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

[church mouse guy]

Failed socialism occurs for the same reason as failed states of other ideologies. Poor leadership and governance. I'm not sure what race has to do with this. Are you saying that because there are a lot of Mexicans in the us that single payer health care in the US would look more like Venezuela than Canada?

No, I am saying that you cite only white examples when you argue for socialized medicine and you never mention non-white countries, or what the socialists call non-white countries. What about Russia, China, and North Korea--are they examples of good healthcare?

 

[church mouse guy]

It's a sad state of affairs when people consider possession of assault weapons to be a human right but not universal access to healthcare free at the point of delivery. Even sadder when it's Christians espousing such a viewpoint.

Is that a "right" given by the government and did the English infant in the news have that right when the English government said that he should be refused further treatment or was that just a political error?

 

[righteousdude2]

I think we should do the following:

1) REPEAL entitled care.
2) Those who can afford to pay for insurrance, let them.
3) Those who have employer paid insurance, continue on!
4 Those who can't afford insurance BE GUARANTEED that the government, state/feds share cost will reimburse for emergency care!
5 Americans and their employers, who work without employer paid insurance be assessed a tax, like unemployment insurance. This joint payroll tax go into a fund so when health care is needed, the individual state, share with the feds, the cost for care regardless of how long it is needed, be it an accident or illness.
6) Military, regardless of length of service, be guaranteed care at the VA , or local hospital, medical clinic and those paying a fee for family medical care be permitted to continue care, at the fee as it was at time of separation, with a COLA adjusted fee, be tacked on each new year.

Leave medicare as it is. Dump medicaid.

 

[Matt Black]

Is that a "right" given by the government and did the English infant in the news have that right when the English government said that he should be refused further treatment or was that just a political error?

There is no such thing as an 'English government'. The UK government, based in Whitehall, has said nothing at all about Charlie Gard's medical treatment. The courts of England and Wales have, as has the European Court of Human Rights. They have ruled that he should not be subjected to treatment that will do him more harm than good - and correctly so based on the evidence presented to them.

I note you haven't answered the implied question as to why some deem it more important to have the right to have assault weapons over and above the right to medical treatment, a stance incompatible with following Christ. Perhaps start with removing that plank from your eye and then maybe we can talk further about whether the Charlie Gard case constitutes a British speck.

 

[Gold Dragon]

No, I am saying that you cite only white examples when you argue for socialized medicine and you never mention non-white countries, or what the socialists call non-white countries. What about Russia, China, and North Korea--are they examples of good healthcare?

I would expect that if someone were to desire a good health care system, they would take cues from ones that were successful and avoid the mistakes of ones that were not. Makes sense, right? I'm not sure what white or non-white has to do with successful or unsuccessful systems.

Japan, Singapore and S Korea could also offer some ideas for the US.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

I agree with you. The basis for unregulated capitalism is greed.

Your ignorance of capitalism is duly noted.

If you honestly believe capitalism and liberty are based on greed, you should try to find an adult to help you read Milton Friedman's Free To Choose.

Why is it that you anti-American Leftists always insist that capitalism is based on greed, but refuse to acknowledge the greed that motivates your lust for government control?

America currently ranks about 17th in the world in terms of the quality of its healthcare delivery system[, last among developed nations.

Precisely why we need to dump your failed Marxist ideas and return healthcare to the free market where it belongs.

I believe helping the indigent is a Christian responsibility whether it's done ourselves or through someone or something else.

And we Christians believe that you don't do right by one person by sinning against another.

To simply say "let those people die because they don't deserve to live"

Tell that to the family of Charlie Gard. You know, the child your precious socialized medicine bureaucrats are fixing to let die in Great Britain.

I would expect that if someone were to desire a good health care system, they would take cues from ones that were successful and avoid the mistakes of ones that were not. Makes sense, right? I'm not sure what white or non-white has to do with successful or unsuccessful systems.

Japan, Singapore and S Korea could also offer some ideas for the US.

The problem, Princess, is that we came to America to be Americans, not to be Japanese, Singaporian, or Korean. We came here for liberty, not for government regulation over every area of our lives.

If you hate America and our ideas of liberty so much, then go to some other country.

 

[church mouse guy]

There is no such thing as an 'English government'. The UK government, based in Whitehall, has said nothing at all about Charlie Gard's medical treatment. The courts of England and Wales have, as has the European Court of Human Rights. They have ruled that he should not be subjected to treatment that will do him more harm than good - and correctly so based on the evidence presented to them.

I note you haven't answered the implied question as to why some deem it more important to have the right to have assault weapons over and above the right to medical treatment, a stance incompatible with following Christ. Perhaps start with removing that plank from your eye and then maybe we can talk further about whether the Charlie Gard case constitutes a British speck.

It used to be that an Englishman's home was his castle but I understand that that is not so any longer. The right to bear arms stems from the God-given right to self defense. Notice that my right to bear arms does not mean that Uncle Sam will buy me a new gun. Of course, women have always had the right to bare arms.

So Charlie Gard was a political decision. Actually, the way I understand it from what you have said, the rich are exempt from the rules and regulations of the English healthcare system but the poor are under the government's control.

I don't think that you or anyone else believes that Americans are going without medical treatment. Welfare does provide medicine. We just don't want to put the entire population under the welfare umbrella of government as is done in communist and socialized countries. And we don't want to just exempt the upper class but also the working poor from state control of medicine. Our politicians are crooks and thieves. Our Veterans Administration should be abolished and Veterans should be given insurance to go where they please. Some are forced to drive long distances for poor government service.

In American, the private system of medicine has delivered the best healthcare in the world.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

I would expect that if someone were to desire a good health care system, they would take cues from ones that were successful and avoid the mistakes of ones that were not. Makes sense, right? I'm not sure what white or non-white has to do with successful or unsuccessful systems.

Japan, Singapore and S Korea could also offer some ideas for the US.

The problem, Princess, is that we came to America to be Americans, not to be Japanese, Singaporian, or Korean. We came here for liberty, not for government regulation over every area of our lives.

If you hate America and our ideas of liberty so much, then go to some other country.

Failed socialism occurs for the same reason as failed states of other ideologies. Poor leadership and governance.

No, socialism fails because its economically untenable.

 

[FollowTheWay]

No country in the world has as ready access to quality health care as the U.S. The free market made it that way. Socializing it will destroy the ready availability of specialized diagnostic tests and treatment.

Healthcare is not a "right". It is a privilege that must be paid for...by somebody.

Just like lunches, there is no such thing as free healthcare.

Absolute false. In fact the opposite is true.

U.S. Health-Care System Ranks as One of the Least-Efficient
U.S. Health-Care System Ranks as One of the Least-Efficient

The U.S. health-care system remains among the least-efficient in the world.

America was 50th out of 55 countries in 2014, according to a Bloomberg index that assesses life expectancy, health-care spending per capita and relative spending as a share of gross domestic product. Expenditures averaged $9,403 per person, about 17.1 percent of GDP, that year — the most recent for which data are available — and life expectancy was 78.9. Only Jordan, Colombia, Azerbaijan, Brazil and Russia ranked lower.

The U.S. has lagged near the bottom of the Bloomberg Health-Care Efficiency Indexsince it was created in 2012. Hong Kong and Singapore — consistently at the top — are smaller countries with less diverse populations. Their governments also play a stronger role in regulating and providing care, with spending per capita averaging $2,386 and longevity averaging about 83 years.

The U.S. system “tends to be more fragmented, less organized and coordinated, and that’s likely to lead to inefficiency,” said Paul Ginsburg, a professor at the University of Southern California and director of the Center for Health Policy at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

 

[Matt Black]

It used to be that an Englishman's home was his castle but I understand that that is not so any longer. The right to bear arms stems from the God-given right to self defense. Notice that my right to bear arms does not mean that Uncle Sam will buy me a new gun. Of course, women have always had the right to bare arms.

This Englishman's home is still my castle - but we have never existed in isolation from our fellow-citizens, and that's never been what it has meant. I don't have the right, for example, to turn my home into a bomb making factory.

So Charlie Gard was a political decision. Actually, the way I understand it from what you have said, the rich are exempt from the rules and regulations of the English healthcare system but the poor are under the government's control.

Wrong on both counts. The poor are not under the government's control; in fact, our present government has turned its back on the poor more and more, particularly the working poor

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Absolute false. In fact the opposite is true.

U.S. Health-Care System Ranks as One of the Least-Efficient
U.S. Health-Care System Ranks as One of the Least-Efficient

The U.S. health-care system remains among the least-efficient in the world.

I agree. Socialized healthcare has failed. Let's get the government out of it so we can get back to being #1.

 

[Revmitchell]

Wrong on both counts. The poor are not under the government's control; in fact, our present government has turned its back on the poor more and more, particularly the working poor

Ok turning their back on them, i.e. not giving them government handouts is not the same thing as not having control

 

[Gold Dragon]

not to be Japanese, Singaporian, or Korean.

church mouse guy was suggesting that only white socialized medical systems were successful and I was pointing out some Asian systems that are also highly functional. A common theme is wealthy countries have better health care systems, especially when they find a way to ensure that citizens who are poor, elderly and with multiple medical illnesses also get taken care of. Unfortunately those are the people that are unprofitable to insure and they will lose out the more your system privatizes and health care insurance is more profit motivated.

If you hate America and our ideas of liberty so much, then go to some other country.

I'm a Canadian living in Australia. I spent several years of my childhood in the US and have an American wife and children with many friends and family in the US. I love the United States and the liberty it represents. And it saddens me as a medical doctor to see this country that I love being unable to provide reasonable quality health care for its people and all the problems of poor education, loss of work and increased crime that comes with poor health care.

Every country has pockets of similar issues, usually in remote parts where access is difficult. But in the United States, the country that spends by far the most per capita on health care than any other, the health outcomes should be significantly better than what they have been (this has always been the case and was worse before Obamacare). I guess if you are ok with the status quo and think that the way to improve one of the most privatized health care systems in the world that isn't working with even more privatization, then go for it. It is your country to do as you wish. My recommendation is to learn from what has or hasn't worked in the past and other parts of the world instead of sticking to an ideology.

I am not tied to socialism or privatization. I see pros and cons to both and I think the balance in Australia is pretty good. I think some aspects of the system in Australia could benefit from more privatization while other aspects would benefit from more government control. My goal is to see quality health care delivered to as many people as possible, regardless of the economic model behind it.

No, socialism fails because its economically untenable.

These are the world bank countries by GDP. How many would you call tenable? How many would you call socialist?
http://databank.worldbank.org/data/download/GDP.pdf

Top 20 GDP countries in millions of US dollars

1 United States 18,569,100
2 China 11,199,145
3 Japan 4,939,384
4 Germany 3,466,757
5 United Kingdom 2,618,886
6 France 2,465,454
7 India 2,263,523
8 Italy 1,849,970
9 Brazil 1,796,187
10 Canada 1,529,760
11 Korea, Rep. 1,411,246
12 Russian Federation 1,283,162 a
13 Spain 1,232,088
14 Australia 1,204,616
15 Mexico 1,045,998
16 Indonesia 932,259
17 Turkey 857,749
18 Netherlands 770,845
19 Switzerland 659,827
20 Saudi Arabia 646,438

 

[JohnDeereFan]

I love the United States and the liberty it represents.

No you don't. If you did, then you wouldn't be advocating government regulation and the loss of our liberty.

And it saddens me as a medical doctor to see this country that I love being unable to provide reasonable quality health care for its people and all the problems of poor education, loss of work and increased crime that comes with poor health care.

But its the very system you advocate that is the reason they're not receiving care, Einstein. Get the government out of it and let it return to the free market.

But in the United States, the country that spends by far the most per capita on health care than any other, the health outcomes should be significantly better than what they have been

No, it shouldn't. It's expensive and inefficient because expensive and inefficient is the only thing the government does well.

Return it to the free market and costs will plummet and services and care will vastly improve.

I guess if you are ok with the status quo and think that the way to improve one of the most privatized health care systems in the world that isn't working with even more privatization, then go for it.

It was when it was private that it worked. It wasn't until the government got involved that it started to crumble.

 

[Gold Dragon]

But its the very system you advocate that is the reason they're not receiving care, Einstein. Get the government out of it and let it return to the free market.

I would say the reason medicare and medicaid don't work is because of lack of funding. If the government got out of health care for those normally covered by medicare and medicaid, they would go from under funded to unfunded. Why would insurance companies chose to insure these people who will obviously be unprofitable?

Return it to the free market and costs will plummet and services and care will vastly improve.
...
It was when it was private that it worked. It wasn't until the government got involved that it started to crumble.

The history of medicare as well as the global rise in medical costs is an interesting story. Understanding that history is pretty important to understanding why medical insurance in the US and around the world has developed the way it has. It was actually the rising cost of medical care that lead to the development of Medicare, not the other way around.

A history of health insurance in the United States: part I

In the beginning of the twentieth century, advances in medicine and a vast migration of American families to urban environments would increase the demand for quality medical care and shift the burden of treating illnesses from family and neighbors to physicians in urban hospitals. As more and more families relocated to cities in the early 1900s, they found themselves with less physical space in their homes, making it harder to apply DIY home remedies to sick family members. At the same time, advances in medical technology and a growing acceptance of medicine as science catalyzed the development of hospitals and treatment centers, and raised the status of physicians from mistrusted magicians to practiced professionals.

With treatment facilities becoming increasingly popular, it would soon be necessary for physicians to adopt standards of practice and develop systems of regulation to maintain adequate levels of quality and minimize harmful procedures. Thus, In 1904, the American Medical Association formed the Council on Medical Education to standardize requirements for medical licensure. Unsurprisingly, as requirements for licensure became more demanding, medical care, particularly in hospitals, became more expensive. According to the Committee on the Costs of Medical Care, by 1934, hospital costs had risen to nearly 40-percent of the average American’s total medical bills, compared to an average 14-percent of total medical bills in 1929. Prices were already rising out of control. Clearly, something had to be done…

A history of health insurance in the United States: part II

The success of Blue Cross and Blue Shield inspired commercial insurance companies to enter the market as their initial fears about profitability were quelled. At the same time, demand for health insurance increased as medical technology became more advanced, and more expensive. In fact, enrollees increased nearly 700 percent from 1940 to 1950.

Because BCBS had non-profit status, they were required to charge the same rate to healthy and sick enrollees. This allowed private insurers to offer healthy groups lower premiums than BCBS could afford. Thus, commercial insurance companies were able to steal a large percentage of BCBS’ healthy consumers who would be paying higher premiums under BCBS.

The Advent of Medicaid and Medicare: 1965–1980 - America's Essential Hospitals

By the 1960s, a larger problem began to afflict medicine in the United States, and it hit public hospitals especially hard. The prosperous country that boomed after World War II revealed an impoverished underbelly that could not be ignored. Health care for the urban and rural poor alike was sorely lacking in a society regarded as the wealthiest on earth. In this context, many of the largest public hospitals became stages of conflict where physicians, nurses, and hospital staff struggled to provide adequate care in deteriorating facilities that were often ill-equipped and poorly provisioned.

Health and hospital insurance was another matter in the post-war public hospital blues. It was largely a feature of business expansion, when employers in all sectors typically covered employees on every rung. However, this system, which eventually eroded for millions of Americans, left the indigent and elderly without resources at a time when medicine had grown capable of treating literally thousands of diseases in new and effective ways. Although President Truman had planned a national health system in 1949, it proved politically impossible to forge into law, especially during the Cold War.

But in 1965, with President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “War on Poverty” and the “Great Society,” Congress enacted Medicaid and Medicare to provide some access to care for the indigent and elderly. These government programs, which largely enabled patients to apply to hospitals of their own choosing, did not resolve what experts had begun to call the “plight of the public hospital.”

 

[JohnDeereFan]

I would say the reason medicare and medicaid don't work is because of lack of funding

We spend BILLIONS on Medicare and Medicaid.

The problem isn't the funding. Its the concept.

If the government got out of health care for those normally covered by medicare and medicaid, they would go from under funded to unfunded.

First of all, it isn't the government's responsibility to fund them in the first place. It isn't Constitutional and it isn't just or moral

Second, your ignorance of economics is showing.

If healthcare were returned to the free market and people were once again allowed to make their own decisions like free men, prices would go down and government healthcare would be unnecessary.

If the government funded it more, then prices would only rise to accommodate the new influx of funding.

Third, you don't know what you're talking about. The problems with these programs, aside from the legal and moral problems, is systemic, not economic.

The history of medicare as well as the global rise in medical costs is an interesting story.

...which you know nothing about.

 

[Revmitchell]

I would say the reason medicare and medicaid don't work is because of lack of funding. If the government got out of health care for those normally covered by medicare and medicaid, they would go from under funded to unfunded. Why would insurance companies chose to insure these people who will obviously be unprofitable?



The history of medicare as well as the global rise in medical costs is an interesting story. Understanding that history is pretty important to understanding why medical insurance in the US and around the world has developed the way it has. It was actually the rising cost of medical care that lead to the development of Medicare, not the other way around.

A history of health insurance in the United States: part I



A history of health insurance in the United States: part II



The Advent of Medicaid and Medicare: 1965–1980 - America's Essential Hospitals

the problem with your thinking like most liberals is that you have only one solution for the problem which is government. It is this narrow minded thinking that gets countries in trouble like Greece for instance. I believe this is because the liberal wants government to be the answer no matter what. Control of people's lives is the goal.

 

[Gold Dragon]

It isn't Constitutional

Which part of the US Constitution prohibits federally funded health care insurance?

andd it isn't just or moral

So it is more moral to let people who can't afford health care to just die from treatable diseases?

If healthcare were returned to the free market and people were once again allowed to make their own decisions like free men, prices would go down and government healthcare would be unnecessary.

Will it go down to zero for those folks that have no income? The homeless? Those who have been bankrupt with medical bills?

...which you know nothing about.

I am always willing to learn. Teach me about the history of medicare and medical insurance in the united states.

 

[Gold Dragon]

the problem with your thinking like most liberals is that you have only one solution for the problem which is government. It is this narrow minded thinking that gets countries in trouble like Greece for instance. I believe this is because the liberal wants government to be the answer no matter what. Control of people's lives is the goal.

I am not tied to socialism or privatization. I see pros and cons to both and I think the balance in Australia is pretty good. I think some aspects of the system in Australia could benefit from more privatization while other aspects would benefit from more government control. My goal is to see quality health care delivered to as many people as possible, regardless of the economic model behind it.

 

[Revmitchell]

Which part of the US Constitution prohibits federally funded health care insurance?

The issue is not that it prohibits it, it is that it does not give government the responsibility for it. That is how our National constitution works.

So it is more moral to let people who can't afford health care to just die from treatable diseases?

So who said this? Please provide me the quote.

Will it go down to zero for those folks that have no income? The homeless? Those who have been bankrupt with medical bills?

Do you have any other resolution other than government?