people that get sick can blame the 'system' for its failures - rather than trying to reduce their risk factors by improving their healthy lifestyle habits.

Rob
 

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I believe it is a right starting at birth but requiring more participation of the funding as said person becomes financially self sufficient. Generally related to income.

A military tour of duty weighing heavily in one's favor.

HankD
 

church mouse guy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I don't think that it is a right. Forty years ago I was faced with the prospect of buying medicine for myself that was totally out of my economic reach. I asked a preacher-boy about this and he told me to put this problem at the feet of Jesus. Let me tell you, Jesus provided the priceless medicine for me.
 

Gold Dragon

Well-Known Member
As a health care provider, I consider it my duty to provide certain health care services to everyone who I encounter that needs it, regardless of their ability to pay. I guess you could say I feel that those medical services are basic human rights.

At the same time quality health care is expensive and encompasses larger and larger areas of life that I would not consider basic human rights.

In Australia, general practice and medicine as a whole holds an interesting role as provider of services funded by the single government payer but also having the option to charge the consumer. Most doctors are involved in both the private and the public systems. If you are only in the private system, it is unlikely you will get the volume of patients needed to maintain your skills and potentially desired income. The public system is a constant battle for adequate funding to service those areas of greatest need.

I personally hate the business side of medicine and would prefer that I do my job without having to think about how much money I can either charge the government or my patients for my services. For American doctors, the insurance company would be the third source of funds. But many of my colleagues have mastered the very complicated art of medical billings, unfortunately at times at the medical expense of their patients.

With regard to having a government paid system, I think any advanced society with enough wealth should want to provide a basic level of health care to all its citizens for as low a cost as possible to its consumers. When your basic health care needs are met, not only will you have a healthy population, but you will also have a population more able to engage in education, productive work and less reason to resort to criminal activity. Health care is not like other commodities. There are very large societal incentives to wanting everyone around you to have quality health care.
 
Last edited:

righteousdude2

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
A friend who is a social service counselor recognizes the importance of people paying for his services.
He tells me the success rate in counseling is largely improved with a buy-in - people paying for his service.

Free health care means people that get sick can blame the 'system' for its failures - rather than trying to reduce their risk factors by improving their healthy lifestyle habits.

Rob

The problem with giving freebies to the public is that when, for financial or political reasons, the free service is cut back on or taken away, the ENTITLED public rises up in anger, out of desparation.

You can't give people free things, folks, without moral issues surfacing, causing a moral crisis
 

church mouse guy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
As a health care provider, I consider it my duty to provide certain health care services to everyone who I encounter that needs it, regardless of their ability to pay. I guess you could say I feel that those medical services are basic human rights.

At the same time quality health care is expensive and encompasses larger and larger areas of life that I would not consider basic human rights.

In Australia, general practice and medicine as a whole holds an interesting role as provider of services funded by the single government payer but also having the option to charge the consumer. Most doctors are involved in both the private and the public systems. If you are only in the private system, it is unlikely you will get the volume of patients needed to maintain your skills and potentially desired income. The public system is a constant battle for adequate funding to service those areas of greatest need.

I personally hate the business side of medicine and would prefer that I do my job without having to think about how much money I can either charge the government or my patients for my services. For American doctors, the insurance company would be the third source of funds. But many of my colleagues have mastered the very complicated art of medical billings, unfortunately at times at the medical expense of their patients.

With regard to having a government paid system, I think any advanced society with enough wealth should want to provide a basic level of health care to all its citizens for as low a cost as possible to its consumers. When your basic health care needs are met, not only will you have a healthy population, but you will also have a population more able to engage in education, productive work and less reason to resort to criminal activity. Health care is not like other commodities. There are very large societal incentives to wanting everyone around you to have quality health care.

Socialism and socialists are evil. They are basically materialists. A rich country like Cuba went to the second poorest in the world in a lifetime and clearly the government decides healthcare issues politically and represses the black majority for racial reasons. Venezuela, a country with oil reserves more vast than Saudi Arabia recently announced officially that it was very low on all medicines because the socialistic dictatorship was broke and could not pay their bills. Venezuela, the birthplace of the great Simon Bolivar, devolved into poverty in about 20 years as the oil fields were left without competent engineers. The point is that the government should not have any controls over healthcare except the obvious ones such as deal with malpractice and medical regulation in my opinion.

As for healthcare, the indigent in the USA always were given healthcare. For example, here in Indiana, the Indiana University Medical School administers the free healthcare program through a county hospital in Indianapolis. Rural Hoosiers with serious issues who cannot be covered by Medicaid might have to move to Indianapolis, as rural Indiana is largely agricultural and has another set of medical problems in attracting doctors to very small towns, etc.

The current debate is that everyone needs insurance and the left wants a socialistic solution because the left dreams of "white" socialism, not the Latin American socialism but the economic and human issues are the same under "white" socialism. I recall that in the 1990s the Soviet Union made a big push to get a hot water heater in every Soviet hospital. Of course, everyone wants everyone to have medical care. We just want the system to remain as private as possible. The American government cannot give us a Mayo Clinic or a Lilly Pharmaceutical to manufacture insulin cheaply--those are functions of free enterprise.
 

Gold Dragon

Well-Known Member
Socialism and socialists are evil. They are basically materialists.
I'm sorry you see me that way. I'm a Canadian living in Australia and am proud of the heritage of Tommy Douglas who was a socialist, baptist minister who is widely viewed as the founder of the Canadian health care system. Like all health care systems, there are pros and cons. The systems in Canada, US, UK and Australia all have aspects that work really well and other aspects that don't work so well. There is no perfect way to run health care. But when I look at these 4 countries whose health care systems I am most familiar with, it is very difficult to find any metric where the US system as a whole actually outperforms the other ones.
 

JohnDeereFan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I'm sorry you see me that way. I'm a Canadian living in Australia and am proud of the heritage of Tommy Douglas who was a socialist, baptist minister who is widely viewed as the founder of the Canadian health care system. Like all health care systems, there are pros and cons. The systems in Canada, US, UK and Australia all have aspects that work really well and other aspects that don't work so well. There is no perfect way to run health care. But when I look at these 4 countries whose health care systems I am most familiar with, it is very difficult to find any metric where the US system as a whole actually outperforms the other ones.

He's right. Socialism and socialists are evil. Look at our VA system or the British system. Its a nightmare.

The socialist dirtbags in our country now brag about how everbody has access to healthcare thanks to Big Brother, but they always leave out the teeny tiny little detail that many of these people who now have access to healthcare can no longer afford the deductible.

Free markets are Biblical and provide the best service at the lowest cost. If you care about the poor, then get the government out of healthcare and get back to allowing men to be free.
 

church mouse guy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I'm sorry you see me that way. I'm a Canadian living in Australia and am proud of the heritage of Tommy Douglas who was a socialist, baptist minister who is widely viewed as the founder of the Canadian health care system. Like all health care systems, there are pros and cons. The systems in Canada, US, UK and Australia all have aspects that work really well and other aspects that don't work so well. There is no perfect way to run health care. But when I look at these 4 countries whose health care systems I am most familiar with, it is very difficult to find any metric where the US system as a whole actually outperforms the other ones.

Recently saw a TV show about Dostoevsky, who as a Christian predicted the bloodbath of the 20th century because of socialism and who denounced socialism as evil and socialists as evil. I am not against medical welfare but I am against putting politicians of any stripe in charge of healthcare. I saw a Fox commentator yesterday actually say that Cuba has a good healthcare system under the communist repression of the Castro brothers--such talk is not based upon any reality in Cuba where once of the basic health problems has to be a near starvation diet. The wife of Leopoldo Lopez told President Trump in February that Venezuela was short not only of food but also short of medicine.

As for the notion that the American healthcare system is in any manner inferior to Canada, UK and Australia, Canadians regularly come to the US to get treatment because rationed healthcare does not allow immediate care in Canada. And I doubt if anyone in the UK would claim that their healthcare is superior to American healthcare because of the UK's lack of funds. Eventually, Australia will learn that socialism means government deciding healthcare on the basis of politics and not on the basis of medical practice. The bad parts of the American healthcare such as the Veterans Administration have shown clearly that politics determines treatment in the VA and American Veterans should be given freedom of choice to obtain their healthcare in the private sector instead of being forced into the substandard government care.
 

Gold Dragon

Well-Known Member
Free markets are Biblical
I am pro free markets in general but I would never say this. Anyone who says something like this is reading their own preconceived view into the text.

The closest you can find about economic policy in the bible is the OT laws. The requirement of leaving grain unpicked for the poor and the concepts of Jubilee do not sound at all like free market economics to me.

Leviticus 23:22 When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and for the foreigner residing among you. I am the LORD your God.

Leviticus 25:8-28
8 “‘Count off seven sabbath years—seven times seven years—so that the seven sabbath years amount to a period of forty-nine years. 9 Then have the trumpet sounded everywhere on the tenth day of the seventh month; on the Day of Atonement sound the trumpet throughout your land. 10 Consecrate the fiftieth year and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you; each of you is to return to your family property and to your own clan. 11 The fiftieth year shall be a jubilee for you; do not sow and do not reap what grows of itself or harvest the untended vines. 12 For it is a jubilee and is to be holy for you; eat only what is taken directly from the fields.

13 “‘In this Year of Jubilee everyone is to return to their own property.

14 “‘If you sell land to any of your own people or buy land from them, do not take advantage of each other. 15 You are to buy from your own people on the basis of the number of years since the Jubilee. And they are to sell to you on the basis of the number of years left for harvesting crops. 16 When the years are many, you are to increase the price, and when the years are few, you are to decrease the price, because what is really being sold to you is the number of crops. 17 Do not take advantage of each other, but fear your God. I am the Lord your God.

18 “‘Follow my decrees and be careful to obey my laws, and you will live safely in the land. 19 Then the land will yield its fruit, and you will eat your fill and live there in safety. 20 You may ask, “What will we eat in the seventh year if we do not plant or harvest our crops?” 21 I will send you such a blessing in the sixth year that the land will yield enough for three years. 22 While you plant during the eighth year, you will eat from the old crop and will continue to eat from it until the harvest of the ninth year comes in.

23 “‘The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you reside in my land as foreigners and strangers. 24 Throughout the land that you hold as a possession, you must provide for the redemption of the land.

25 “‘If one of your fellow Israelites becomes poor and sells some of their property, their nearest relative is to come and redeem what they have sold. 26 If, however, there is no one to redeem it for them but later on they prosper and acquire sufficient means to redeem it themselves, 27 they are to determine the value for the years since they sold it and refund the balance to the one to whom they sold it; they can then go back to their own property. 28 But if they do not acquire the means to repay, what was sold will remain in the possession of the buyer until the Year of Jubilee. It will be returned in the Jubilee, and they can then go back to their property.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rsr

Gold Dragon

Well-Known Member
As for the notion that the American healthcare system is in any manner inferior to Canada, UK and Australia, Canadians regularly come to the US to get treatment because rationed healthcare does not allow immediate care in Canada. And I doubt if anyone in the UK would claim that their healthcare is superior to American healthcare because of the UK's lack of funds.

Maybe you should actually ask Canadians and Brits as a whole, and not just the ones who have a beef with the system for one reason or another. In every system there are winners and losers. The measurement of a system is not the absence of losers. For every person who complains about the Canadian or UK system, how many do you think I can find that complains about the US system? The way to measure a health care system is to look at the system as a whole in terms of cost and health outcomes. By almost every metric out there, the US system is vastly inferior unfortunately. I wish it were not so as I have many friends and family in the US. Fortunately most of them are wealthy and can afford reasonable health care.
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
But when I look at these 4 countries whose health care systems I am most familiar with, it is very difficult to find any metric where the US system as a whole actually outperforms the other ones.

Except you have Canadians going to the US and other places to get healthcare.

Government run healthcare means giving up freedom and taking on heavy taxes.

In the US there are more considerations in how healthcare will be paid for and provided than just healthcare. We consider loss of freedom, large government bureaucracy, being able to determine the best plan of action between us and our doctor with no interference from the government.
 

Gold Dragon

Well-Known Member
Except you have Canadians going to the US and other places to get healthcare.

Like I said, there are always some who win and others who lose in every health care system. Those Canadians going to the US are those who are wanting to jump the queue in non-urgent surgery/specialists or seeking treatment that has not been approved yet in Canada because of either cost or lack of proven efficacy. Those are the few who lose out in Canada but the Canadian system does help pay for some treatments that are available in the US but not in Canada for certain conditions. In Australia the non-urgent surgery/specialist issue is mitigated by a parallel private system to some extent.

Some will always lose out. In Canada it is those few with rare conditions or are too impatient or entitled to wait. In the US it is the many poor and elderly because of their multiple morbidities. Unfortunately they are the ones in most need of health care services.
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Some will always lose out. In Canada it is those few with rare conditions or are too impatient or entitled to wait. In the US it is the many poor and elderly because of their multiple morbidities. Unfortunately they are the ones in most need of health care services.

You don't know what you are talking about.
 

Gold Dragon

Well-Known Member
North Americans and Medical Tourism: High Health Costs Driving Consumer Interest in Travelling for Treatment

In such an environment, it is unsurprising that consumer interest in medical tourism is on the rise in North America. A report published by website Patients Beyond Borders in March 2015 estimated that 1.2 million Americans travelled to a foreign country for medical care in 2014, up from 900,000 during 2013. It found that the most popular destination was Mexico, particularly among those living in the southwest of the country.

According to a study conducted by think tank The Fraser Institute, 52,513 Canadians left the country to receive non-emergency medical treatment during 2014, up 26% on the previous year.
 

JohnDeereFan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I am pro free markets in general but I would never say this. Anyone who says something like this is reading their own preconceived view into the text.

Your ignorance of scripture is duly noted.

The closest you can find about economic policy in the bible is the OT laws. The requirement of leaving grain unpicked for the poor and the concepts of Jubilee do not sound at all like free market economics to me.

There's nothing anti-free market about charity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top