Healthcare is NOT a basic human right. - page 51

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. 0
    It's pretty interesting that you say these things NayRN there is such a thing as a contract that physicians use for narcotic use/prescriptions. There are very stringent guidelines that people have to follow if they want their pain medications. If they don't follow the guidelines-they are immediately discharged and not allowed to be seen by that physician's practice again. They leave it up to the patient to follow and be responsible for their compliance with the rules.

    I wonder if the same type of contract could apply to other types of things? If patients refuse to be compliant with their medical treatment plan then all the access to medical care in the world won't help them.

    Get the hottest topics every week!

    Subscribe to our free Nursing Insights newsletter.

  2. 4
    The arguments people offer to support the view that healthcare is a basic human right inevitably requires conflation of "rights" with "needs." I have a right to practice a religion or not practice one, as I choose (to offer one example). But needs are different. I need food. My family will die sooner without food than they will without healthcare. So, why do I have to go to work, earn money, and spend it in a grocery store to feed my family? If my needing it makes it a right, why are we not demanding "free” food?

    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.

    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.

    I offer these observations in the spirit of respectful, collegial interaction. I respect those who hold different views and have no hostility toward anyone. I hope that we can continue to interact within this forum calmly and thoughtfully.
    sKris, toekneejo, realmaninuniform, and 1 other like this.
  3. 2
    I agree CountyRat, far too many these days are economically illiterate and calling for "free this" and "free that". What they don't realize is that - "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch". Nothing on this earth is truly "free". Someone somewhere along the lines paid for it in some form or another.
    CountyRat and Szasz_is_Right like this.
  4. 0
    "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?

    "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?


  5. 0
    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!!!
  6. 1
    Quote from CountyRat
    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.
    Last edit by sKris on Oct 14, '12 : Reason: Typo
    toekneejo likes this.
  7. 1
    Quote from agvfc
    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.
    CountyRat likes this.
  8. 1
    Quote from DoGoodThenGo
    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
    CountyRat likes this.
  9. 0
    Quote from realmaninuniform
    "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"?

    Quote from realmaninuniform
    "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.
  10. 0
    Quote from CountyRat
    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?


Nursing Jobs in every specialty and state. Visit today and Create Job Alerts, Manage Your Resume, and Apply for Jobs.

A Big Thank You To Our Sponsors
Top