Healthcare is NOT a basic human right. - page 49

by Asystole RN 49,847 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. 3
    "I believe that in all 50 states, it is a requirement to carry car insurance, like it or not. And you have to show proof of insurance to register your car every year. God forbid, you are pulled over and don't have auto insurance to show the officer."

    Oh my, where do I start here? First of all it is not a "requirement to carry car insurance". If you don't drive we don't force you to buy insurance.

    Secondly, comparing health insurance to auto insurance as why it is needed is probably the worst example you could use. Case in point - The #1 cause of accidents? Driver error. Enough said.

    And third, under the ACA EVERYONE regardless of health will be required to pay homage to the insurance companies or be fined by the government... Kind of takes the whole "choice" variable out of the equation...

    Lastly, I bet you'll be the first person whining about the increased pt load, work demands, etc. etc. when the ACA goes into full effect. Silly liberals and your circular reasoning!
    toekneejo, uRNmyway, and Asystole RN like this.
  2. 3
    "The Constitution also used to allow slavery and limited voting rights, so I'd hardly consider it the authority on human rights."

    WRONG! The states allowed this, not the federal government. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the civil war was fought over this!

    Additionally, the constitution also allows for free speech, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to a fair trial, etc. etc. Should we throw all this out as well to serve your biased and inherently flawed agenda?

    I think we'll all go with a resounding "NO" on that measure... Nice try though.
    toekneejo, uRNmyway, and Asystole RN like this.
  3. 3
    "And yes - I would discuss any issue with any educated person regardless of their job title."

    There in lies the logical fallacy of your thinking. Opinions are like *******s, everyone has one. Usually the loudest, most obnoxious, and radical opinions come from those with little knowledge on the subject matter at hand. Yes, I will discount someone who found this forum on a google search, created an account and posted mere propaganda without the slightest shred of experience in the modern health care system.

    Do I think our healthcare system is perfect? No. Do I think we need reforms? Absolutely. Do I think the liberal/democrat answer of nationalizing or socializing it will work? No way in hell. If history has proved anything it is that the federal government is wholly inadequate at virtually everything. One only needs to look at medicare and medicaid to confirm this... Or social security... Or monetary/fiscal policy in general.

    We could make great advancements in medicine in this country with market based reforms, than we ever will with government managed/mandated care.

    Cost is the issue. The answer really isn't that difficult, albeit complex. Deregulation, tort reform, and the promotion of alternative medicine and personal responsibility would do wonders for our current system.
    toekneejo, msn10, and Asystole RN like this.
  4. 3
    Real man in uniform you missed my point but that's ok. I think you're mind is made up and anything I have to say you'll find a way to put it down in frankly an insulting way. Not in my opinion a great way to advance your ideas, but keep trying to alienate people who might actually be open to discussion....
    uRNmyway, Fiona59, and lindarn like this.
  5. 2
    I think the debate about whether people should have insurance is skewed-the basic human right for everyone to have access to health care is different from a constitutional right.
    Human rights are very different.
    We are a great country. We live in a world where human rights are violated every day. The prisons are full of human rights violators.
    Rapists, murderers, thieves, perverts, deviates, and malicious people.
    Care and concern-compassion and love are the complete antithesis to violators of human rights.

    Access to health care is available-health depts, emergency rooms, local hospitals that are gov't funded for charity.
    It costs money to give charitable care. The idea of having insurance for those who don't to enable healthcare providers and facilities that house that type of care to keep getting paid for services is the issue. It seems to me that the programs that are already up and running are not being looked at sufficiently to streamline access, hone in on fraud, work on the hard issues to get these programs right. Rather they want to keep these inefficient programs and then start another one-thus adding to the inefficiency and potential for even worse fraud.

    My ONLY issue is that the ACA is not affordable, it has not been well read, the lawmakers are focusing on the evil insurance companies, not how to work with them to make this work and still be a win-win. There's alot of work that needs to be done to prepare for this. Healthcare is complex, and the variables with each state's populous are complex also. Insurance companies are a profit making entity, not a charity.
    toekneejo and lindarn like this.
  6. 2
    Quote from withasmilelpn
    Real man in uniform you missed my point but that's ok. I think you're mind is made up and anything I have to say you'll find a way to put it down in frankly an insulting way. Not in my opinion a great way to advance your ideas, but keep trying to alienate people who might actually be open to discussion....
    Don't take your ball home...

    Please, I would like to hear someone refute his claims/opinions. I think he makes some real strong points.
    toekneejo and realmaninuniform like this.
  7. 2
    Quote from realmaninuniform
    "

    ...And third, under the ACA EVERYONE regardless of health will be required to pay homage to the insurance companies or be fined by the government... Kind of takes the whole "choice" variable out of the equation...


    The "choice" variable doesn't exist to begin with. If someone choses to forgo any health coverage and then comes into the ER with an MI, they're going to be treated, it's the law. We can't have a system where treatment of almost all health conditions is a legal requirement once it progresses to an acute stage, yet paying into the system is a choice. Why would someone pay for something that they will get whether or not they pay for it? For instance, someone can choose not to pay for health coverage that will manage their diabetes and hypertension even though they may financially able to do so, but when their choice to not treat those conditions results in dialysis, everyone else is required to chip in and pay for dialysis for you. I'm all for choice, but we have to be willing to actually limit people to the choices they make, otherwise it's a pretty idiotic system.

    Quote from realmaninuniform
    "The Constitution also used to allow slavery and limited voting rights, so I'd hardly consider it the authority on human rights."

    WRONG! The states allowed this, not the federal government. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the civil war was fought over this!

    Additionally, the constitution also allows for free speech, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to a fair trial, etc. etc. Should we throw all this out as well to serve your biased and inherently flawed agenda?

    I think we'll all go with a resounding "NO" on that measure... Nice try though.

    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.


    RNfaster and NRSKarenRN like this.
  8. 2
    I do believe the healthcare is a basic right and not a privilege. The constitutionality of the ACA could be debated indefinitely. A document I think answers the question as to whether it is a right or a privilege may be the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights:http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
    Article 25.

    • (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control
    NRSKarenRN and lindarn like this.
  9. 2
    Quote from cdsga
    I think the debate about whether people should have insurance is skewed-the basic human right for everyone to have access to health care is different from a constitutional right.
    Human rights are very different.
    We are a great country. We live in a world where human rights are violated every day. The prisons are full of human rights violators.
    Rapists, murderers, thieves, perverts, deviates, and malicious people.
    Care and concern-compassion and love are the complete antithesis to violators of human rights.

    Access to health care is available-health depts, emergency rooms, local hospitals that are gov't funded for charity.
    It costs money to give charitable care. The idea of having insurance for those who don't to enable healthcare providers and facilities that house that type of care to keep getting paid for services is the issue. It seems to me that the programs that are already up and running are not being looked at sufficiently to streamline access, hone in on fraud, work on the hard issues to get these programs right. Rather they want to keep these inefficient programs and then start another one-thus adding to the inefficiency and potential for even worse fraud.

    My ONLY issue is that the ACA is not affordable, it has not been well read, the lawmakers are focusing on the evil insurance companies, not how to work with them to make this work and still be a win-win. There's alot of work that needs to be done to prepare for this. Healthcare is complex, and the variables with each state's populous are complex also. Insurance companies are a profit making entity, not a charity.
    This is not aimed at you, but I am tired of hearing people say "Access to care is already available." Yes, access to health care is available as you stated, but it is not sufficient. Many people need greater access to primary care, not just community clinics or urgent or emergency care, where the requirement is just to "stabilize" patients before discharge. The ACA prohibits insurance companies from refusing patients who have pre-existing conditions, and from terminating coverage because of illness, and these are big improvements in ensuring more people can obtain insurance. I do not personally think that requiring people to buy insurance is the best solution; as I have said, I prefer taxation in the form of a deduction from one's pay check as happens in the UK. Yes, there are inefficiencies in the way some programs are run, and there is room for improvement. I don't think the ACA is as good as it could be, but I think it is a start.
    RNfaster and lindarn like this.
  10. 1
    It's not sufficient because it is inefficient and not managed properly.

    You'll still have very high premiums for pre-existing conditions-and probably not affordable for the avg person

    Well despite our debate on whether it's good bad or ugly of the ACA, It is here and we will be paying for it for 4 years before it ever comes to fruition. I love that. Pre-paying for an unknown result. I know I always pay upfront before I receive benefits. Only the government ...
    lindarn likes this.


Top