Healthcare is NOT a basic human right. - page 57

by Asystole RN

48,162 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. 0
    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.
  2. 1
    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.
    CountyRat likes this.
  3. 0
    Quote from cdsga
    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.
  4. 0
    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.
  5. 3
    Quote from cdsga
    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.

    Universal healthcare only covers essential plastic surgery. Grafts for burns victims, limbs (to a certain amount) for amputees. Rhinoplasty, breast augmentation, lipo, etc are paid for by the person who wants it. The only time this differs is if it's psychologically required.

    Broken noses that need a septoplasty pronto, rhinoplasty? not so often.

    Eyelid tucks, you pay for.

    We have large First Nations populations in my areas and their issues are pretty much the same as every ones. Diabetes, addictions, poverty.
    tewdles, laborer, and herring_RN like this.
  6. 4
    Quote from cdsga
    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.
    I have read many of your posts on this thread and I understand that you don't believe people have a right to health care, that "government" involvement in health care is bad, that the rich are paying more than they should, and that Medicare, Medicaid and other government programs are riddled with inefficiencies. You have referred to paying more more than once. Are you rich? Do you make more than $200,000 (single person) or $250,000 (couple) and resent paying slightly higher taxes towards the ACA? I am confused as to why you do not appear to think that some of the benefits of the ACA are significant: Young people can remain on their parent's insurance until they are 26; insurance companies can't just cancel people's coverage when they become ill; refusing people insurance because of pre-existing conditions is prohibited. These things by themselves are significant. I don't understand why you believe the ACA is such a burden. The government spends your tax money on wars. You want the fire department and the police I presume. Do you raise similar concerns about government fiscal responsibility in regard to the defense budget?
    tewdles, MandaRN94, laborer, and 1 other like this.
  7. 0
    yes it is.
  8. 0
    Can't stand it when people think they deserve healthcare just because they have a pulse. It's a luxury. Indoor plumbing is a luxury, too, and you don't see plumbers doing that for free. If you want healthcare, work hard so you can afford it. Play by the rules. Everyone makes their living somehow. Don't gip someone of their hard-earned money. You wouldn't be very happy if the public decided that you were to service them without any benefit to you. You wouldn't do your job for free. Don't expect others to. Complete socialism (no money circulating) doesn't work either. If there's no incentive to work, no one will work hard or work at all. Take away the incentive to work, and you've got a collapsed economy.
  9. 0
    This " Young people can remain on their parent's insurance until they are 26" is why I'm not in favor of the federal health care plan.

    I acknowledge that health coverage is expensive and not all jobs offer it. I further acknowledge that many plans are very expensive relative to the payers income.

    I don't think that the best or only solution to that problem is that fully grown adults be treated as dependents. I think a 26 year old is old enough to have a career established and get their own job. I think that age of 26 should not entitle you to dependent benefits. My ex was 33, laid off, had type 2 diabetes, overweight, HTN and couldn't afford health insurance. His meds would have cost us hundreds a month. How is someone at age 32 less deserving than someone of 26? Both are adults.

    Looking back, he opted not to accept cobra, as many people do. They get surprised when they get laid off and their employer is going to pay cobra an excessive sum (900/mo) for the duration of the cobra time period, as required by law. My ex chose to get the money, then found out he didn't medically qualify to buy his own insurance.

    I think many people lack a basic understanding of how insurance works and this is why they believe government funded health care is a great option.
  10. 3
    Wow. I'm a little disgusted by some of the comments here. I believe in social justice and it is embarassing that we are a developed nation have so many uninsured. I believe in the ACA as a step in the right direction. How can anyone justify the US spending over a trillion in healthcare costs and have over 50 million uninsured -we spend more money than other developed countries and poorer quality indicators of health. We absolutely need healthcare reform with the notion that healthcare is a basic right.
    OCNRN63, lindarn, and tewdles like this.


Top