Healthcare is NOT a basic human right.

[Asystole RN]

If one were to read the Constitution one would realize that the Constitution does not grant anyone freedoms, liberties, or rights. The Constitution only protects freedoms, liberties, and rights from transgressions on part of the government. A right is something that is inherent to the individual, comes from that individual, and is maintained by the individual. You are born with such rights like the right to speak freely, the only thing that can be done to that right is to have it infringed. No one can grant a right to another, only limit or impede the exercise of that right.

Healthcare is a human invention that does not exist in the natural environment. Only through the work of others and through the taking of resources from one party and giving to another does healthcare exist. You cannot force someone to give effort and resources to another and call that a right. In the absence of human intervention the individual would live their lives and succumb to the natural forces which would act upon their bodies.

Do I think we should provide preventative care and basic primary care? Sure. Do I think that we can? Maybe. Do I think that healthcare is a basic human right? Absolutely not.

[cdsga]

So the reality is-you can get healthcare-but be willing to wait. This country is in for a shock when the large number who haven't had access have access. At the current staffing numbers we will not be prepared to handle the increases. We staff very tight now-and have large numbers who in the next few years will retire. We have lots of doctors getting out of the business before this new healthcare law goes into effect which will lead to more wait times and less experienced care. Reimbursement is tied to quality of care and if you have a readmission you don't get paid-no matter how good a job you did. We're so rushed to get people out of the hospital, 1 in 10 surgical patients have some post op complication. So you can imagine how the nurses role is going to be increased, and the onus will be on the nurse to make sure that all the t's are crossed and i's are dotted.

I know the free clinic in my town-you show up and can be in the clinic all day-but you will be seen. Nobody complains, they wait patiently and get their free care and depend solely on volunteers to man it. United Way subsidizes it.

We will be able to care for people, but the expectations for the type and quality of care will have to be lowered. There will be an adjustment period for this to settle out and who knows what will happen.

[labordude, BSN, RN]

Had to leave this here...wise words from the legendary George Carlin

[RNsRWe, ASN, RN]

Uh....yes it is. We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Exactly how do you expect people to exercise their right to life without the ability to maintain their health? Life and health kinda go together

Uh...not it isn't. You have the "right to life" meaning that no one is legally able to walk up and kill you (there would be reprisals). You have to the right to LIVE as opposed to being killed for the heck of it. This Constitutional statement does not declare that everyone around you must do everything in their power to MAKE you live, it is no one's obligation (according to the Constitution) to keep you in good health. For that matter, the Constitution also doesn't say we have the "right to good health and health maintenance", just the right to live.

Very different.

[RNsRWe, ASN, RN]

Ok, fair enough. However how can access to healthcare *not* be a basic human right as interpeted by the Constitution but the right to marry whomever anyone choses (same sex, inter-racial, etc) is or cleary hoped so in some quarters including Mr. & Mrs. Obama?

So you can drop dead in the streets of untreated disease for lack of access to healthcare but that is fine long as one has other *rights* and freedoms? Merely require information and clarification of the thought process here.

My post addressed healthcare only, not same-sex marriage, not interracial marriage, or anything else. It isn't a comparative statement to everything else currently in the headlines.

Clarification would be that I am not going to equate one set of issues with another, ONLY the debate of whether someone has a Constitutional right to healthcare. I maintain that they don't, by any interpretation of that document. I also maintain that our society, as a whole, has placed a significant value on the IMMEDIATE safety and rescue of human beings, which is why we have EMS and fire departments. WE'VE decided as a society that we want them. The Constitution has no mention of volunteer or taxpayer-funded fire departments, but we as a society have made them a mainstay throughout the nation.

So, to clarify my post, I'm pondering WHERE EXACTLY that line is between "basic healthcare" or "rights to basic healthcare" and what we'd call an "extra", something above "basic". THAT will be the problem with the argument by those who insist that there is a fundamental, non-refutable "right" to healthcare....to what end? First aid? Hospital tests and treatments? Surgery? ELECTIVE surgery? After all, no one died from not getting a rotator cuff repaired, but it IS "healthcare", so....can anyone assert it is a "basic human right" that the rotator cuff be repaired? Or is it that we all want the ability to GET that surgery, regardless of our financial means (and the only way to assure that is to have universal healthcare)?

[RNsRWe, ASN, RN]

I know the free clinic in my town-you show up and can be in the clinic all day-but you will be seen. Nobody complains, they wait patiently and get their free care and depend solely on volunteers to man it. United Way subsidizes it.

United way receives donations from the public as well as grants and other funding from the State and Federal Governments. In other words, other people have paid money so that some people can get the care they need. It isn't "free", it's paid for....but by other people. Those that need it get it.

This is exactly the idea of ACA.

People complain that they don't want to have to pay for other people's healthcare, but WE ALREADY ARE! It's just not done efficiently enough, and widespread enough, to guarantee that EVERYONE can get care. You're right that people would have to adjust their expectations overall, but also bear in mind that for all those people who currently have private health insurance, their lives don't change. They still see their doctors and get the same care they always have. ACA just makes it so that there's guaranteed funding for the clinics and ED services that people use now....and the cost of MY care will go down because my doctors and hospital aren't "making up for" those who didn't pay today, so the billing will be more realistic. As it stands, an in-patient pays ten bucks for a Tylenol because of the three other guys who didn't pay a dime.

[nurseprnRN, BSN, RN]

There are plenty of humans living where nobody, from lowest peon to majestic ruler, assumes anyone has the right to speak freely. Your argument has a lot of holes in it, starting with that one.

If there's no right to health care, how about the right to clean food and water? (Nurses led a lot of the efforts to obtain those in the early 20th century) No? OK, then. See you at the typhoid-contaminated well on the corner when we're picking up our drinking and cooking water for the day, and too bad about that tuberculosis-ridden cow your kid got her milk from.

As to persons/governments not being able to grant a right, only having the ability to impede or limit its exercise, that is a distinction without a difference.

As to healthcare being an unnatural development: Clothes and hairdressing. Agriculture and animal husbandry. Jewelry. Houses. Art. Cooking with fire and food preservation. Most people would find those a part of human life, even in what we call primitive cultures. "Natural/not natural"? Who says so?

However, even animals show empathy and care for each other. Modern healthcare, as it's evolved from the earliest herbalists and shamans, has its roots in that. Nobody forces us to care for others. As to the systems that have evolved to support the monstrosity that is modern first-world health care delivery, we all know they had their roots in the idea that a community that cares for its members is overall healthier, has more children grow up, has more productive adults to support the community, and preserves the elders longer to take advantage of their wisdom. You don't have to like the way it's going now, but saying it's unnatural and not a universal human attitude doesn't comport with the facts.

[RNsRWe, ASN, RN]

There are plenty of humans living where nobody, from lowest peon to majestic ruler, assumes anyone has the right to speak freely. Your argument has a lot of holes in it, starting with that one.

If there's no right to health care, how about the right to clean food and water? (Nurses led a lot of the efforts to obtain those in the early 20th century) No? OK, then. See you at the typhoid-contaminated well on the corner when we're picking up our drinking and cooking water for the day, and too bad about that tuberculosis-ridden cow your kid got her milk from.....................................abbreviated..................................

As to healthcare being an unnatural development: Clothes and hairdressing. Agriculture and animal husbandry. Jewelry. Houses. Art. Cooking with fire and food preservation. Most people would find those a part of human life, even in what we call primitive cultures. "Natural/not natural"? Who says so?

.......................................

You don't have to like the way it's going now, but saying it's unnatural and not a universal human attitude doesn't comport with the facts.

Hi, GrnTea: which post is this in reply to?

[Armygirl7]

Uh....yes it is. We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Exactly how do you expect people to exercise their right to life without the ability to maintain their health? Life and health kinda go together

"Pursuit of happiness" is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution. It is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

The 5th amendment to the Constitution (part of The Bill of Rights - 1st 10 amendments to The Constitution) protects us from the deprivation of "life, liberty, or property" without due process of law.

[uRNmyway, ASN, RN]

United way receives donations from the public as well as grants and other funding from the State and Federal Governments. In other words, other people have paid money so that some people can get the care they need. It isn't "free", it's paid for....but by other people. Those that need it get it.

This is exactly the idea of ACA.

People complain that they don't want to have to pay for other people's healthcare, but WE ALREADY ARE! It's just not done efficiently enough, and widespread enough, to guarantee that EVERYONE can get care. You're right that people would have to adjust their expectations overall, but also bear in mind that for all those people who currently have private health insurance, their lives don't change. They still see their doctors and get the same care they always have. ACA just makes it so that there's guaranteed funding for the clinics and ED services that people use now....and the cost of MY care will go down because my doctors and hospital aren't "making up for" those who didn't pay today, so the billing will be more realistic. As it stands, an in-patient pays ten bucks for a Tylenol because of the three other guys who didn't pay a dime.

I beg to differ. Those who already have insurance won't be affected? And where do you think the money is going to come from to pay for all this? Taxes will have to be raised, if not now, then most likely in the near future. I am sure that after the elections, if the current administration stays in power and doesn't have to worry about getting re-elected, we can all expect a tax hike. So yes, if we have private insurance, we WILL be affected by having taxes increased.

[RNsRWe, ASN, RN]

I beg to differ. Those who already have insurance won't be affected? And where do you think the money is going to come from to pay for all this? Taxes will have to be raised, if not now, then most likely in the near future. I am sure that after the elections, if the current administration stays in power and doesn't have to worry about getting re-elected, we can all expect a tax hike. So yes, if we have private insurance, we WILL be affected by having taxes increased.

I wasn't meaning "not affected" as in "no tax increases". I meant not affected in terms of the expediency of care, choice of facilities and physicians, etc. I meant that if you have private insurance, you will continue to see the providers participating in the plan--your care won't be affected. I wasn't talking about taxes.

I expect that taxes will pay for all this, I get that. My taxes always seem to go up for no good reason, at least this is something I can get behind.

[Patryk]

I don't like it. Healthcare isn't a basic human rule? This is not true. Everyone who need a medical help should get this.

___

ciągniki rolnicze wiodących firm.

[rntj]

Well, if you deny people healthcare, you are essentially depriving them of their life at one point or another. It always amazes me how strict Constitutional constructionists who want to interpret everything "as the founding (racist, slaveowning, sexist) fathers)" wanted it, fail to remember that in the days of this country's founding, the town doctor provided health care to everybody, rich AND poor. I don't think they imagined at time when people's health would be turned into a commody for the enrichment of powerful insurance companies.