Right to health care.

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by pro2A, Feb 14, 2009.

  1. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    Yes, you do have a right to health care, just as you have a right to food, shelter and property. However, you have no right to force others to provide these things for you. Why is health care any different? All "free" medical care is subsidized through taxes stolen from other people.

    Not to mention the government can't even balance a budget, do you really trust them with your health care?


  2. oeran

    oeran Registered Member

    I have a lack of credible knowledge for health care to have an informed opinion, so I'm going to stand in for my father and his opinion. He believes that, rather than dealing with health care, we should deal with doctor's fees. If people were able to pay for doctors without having to deal with insurance companies, then there wouldn't be a health care crisis in the first place. Of course, like I said before, I don't know enough about the health care industry to know if that's even possible (since part of the reason doctors charge so much is to make up for being sued for malpractice), but I think it's an interesting idea.

    I think, going off of that, that people should be able to afford, without insurance, at least basic check ups and vaccinations every year.
  3. Sim

    Sim Registered Member

    That's an interesting topic, pro2A.

    I guess it all boils down to the question what kind of society you want to live in. If you want to live in an immensely rich society with extreme material differences between the classes and rampant poverty among the poorer people, to the degree the poor cannot even afford a dentist bill or have to die due to illnesses that could be healed, just because they cannot afford it, while at the same time, the top 5% of society have huge excess money for luxury.

    Or if you want to live in a society where food, shelter and health is considered a public good everybody has a right on, no matter if lucky or unlucky, and your health does not depend on your income.

    You say redistribution due to taxes are theft; I say refusing to give those in need money to treat their illnesses they cannot afford is negligent murder, and everybody who can afford it, yet refuses to support them is a murderer. And murder is a worse crime than theft.

    Probably this difference in worldview is due to a different basic assumption: You say those who are rich are rich because of their deeds and achievements, and thus deserve that money, so those who are poor are poor due to laziness, lack of ambition and so on. Wealth is a product of hard work, thus those who are not wealthy are not trying hard enough.

    I disagree with that. I believe very much of it has to do with mere luck, and factors individuals are not responsible for. And it's a sad fact that the more money you have, the less you have to work to get even more. The poor have ultimately much harder work to do to get even a tiny little bit more, while the really rich have not more to do than a single phone call with their stock broker or bank manager to make more additional money than a poor person will ever see in his whole lifetime.

    I do not deny the fact that free services encourage laziness, and some who are poor are indeed poor due to laziness. But to a much lesser degree than you assume, and certainly it is by far not the only reason for poverty -- luck plays a much greater role (the luck of being born with many or few physical and intellectual talents). So I agree there should be certain incentives for people to make their own money, instead of being provided with it by the state.

    But health care, I believe, is such a basic good that everybody should have a right on it. Nobody should have to ruin his or her body, or even die, just because he or she was unlucky. Even if that means that a few lazy people among them get free money, so be it -- that's no reason to punish those who are indeed just unlucky.

    By the way, pro2A, I encourage you to look at social distribution not from the side of the person who gets his money taxed away for punks, but from the perspective of a person who suddenly has a grave illness, yet is too poor to pay the treatment -- if you were in that situation, wouldn't you want society to support you?

    My point is, such a public health care is not a one-way route from the rich to the poor. It's an insurance for everybody. Most people are not poor or rich all the time -- by far most people have bad times and good times. So in a moment when you are in a bad time and have few money, others support you in case of need. And the moment you are in good times, you in turn support those who are in bad times at the moment. It's a mutual contract.
  4. ysabel

    ysabel /ˈɪzəˌbɛl/ pink 5

    Do you really feel that taxes are stolen? Or do you only think it's stolen when taxes are allocated for health purposes and not other things like education, defense, etc.

    Why can't people trust the government to handle health care when they trust them with more important things?
  5. ExpectantlyIronic

    ExpectantlyIronic e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑

    I personally don't think you can justify economic inequality without ensuring it works out in the favor of everyone. The idea a laissez-faire market favors the most deserving, strikes me as prima facie absurd. It is the result of government intervention, which is to say widespread cooperation to maintain a specific state of affairs. If that state of affairs doesn't accord with the principle that everyone should be happy, then we should cooperate to facilitate a better system.

    As for the government stealing: where do you think property rights come from? Society giveth, and society taketh away.
  6. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    Sim, think of it like this... Patients who get free (taxpayer funded) health care have no incentive to save their health care dollars, I mean after all it's free, why would they want to? Health care would be "free" so they visit the doctor's office more then normal for every sniffle (something they probably wouldn't have done before) or would request "free" prescriptions for over the counter medication such as Tylenol.

    With no incentive to provide quality care, doctors leave the country for better opportunities in a freer country. Shortages result. Drug and medical supply companies are hindered by price controls and regulations (more government intervention) and soon slow or stop research and development of new medication and supplies. If it costs $100 dollars to make something and the government caps it at $75 dollars so people can "afford" it, it doesn't take rocket science to figure out that that company will go out of business before long.

    This creates a shortage of supply, with a high demand (since it is "free). This is 6th grade math... less supply, more demand = more waits and bad quality care.

    The poor and middle class wait for simple procedures, and those with money can travel to other countries for treatment.

    Now we're back at square one. The poor have less resources then they did before. I've talked to Canadians before who've needed dental work done but had to wait weeks before they could even be seen. I had to have wisdom teeth removed and was seen in 2 days and had them out within the week. I paid very little out of pocket. It was a $1600 dollar procedure. I think I paid $20 bucks.

    In a free market system if government power is eliminated i.e. abolish the FDA... whose restrictions benefit the most powerful companies by eliminating most competition, those same companies would use their money and resources to sell their drugs to the most people in the least expensive and safest way. They would need to outperform their competitors to get your money... otherwise they lose business. The opposite as I have stated above creates shortage, which creates high prices.

    It's all goes back to one fact about humanity... unless we're given motivation to go that extra mile, the vast majority of people will only do the bare minimum to get by. Or, as Thomas Jefferson explained it:

    "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2009
  7. Smelnick

    Smelnick Creeping On You V.I.P.

    As a Canadian, a manitoban Canadian to be exact, I enjoy the luxury of free healthcare. If I break my leg, and have to go to the hospital, the most I'll have to pay for is a set of crutches and that's like 20 bucks. All this is paid for by income tax. I wouldn't say that my money is being stolen from me. In order to enjoy this luxury, and a fine luxury at that, I'm glad to pay a little on each paycheque to support it.
    Bananas likes this.
  8. Bananas

    Bananas Endangered Species

    The incentive to save their health care dollars remains as they still have to pay their national insurance by means of taxes. Nothing is free, the populous still pays out, just as they do under private health care the difference being it is universally availabile under a non-discriminatory system where financial well being can not hinder the availability of the care you recieve.

    Wrong. The opposite is true, when health care is readily available people visit the doctors office less as they do not want to burden the system. Health care goes from being a luxury and becomes a service. When healthcare is a luxury and you physically have to pay for it or are paying for it via insurance premiums you ensure you get your moneys worth plus some. Americans visit the doctor more than in any other country, is it because they are more prone to illness or because they feel as they are paying for something they should get equal return.

    Ths information is widely availble but I will provide you this link which contains it:
    Why Does Health Care Cost So Much?

    I strongly suggest you read it to help you understand healthcare better.

    Why would there be no incentive to provide quality care?
    What is a freer country? somewhere where healthcare is free? I dont get it.

    The US currently ranks down about #30 for the quality of healthcare its citizens recieve. It is the only developed country that denies its citizens universal care. I dont understand your logic to why they would stop providing a quality of care and leave!

    Why would the Government cap the price? It is not about people affording anything, all healthcare becomes UNIVERSAL. You should research how Universal healthcare works rather than make false assumptions. There are plenty of countries as good examples.

    I will explain; It does not matter if a drug costs $10 or $1000 the patient will always pay the same(eg $15) whilst the Government matches the difference.

    Why would they go abroad for treatment?

    Again you are making assumptions on little knowledge of how a healthcare system operates. Nearly all countries with Universal healthcare also have a bilateral private healthcare system, if you want to jump the queue and can afford it, you do so. You dont have to go abroad.

    As far as I am aware dentistry is primarily a private sector in Canada, so you are comparing two private schemes, perhaps a Canadian can correct me if I am wrong on this.

    Also you say you paid $20, Im sure you calculated this figure to include your insurance premiums to date.:rolleyes:

    But what you stated above was incorrect.

    Competitiveness remains with a universal system, doctors and pharmacies do not get money for nothing, they still need to deliver the goods.

    "The collective principle asserts that... no society can legitimately call itself civilized if a sick person is denied medical aid because of lack of means."
    -Nye BevanWe live in the 21st century, yet the USA can not fend for its least well off, that is not humanity.
    If the US implemented Universal health care would you quit your job? whats the point of working after all, you get healthcare for free and your health is the most important asset you will ever have.
    There are many incentives for motivation. Of course in the other 120 countries around the world with Universal health care we only do enough to get by[/SARCASM]


    Pro2A if you want to make an arguement against Universal healthcare it would be better to learn the facts first and not base your statements loosly on assumptions rallied by little more than your philosophical beliefs.

    Here are some links; Read all of them, they have ALL the information YOU need. They are all reputable unbias sources(the bottom one links back to the w.h.o.)

    Why Does Health Care Cost So Much?
    NCHC | Facts About Healthcare - Health Insurance Costs
    The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems
    ysabel likes this.

Share This Page