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.

But I thought you said that America provided superior care to our nasty universal system.

Canadians are fed up of paying for healthcare tourists who go home and ignore the bills from our hospitals.

Free has a quality of its own, especially since I would not even contribute in taxes to the cost.

Canadians have nothing on Americans when it comes to footing the bill from medical tourism/illegal immigration. Especially states like Arizona, Texas, California, New Mexico.

EDIT:

I thought that healthcare was a basic human right, why would you be upset if I visited your country to have surgery?

Specializes in Wilderness Medicine, ICU, Adult Ed..
Free has a quality of its own, especially since I would not even contribute in taxes to the cost.

Canadians have nothing on Americans when it comes to footing the bill from medical tourism/illegal immigration. Especially states like Arizona, Texas, California, New Mexico.

EDIT:

I thought that healthcare was a basic human right, why would you be upset if I visited your country to have surgery?

Oh Asystole, I wonder if you appreciate how profound your question is. You have taken us to the very heart of the matter. Basic human rights exist everywhere there are humans. So why would Canadians object to U.S. citizens enjoying their human rights while in Canada? The answer is very important: my possession of a right does NOT obligate Fiona, or anyone else, to provide me the means to exercise that right. I have the right to pursue the things that I want and need, but that does not mean that you or anyone else has a duty to help me exercise that right.

Quick illustration: I differ with Fiona on this issue. That is fine, we both have an inherent right to form, and express our diverse opinions as we please (short of doing anything that harms others, of course!) So, I have decided to exercise my free speech rights by inviting a few hundred of my fellow citizens to listen to me make a speech defending my point of view. So far, so good. However, my house is too small and inconveniently located to accommodate my audience, so Fiona, we will be showing up at your house this evening, and using your living room as the location where I will exercise my rights. You cannot stop me: it is my right, so you must provide me with the means to enjoy that right. Right? Wrong! My possession of a right does not obligate you, your government, or anyone else to provide me with the means by which I will exercise my right.

I have a right to speak, but I do not have a "right" to be heard. I have a right to seek healthcare, but I do not have a "right" to compel my fellow citizens to meet my need. That is why it is a mistake to conflate "rights" with "needs." They are NOT the same, and what applies to one, does not apply to the other.

And let's face it, some people are just users of any system if it benefits them. And who wants to be known as a user? Oh, some posters, it seems.

Specializes in Med-Surg.

Well, unless these posters have actually indulged in 'medical tourism', they are not really users. They made these statements to make a point about the hypocrisy of what was being said.

Its like that video done with people interviewing students in a university, asking them if they believed in wealth redistribution and all. They sure as heck did. Then ask them if they think they should share their grades with those who have lower grades because they dont have time to study, have a family to support, dont have the same kind of help from home, etc. When it came to that, they didnt believe in it anymore, because, well, they work hard for their grades.

Specializes in Wilderness Medicine, ICU, Adult Ed..
Well, unless these posters have actually indulged in 'medical tourism', they are not really users. They made these statements to make a point about the hypocrisy of what was being said.

Its like that video done with people interviewing students in a university, asking them if they believed in wealth redistribution and all. They sure as heck did. Then ask them if they think they should share their grades with those who have lower grades because they dont have time to study, have a family to support, dont have the same kind of help from home, etc. When it came to that, they didnt believe in it anymore, because, well, they work hard for their grades.

Exactly right. There is no such thing as a "right" to good grades. Every student has a right to persue the grades they want, but to enjoy that right, they must do the work required. In the same way, you and I have rights to acquire, own, and enjoy food, shelter, and whatever else we need or want, so long aswe do not do so in a way that deprives another of his or her rights. However, that right includes the duty to work so that we can acquire those things by a fair exchange of value. Put simply, if you labor and till the soil and grow food, you own that food by right. If I want some of the food that you own, I have a duty to honor your rights, and pay you in some way in exchange for what you labored to produce. You could not survive if you were compelled to give without receiving.

I want everyone who needs healthcare to have it. That is why I, and many other healthcare providers provide our services at no cost to our patients through volunteer work. I want everyone to receive the care (and food, and clothing, and shelter) that they need. However, I recognize that for a system to work over time, it must be predicated on valid economic principles. I am not opposed to universal healthcare, I am opposed to creating unsustainable systems that are doomed to fail in the long run.

To build such a system, we have to start by accurately understanding the problem. Calling healthcare a "right" does not make it so, and confuses the issue. Healthcare is a need, not a right. The difference is not a mere rhetorical technicality; it is a reality that we must understand if we are going to succeed in reforming our flawed healthcare system.

Just say we have socialized medicine in America. I believe we should have a sliding scale on what a person would pay (not just a % of income). For instance, patient #1 works out on a regular basis, watches his diet, and maintains a healthy weight. Patient #2 is morbidly obese, smokes, and is a heart attack waiting to happen. Should both people pay the same percentage? I don't think so.

Specializes in ICU, PACU, OR.

I agree-healthcare is a need. Once you enter into the system, you then have a RIGHT to quality healthcare that is affordable, not crippling financially. That is where the reform is most needed. There are many things that can be done without all the expense and waste that we see on a daily basis. We can work leaner, the only place that can't be lean is the patient to staff ratio. Too many statistics prove that with proper staff ratios we get the quality of care that is needed to prevent readmissions and facility acquired complications.

We need transformational leadership that empowers nurses to lead the clinical care in partnership with the medical and ancillary providers.

When that is accomplished, then the proper reforms, and better healthcare will be recognized.

Specializes in Critical Care.
It is hard for me to feel sorry for the poor man who sits on his mountain of gold.

If we have universal healthcare then the citizens of your, mine, and every other state will not have the right nor privilege to decide the healthcare that suits each of our needs the best. Thats the thing, the healthcare needs of Mississippi are vastly different from the healthcare needs of Arizona, as they are different from California.

Why can we not allow the citizens of those states to decide what it most appropriate for them?

How are the healthcare needs of Mississippi vastly different from the needs of Arizona or California? Is the pathophysiology and treatment of CHF somehow different from state to state? We get people from a few different states at my hospital, we've never found the need to treat a person's MI differently based on what state they're from.

Specializes in ICU, PACU, OR.

Demographics-if you have a lot of older people, then you shift focus on disease processes of the elderly. If you have lots of rich, you focus on non urgent care items, like plastic surgery, if you have more poverty, then you focus on the health needs of the poor-If you have areas that are less populated and away from major population centers, then your care changes. If you have Indian populations, you may focus on those diseases or wellness programs that fit that culture.

I agree-with Demographic changes-control from the State levels can be more quickly addressed, than waiting for federal census results every 10 years.

Specializes in Critical Care.

Human "rights" are those things that that as a society we agree shouldn't be denied to anyone, while the Constitution does contain some of these things that doesn't mean that all human rights are enumerated in the Constitution so that rationale seems a bit flawed.

"Healthcare" is too broad to describe what we do and don't see as rights. Many would say that erectile dysfunction treatment is not a right, but to then say that based on this healthcare is not a right would be inaccurate. If someone presents to the ER with an MI and severe pain, I think many would say that they at least have the right to a little morphine to make their death a little less excruciating. Both are parts of "healthcare" yet the views on whether or not they are rights are very different.

Specializes in Critical Care.
Demographics-if you have a lot of older people, then you shift focus on disease processes of the elderly. If you have lots of rich, you focus on non urgent care items, like plastic surgery, if you have more poverty, then you focus on the health needs of the poor-If you have areas that are less populated and away from major population centers, then your care changes. If you have Indian populations, you may focus on those diseases or wellness programs that fit that culture.

I agree-with Demographic changes-control from the State levels can be more quickly addressed, than waiting for federal census results every 10 years.

Currently nothing prevents varying focus depending on needs. Mississippi, for instance spends much more medicare money on CHF, there is no cap on different categories of needs.

I don't argue that healthcare in rural areas is different from that in urban areas, but is rural healthcare in California really that different than rural healthcare in Mississippi?

I think we're mixing up healthcare delivery and healthcare coverage. Healthcare delivery should be tailored as needed, healthcare coverage doesn't change.

The problem with administering coverage more locally is that it costs more without any beneficial effect to delivery and care. We already know that medicaid overhead is higher than medicare overhead. If we continue with the rationale that smaller and more local is better, why stop with individual state administrators, why not have a different medicare administration for each county, each city, each neighborhood? That would be insanely expensive, yet you'd still be going to the same doctor, same hospital, and still receiving the same care.

Specializes in ICU, PACU, OR.

Healthcare coverage is different for different populations-If Medicare was so awesome, why do you have to have plan B, Plan D etc. You know-I'm just to the point where it's a done deal, and I'm just ready to survive this. It's out of our hands and I'm done with it. Just tired now. Hope it all works out and we have quality care that everyone can tap into. In the mean time for those out of jobs, wrap yourself and your family in bubble wrap and hold on.

+ Add a Comment