Healthcare is NOT a basic human right. - page 32

by Asystole RN 50,760 Views | 622 Comments

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... Read More


  1. 2
    That is the truth-we all have to start with our selves-what is a reasonable taxation, what is fair, what is a reasonable wage for work,and not be abused.
    I can suggest a book called "Guns, Germs and Steel" if you want to see how history repeats itself, and how some people conquer others and how they do it.
    toekneejo and lindarn like this.
  2. 2
    Quote from cdsga
    Would US citizens be willing to take jobs that paid minimum wage or less when they can be on the dole and get more money to live on?

    Simple answer for the majority no.
    Until we raise wages to a reasonable level where people don't need public assistance the incentive to do real labor that may cause sweat and sore muscles is just a dream.

    People take crappy jobs-back breaking jobs-like migrant workers, because they want cash-no taxes taken out, no tracing of the money and they want to take care of their livelihood no matter how hard it may be.

    On an honorable note-if there's any left out there...There is no substitute for hard work, the satisfaction of getting paid for something you accomplished, except a handout. We're becoming the island of misfit boys (Peter Pan) style.

    I am amazed that people would accept higher taxes-decreasing your own livelihood-to help others who may be able to contribute to society but won't. God forbid if you have to pay a higher price for tomatoes at the store because farmers use US pickers (contributors to the society) And Lord knows I'll pay 150$+ for designer bluejeans and wouldn't be caught dead in a pair of Rustler's.

    It's all about what effects you directly.
    cdsga, I have been thinking about the first sentence of your last paragraph and I wished to express my thoughts on this subject as being different to yours. I have to admit I find it surprising when anyone says that they are "amazed that people would accept higher taxes - decreasing your own livelihood - to help others who may be able to contribute to society but won't" because even if one is thinking just of oneself I wonder if people who are currently fortunate to have jobs, income, support systems and health care are unable to conceive of the possibility that their fortunate life circumstances could change i.e. they could lose their job, their health, their health insurance, have a catastrophic health problem and be unable to work, and be in need of health care. Wouldn't it be a comfort to you if you were in this situation, to know that because everyone who is working is contributing tax monies towards a health care system (including your own contributions when you were working) that you are able to receive medical care without being concerned about your ability to pay? I don't understand concern about the people who don't contribute to society putting one off from supporting higher taxes to pay for health care (I assume you are speaking of people who do not work because they are lazy) as I am much more concerned that the majority of people who do make their best effort have access to health care.

    I think the people who are willing to pay higher taxes for everyone to have access to health care are willing partly because they know that in contributing towards other people's health care they will also be provided for when they are in need of health care and thus they perceive the higher taxes as fair (sharing) and do not resent contributing to other people's health care, and also because they want to live in a society where people are able to visit doctors and receive health care for themselves and their families when they need it, throughout their lives. But I come from the UK, where this system is in place.
    Last edit by Susie2310 on Oct 2, '12
    lindarn and RNsRWe like this.
  3. 1
    I've been mulling something over. Going back to the original points of this thread, about healthcare being a "right" or not....clearly the Constitution is irrelevant to that discussion as it is not a Constitutionally-protected "right".

    However, the idea of "rights to healthcare" intrigues me: at what point, at what line, do we determine the end of the "right"?

    Follow me on this. Man is seen staggering at the side of the road, bleeding from a cut on his head. Good Samaritan stops and offers the man help; he has a Band-Aid in his car to apply to the cut. First Aid has now been offered and received...."right"? No, just empathy to one's fellow man. Ok, now it looks like the injured man might be in need of more than a Band-Aid; the Good Samaritan calls 911 (free service now offered in the US). An ambulance is sent to pick up, and brings the man to the ER. During the ride, the man receives an IV (which may or may not be free depending on your service area). Patient arrives at hospital, is seen by a doctor, who determines a CT scan is in order.

    Ok, are we still behind the line for the man's "right" to all of this, or is it starting to cross over into "extra"?

    So he has the CT, and there the brain bleed becomes evident. Dang, he's gonna need surgery! And probably months of physical rehab and speech therapy!

    Is it his "right" to get that surgery immediately? He cannot pay (let's throw that in, since after all that's at the crux of the issue)....does he still have the "right" to top-of-the-line care, or only the initial Band-Aid/ambulance ride/IV....whatever? Does he have the "right" to expect the surgeon and the entire OR, PACU, rehab facility, therapists and floor staff to care for him free?

    If no one can very clearly define "healthcare", how can we call it a "right"? A "right" to EXACTLY what?

    And if you agree that he should get the EMS treatment as his "right" but not the brain surgery and fabulously expensive recovery, then you're really NOT calling healthcare a "right", only the part YOU feel is....enough.

    I seriously doubt even the members of this board could come up with a suitable, agreeable definition, so how the heck are we as a country going to call it a "right"?

    (and remember, I do support the ACA )
    NRSKarenRN likes this.
  4. 1
    Just a friendly reminder - please keep to the topic at hand: healthcare, not immigration or race. Thanks everyone!
    joanna73 likes this.
  5. 1
    First of all-I think that those who are unable to work-not even a bit, fall under a level of social care that is part of a civilized society. No one is denying that. There will always be a fraction of the population that need help.
    You have to admit and be truthful-we all know that there are those who have no incentive to work or contribute because it's easier to draw disability long past the time they could at least deliver a pizza, or throw a newspaper or do some form of work.
    We have programs right now that have been mismanaged and aren't working but could be better managed and be sufficient for those TRULY in need. If we go to a single payer system believe me there will continue to be a supplemental insurance option for those who can afford it or whose employers offer it as a perk. This happens in the UK. There will always be a demand for less waiting time and the ability to have a choice of your own physician-not one selected for you.

    Second-911 service is funded by anyone with a phone. Check your phone bill.

    Third-doctors and other professionals take positions in a community and are required to take a certain amount of indigent care as part of their payback for loans and part of their dues coming into practices. The more senior doctors are get out of indigent care and take a minimal amount of or no new medicare patients. Those patients are cared for by the newest doctors in the practice. So the guy that got hit on the road would probably not be seen by the "Primo" doctor.

    But lets think about this. If you were not a nurse-or if you were a nurse and could bill for insurance. Would you limit the amount of cases you would take that were uninsured or on gov't insurance programs? Would you dedicate your life to be underpaid and overworked and absent from your home and family so that you could do more for mankind? Would you just take a nominal fee?
    Do you honestly think that people will be honest when 2014 comes around and they don't take the insurance and manufacture reasons why they can't pay for insurance?

    Do you honestly think that if everyone gets insurance that the problem with healthcare access will be solved?
    realmaninuniform likes this.
  6. 4
    Quote from cdsga
    First of all-I think that those who are unable to work-not even a bit, fall under a level of social care that is part of a civilized society. No one is denying that. There will always be a fraction of the population that need help.
    You have to admit and be truthful-we all know that there are those who have no incentive to work or contribute because it's easier to draw disability long past the time they could at least deliver a pizza, or throw a newspaper or do some form of work.
    Not aimed at cdsga, just quoting as a basis of my comments then aimed at the void:
    I think way too many people are overestimating the number of people that fall into that second group and underestimate those that fall into the first group. Or can work, do work, but still don't make enough to pay for healthcare or even basic human survival.
    Last edit by wooh on Oct 2, '12
    JMBnurse, lindarn, Susie2310, and 1 other like this.
  7. 3
    Quote from cdsga
    First of all-I think that those who are unable to work-not even a bit, fall under a level of social care that is part of a civilized society. No one is denying that. There will always be a fraction of the population that need help.
    You have to admit and be truthful-we all know that there are those who have no incentive to work or contribute because it's easier to draw disability long past the time they could at least deliver a pizza, or throw a newspaper or do some form of work.
    We have programs right now that have been mismanaged and aren't working but could be better managed and be sufficient for those TRULY in need. If we go to a single payer system believe me there will continue to be a supplemental insurance option for those who can afford it or whose employers offer it as a perk. This happens in the UK. There will always be a demand for less waiting time and the ability to have a choice of your own physician-not one selected for you.

    Second-911 service is funded by anyone with a phone. Check your phone bill.

    Third-doctors and other professionals take positions in a community and are required to take a certain amount of indigent care as part of their payback for loans and part of their dues coming into practices. The more senior doctors are get out of indigent care and take a minimal amount of or no new medicare patients. Those patients are cared for by the newest doctors in the practice. So the guy that got hit on the road would probably not be seen by the "Primo" doctor.

    But lets think about this. If you were not a nurse-or if you were a nurse and could bill for insurance. Would you limit the amount of cases you would take that were uninsured or on gov't insurance programs? Would you dedicate your life to be underpaid and overworked and absent from your home and family so that you could do more for mankind? Would you just take a nominal fee?
    Do you honestly think that people will be honest when 2014 comes around and they don't take the insurance and manufacture reasons why they can't pay for insurance?

    Do you honestly think that if everyone gets insurance that the problem with healthcare access will be solved?
    Yes, absolutely I agree that some people have no incentive to work or contribute when they physically and mentally could.

    Yes, no doubt some programs have been mismanaged and could be better managed to serve people in need.

    Yes, private insurance does exist in the UK, as you mentioned, and I believe the majority of the population do not use it and instead use the National Health Service. As far as I know, private insurance is quite expensive and not easy to obtain for people with pre-existing conditions unless they obtain the insurance through their employment. I too think that there will continue to be a demand for less waiting time and choice of doctor i.e. private insurance.

    In regard to your question "If you were not a nurse - or if you were a nurse and could bill for insurance. Would you limit the amount of cases you would take that were uninsured or on government insurance programs? If I think of the UK, the majority of nurses work for the National Health Service, and I believe receive government pensions, as doctors in the UK do. I cannot answer your question as I am not a Nurse Practitioner nor do I plan to become one. I do think you have asked a very valid question. There are many unknowns as to how health reform will evolve, for nurses, independent practitioners, and patients.

    Do I honestly think people will be honest when 2014 comes around, and they don't take the insurance and manufacture reasons why they can't pay for insurance? I have reservations.

    Do I honestly think that if everyone gets insurance that the problem with healthcare access will be solved? No. I hope it will be a big improvement. I prefer the UK system that uses taxation to pay for health care, leaving out the insurance companies. The UK system has problems too. I absolutely do not suggest that the UK system is problem free or that patients have not experienced problems related to care. I just know that the UK system does provide the population with access to health care from birth until death, and I believe the vast majority of people in the UK value the National Health Service.
    lindarn, Fiona59, and wooh like this.
  8. 0
    I've seen alot of posts on here regarding "access" to healthcare. I don't feel that "access" is as big of a problem as some would lead you to believe, especially those who support the ACA. As I've pointed out before any hospital that accepts federal funds must treat anyone who comes in regardless of ability to pay. Let me assure you that almost every hospital in the US accepts federal funds. There are relatively few private hospitals still in business. As a matter of fact I cannot think of a single hospital off the top of my head in the entire country that does not accept federal funds.

    Now, as far as pre-hospital care, the ambulance doesn't take your insurance information over the phone before sending the squad. Taxes, mostly municipal, support the fire department. You're not going to get turned away if you call 911, regardless of your ability to pay.

    Now, as it concerns a PCP, or family doctor, no they are probably not going to see you for free. That doesn't mean that they will not see you if you don't have insurance. It may mean they will not see you if you don't pay them. This for some could be a problem, if there were not literally thousands upon thousands of free clinics all across the US. I live in a very small town, and there is a free clinic twice a week that also provides prescription assistance. So I find the whole "access argument" quite base-less.
  9. 0
    Quote from Asystole RN
    Those who took the time, money and effort to immigrate here LEGALLY tend to object to those who commit felonies to cheat there way into the country.

    My mother (legal immigrant) is a viscous anti-illegal immigration proponent. My former roommate (legal immigrant) is also a viscous anti-illegal immigration proponent. My former roommate actually worked for the New Zealand Consulate and dealt with legal and illagal immigration regarding New Zealand immigrants in the United States. He LOVED to find and assist in the deportation of illegal immigrants, he thought it was shameful and dishonorable to his country.

    I personally do not hold the zealous ideals of those I mentioned, but I certainly understand it.

    I for one am not an immigrant. I was born here. I am native.
    My husband is a Canadian immigrant via spousal visa to me. (He's technically a permanent resident -- has no interest in becoming an American citizen right now.)

    Navigating the immigration system gave us both a cold, hard look at how difficult it is to immigrate to the US. The cost alone makes it unattainable for many...and that's *if* you meet the very strict requirements needed to be able to immigrate. (Spousal visa is the easiest, most direct path -- coming from a rich, non-brown country, it was more a matter of rubber stamping and paying fees than any real scrutiny for us. The process still took about 16 months and ~$8,500 directly in fees.)

    So we're both pretty...blase? about illegal immigration. He's certainly not objecting to anything. Now if only he'd naturalize and we wouldn't have to deal with USCIS ever again.
  10. 6
    Quote from realmaninuniform
    I've seen alot of posts on here regarding "access" to healthcare. I don't feel that "access" is as big of a problem as some would lead you to believe, especially those who support the ACA.
    A free clinic? Twice a week! Well there's no problem at all with access!!
    Every free clinic around here you'd have to wait all day HOPING you'll be seen. Which is really easy to do if you're trying to keep a roof over your head with your job that pays just enough to get by, as long as you keep it. Or your child gets sick on Thursday night. Free clinic isn't open until next Tuesday night. Think we're going to be wasting ER resources for a simple case of otitis media? And then how do you pay that bill?
    I can't afford a surprise ED visit, and I've got a decent job and insurance that will pay some of it.

    It never ceases to amaze me how easy people who have never been poor think that it is to be poor.
    glowbug, JMBnurse, bunnyfungo, and 3 others like this.


Top