Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
havok579257

Should health insurance/coveragr be a right?

Recommended Posts

havok579257    259
havok579257

So I have been thinking about this lately.  Should it be a right that everyone has health insurance? Now I am not talking about access to health insurance but everyone having health insurance. Also just a note, i am not talking about obamacare, ryancare or any other specific piece of legislation.  I am talking more in general terms. 

Part of me thinks that everyone should have the right to health insurance.  The reason is because without health insurance in this day and age you more than likely will be forced into homelessness if something major happens.  The sheer cost of medical treatments are near impossible to pay for on your own if your middle class or poor.  Your essentially forced to decide if you want the medication that without it will kill you sooner rather than later or not going homeless.  I guess I thinking about it as food.  I believe everyone has a right to food.  I believe those who live in third world countries have a right to food.  I am starting to think the same way about health insurance.  It's not like even 100 years ago when you could pay a doctor out of pocket and be treated and it would not cost you everything.  Today if you try to pay for things out of pocket they will bankrupt you.

 

So I wanted to get other people's opinions on this.  Do you believe people have a right to health insurance which means access to long term medical care or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anomaly    2,480
Anomaly

No.   Essentially health insurance is a group of people contributing money to share the cost of medical expenses.   Unless you are willing to contribute to the best of your abilities, then you don't have a right to have your bills paid.    I pay over $9,000 a year, plus my employer pays an additional $10,000.  The $18,000 a year in premiums gets my wife and I the basic insurance with $6,500 per person deductible and $60 co pay for a doctor. 

I can't afford to go to a doctor but I'm paying for someone else to get free healthcare because they work for a small company that doesn't offer healthcare?.  WTHIUWT?

 

Edited by Anomaly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
havok579257    259
havok579257
1 hour ago, Anomaly said:

No.   Essentially health insurance is a group of people contributing money to share the cost of medical expenses.   Unless you are willing to contribute to the best of your abilities, then you don't have a right to have your bills paid.    I pay over $9,000 a year, plus my employer pays an additional $10,000.  The $18,000 a year in premiums gets my wife and I the basic insurance with $6,500 per person deductible and $60 co pay for a doctor. 

I can't afford to go to a doctor but I'm paying for someone else to get free healthcare because they work for a small company that doesn't offer healthcare?.  WTHIUWT?

 

so what do you have to say about people who can't afford to be medically treated for some medical problem that if left unchecked will eventually kill them?  does someone have the right to medical care to avoid dying?  obviously we give care to someone if they are in an emergency.  although i am more talking about someone with high blood pressure who if left untreated will eventually have a heart attack or cva.  i work in a hospital.  if someone comes in, we treat their symptoms and give them a prescription for medication but we don't give the medication.  its up to the patients to get and pay for their own medication.  some of the medication is hundreads of dollars for a months supply.  someone who does not have insurance is not able to pay for these medications.  i've dealt with many patients when i was a paramedic who told me they didn't take their medication because they could not afford it.

 

i guess my question is it right when someone can not afford medication that will save their life because the price is to high?  is having access to medication enough.  or does a person have a right to long term medical care and not just live saving medical care? i think we would all agree someone has a right to life saving medical care.  That if someone comes into the hospital with a gunshot, he has the right to be treated.  So why not the same for long term care that without it, will kill you (such as medication)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Norseman82    856
Norseman82

I would like everyone to have health insurance, but a deeper question is why does it cost so much?  Why is out-of-pocket so expensive?  Is there an option for basic hospital or medical-surgical coverage, or does one have to purchase coverage with all the add-ons? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
havok579257    259
havok579257
10 minutes ago, Norseman82 said:

I would like everyone to have health insurance, but a deeper question is why does it cost so much?  Why is out-of-pocket so expensive?  Is there an option for basic hospital or medical-surgical coverage, or does one have to purchase coverage with all the add-ons? 

i think a lot of the problem is so many people do not pay their emergency room bills which then jacks up the price for everyone else.  obviously the homeless man or the extremely poor woman can not pay for their hospital care from whatever emergency brought them into the hospital.  the hospitals are forced to jack up the rates to compenstate for those who can not pay.  not to mention the government insurance (medicare and medicaid) pay out a fraction of the bill to the hospital or ambulance service.  like a few hundread dollars on over a thousand dollar bill. 

 

i know when i worked with a fire department in an inner city this was our issue.  we served so many poor or homeless people who could not pay their bills.  obviously since they could not pay their bills, they could not get long term treatment for their  medical problems so the would just wait until it became an emergency and then call us again racking up another bill they could not pay for.  its a never ending cycle.  at the very minimum our ambulance service charged around 800-900 dollars just for transport and taking someones blood pressure and heart rate.  anything extra added to the cost.  not to mention we charged so much per loaded mile.  so if your poor and receive a 1500 dollar bill from the fire department and on top of that a 3000 dollar bill from the hospital, how is someone supposed to afford the hundreads of dollars a month for their medication for their chronic issues?  once you fall into the cycle, its near impossible, short of a mircle, to get out of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dominicansoul    4,456
dominicansoul

It's a lovely idea but I would rather the government get out of the healthcare business all together.  The government doesn't know how to implement it.  

It would be nice if the Church had some sort of universal health plan for its members.  

And im with Norseman, why does it have to be sooooo expensive???  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
havok579257    259
havok579257
1 minute ago, dominicansoul said:

It's a lovely idea but I would rather the government get out of the healthcare business all together.  The government doesn't know how to implement it.  

It would be nice if the Church had some sort of universal health plan for its members.  

And im with Norseman, why does it have to be sooooo expensive???  

it has to be so expensive to cover the costs os those who can not pay.  the doctors, nurses, tech's, cleaning staff, office staff and so on all need to be paid.  all the equipment needs to be paid for and all of the medical tests.  not to mention the massive amounts of electricity that is required to run a hospital.  so factor all that in.  you then as a hospital have to eat the expense of anyone who receives medical care who can not pay due to mental disability, poverty, homelessness.  You have to be able to pay for the things and staff you need.  So your only option is to charge extremely high prices to off set the cost of those who are unable to pay.  although even with that, all hospitals with emergency rooms still rely on government funding/tax dollars to operate.  its not possible for a hospital to survive without government tax dollars.  

 

thats the problem with wanting to get government out of healthcare all together, its just not possible.  not when there is a mandate that you have to treat anyone in an emergency who comes into your hospital.  that have to be seen by a doctor.  even if their emergency is a stubbed toe.  a doctor has to still see the patient and some basic things need to be done like checking vitals.  not to mention the hourly cost of the doctor, nurses and all other staff.  i agree completely that the government does not know how to implement healthcare in our current system but the situation we are in, its impossible for the government to not be involved.  its impossible for a hospital to exist without government tax dollars due to how many patients who don't have health insurance and cant pay their bills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anomaly    2,480
Anomaly

Everybody dies from something. Some from old age, others not. 

Sorry about your bad luck if you need a rare and expensive medication to live.  Blame God.  But you don't have a right to demand thousands of people to toil and sacrifice for years for your medication.  Same thing for a heart transplant, etc.  

If a group of people decide to share medical costs and come up with a viable economic plan to do so, that is different.  People put money in a bucket and pay for shared needed expenses as long as there is money in the bucket.  You can't have a few that take it all for a rare disease if it bankrupts the bucket. 

It is a basic right for access to basic healthcare.  See a doctor, antibiotics, affordable treatments, etc.   There has to be realistic limits.   What the average treatment is available now for diabetes is vastly different than thirty years ago.   Why should we pay for medication for decades when the diabetic won't eat properly and exercise to mitigate their symptoms because medication is cheaper.  Same thing for high blood pressure, etc.   

Most people don't understand the difference between won't and can't and don't understand or appreciate who pays for taxes.  80%of takes comes from payroll takes.  Corporations wouldn't have jobs if the business didn't make a profit. 

I will have worked and paid social security and Medicaid taxes for 65 + years by the time I'm 70 and neither will be enough to pay living expenses or anything more than basic medical care afterwards.   That is reality. 

9 hours ago, Norseman82 said:

I would like everyone to have health insurance, but a deeper question is why does it cost so much?  Why is out-of-pocket so expensive?  Is there an option for basic hospital or medical-surgical coverage, or does one have to purchase coverage with all the add-ons? 

No.

 Are you asking this question rhetorically, or do really not know this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
havok579257    259
havok579257
1 hour ago, Anomaly said:

Everybody dies from something. Some from old age, others not. 

Sorry about your bad luck if you need a rare and expensive medication to live.  Blame God.  But you don't have a right to demand thousands of people to toil and sacrifice for years for your medication.  Same thing for a heart transplant, etc.  

If a group of people decide to share medical costs and come up with a viable economic plan to do so, that is different.  People put money in a bucket and pay for shared needed expenses as long as there is money in the bucket.  You can't have a few that take it all for a rare disease if it bankrupts the bucket. 

It is a basic right for access to basic healthcare.  See a doctor, antibiotics, affordable treatments, etc.   There has to be realistic limits.   What the average treatment is available now for diabetes is vastly different than thirty years ago.   Why should we pay for medication for decades when the diabetic won't eat properly and exercise to mitigate their symptoms because medication is cheaper.  Same thing for high blood pressure, etc.   

Most people don't understand the difference between won't and can't and don't understand or appreciate who pays for taxes.  80%of takes comes from payroll takes.  Corporations wouldn't have jobs if the business didn't make a profit. 

I will have worked and paid social security and Medicaid taxes for 65 + years by the time I'm 70 and neither will be enough to pay living expenses or anything more than basic medical care afterwards.   That is reality. 

No.

 Are you asking this question rhetorically, or do really not know this?

three things.  not everyone who has a medical problem is a result of bad exercise or diet.  many people are born with being a diabetic that requires medication.  it has nothing to do with what they did or did not do, its just they were born that way.  now they require medication the rest of their lives.

also treatments are not affordable and have not been for quite a long time.  when the country was started, you could pay for a doctor to come treat you at your house and pay for medications out of pocket.  now, its nearly impossible to pay for things out of pocket.  even if you just go to the hospital for emergency medical treatment for an assault or car accident, the costs are in the thousands.  how is that affordable out of pocket?

also what about children, the elderly who can not work to provide for their medical treatments and other people who have mental disabilities whom can not work to pay for medical expenses (servely autistim, mental retardation, etc).  are we just supposed to say, well you were born this way, so smells of elderberries to be you but you have no right to health insurance.  if you can't pay the bills, not my problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Norseman82    856
Norseman82
4 hours ago, Anomaly said:

 

 Are you asking this question rhetorically, or do really not know this?

I'm asking this because this needs to be addressed in order for any progress to be made on this issue.   

I do not believe there is one "magic bullet" that will solve this problem.  From what I've seen in my life, it's like pushing down on a water balloon:  push down in one area, it will rise in another. 

You made a valid point when you said that we all die.  A corollary to that is that we all age, and that in and of itself requires medical attention.  We are living longer - often due to better technology - and in our attempt to prolong life, we are requiring more and often more expensive care.  Two Monty Python skits illustrate this (see the 4:10 mark in the psychiatry skit from the late 1960s/early 1970s - it has a prophetic line "There's nothing wrong with you that an expensive operation can't prolong"): 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n19vHS5_WVk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arCITMfxvEc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anomaly    2,480
Anomaly

Sometimes you have bad luck.  

There is a reasonable limit on what is to be taken away from earners to give to those who can not, and caution to not have it taken advantage of by those who choose not.  

In a group of people sharing expenses, there are limits on what can be fairly given to one or a couple.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
havok579257    259
havok579257
28 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

Sometimes you have bad luck.  

There is a reasonable limit on what is to be taken away from earners to give to those who can not, and caution to not have it taken advantage of by those who choose not.  

In a group of people sharing expenses, there are limits on what can be fairly given to one or a couple.   

what about people who have the inability to earn to pay for their bills?  elderly who can not care for themselves.  adults with mental disabilities who can not care for themselves.  children who can not care for themselves.  what about all these people who can not provide for themselves and who do not have family to provide for them?  do we just tell them, to bad?  should there be a reasonable limit for someone who is unable to care for their own medical expenses?  not won't care for it but are unable to care for themselves?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anomaly    2,480
Anomaly

See my previous post.  At what point is enough?   Would it be moral for me to sell my home, not pay for food,  nor buy clothes for three of my children so that the fourth child can get a perpetual kidney dialysis and die in ten years instead of two weeks?  

Why don't you sell all you own, live in a homeless shelter so you can give everything else to a child's medical care?  Are you that mean, or is there a reasonable limit to what should be demanded if you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
havok579257    259
havok579257
1 hour ago, Anomaly said:

See my previous post.  At what point is enough?   Would it be moral for me to sell my home, not pay for food,  nor buy clothes for three of my children so that the fourth child can get a perpetual kidney dialysis and die in ten years instead of two weeks?  

Why don't you sell all you own, live in a homeless shelter so you can give everything else to a child's medical care?  Are you that mean, or is there a reasonable limit to what should be demanded if you?

i would contend that we as a society should never say when is it enough when it comes to children.  it is not childrens fault they can not pay for health insurance.  i mean your argument works perfectly for the people who are pro abortion.  they also say at what point is it enough?  should i sell my home, not pay for food, go homeless and make it unbearable for my other children just so i can give birth to this child who will either die now or in the future?  i mean if we don't care enough to provide for a child so he doesn't die in 2 weeks, why do we care enough to savea child from abortion? 

 

i can fully understand what your talking about when it comes to people who can work.  although we as a society do not allow certain groups of people to work (children until a certain age).  so your essentially say, you need to pay for your own healthcare but we are making it against the law for you to work.  how does that work?  how is a child supposed to pay for his healthcare when we as a society say it is against the law for them to work?  i mean would anyone be ok if we said to homosexual adults that you need to pay for your own health insurance but we are making it agains the law for you to have a paying job.  i imagine you would say it is unfair to homosexuals in that instance.  that its unjust since they have no way to earn an income to pay for their own healthcare.  so how is it any different with children?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LoveZoe11    86
LoveZoe11

I believe everyone should have access to health insurance at a reasonable price for their situation. Obviously children and the elderly should be covered universally. Universal health coverage at the hands of the state has been proven to be problematic in many of the countries that have it, so I am not really in favor of completely government funded health care. Also, I believe you should not have to get coverage that doesn't apply to you, or is against your personal beliefs, like contraception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c    62
dairygirl4u2c

there's a difference between health insurance and health care. basic healthcare is a right, just like basic food access. libertarians like to pretend we are taking money at gun point, but it could be reversed and say they are preventing people from something basic, at gun point. unless the government is willing to give people resources, at the least land to grow food and gather enough to pay for basic expenses, they are being aggresive at gun point by law.

it might be different if healthcare was more scarce or had to be expensive. it doesn't have to be that way. every other developed country spends no more than about ten percent of their GDP on healthcare and we spend like eightteen, which represents a trillion dollars. that savings is like cutting people's taxes in half. and the majority of them have better oucome and quality that we do. that includes lesser wait times. are we ignorant enough to think we have the best health care in the world? of course not. any other country worth comparting to though and who might have it better, has significant government in healthcare. government thus is not inherently incompetent as if it can't make things better. sometimes i wonder i our government is the exception, but i see no reason we can't be like everyone else. there's no need to reinvent the wheel like the republicans are doing, we just need to do what everyone else is doing. there's no practical good reasons to be against government involvement in healthcare, just ignorance, fear, and blind ideology.

it doesn'nt have to be single payer, switzerland does it more like obamacare and spends more than most but still less than eleven percent. france is number one rated in the world and has a mostly single payer system, with some supplemental insurace. i dont see why we wouldn't want to be like the best, but there are more tha one way to do things. i dont see why we can't do it too

 

"Universal health coverage at the hands of the state has been proven to be problematic in many of the countries that have it, so I am not really in favor of completely government funded health care. "

bad results as a result of government in other countries is mostly a myth. no system is perfect, but that doesn't mean we have to have the worst outcomes by being so anti government.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/11/universal-healthcare-doesnt-mean-waiting-longer-to-see-a-doctor/281614/

there's merit to the idea that some things need to be limited or that there are limits to what we can do for people. but that is a small exception to the rule that most things we can make accessible and affordable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c    62
dairygirl4u2c

"A new Pew Research Center survey indicated that the number of Republicans making below $30,000 a year who believe the federal government has a responsibility to ensure health coverage for all had risen to 52 percent from 31 percent last year. And while just 14 percent of Republicans who make between $30,000 and about $75,000 last year said the government bore responsibility for health care, now 34 percent of such voters do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
havok579257    259
havok579257
30 minutes ago, dairygirl4u2c said:

"A new Pew Research Center survey indicated that the number of Republicans making below $30,000 a year who believe the federal government has a responsibility to ensure health coverage for all had risen to 52 percent from 31 percent last year. And while just 14 percent of Republicans who make between $30,000 and about $75,000 last year said the government bore responsibility for health care, now 34 percent of such voters do.

why are you splitting this into republicans and democrats?  last i checked this was a catholic website, not a republican website.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amppax    2,679
Amppax

Can't believe I'm agreeing with Dairy on anything, but I think she's right, there's a distinction that needs to be made between health insurance and healthcare. There are various places you can see the Church call basic health care a right. The USCCB has a section of their website on health care, and you can also find basic health care mentioned as a right in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. 

How exactly a society insures that people are given access to basic health care, what the exact definition of basic health care is; these are prudential questions which can be debated. That society has  a responsibility in this regard, however, can't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cmealer    2
cmealer

1. There is a false premise. That insurance is necessary for some people to receive health care. Even if you argue that there is a positive right (one which obligates others) to all forms of health care, it is possible for the health care to be donated rather than covered by a donated insurance. Since donated insurance and donated health care both result in health care being received I don't think you could argue that a positive right to health care necessitates a positive right to health insurance. 

2. Catholic teaching suggests the lack of a positive right to health care. Particularly when it talks about recognizing that a key element of the human condition is that we will die, and we are allowed to refuse treatment when it would not make a significant difference in the outcome, or would place a heavy burden on the patient or their family. The fact that the treatment can be refused then it is not a necessity that it is provided, if it is not a necessity that it is provided that suggests there is not a positive right to it. 

Further a positive right to health care would reduce health care providers to little more than slaves and deny them the dignity of work. If they are obligated to provide the treatment regardless of whether one can pay, they are obligated to provide the treatment regardless of whether one does pay, and are therefore obligated to provide labor and materials without compensation.

3. The argument that other governments can provide health care at lower costs ignores the fact that other nations (United States) are having to pay more, especially for medicines, specifically because of that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×