Is healthcare a right or a responsibility?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Walk-worthy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Because in many cases this isn’t a discretionary debt like most other debts. Hell its often not even our own choice if care is initiated during an emergency. Yet for some reason we’re the only western country where you’re left holding the bill where all the others have recognized healthcare is a fundamental right. And as Catholics are pro-life I’d find it oxymoronic to think otherwise. Having to chose death over debt burdening yourself or your family is not a life affirming position to place people in when there is a tried and tested alternative that for some reason only America refuses to embrace.
I don’t think that’s what people are arguing.

I think most conservatives AGREE that the our healthcare system needs fixing. However, I think most of us believe there are other ways to lower costs and provide safety nets without scraping our current system and rebuilding the entire system from scratch.

Also, we have to remember, most of the other western nations are smaller, unitary states, or smaller federations with undesignated powers defaulting to their national govt.

The United States on the other hand is a former confederation, founded on a distrust of government, with undesignated powers defaulting to the state govts, not the federal govt.

Finally, universal health care paid for & administered at the state level is a lot more palatable for American conservatives than a federal system. Afterall, if I don’t like the way my state does it, I can move to another state. And if enough rich people leave a state due to health care, the states will improve. Afterall, they actually are very competitive with one another.

God Bless
 
And if enough rich people leave a state due to health care, the states will improve. Afterall, they actually are very competitive with one another.
Why would the rich people protest? It’s the poor and vulnerable that feel the impact of unaffordable, inaccessible healthcare, not the rich.
 
Last edited:
As a Catholic I am for healthcare because Life has no price (an i-pod yes)

" it was above all the testimony of a friend, who had set up her own business in Northern California, that enlightened me about the danger of giving birth in the United States. Since her pregnancy began in 2007 and ended in 2008, she and her husband had to pay a deductible of $4,000 [2,700 euros] twice and pay out of pocket many benefits not covered by their insurance. In order to avoid a minimum hospital bill of $10,000 [6,900 euros], they opted for a home birth that would cost them “only” $4,500 [3,100 euros]. Already exhausted by their approach to insurance to get a discount, they had to deal with unforeseen expenses. After twelve hours of work, the midwife decided to transfer the expectant mother to the hospital. “I was devastated to see my calculations wiped out. At the time, money was clearly a big concern for me,” my friend later explained. Today, almost two years after this episode, she still has not finished repaying the $15,000 [10,300 euros] that her birth cost.
In France, the night of hospitalization for childbirth is fully taken care of, as well as the following three nights, in a room where the father is sometimes allowed to sleep on a mattress, near the mother’s bed. Caregivers provide breastfeeding advice and care for both mother and child. Diapers and medications are taken care of, as are caesarean section and epidural. In any case, even without having insurance concerns, a birth rarely goes as planned. Back in the room 'birth, I saw the head of my firstborn. I had prepared myself to live this moment when reality goes beyond fiction and out of his mouth would come out this first cry so moving that says “I’m alive”. Instead, a midwife had to pull out her little inert body from Chrystele’s. His eyes were closed, his skin strangely bluish. He was unconscious.
In the United States, in addition to a deadly anguish for our newborn, we would have been the victim of many questions: does our insurance cover resuscitation? Is there a moderator ticket for this intervention? Will this incident have an impact on the baby’s future health insurance? After all, an insurer refused to cover the baby of a couple of Californian friends because of prenatal illness, even though it came out of a perfectly insured belly.
The French health care system is far from perfect and it has a price, which my wife and her countrymen pay in the form of contributions and taxes. The French have less money in their pockets to buy iPods, laptops, 4x4 giants or motorhomes. But in return, the French expect their government to provide quality care and let them worry more about their health than about the details of their insurance policy. In fact, France generally tops the international health rankings, and its system costs, in proportion, significantly less than that of the United States. When your child makes his first cry, as Luka Matthew Pape did a minute after his birth, it is one of the most unforgettable moments of life. Living such a moment without worrying about financial problems or quarrels with your insurer, it also has no price." ( Courrier International)
 
basic health care
StudentMI, the Compendium does not define “basic health care.”

Does it include the type of health care involved with caring for COVID-19 patients?

Does it include hospital stays, which cost thousands of dollars a day?!

Does it include orthopedic surgery–my husband’s hip replacement cost around $30,000, and our portion is around $6000 (he is paying it out of a health savings account through his workplace).

Some of the microbiological testing that I do costs thousands of dollars–basic health care?

How about care for mental and emotional illness?

How about care for those with Alzheimer’s? What exactly IS “basic health care” for these people? A bath every few days? Spoon feeding? 24-hour watch and care in a place where the person cannot get out a door or window?

And how about rehabilitation for those with addictions, including the meds that help to reduce the cravings?

To me, the ONLY thing that “basic” health care should include is an annual physical, which in itself costs somewhere in the neighborhood of a thousand dollars, more if you include age-appropriate screens, including mammogram, colonoscopy, and pap smear. For children and teens, this annual physical exam includes other age-appropriate screens.

But a physical exam does nothing to heal someone who is afflicted. So I doubt that’s what the Compendium means when it says “Basic Health Care”.
 
Healthcare isn’t a choice, you either treat a disease/injury, or you die.
–Incorrect. The vast majority of diseases/injuries – whether strains; a sore throat; back pain; or even COVID-19 - will usually resolve on their own if untreated. Look, one of the problems the US healthcare system faces is people using hospital ERs in lieu of “family doctors.” That’s one reason why “emergi-med” clinics are growing in popularity. Only a fraction of illnesses or injuries will really kill you without treatment
 
Last edited:
To me, the ONLY thing that “basic” health care should include is an annual physical…
That’s nice. I was just sharing what the Compendium states. I didn’t say what it did and doesn’t define. And I did say in another post how it is implemented is another matter. But yes, it would appear basic health care is a right.
 
Phil, you have made a series of long posts recently and they are all excellent IMHO.

The only aspect I take issue with - and it’s minor - is that people agree the US healthcare system needs fixing. I continue to think US healthcare is the best system in the world, hands down, and that Americans already receive good-to-great healthcare as it is. In fact, I think you sort of said the same thing, about Americans generally receiving superior care.

Once again, what people here seem to be arguing about is healthcare costs, i.e., insurance, which is totally different than healthcare.
 
Last edited:
I said:
the US government has proven time and again, that it does nothing cost effectively. Nothing
You said:
The US government runs a better military than the states could. It runs better and more efficient law enforcement than the states.
You are changing my premise. I said “cost effectively.” Of course the US government can run a military better than the states could. Its their job. When you can print money, of course you will have a great military. The military, however, is not “cost effective,” as they don’t have to stay within a real budget…and $800 toilet seats and $1000 hammers…you get the idea

You also said:
The federal court system is far better than most states’ court systems, and more efficient to boot.
You are changing my premise. I made no comment about the court system’s effectiveness. Your only comment that might be related to my premise is comparing the efficiency (which I’m not sure you “cost efficiency”) is to compare the federal court system to the state’s courts. Still really says nothing about “cost effectiveness.”

You said:
And the single most efficient health insurance program in the United States is Medicare, whose administrative costs run at about two percent of operating expenditures, versus private health insurance plans, which run at about 17 percent of expenditures.
Well, this is bad news. The net present value of medicare unfunded liabilities in 2017 was $33T. That is more than the national debt. So if a program as unfunded liabilities of $33T: Is that something we want, or can afford, more of?

I agree that there are problems in the government. And the VA hasn’t done itself or its patients any favors. But the solution isn’t to throw out the government; it’s to fix what’s wrong…

There are plenty of legitimate arguments to make if you want to oppose a single-payer system. But “It wouldn’t be as efficient as what we have now“ isn’t one of them.
You have not proved your point. If you want to “fix what is wrong,” then start at the municipal or state level with a healthcare model, prove the model works, then scale the model. The worst thing to do is think: “I need me some more of what got me to a $33T unfunded liability.”
 
You actually said that you’d bet there were people in the UK who couldn’t access health care. Not that it has problems. That comment was completely wrong. Everyone has access.
It’s a debate! I referenced Alfie Evans who was in the news a few years ago, a child who was denied medical care. That’s all. So stop lecturing people! Have a nice day!
 
40.png
Freddy:
You actually said that you’d bet there were people in the UK who couldn’t access health care. Not that it has problems. That comment was completely wrong. Everyone has access.
It’s a debate! I referenced Alfie Evans who was in the news a few years ago, a child who was denied medical care. That’s all. So stop lecturing people! Have a nice day!
The Evans case wasn’t about not being able to access care. In fact it was about decisions whether to stop the care he’d already accessed (as far as I know at no cost).

Yeah, it’s a debate. So if you say something that is intended to make a point and that something is wrong, you shouldn’t expect to be lectured. But you should expect to be corrected.
 
can’t do this because Jesus never specifically endorsed it” isn’t the standard. I mean, Jesus never said we should have a postal service either, but it’s pretty universally agreed that delivering mail is a function the state should perform.
He also didn’t speak out against the Empire being and Empire and owning half the known world either.
I continue to think US healthcare is the best system in the world, hands down, and that Americans already receive good-to-great healthcare as it is. In fact, I think you sort of said the same thing, about Americans generally receiving superior care.
Better technology when you are able to pay doesn’t excuse the 2/3rds of people who can’t.
Mac maybe better then PC but PC isn’t the price of a used car.
 
40.png
phil19034:
And if enough rich people leave a state due to health care, the states will improve. Afterall, they actually are very competitive with one another.
Why would the rich people protest? It’s the poor and vulnerable that feel the impact of unaffordable, inaccessible healthcare, not the rich.
I meant if the rich people left because a hypothetical state provided healthcare system provided terrible healthcare. If people were leaving the state because their healthcare system was terrible, the states would act to fix it. They all want to be able attract business, etc.; as they are all in competition with each other.

When I mention state ran, universal healthcare is more palatable to American conservatives vs Federal ran universal healthcare, Democrats are quick to point out that some states are “incompetent.”

NOTE: to me, “universal healthcare” means everyone’s healthcare is paid by the govt. I’m not talking about a system where people have personal health insurance and the govt provides a bigger safety net for those without it.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, you are comparing apples and oranges.
I’m not dissing the NYPD. I’m simply responding to the incorrect claim that the federal government “Does nothing cost effectively. Nothing.” That’s simply untrue, as your own post makes clear.
 
Look, one of the problems the US healthcare system faces is people using hospital ERs in lieu of “family doctors.” That’s one reason why “emergi-med” clinics are growing in popularity.
That’s because they can’t afford health care. Arrange for everyone to have affordable health insurance (whether through the private system we have now, Medicare-for-all, or somewhere in between, and the (mis) use of ERs as primary-care providers will drop.
 
That’s because they can’t afford health care. Arrange for everyone to have affordable health insurance (whether through the private system we have now, Medicare-for-all, or somewhere in between, and the (mis) use of ERs as primary-care providers will drop.
Accept you are not fixing the root of the problem: hospital charge masters.
 
You have not proved your point. If you want to “fix what is wrong,” then start at the municipal or state level with a healthcare model, prove the model works, then scale the model. The worst thing to do is think: “I need me some more of what got me to a $33T unfunded liability.”
Except that doesn’t work with health care, which requires a national response to achieve beneficial national results. Look at the idiots arguing for a state-by-state response to COVID-19: viruses don’t observe state borders. We needed a national response at the beginning, and we didn’t get one; and the nation is suffering as a result.

If you want a well-built city, you don’t tell the citizens, “Each of you go home and build your own house by yourself; then we’ll scale up from there.” You build structures that are designed to handle the large city and are capable of doing it.

Your accusation was that the federal government cannot ever do anything efficiently. That’s demonstrably untrue.

As for your $33 trillion claim, Conover was playing with the data. The $33 trillion he claims to be underfunded is over the next 75 years. That works out to about $1,257 per American per year ($33 trillion / 75 years / 350 million Americans = $1,257.14). To put that in context, under the current system, which wastes 17% on administrative costs and has to make a profit for the “Pharma Bro”s of the world, we’re already spending $3.6 trillion a year, which is roughly $11,000 per person.

So, yes: if the federal government initiated a single-payer system (the easiest way would be simply to lower the Medicare eligibility age gradually, but whatever), taxes would go up. But premiums would go down. Because, if you have a government-run system, you might be satisfied with it and choose not to pay for private insurance. Bottom line: the nation as a whole would save money; we would provide health care to all rather than just those who can afford to pay for it; and we would all be better off (except for the people who have a financial interest in maintaining the current system, like the health insurance companies).

And, if you don’t trust the government system, you’re perfectly free to buy private insurance on top of the government plan (which is true now of Medicare).
 
Give people better insurance and ER use will drop? Prove it.

Your position has all sorts of holes in it:

–your position can be distilled to, “give everyone free medical care,” without ever addressing who’s going to pay for it.

–if your model for free health care is Europe, how do you account for endless wait times for medical care in Europe?

–People use ERs form many reasons.
They never close. You see a doctor, not a PA. They are invariably better equipped to deal with true emergencies. Your argument does not account for those factors.

–If food is free, people eat more. If medical care is free, people want it more. If anything, cheaper insurance just gets people to visit the ER more, not less.
 
your position can be distilled to, “give everyone free medical care,” without ever addressing who’s going to pay for it.
The same way we pay for everything government does - taxes.
–if your model for free health care is Europe, how do you account for endless wait times for medical care in Europe?
It is not endless. It is longer for some things than for others because of limited resources. The alternative is to have health care delivered immediately to those who can afford it and not at all to those who cannot.
–If food is free, people eat more. If medical care is free, people want it more. If anything, cheaper insurance just gets people to visit the ER more, not less.
That does not make sense. No one enjoys a prostate exam even if it is free.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top