Is health care a "right"

Nurses Activism

Published

Now that the affordable care act is rolling out I wonder if we should revisit this notion. AND (maybe more particularly) if it is a right, is the federal government the best instrument to provide it.

Specializes in CVICU.

No, you do not have a "right" to other people providing you with a service of any kind. Tax contributions and the willingness of society to adhere to the system in place are reasons why those services are available to you. Not to mention the willingness (whether it be altruism or simply financial motivation) and ability of the providers is not in your hands and you certainly are not entitled to demand that anyone be made to help you do anything.

You were born. You have a "right" to attempt to survive. You are LUCKY that you live in a world and a society in which such brutal and insensitive truths do not necessarily guide legislative practice and are not part of societal norms. No, you are lucky to live in a world in which most people generally do not want others to suffer. As such, there are systems in place to provide you with care and in return, you pay in your contribution in order to keep the system afloat with your (presumed) tax dollars. You do so mainly because you have been conditioned to do so. From a very young age society taught you how to behave and introduced you to the system in which you exist. You have no "right" to anything, and certainly not to someone else's services or expertise.

Nobody asked you to be born. Nobody asked you to exist. Your existence, as well as mine and everyone else's, is a tiresome burden to the planet in the grand scheme of things. The Big Bang did not happen with you in mind. The universe did not expand and its original elements did not cool and cook into heavier elements so that you could breathe oxygen or drink water. You are not special and it is not your life, my life, or anyone else's life. Life is simply life. And you should have no expectations from it. Again, you should be thankful that you are in a society in which a system is in place (that you had no part in constructing) that affords you the ability to be so presumptuous as to assume you have a "right" to other people doing anything to help you.

Oh please, OBAMACARE is the way for the poor to survive !

Specializes in PICU, NICU, L&D, Public Health, Hospice.

All I can say is wow...

So the prevailing thoughts on freedom in the USA today are...

I am free to die when I cannot afford health insurance.

I am free to work with "flexibility" for the employer without the benefit of overtime.

I am free to pay all of my taxes to support the entitlements of the wealthy while the wealthy legislators whittle away at my paid for benefits.

I am free to have all the babies I want or need because my employer does not want to 1)pay for my health insurance 2) doesn't want my health insurance to pay for contraceptives 3) my community politicians made it impossible for me to obtain an abortion in my region, 4) I am free to have an unnecessary, and invasive ultrasound if I consider an abortion , and 4) I am free to raise those babies without SNAP (stay tuned to the focus on decreasing those funds), without housing assistance, without educational assistance, and without subsidized childcare.

I am then free to live happily in a society where the same group of people who made all of those decisions which vastly affected my life will openly and with disdain call me a taker and speak as if I am not a valuable member of the society.

Is that about right...is that the free country you are promoting?

Specializes in Med/Surg, ICU.
I am free to have all the babies I want or need because my employer does not want to 1)pay for my health insurance 2) doesn't want my health insurance to pay for contraceptives 3) my community politicians made it impossible for me to obtain an abortion in my region, 4) I am free to have an unnecessary, and invasive ultrasound if I consider an abortion , and 4) I am free to raise those babies without SNAP (stay tuned to the focus on decreasing those funds), without housing assistance, without educational assistance, and without subsidized childcare.

I've never understood this line of thinking. The only way to prevent unwanted children is through abortion or employer funded birth control? How about, you are free to not have unprotected sex if pregnancy is not desired. Condoms are relatively cheap and often provided for free through many community organizations, use them. With the exception of rape/incest victims of course. You are free to have as many children as you want. Society has the reasonable expectation that you should provide adequately for each one though. However, there is no way to enforce that without taking away reproductive rights.

I've never understood this line of thinking. The only way to prevent unwanted children is through abortion or employer funded birth control? How about, you are free to not have unprotected sex if pregnancy is not desired. Condoms are relatively cheap and often provided for free through many community organizations, use them. With the exception of rape/incest victims of course. You are free to have as many children as you want. Society has the reasonable expectation that you should provide adequately for each one though. However, there is no way to enforce that without taking away reproductive rights.

I often wonder how people advocating the "just keep your legs closed" approach would react if the person they married chose that. Because, unless you're willing to have babies limited only by your biological ability, that's gonna place some serious limits on your sex life.

Condoms aren't perfectly effective. While far better than nothing, someone using them regularly over the course of several decades can expect to have an oops now and then.

Specializes in CVICU.
All I can say is wow...

So the prevailing thoughts on freedom in the USA today are...

I am free to die when I cannot afford health insurance.

I am free to work with "flexibility" for the employer without the benefit of overtime.

I am free to pay all of my taxes to support the entitlements of the wealthy while the wealthy legislators whittle away at my paid for benefits.

I am free to have all the babies I want or need because my employer does not want to 1)pay for my health insurance 2) doesn't want my health insurance to pay for contraceptives 3) my community politicians made it impossible for me to obtain an abortion in my region, 4) I am free to have an unnecessary, and invasive ultrasound if I consider an abortion , and 4) I am free to raise those babies without SNAP (stay tuned to the focus on decreasing those funds), without housing assistance, without educational assistance, and without subsidized childcare.

I am then free to live happily in a society where the same group of people who made all of those decisions which vastly affected my life will openly and with disdain call me a taker and speak as if I am not a valuable member of the society.

Is that about right...is that the free country you are promoting?

If this is a response to my post then clearly you did not read my post. And if you did you are either having difficulty placing it in the proper context or you simply do not understand what I am saying. Inherent "rights" are an existential question, not a simple healthcare question.

It seems you are more focused on a question of exchanges of goods and services based on tax contribution. If this is the case, then society deems that you should of course have access to te goods and services (healthcare included) that you help to fund.

Incidentally i am a huge proponent of government provided pharmaceutical birth control. I would happily pay the tax necessary in order to provide that service

Specializes in PICU, NICU, L&D, Public Health, Hospice.
If this is a response to my post then clearly you did not read my post. And if you did you are either having difficulty placing it in the proper context or you simply do not understand what I am saying. Inherent "rights" are an existential question, not a simple healthcare question.

It seems you are more focused on a question of exchanges of goods and services based on tax contribution. If this is the case, then society deems that you should of course have access to te goods and services (healthcare included) that you help to fund.

Incidentally i am a huge proponent of government provided pharmaceutical birth control. I would happily pay the tax necessary in order to provide that service

If my post had been a response directly to your post I would have indicated as such in some fashion, as I have done here and as you did in your post.

Do you have a comment, otherwise, about what I said?

Specializes in Emergency, ICU.
To deny a person access to healthcare is absolutely inhumane. So, yes, it is a right. And, yes, it is a civilized government's responsibility to ensure it's constituents have access. Our government can provide safe drinking water, an amazing interstate system and security for air travel. Heck, we can blow tons of money sending a rover to Mars of all things. There is no reason....none at all....that anybody should have to go without chemotherapy, a cast on a broken bone, birth control, or any type of preventive care. We should be embarrassed that in such a wealthy country we have not yet figured out how to provide in this manner for each other. I have a theory that it all just boils down to selfishness....good ol'....."I don't want you to have what I have unless you are worthy."

I pay a lot for insurance premiums at $1200 per month. I have to make sacrifices to pay that, obviously. I am lucky, however, that I at least have that much. I do not mind at all pitching in a few bucks to help out my fellow human being.

I, for one, am hopeful that the ACA will at least put a dent in this problem

^ thank you! Well said. I completely agree that health care is a human right. The WHO agrees with us too ;)

Sent from my iPhone using allnurses.com

Specializes in CVICU.
If my post had been a response directly to your post I would have indicated as such in some fashion, as I have done here and as you did in your post.

Do you have a comment, otherwise, about what I said?

You didn't really say anything at all. You just ranted.

Specializes in PICU, NICU, L&D, Public Health, Hospice.
You didn't really say anything at all. You just ranted.

When I list the presumed results of the "conservative" political agenda in a thread as a "real person" experience, it is a "rant"?

okay

I prefer to think of it as considering the costs of the political action on society before our "esteemed" political "leaders" force their ideals and the ideals of those who own them upon us, the masses, we the people.

To deny a person access to healthcare is absolutely inhumane. So, yes, it is a right. And, yes, it is a civilized government's responsibility to ensure it's constituents have access. Our government can provide safe drinking water, an amazing interstate system and security for air travel. Heck, we can blow tons of money sending a rover to Mars of all things. There is no reason....none at all....that anybody should have to go without chemotherapy, a cast on a broken bone, birth control, or any type of preventive care. We should be embarrassed that in such a wealthy country we have not yet figured out how to provide in this manner for each other. I have a theory that it all just boils down to selfishness....good ol'....."I don't want you to have what I have unless you are worthy."

I pay a lot for insurance premiums at $1200 per month. I have to make sacrifices to pay that, obviously. I am lucky, however, that I at least have that much. I do not mind at all pitching in a few bucks to help out my fellow human being.

I, for one, am hopeful that the ACA will at least put a dent in this problem

I doubt any rational person wants to deny necessary health care to somebody who really needs it, but we have been pounded by the media to believe that such people are everywhere (and of one political party). The media has done its job well (by its own current standards) as a large number of folks believe that.

The Affordable Care Act is yet another example of a law that was named in such a way that anybody who has actually read and opposes any part of it will be judged as "opposing health care". It is called marketing, and it has taken over the government that we pay for. :(

I am certain the ACA will "put a dent" in this problem", but, in the longer run, it may not be the kind of dent people are hoping for. ;)

Specializes in Critical Care.

While there's a argument to had as to whether it should be a right, I don't think it can be argued that in our society healthcare is overwhelmingly considered to be a "right". Convicts be definition have had all but the most basic rights taken away, yet they have a right to healthcare, so by definition it's one of our more basic rights. For non-convicts, the right to acute medical is provided by law, yet I don't hear much support for repealing EMTALA. While there's disagreement about the best way to manage it, medicare has overwhelming support and is considered by most on both sides of any political argument to be a mandate of a civilized society. So yes, it's clearly considered to be a "right".

+ Add a Comment