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.

County rat awesome post. I have been compiling my posts and those of others, to assist me in gaining I complete and concrete answer. IMO this one is a keeper!! Thanks for sharing!!!

The answer is very simple: we do not demand free food because we understand that food is not free. Every bite of food that you or I have eaten today had to be grown, harvested, processed, transported, displayed in a store (with employees that need to be paid so that they can meet their needs) before we could eat it. This involves a lot of people doing a lot of work, and, since that time, work, and those resources have value, they must be reimbursed for the value of their labor. There must be a balanced exchange of value.

No law, no congress, no president can make anything that we need free by passing a law.

Exceptionally well said. I also appreciate your ability to clearly and concisely assert your views without degrading others.

You might be right with the fact that healthcare is not a basic right according to the constitution, however, everyone should be granted healthcare. This is a basic human intervention and invention which should not be exclusive to anyone. I am a nurse with my full heart for over 30 years and I feel privileged to take care of the sick and the dying as this is the right thing to do.

I agree as nurses we should care for patients without regard to social stigmas. However, as an American I am against pooling resources for the greater good. However, once a patient is being treated we as nurses do what we do best. The dilemma we are being faced with, is not whether we treat or not. It is, as a society, how do we wish to meet the needs of individual healthcare. IMO I am able to supply myself, family, and various charities with subsistence and still maintain a living style that I have decided is within my means and is deemed "middle class" For me, I am opposed and will continue to speak out against the ACA, because....

1. It allows the Federal government to oversee the implementation and they have repeatedly shown, through their track record, they are inept at managing social programs. In addition this is a problem that needs to be kept in a regional area. I've posted previously how Alaska's needs are not the same as Hawaii and same with New York compared to Texas.

2. It requires me to put into a pool of resources, in which many people will abuse. (Look at SSI) In addition, many people who are working hard to meet the needs of their families are going to find themselves unable to qualify for the subsidy and yet with not enough of discretionary income to supply their own insurance and they will be fined by the government. (supposedly this is to offset their emergency care in the event they find themselves needing care while not insured. However, who has the crystal ball that says they will need care prior to being able to acquire it in the future?)

3. It will cost me more by me having to keep my private insurance (which premiums will sky rocket due to not only the new regulations like no pre-existing and carrying family until age 26, etc but also because of the staff the insurance companies are going to have to hire in order to ensure that they are in compliance) and then on top of that, it will increase my taxes to pay for people who do not have private insurance. This will keep me from being able to assist my family and the charities that I've always given to and know they put my resources to good use.

As a practical note seeing as a majority of nurses are women and speaking of healthcare as a "right" there is another crisis looming and that is to few Americans, especially females have any sort of longterm care insurance, lack of which can quickly deplete the assets/savings of many.

Couple of quick questions......First, where has everyone gotten the idea that just because they have worked and been able to secure a "nest egg" that it shouldn't be used for LTC and then once depleted, the society will pitch in and assist? What I am trying to ask is why are we striving to have a "nest egg"? Isn't it supposed to be used for a "rainy day"? Yet when the rainy day comes, the proponents for the ACA use this as an argument for needing the ACA. I hate when bad things happen to people including catastrophic healthcare but also a family home burning to the ground or maybe the primary bread winner is in a fatal accident or even the various natural disasters in recent years. I even hate it when someone loses 3/4 of their savings (IRA's, money market, stocks and bonds, etc) when the economy collapses like it did back in 01 and 02. But what I don't understand is how this translates to everyone needs to buy into this healthcare scam (AKA a ponzi scheme sponsored by the government)

My second question is that I don't understand how the proponents can justify forcing a large percent of Americans, who happen to be the "bread winner" of this program and who oppose it, to concede and go against their grain!? IMO those who want it can have it but somehow we can not allow the opponents to be disenfranchised. I look forward to anyone who can answer this for me. Thank you in advance

Specializes in Critical Care.
"The "choice" variable doesn't exist to begin with."

Oh really? Is that why I CHOOSE to decline my employers health insurance plan? Is that why pts and POA's can CHOOSE the course of tx or lack thereof? Is that not the purpose of living wills, and advanced directives? Need I really further destroy this futile point?

Our current system is one where people can chose to pay for coverage that will insure they are treated their heart attack, the problem is that whether or not they chose to pay for that, they will receive that service. The "choice" only exists on the side of the consumer, not on the side of the provider. Given that it's no surprise that so many who can afford to pay for such a service chose not to, and why would they since that service will be provided whether they pay for it or not. This obviously leads to a severe imbalance in money paid into the system and the cost of the system. I do believe people should have the right to chose not to be covered, but we have to actually follow through with that which would mean no more EMTALA.

Which brings us back to the issue of this thread. I don't think there's an answer to whether or not "Healthcare" is a right, that includes too wide a range of things. But if we say we're not going to treat someone having a heart attack with a heart cath or open heart surgery, is at least a few mg of morphine to ease their pain as they pass not even a "right"?

"The Constitution contains the enumeration clause, which counts slaves as 3/5's of a person, the entire reason for needing this definition was that the Federal government did not allow slaves to vote. The Constitution also contained the Fugitive Slave Clause which protected one state's right enslave someone emancipated in another state, protecting the existence of slavery at the Federal level."

Article and section number's please! No wiki copy and paste. You do know anyone can edit wikipedia, right?

Article 4, section 2, clause 3.

Specializes in Oncology, Med/Surg, Hospice, Case Mgmt..

No law, no congress, no president can make anything that we need free by passing a law.

What about the poor? We must provide for the poor, but we will not help the poor by pretending that we live in a fantasy world where valuable services can be rendered free by government decree. These are stark realities, but they are realities nevertheless. Real help for the poor must be based on reality, not wishful thinking.

We already have free healthcare for the poor. Have for a long time. The Affordable Healthcare Act strives to provide healthcare for those who do not qualify for Medicaid, but cannot get private insurance. It will not be free for everyone. Currently, and for a long time, we have been paying for the healthcare of all people in this country without coverage. In the future, we will hopefully spend all healthcare dollars more efficiently with the ultimate goal of coverage for everyone.

Not directed at just you, CountyRat, but what should Americans who work full time and can't get insurance coverage do? Should they quit their jobs and apply for Medicaid? Should they ignore medical issues because they can't afford to pay up front to see a doctor? A young person with a full time job and health insurance not offered where they work may not be able to afford even a visit to the Health Dept., much less a specialist or any tests because they have to pay for rent and food. I know many people in this situation. Some with medical conditions that require medication and regular follow-up care and they don't receive it because they cannot afford it and they do not qualify for Medicaid.

What should they do?

Not directed at just you, CountyRat, but what should Americans who work full time and can't get insurance coverage do? Should they quit their jobs and apply for Medicaid? Should they ignore medical issues because they can't afford to pay up front to see a doctor? A young person with a full time job and health insurance not offered where they work may not be able to afford even a visit to the Health Dept., much less a specialist or any tests because they have to pay for rent and food. I know many people in this situation. Some with medical conditions that require medication and regular follow-up care and they don't receive it because they cannot afford it and they do not qualify for Medicaid.

What should they do?

Well, I don't think any of us can answer that question within the confines of this DB, however, as to your question regarding the young person who is barely making ends meet but doesn't qualify for assistance; How does taxing that same person more to pay for those who do qualify and then fining the same young person for not being able to afford the government mandated insurance going to help them? How are they supposed to afford what they can't afford now with less take home pay?

Specializes in Oncology, Med/Surg, Hospice, Case Mgmt..
Well, I don't think any of us can answer that question within the confines of this DB, however, as to your question regarding the young person who is barely making ends meet but doesn't qualify for assistance; How does taxing that same person more to pay for those who do qualify and then fining the same young person for not being able to afford the government mandated insurance going to help them? How are they supposed to afford what they can't afford now with less take home pay?

They could afford the health insurance premium. It isn't offered where they work. They already pay taxes. They can afford premiums and taxes taken out, they cannot afford hundreds of dollars in cash up front for office visits, medications and tests.

Specializes in ICU, PACU, OR.

As I have witnessed in my own home with a friend of mine who was injured, while self-employed with no insurance, went to a free clinic, they found him treatment and he enrolled in a hospital program that waived his payment. He renews his eligibility annually. My daughter who was in between jobs with no insurance was able to get treated and negotiated a payment plan with her local hospital-and I helped her some as I was able to. There are ways to get treatment and negotiate-you just have to ask. Most people don't-pride, lack of knowledge-don't know, but you can find a way. I don't mean to be preachy-but if you are young, have medical issues, need care for chronic problems, then that should be a priority. Do they go out to eat?, Do they go to movies?, Do they own a smart phone? Do they pay for car insurance?Do they have cable /satellite or , Do they get their hair or nails done every 6 weeks? I mean you have to make hard choices on where you are going to budget your hard earned money.

They could afford the health insurance premium. It isn't offered where they work. They already pay taxes. They can afford premiums and taxes taken out, they cannot afford hundreds of dollars in cash up front for office visits, medications and tests.

I totally agree they need to get themselves insurance. It's not very good "consumer math" to be able to afford insurance and yet still be paying as a self pay. Whether insurance is available thru the workplace or not does not necessarily mean it is going to cost less (especially once the ACA has totally been initiated). If they can afford it, they need to go shopping around and find a plan that meets their needs. If they look into various organizations they may even be able to get into a group insurance plan. In addition, if there are so many people that fit into this category then they can call up BC/BS or fill in the blank insurance company and actually "create" a group plan. Sort of like what the small business org has done for self employed people. A back yard mechanic who is self employed and yet is barely getting by or maybe he is the most successful one in town. Either way they both would qualify to open a policy that has group rates and bargaining power.

Specializes in Oncology, Med/Surg, Hospice, Case Mgmt..
As I have witnessed in my own home with a friend of mine who was injured, while self-employed with no insurance, went to a free clinic, they found him treatment and he enrolled in a hospital program that waived his payment. He renews his eligibility annually. My daughter who was in between jobs with no insurance was able to get treated and negotiated a payment plan with her local hospital-and I helped her some as I was able to. There are ways to get treatment and negotiate-you just have to ask. Most people don't-pride, lack of knowledge-don't know, but you can find a way.

Wow, that's great. Your friend and daughter are very lucky. I worked with a Unit Secretary who was paid just a little over minimum wage and was in a car accident a few years ago. She was brought to the hospital where we worked and treated. Her stay was brief, maybe 24 hours. She tried to negotiate a payment plan because she had two children and again, was earning very little. She had insurance through the hospital, so most of the bills were paid. 6 mos. after the accident, the hospital took her to court and sued her for the remainder of the bill she owed and was making payments on. This was the hospital where she had worked for years. I know several people who have been turned over to collection agencies just a few mos. after incurring a bill and trying to work out payments with the hospital. In my experience, hospitals, clinics, physicians, labs, etc. no longer negotiate. They want the full amount you owe today. Sometimes, they will give you a deal if you pay the bill in full today in cash.

The original post is highly disturbing. That's like saying ”forget the poor, those who deserve to live and be served are the ones who have money to pay for it.” A nurse is someone who cares for people regardless of their economic status.

+ Add a Comment