Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
havok579257

Should health insurance/coveragr be a right?

Recommended Posts

havok579257
6 hours ago, cmealer said:

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. 

i'm completely lost if you think health insurance should be a right or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nihil Obstat
17 hours ago, cmealer said:

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. 

Reasonable points. You sound like you study philosophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cmealer

I'd say I have an armchair appreciation, enough to serve as something of a foundation for understanding what the Church believes and to form and articulate my own political views.

16 hours ago, havok579257 said:

i'm completely lost if you think health insurance should be a right or not?

I do not. I believe any ends that a "right" to health insurance would achieve can be achieved by other means (and achieved more efficiently along with the additional benefit of providing the opportunity for spiritual benefit). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
havok579257
2 hours ago, cmealer said:

I'd say I have an armchair appreciation, enough to serve as something of a foundation for understanding what the Church believes and to form and articulate my own political views.

I do not. I believe any ends that a "right" to health insurance would achieve can be achieved by other means (and achieved more efficiently along with the additional benefit of providing the opportunity for spiritual benefit). 

what other means can be used to achieve healthcare for all that is feasible in our current society?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c
On 4/12/2017 at 5:50 PM, cmealer said:

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. 

what can legitimately be called a right if not healthcare? if you have a right to work to get food, you have a right to work to get healthcare. just like if work was pointless to try to get food cause it was inaccessible, it'd also be pointless to get healthcare if it's inaccessible. being inaccessible invalidates the right.

just because there are people willing to donate healthcare doesn't make it not a right. it's a burden they shouldn't have to bear.  also read my point about denying healthcare by gun point if you are one  who says taxation is taken at gun point an all that jazz. (usually those who argue for charity make the argument about taxation being theft and such

the united states doesn't have to be so expensive.... it's not necessitated by it being cheaper in other counties.  only to the extent that we are innovaters and have to be a little more expensive, but it's not an either or proposition. there is a reasonable balance. the argument you made is theoretical... just like pretty much all the arguments against governement a crucial role, just theoretical problems are possible. there are no practical reasons to be against it. just theoretical and pure ideology, along with the more typical ignorance and fear, perhaps greed.
 

1 hour ago, havok579257 said:

what other means can be used to achieve healthcare for all that is feasible in our current society?

i think he'd say it's the role of charity, ad if charity doesn't do it that's charity's fault. if people die, so be it. at least, i'm assuming he's not so naive as to think charity will take care of it, which they haven't , here or for any other issue where there is a right to something.

" 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.  "

a person can refuse to eat but that oesn't mean that food isn't a right. they can refuse to raise their kids but that doesn't invalidate the right. it looks like you are manufacturing reasons to be against it being a right. cause really it is a judgment call, a value statement, either you think it is or it isn't. if you think it's not just say so and dont jump through so many hoops tryin to get there. (of course you still should explain why it's not a right when we have other things that are rights that are no different

Edited by dairygirl4u2c

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c

maybe i should be more accomodating. maybe you can find an argument that healthcare is not a right that sounds intelligent to someone. but why would you want to?  reasonable people htorugh out history have found reasons to do things he are adamentaly opposed to. the holocaust etc. perhaps i'm being too nihilistic on the power of logic, but if you can reason yourself into such an array of positions, why would you choose to say healthcare isn't a right? at its base it's a judgement call, an inherent value statement.  when you could have just said people houuld have reasonable healthcare but choose not to say that, it just makes you out to be an A hole, to be overly blunt.
 

Edited by dairygirl4u2c

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anomaly

 

That is an example why humanity only gets better in gradual and fluctuating cycles.  

Reasonableness based on principles is perceived as just being a cold orifice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nihil Obstat

Reasonable does not necessarily mean correct. But it does mean that the thoughts are good and worthy of rational debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c

"If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin."
-Darwin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
little2add
On 4/18/2017 at 8:26 PM, dairygirl4u2c said:

 

"If

 

The laws of nature are always harsh.  Not  necessarily  so with institutions 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4588686
On 3/4/2017 at 9:25 PM, 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?

 

Your healthcare is subsidized by the taxpayers, champ. That's why your employer structures your benefits to include healthcare. Not sure why you get to have health insurance that you wouldn't be able to otherwise afford just because your employer get's a subsidy but people without such a job don't also get a subsidy. 

 

On 4/12/2017 at 5:50 PM, cmealer said:

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. 

1-this is obviously a dumb straw man. Of course it's possible for healthcare to be donated. However, in the existent world, a lack of access to health insurance means a lack of access to healthcare. Obviously,  a single payer system would be better in every conceivable way, but since we have this dumb insurance system having insurance is absolutely essential to getting access to healthcare and anybody throwing up dumb straw men about like yours should just be ignored. 

 

2-The first paragraph is just pedantic and devoid of any substance. The second is an offensive straw man that makes a dumb comparison of doctors who are paid through a single payer or government subsidized insurance to slaves. Obviously, since nobody is forced to be a doctor, and, more importantly, since the doctor is not the legal property of another person and is paid for their services, they are not slaves. Saying somebody has a positive right to healthcare means that the government pays for their healthcare. Not that doctors are forced to become someone's property and provide services without compensation. 

 

3-This is, like all your other points, shockingly ignorant. Good government managed healthcare programs, from single payer systems to much more robust versions of Obamacare, are much less expensive that the awful American system of healthcare. 

But thank you for your post and for the reminder of why nobody should mistake this brand of dumb pseudo philosophizing for any kind of serious policy/economic analysis

 

On 4/12/2017 at 11:58 PM, havok579257 said:

i'm completely lost if you think health insurance should be a right or not?

They don't have a point. You should just ignore them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anomaly
On 4/23/2017 at 1:05 PM, 4588686 said:

Your healthcare is subsidized by the taxpayers, champ. That's why your employer structures your benefits to include healthcare. Not sure why you get to have health insurance that you wouldn't be able to otherwise afford just because your employer get's a subsidy but people without such a job don't also get a subsidy. 

 

1-this is obviously a dumb straw man. Of course it's possible for healthcare to be donated. However, in the existent world, a lack of access to health insurance means a lack of access to healthcare. Obviously,  a single payer system would be better in every conceivable way, but since we have this dumb insurance system having insurance is absolutely essential to getting access to healthcare and anybody throwing up dumb straw men about like yours should just be ignored. 

 

2-The first paragraph is just pedantic and devoid of any substance. The second is an offensive straw man that makes a dumb comparison of doctors who are paid through a single payer or government subsidized insurance to slaves. Obviously, since nobody is forced to be a doctor, and, more importantly, since the doctor is not the legal property of another person and is paid for their services, they are not slaves. Saying somebody has a positive right to healthcare means that the government pays for their healthcare. Not that doctors are forced to become someone's property and provide services without compensation. 

 

3-This is, like all your other points, shockingly ignorant. Good government managed healthcare programs, from single payer systems to much more robust versions of Obamacare, are much less expensive that the awful American system of healthcare. 

But thank you for your post and for the reminder of why nobody should mistake this brand of dumb pseudo philosophizing for any kind of serious policy/economic analysis

 

They don't have a point. You should just ignore them

Lol.  

Yes, the American healthcare system needs change.   Single Payer systems are not the panacea it's imagined to be.   Think of the VA system, government regulation rigidity, and mandated healthcare policies that are determined by politicians for political purposes, not what people want or need.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Benedictus

I don't know if framing it in terms of 'rights' is helpful. But I do think everyone should have universal coverage. The problem in the US is a direct result of choices in the past, and to a large extent, continuing to buy into the current model. Lets be clear it's a US problem -  in the majority of countries the problems aren't as stark or over such basic things as this. It will get worse though, that's the bad news.  Costs will go up because people are making too much money!

It's true that ER costs are high, but it's partly a failure of the system. Those with long term conditions, such as insulin diabetics or epileptics, have to keep being admitted in acute states because they aren't supported well enough in the community. People wait until an illness is really bad before seeking help because they have no choice. This creates an expensive cycle that costs more in the long run for everyone. The only people to benefit are shareholders.

As people get older the costs will drag on and profits will be sought out of it. You'll see this will also soon feed into cultural state sanctioned suicide in the form of assisted dying, based on economic poverty.

The fact that the US, supposedly a developed, rich and Christian country can let its vulnerable citizens die or suffer  because they haven't got enough out of toying with the mammon of this world says a lot! There's always money for the military, wars, bombs, invasions and interfering overseas for its own ends though. But no money for sick children or people dying early from treatable illness. There's enough sermons to make out of all this to last a lifetime and more.

 

 

 

Edited by Benedictus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4588686
13 hours ago, Anomaly said:

Lol.  

Yes, the American healthcare system needs change.   Single Payer systems are not the panacea it's imagined to be.   Think of the VA system, government regulation rigidity, and mandated healthcare policies that are determined by politicians for political purposes, not what people want or need.  

Well run single payer systems are demonstrable better than systems like ours. That is a fact. You can look at healthcare outcomes/healthcare spending as a percentage of GDP/consumer healthcare spending etc. There's is absolutely no evidence that weakly regulated, market systems work well. None. 

 

Every successful healthcare system is highly regulated. That's not just single payer systems. That includes systems like Singapore. 

 

Government regulation is essential to efficient and effective healthcare markets. Anybody who says otherwise is making an entirely faith based claim 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
little2add

You left out the word "free" healthcare.   Leaving out the word "free" Totally changes the argument.

besides the second amendment and free healthcare are two totally different subjects

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c

notice the arguments against single payer. it's lacking seriously in substance.

" Think of the VA system, government regulation rigidity, and mandated healthcare policies that are determined by politicians for political purposes, not what people want or need.   "

the VA thing is just ignorance. in a single payer system people can go anywhere and the system is run by private sector, whereas in the VA options are severely limited and the system is ran by beaurocrats.

as was said any real changes to healthcare involves regulations. he just gave vague antigovernment sentiment here. there's no real world examples of healthcare being sucessfully done without regulations as has been said.

then he made vague reference to beaucrats, more vague antigovernment sentiment.

note as i have shown before, the wait times in the US are below average when compared to single payer countries, the way the rest of the world does it mostly.

we've also seen some theoretical problems like starving innnovation. but there are no practical reasons to be against it.

why reinvent the wheel? why not stick with what works? vague anti government rhetoric is pointless, and really just stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
little2add

In other words, Dairy you could say; It's not broke, nothing to fix.  

Its a fact that nurse's doctors and the other medical specialist earn there pay providing  services.   The more the government try's to regulate the worst it is going to be

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cmealer
On 4/23/2017 at 0:05 PM, 4588686 said:

 

1-this is obviously a dumb straw man. [...] anybody throwing up dumb straw men about like yours should just be ignored. 

 

2-[...]The second is an offensive straw man [...]

 

3-This is, like all your other points, shockingly ignorant. [...]

But thank you for your post and for the reminder of why nobody should mistake this brand of dumb pseudo philosophizing for any kind of serious policy/economic analysis

 

They don't have a point. You should just ignore them

Thanks for reminding me to not expect civilized and thoughtful debate on the internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anomaly

Still, thinking the having the Federal Government running all aspects of healthcare as single payer might be problematic is shockingly ignorant.  The Government promised we can keep our Doctors, keep our coverage if we liked it, and would save thousands.  No need for ignorant concern here.   Smarter people got this.

Like a balloon, I have no real point. 

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  

×