Healthcare is NOT a basic human right.

Nurses Activism

Published

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.

Well, first of all, in many countries universal healthcare is only part of what Americans call tax. Actually, it is a deduction which includes healthcare, unemployment, retirement, etc. So, please don't put it all in one pot.

Secondly, as for acute care in America, I had a zygomatic arch and orbital blow-out fx with bones shifting in my face, went to the county hospital, and was not getting care until I put down $2000 because I did not have insurance but was above the poverity line in income (Dallas TX).

Also, I have ulcerative colitis, with my insurance premium paid by myself would run around $300-600 a month, meds (running up to $200) not included. So, in 2008, I went back to my home country, got a colonoscopy ($25 there, $3000 in US) and my meds filled ($15 for 3 months - all meds).

Now, yes, there are downfalls with universal healthcare, mainly that physicians and healthcare personnel earn less. Physicians are also held more accountable as to what prescriptions they write and its necessity. Having said that, the emphasis is on preventative care and longterm remissions, which includes a huge emphasis of patient/public education.

I'm quite sure that most people do understand that insurance companies really determine much of the care, by either providing or pulling funds. Patients get discharged too early without aftercare because the insurance says they won't pay more and the hospitals/physicians/healthcare personnel don't work for free. It sickens me, though, to see how hospital administrators make huge, huge amounts of money and we save on patient care.

Both systems are not perfect and, of course, you feel most comfortable in the one you are used to (creatures of habit), but I take universal healthcare anyday because I know that in case I lose my insurance for any reason, i.e. I develop cancer, I will have security to know I will be cared for, as I wish for my fellow citizens.

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.

Actually this is getting to a part that I want expound on.......Speaking for myself, most of you have realized that I do not support ACA. I am a generous person and I do give to charities and to my neighbors in need. At times, when I venture to Houston, I even give money to panhandlers. However, healthcare is only one of the problems areas, but it is the one we are discussing so I will try to stick to it. However if we do not include the others it allows for the defenders to make arguments like..."Healthcare omission will not fix this" But I am still stating that it is a start. So here goes...... I believe a person has the right to life and is free to do whatever they see fit to do with it. I dismiss the notion that we are all in this together, especially when you are comparing New York with California with Texas and so on. I believe, I have the right to live and do what I see fit with that life.Which includes having the right to earn an income and disperse it at my discretion. I do believe as a civilization that we need the staples of congruency and need to pay to be a part of it. However, those staples should include things that are uniformly interstate. Examples are of course infrastructure, Foreign defense, payment for essential personnel to carry out the BEST INTEREST to all and other things of the like. However, many of the people that we are paying and many programs that we finance are not within the scope of the Federal government. Each individual, and family, and then municipality and then county/parish and eventually state are responsible to create and maintain the social programs that they, AS A WHOLE, see as a NEED that they wish to "work together" to RESOLVE. If a people are wanting to create a healthcare system in their family they acquire private insurance. However larger groups (employers, unions, and even self-employed persons) come together and create a group insurance coverage. The larger the group the more bargaining power they acquire. The same could apply to cities, counties and states if they so choose, this is within all of their scope of existence. I would go even further and say that if ALL AMERICANS were united in the decision it could happen on the federal level. However, there is no consensus surrounding this reform and therefore should be nixed and the people that see this as a priority NEED that needs to be RESOLVED in their area can still do it with their people. However for me and the bulk of the people that live in my part of the country, we pride ourselves in being self-sufficient and take personal offense at being mandated to relinquish our income to anything that we have not agreed to have taken from us. I state again that I believe that if the Federal government would get out of many different projects that are not theirs to solve the people who are affected will find a way.

As far as healthcare being a right I don't care if you say basic human or constitutional or generic, I cannot compute. A right is something that someone has that cannot be infringed upon. A person does not have healthcare it must be obtained. However, my "ability" to earn an income (not the income itself) is a right and if someone infringes upon it (by all rights stealing it --- taking what is mine without my consent) I will fight tooth and nail; to keep what is mine.

As far as the post speaking of the federal government mandating certain requirements for communicable diseases, that is an area where the people had chosen by a consensus that it was in the Country's BEST INTEREST. (By the way, I do support the CDC, however the FDA needs an overhaul and so does the USDA)

As far as the posts trying to assure people that we will be allowed to maintain our own insurance, that is yet to be seen. Once the federal government, enforces their regulations on the providers many may go under and many others may bail, in fact several companies have already bailed refusing to offer healthcare "I'm sorry I can provide you with your life, auto and home insurance but we don't offer healthcare"

As far as the inefficiency of the current system: Yes it is and yes it needs to be annulled but not replaced by the federal government, that is where the problem lies....... I will never want to enter into an contractual agreement with the entire country. Problems are best solved in smaller units.

As far as the issue where people try to intimidate others by pulling out the moral and ethical card: I am not insulted because I know that I am very generous person who is willing to assist those that I can, within the limits that I have. I cannot help everyone or I myself will be in need of help and for me; being self-sufficient is a vital moral issue. I also am insistent on policing the need for assistance with proof of citizenship (by photo ID), random drug testing, mandatory work searches (it also needs to be stressed that a job does not have to be to your liking nor what you went to school for nor rejected because you aren't happy with the wage or any other excuse not to work) AND significant community service to give back to the system.

As to the idea that the bulk of Americans without insurance are hardworking, low paid, honest to goodness Americans. I will not dispute; some are and some aren't. However first you must separate the two and the ones who fall in the second category must be allowed to fall on their face and be forced to fight to survive, in order to (as a community) assist them to become a productive member of society. One poster brought up the animal kingdom helping their own kind. That may be true but only for the members that fight. If an animal is willing to die the other animals walk away. Now as to our fellow hard working low paid Americans, I do hope that they are assisted with their needs. They need to find a place in society that is open to their needs. Also if I am going to be assisting them they would need to have their finances in order, in other words they cannot have a house that is deemed excessive, nor other excessive toys or behavior. They would need to realize that they are (at this time in life) needing to make sacrifices in order to not have to fulfill their personal responsibilities and become a "burden" to their fellow citizens. If the Federal government is doing their job by staying COMPLETELY out of things states will be free to assist. If the states aren't being strangled by the Federal Government they will not be in the dire straights they are now facing which free up the Municipalities to assist and the people of America are for the most part very generous anyway.

The last area I can think of is the posts that try scare tactics "what if it was me?" Well first I would not run to the government under any circumstances that isn't what it is there for!!! Second my family raised us knowing that you take care of your own, so if I was down on my luck like many of my family members are or have been, I'd have to eat a little humility pie and ask them for assistance. When it comes to life sustaining procedures or other catastrophic medical diagnosis most in my family are no codes due to the expense and what have you. But regardless, we would do what we had to to take care of each other if that isn't enough we'd reach out a little further to extended family and maybe the church if that still didn't get us there we'd keep searching. The point here is we would help each other to GET BACK UP AND BE PRODUCTIVE. None of us are rich and probably never will be, but I sort of like the idea that in America it is possible. If we allow the government to continue to take our income, in the name of the common good, that hope and inspiration will go by the way side.

As to comparing America to Europe states or Canada neither are a good comparison because they are individual states NOT 50 UNITED states. When the USA joined forces with each other it was not to share the burden of one state with that of another; it was to solidify our borders for security from abroad. That is why we have 50 BONs and a group is working on the compact nursing states.

Specializes in LTC, medsurg.
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.

yeah this!

Healthcare should be a basic human right...... Well why stop at healthcare? I also believe that food, clothing, a new house, cell phone, cable tv, air conditioning, the internet, college education, and a car are also basic human rights.

The problem lies when you pronounce a good and service a "human right" and choose to provide others with it, it must be paid for somehow. This means stealing hard earned income from person A and giving it to person B. And for some reason, person B believes that somehow person A owes this to them, that it is their right to take person A's income to provide for their well being. Somehow person A is indebted to person B for some unknown reason.

I am tired of getting my check after two weeks of work and seeing 25% of it taken from me by the federal government.

toekneejo: First, I think no one wants to take anything taken from the paycheck.

Secondly, please explain to me what is difference of paying a premium to an insurance company or paying the premium to the government. Do you actually trust health insurance companies more than your own government?

Also, when growing up under a universal healthcare plan, I always saw it like this: I don't mind at all paying my premium (or having it taken from the government), when person xyz who just had a car accident and needs to be rushed to the ER is cared for because I know when I get into a car crash, I will be cared for as well.

Now, paying to an insurance company, if I develop certain illnesses, I may or MAY NOT get medical benefits, although I have paid my premiums for the last 10 years...

toekneejo: First, I think no one wants to take anything taken from the paycheck.

Secondly, please explain to me what is difference of paying a premium to an insurance company or paying the premium to the government. Do you actually trust health insurance companies more than your own government?

Also, when growing up under a universal healthcare plan, I always saw it like this: I don't mind at all paying my premium (or having it taken from the government), when person xyz who just had a car accident and needs to be rushed to the ER is cared for because I know when I get into a car crash, I will be cared for as well.

Now, paying to an insurance company, if I develop certain illnesses, I may or MAY NOT get medical benefits, although I have paid my premiums for the last 10 years...

Well the short answer is... yes I do trust a private company, whose income is based on customer service, to be more reliable than the US government. However, and more importantly, I am not interested in assisting the US to dig a deeper hole for our children to have to try to dig out of or raise the hands and announce "We give up" In addition like my previous post says I am not against group policies however I do not have the same issues that my fellow Northern Americans or Eastern or fill in the blank do. Have you ever looked at home insurance? Do you know that when Katrina hit down south, everybody's insurance in that "region" was increased to offset the loss to the insurance company, however When a mudslide affects the west coast it does not affect my homeowners. How does this relate, you ask? People in the gulf states know that we are at a higher risk of skin cancer and cancers caused by the refineries, we accept those risks when we move to that area. If I lived in Alaska and I was told that my premium (regardless if it's government ran or privately and whether we call it a tax or premium-- it still has the same effect) was raising due to people in the south having an increase rate of skin cancer or whatever the situation is. This is why it is so important to create an answer to healthcare that is locally accepted. As I also stated the US is actually 50 separate republics in which they came together for strength. if we bog the down the Federal government then it effects all 50 as oppose to if one group--- lets say Texas tries a universal healthcare and it fails it is only affecting the people who actively rooted it on. However lets say Texas is adamantly against a Nationalized Healthcare but is forced into it and it fails, is it fair to the entire state of Texas who opposed it to be effected? Please don't criticize me using Texas we could insert any given state name in with the same effect. Do you also realize the Federal government has no constituents? Each state has its borders in which their constituents reside and they as a people should do what is in their best interest.

. . .

As to comparing America to Europe states or Canada neither are a good comparison because they are individual states NOT 50 UNITED states. When the USA joined forces with each other it was not to share the burden of one state with that of another; it was to solidify our borders for security from abroad. That is why we have 50 BONs and a group is working on the compact nursing states.[/quote

Canada is made up of ten provinces and three territories, all with very different and diverse populations. Confederation brought the country together for a common good. Each province has it's own College of Nursing to govern nurses, just as Physicians, Pharmacists are governed by theirs.

The UK is made up of Scotland, England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. There are regional differences in how the NHS works.

You need to realize that the world isn't what FOX news tells you it is.

toekneejo: First, I think no one wants to take anything taken from the paycheck.

Secondly, please explain to me what is difference of paying a premium to an insurance company or paying the premium to the government. Do you actually trust health insurance companies more than your own government?

Also, when growing up under a universal healthcare plan, I always saw it like this: I don't mind at all paying my premium (or having it taken from the government), when person xyz who just had a car accident and needs to be rushed to the ER is cared for because I know when I get into a car crash, I will be cared for as well.

Now, paying to an insurance company, if I develop certain illnesses, I may or MAY NOT get medical benefits, although I have paid my premiums for the last 10 years...

A small difference can be that one is compulsory and the other is voluntary.

I have many outpatient private pay patients, that chose of their free will not to purchase insurance. I have one patient who's husband is a retired accountant who did not believe in purchasing private insurance, he instead saved every month and profited from the interest. They are cash paying for the wife's chemo. Surprisingly, hospitals are willing to give deep discounts to those who are willing to pay for their treatment up front.

He made it work and I support his right to decide his level of participation in healthcare.

And yes, I trust about anyone/anything more than the government.

. . .

As to comparing America to Europe states or Canada neither are a good comparison because they are individual states NOT 50 UNITED states. When the USA joined forces with each other it was not to share the burden of one state with that of another; it was to solidify our borders for security from abroad. That is why we have 50 BONs and a group is working on the compact nursing states.[/quote

Canada is made up of ten provinces and three territories, all with very different and diverse populations. Confederation brought the country together for a common good. Each province has it's own College of Nursing to govern nurses, just as Physicians, Pharmacists are governed by theirs.

The UK is made up of Scotland, England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. There are regional differences in how the NHS works.

You need to realize that the world isn't what FOX news tells you it is.

Spare me.

Not only are their significant governmental differences, but demographic as well.

United States

314 Million population (11.2 Million Illegal Immigrants)

72% White

United Kingdom

62 Million population

92% White

Canada

34 Million population

98% White

A small difference can be that one is compulsory and the other is voluntary.

I have many outpatient private pay patients, that chose of their free will not to purchase insurance. I have one patient who's husband is a retired accountant who did not believe in purchasing private insurance, he instead saved every month and profited from the interest. They are cash paying for the wife's chemo. Surprisingly, hospitals are willing to give deep discounts to those who are willing to pay for their treatment up front.

He made it work and I support his right to decide his level of participation in healthcare.

And yes, I trust about anyone/anything more than the government.

Asystole, I would like permission to copy and paste this line of thought and with your permission I would like to also ask if I can go back and take a few others of yours? I know I could do it without asking (you'd never know) but I am creating a huge paper on this subject since you first posted it and as a courtesy I won't if you are not comfortable with it. I am appreciative to you for starting this discussion. I always knew (in my gut) why I felt like I did, however, whenever I'd think about it, the subject was soooo convoluted that it would give me a headache and I couldn't ever get to the meat of the argument. This has been very enlightening!! So kudos to you!!!!!!

It's great that your patient is able to do; regretfully, many people live paycheck from paycheck. What are they to do? What are people to do who do not have family here or close by or whose family does not have much either.

It always comes down to the bottom line that who has money can afford to whatever. Others, who are not as fortunate, I mean this as having worked as teacher in public schools with children who may ever reach the American dream and worked in factories where even the CEO/CFO gave up their monthly payments who literally covered the payroll of 120 workers who lived paycheck to paycheck, what are they to do?

Please tell m, though, if you do not have anything saved up, you have lost your job for whatever reason and thus your healthcare coverage, you require meds that run in the hundreds a month, you're working a job that is poorly paid, no partner, now you have a medical crises but you don't want to quit your job so you get MediCare - please tell, what can you do??

Asystole, I would like permission to copy and paset this line of thought and with your permission I would like to also ask if I can go back and take a few others of yours? I know I could do it without asking (you'd never know) but I am creating a huge paper on this subject since you first posted it and as a courtesy I won't if you are not comfortable with it. I am appreciative to you for starting this discussion. I always knew (in my gut) why I felt like I did, however, whenever I'd think about it, the subject was soooo convoluted that it would give me a headache and I couldn't ever get to the meat of the argument. This has been very enlightening!! So kudos to you!!!!!!

There have been a lot of interesting viewpoints in this thread, thank you.

Copy whatever you wish.

+ Add a Comment