Should Healthcare Be Funded As A Basic Human Right?

This article looks at funding healthcare as a basic human right. It examines what is a basic human right. It looks at the need for re-examinaton of the health care system in the United States. Is health care a right or a privilege? By looking at the number of uninsured and who they are, we ask if everyone has the same access to health care. We examine traditional methods of funding and use the Medicare model as a framework. Nurses Activism Article

You are reading page 3 of Should Healthcare Be Funded As A Basic Human Right?

somenurse

470 Posts

Just jumping in, on page 4 or so, haven't read the previous 4 pages, and i have no idea if i am inserting this comment into some ongoing debate between a few ppl, or if some of those on AllNurses who are known for their love of polemics are engaging in rageful debate right now on this here page, but,

here's my two cents.

Should healthcare in the US be funded as a basic human right?

short answer YES YES YES!!

i haven't yet read entire article, as i have read much on this over the years, hard to find a point i haven't yet read or considered,

but, this line jumped out at me:

//" Among developed nations, the U.S. stands nearly alone in our failure to accept healthcare as a human right largely due to characteristic American ideologies of individualism and self-determination, distrust of government, and reliance on the private sector to address social concerns."//

Uhm, a giant huge reason that USA stands alone in providing national healthcare to it's citizens, is,

cuz USA also stands alone in spending over 60% of it's budget on military. No other nation comes anywhere close to that outrageous level of military spending.

This is more a matter of priorities for USA, having giant overblown military,

vs

providing healthcare to it's citizens like everyone else does.

Also, re: the distrust of govt, lol, some of this attitude is so unfounded, like the protest signs which read, "Keep your govt out of my medicare!" and stuff. We americans are not always the most informed of voters, as most news today is sooooooooooo slanted, that many of us are spoonfed our "own" ideologies, and stay fairly 'fact-free' in formng our conclusions.

actually, there are several lines on this article i could chew on for a while, but, just wanted to put in my voice for the YES YES YES side of things.

good bye!

I think it's difficult to discuss such a generalized terms as "healthcare". Most people might agree that erectile dysfunction treatment is not a "right", fewer might agree that an emergent cardiac cath for a STEMI is a not a "right", but I don't know too many who would say that the dying STEMI patient doesn't at least have the right to a little morphine while they die, most would call that basic human decency. I'm guessing you were over-exaggerating when you claimed there's no part of healthcare that could be considered a "right" by the vast majority of society.

I'm not saying the person in need of the STEMI should be ignored. That would be wrong. I'm saying that that person should be responsible for somehow paying for it sometime in the future. It should not fall on the government (meaning the rest of the taxpayers) to pay for this. Perhaps they can work it off or make decades of payments at 0% interest, but it should not fall on the rest of us. Let's be careful not to confuse "Rights" with "Morals." It is moral for me to give money to a needy homeless man, it is not his right to expect it.

As with anything, there will be those who successfully work the system, but it's not "many millions". I have met many a medicaid patient and for most part these are good, responsible people. For instance having more than 1 car per family is typically an automatic reason to deny medicaid benefits. Total assets beyond clothes and other necessities cannot exceed usually around $6000 per family. Monthly income for a family of 4 usually cannot exceed about $650. Raising a family of 4 on $600 a month, now that's the high life.

It IS many millions. Of course no census survey will be titled "Number of Americans who game the system." Look up statistics on the length of time many citizens stay on medicaid. I also want to be ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that I've never said that medicaid recipients are not good people. Many of them are. I said that many of them are users of the system and have failed at being independent ADULTS. And that is not an insult, it is a fact. After all, the very word "Independent" means to depend on no outside sources.

Also yes, there are strict financial requirements for being accepted to medicaid. But they are so, so easily circumvented. An example is that many medicaid recipients do have more than one car and more than $6k in assets. BUT, this second car is in their mother's, or anyone they can trust who does not reside with them's name. But it's still parked in front of their house or apt, is it not. THEY use it while the one who registered it in their name will have to ask them if they can borrow it. And I believe that you have forgotten that no one actually raises a family of 4 on $600 a month, because if they only make that, or in the ballpark of that, they are likely receiving supplemental income from the government anyway plus section 8 or something similar that pays dwelling costs.

Please,let's look at the whole picture and not defend our positions with half truths, deal?

I hope this clears some things up for the "PC" crowd

MunoRN, RN

8,058 Posts

Specializes in Critical Care.

Just to make that last post easier to read:

I think it's difficult to discuss such a generalized terms as "healthcare". Most people might agree that erectile dysfunction treatment is not a "right", fewer might agree that an emergent cardiac cath for a STEMI is a not a "right", but I don't know too many who would say that the dying STEMI patient doesn't at least have the right to a little morphine while they die, most would call that basic human decency. I'm guessing you were over-exaggerating when you claimed there's no part of healthcare that could be considered a "right" by the vast majority of society.

I'm not saying the person in need of the STEMI should be ignored. That would be wrong. I'm saying that that person should be responsible for somehow paying for it sometime in the future. It should not fall on the government (meaning the rest of the taxpayers) to pay for this. Perhaps they can work it off or make decades of payments at 0% interest, but it should not fall on the rest of us. Let's be careful not to confuse "Rights" with "Morals. It is moral for me to give money to a needy homeless man, it is not his right to expect it.

As with anything, there will be those who successfully work the system, but it's not "many millions". I have met many a medicaid patient and for most part these are good, responsible people. For instance having more than 1 car per family is typically an automatic reason to deny medicaid benefits. Total assets beyond clothes and other necessities cannot exceed usually around $6000 per family. Monthly income for a family of 4 usually cannot exceed about $650. Raising a family of 4 on $600 a month, now that's the high life.

It IS many millions. Of course no census survey will be titled "Number of Americans who game the system." Look up statistics on the length of time many citizens stay on medicaid. I also want to be ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that I've never said that medicaid recipients are not good people. Many of them are. I said that many of them are users of the system and have failed at being independent ADULTS. And that is not an insult, it is a fact. After all, the very word "Independent" means to depend on no outside sources.

Also yes, there are strict financial requirements for being accepted to medicaid. But they are so, so easily circumvented. An example is that many medicaid do have more than one car and more than $6k in assetts. BUT, this second car is in their mother's, or anyone they can trust who does not reside with them's name. But it still is in front of their house or apt is it not. THEY use it while the one who registered it in their name will have to ask them if they can borrow it. And I believe that you have forgotten that no one actually raises a family of 4 on $600 a month, because if they make less than that, they are likely receiving supplemental income from the government anyway plus section 8 or something similar that pays dwelling costs.

Let's look at the whole picture and not defend out positions with half truths, deal?

I hope this clears some things up for the "PC" crowd

Please do not call 911 like ever. We fund "this or that" police and firefighter services. Also, when your house catches on fire because your neighbor's is also on fire, please do not call your homeowners insurance first off.

*sigh* Come on, now. "911" is a necessary expenditure. Obviously it is not included in "This or that." And as for calling the insurance company if my house caught fire, well I sure will because I pay the premium to the insurance company.

And by "This or that" I was talking about the ridiculous programs that are not necessities that the government pays for (For instance, I read up a few days ago on a program called "Does Jesus care for Klingons..." it cost just over a million $. YES, I'm serious. Those are the things we shouldn't be funding.

I hope this clarifies things :)

MunoRN, RN

8,058 Posts

Specializes in Critical Care.
I'm not saying the person in need of the STEMI should be ignored. That would be wrong. I'm saying that that person should be responsible for somehow paying for it sometime in the future. It should not fall on the government (meaning the rest of the taxpayers) to pay for this. Perhaps they can work it off or make decades of payments at 0% interest, but it should not fall on the rest of us. Let's be careful not to confuse "Rights" with "Morals." It is moral for me to give money to a needy homeless man, it is not his right to expect it.

Everyone is responsible for paying in the future, it doesn't change the fact that many never will be able to, no matter how well intentioned they may be. Healthcare costs are the leading cause of bankruptcy claims, which means we'll never see that bill paid. The problems is that a $100,000 hospital bill isn't the same as paying off the cost of someone's window that you broke, which is why most of us have health insurance; there's no way we could pay those costs if we incurred them, given that, it's even less likely that someone with a low-paying, non insurance providing job is going to be able to pay that off within their lifetime.

For most of the unpaid bills that we end up splitting the cost on, the only way to ensure that the rest of us don't end up paying the bill is to deny that service in the first place.

It IS many millions. Of course no census survey will be titled "Number of Americans who game the system." Look up statistics on the length of time many citizens stay on medicaid. I also want to be ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that I've never said that medicaid recipients are not good people. Many of them are. I said that many of them are users of the system and have failed at being independent ADULTS. And that is not an insult, it is a fact. After all, the very word "Independent" means to depend on no outside sources.

Many people do stay on medicaid for a very long time, their called "disabled" and "elderly". In terms of the poor, poverty is not condition that just magically resolves on it's own. If you work at Wal-Mart it's not as though your below-poverty-level pay is temporary, if you work there for 10 years you'll still be poor.

Also yes, there are strict financial requirements for being accepted to medicaid. But they are so, so easily circumvented. An example is that many medicaid recipients dohave more than one car and more than $6k in assets. BUT, this second car is in their mother's, or anyone they can trust who does not reside with them's name. But it's still parked in front of their house or apt, is it not. THEY use it while the one who registered it in their name will have to ask them if they can borrow it. And I believe that you have forgotten that no one actually raises a family of 4 on $600 a month, because if they only make that, or in the ballpark of that, they are likely receiving supplemental income from the government anyway plus section 8 or something similar that pays dwelling costs.

Please,let's look at the whole picture and not defend our positions with half truths, deal?

Yes, families of 4 making $600 a month do receive assistance, including medicare, I'm still not clear if you're saying they shouldn't be?

bbuerke

36 Posts

Specializes in Oncology.

"For instance, I read up a few days ago on a program called "Does Jesus care for Klingons..." it cost just over a million $."

It was one session of a larger workshop run by the DOD that totaled $100,000, and it was entitled "Did Jesus die for Klingons, Too?", discussing the implications of Christianity if life is discovered on other planets. Somewhere out there Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith are snapping to attention...

In all seriousness though, this question of healthcare as a right really does come back to where we as a nation want to place our values. I am always torn over this, as the compassionate side of me bristles at the thought of anyone suffering for want of money/insurance coverage. Then the practical side of me kicks in, and I realize that all the best intentions in the world don't mean much when you don't have the means to pay for it. With no money, there's no mission. Here's my reference:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49844670/Did_Jesus_Die_for_Klingons_Too_The_Pentagon_Wants_to_Know

VICEDRN, BSN, RN

1,078 Posts

Specializes in ER.
I just read a NYT piece about the Oregon study. Given my background in epidemiology and biostatistics, I was impressed with the "randomized controlled trial" nature of the work, but at the end of the day, it is looking at self-perception of health and a little deeper analysis of access, not actual health outcomes. It is a good start, but it is just a start.

This is the bit I am waiting to see: "The study is now in its next phase, an assessment of the health effects of having insurance. The researchers interviewed 12,000 people — 6,000 who received Medicaid and 6,000 who did not — and measured things like blood pressure, cholesterol and weight." THAT will be better analysis of the actual effectiveness of the care received by people who did not previously have insurance. Access is not the same as results. There are many studies about how more health care doesn't necessarily mean better outcomes (Google pretty much anything by Elliot Fisher, Gil Welch, Steve Woloshin, and Lisa Schwartz to learn about that). I'm glad the conversation has started, but the Oregon study just doesn't prove that people are healthier because they have Medicaid coverage.

Before I found that article, I had read a piece published this past July discussing another study by the authors who did the Oregon study. This was another well-designed study that compared mortality rates between states that had increased Medicaid enrollment and states that did not increase enrollment. It found a decrease in mortality in states that had increased enrollment. It looked at numbers on a county-by-county basis, not a patient-by-patient basis. The study adjusted for very important factors, such as age, sex, race, employment status, and income. Again, this was done at the population level, not for individuals.

The authors acknowledge that the second study does not show--and was not designed to show--a CAUSAL relationship between increased Medicaid enrollment and decreased mortality. Furthermore, it is pointed out that the only state where a STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT effect was found was New York, meaning that improvements in mortality rate in the other states might have improved that much randomly, irrespective of changes in Medicaid.

These distinctions matter a great deal. I'm going to try to download the actual studies for both of these to dig further into their design and results. It is possible that the coming study mentioned above will show an association between increasing coverage and better outcomes, or it may not. I'm not trying to keep poor Americans out of the doctor's office and the hospital (unless it's because of effective preventive care!), but my goal for my patients and others is better health, not more trips to the doctor.

Again, you pick and choose what you respond to. You said people would game the system of they could and I tell you that they don't but you ignore them. As a consequence, I am not surprised that you pick and choose what you want to hear about research as well. The fact is patients get better care when they are funded and further studies will simply demonstrate that.

As for causation and correlation, you have a background in epidemiology then you already know that causation is almost impossible to prove in research. Correlation is pretty much as close as we will get most of the time. I think munorn and I just had this discussion. Shocking how many people do not understand this basic truth of research!

Another example: women who have completely free access to birth control as teens have incredibly lower birth rates. (A study done in Missouri).

How are any of you (who are all sadly nurses) planning on addressing public health problems like herd immunity/vaccination? How about the societal costs of disabled children of mothers who get no prenatal care? Bottom line: 98% of the world knows that care is cheaper when we pool resources. Just one we do with fire and police as fires are a public safety concern.

VICEDRN, BSN, RN

1,078 Posts

Specializes in ER.

*sigh* Come on, now. "911" is a necessary expenditure. Obviously it is not included in "This or that." And as for calling the insurance company if my house caught fire, well I sure will because I pay the premium to the insurance company.

And by "This or that" I was talking about the ridiculous programs that are not necessities that the government pays for (For instance, I read up a few days ago on a program called "Does Jesus care for Klingons..." it cost just over a million $. YES, I'm serious. Those are the things we shouldn't be funding.

I hope this clarifies things :)

We publicly fight fires because it can spread from house to house as health epidemics do. No point in vaccinating your child if the 19 other kids in the class doesn't have a vaccine. The theory is exactly the same!!

Pets to People

131 Posts

I swear, the sense of entitlement in this country is absolutely mind boggling. And I don't want to hear that some people cant afford it. The ones who TRULY can't afford it qualify for medicaid.

Incredible!!!

Wow, incredible is right! How dare the people of this country have the nerve to expect some of their tax dollars be spent on ensuring their health and thus continued investment into this countrys future economy. We already put in the tax dollars...I can't even imagine how most of our tax dollars are actually spent.

And it amazes me how so many people think medicaid covers everyone who needs it, well I've got a surprise for you, it covers a lot less people you think. Me for one...as a matter of fact I could go out now and get two low wage jobs (all I would qualify for now until I graduate/I am a full-time RN student) and still not be able to afford health insurance. Medicare require a person to make about 25% of poverty level or less to qualify...between me and my husband we make about $700 a month and we do not qualify, not even close.

I am worried about graduating and being able to manage my job until I qualify for insurance because I have been having a lot of joint problems the past year. I am only in my thirties yet I have severe bilateral plantar fasciitis and my right hip joint has a deep ache that I feel in my bone all the way down the my knee and together it makes it impossible for me to even walk around the grocery store without limping. I know have carpal tunnel in both of my wrists, especially my right one, which has made it difficult for me to even right notes in class. And I have had flare ups in my left shoulder and right elbow that have left me in tears. Sometimes I can't fall asleep because my wrists are aching so bad. I am not excercising or straining my joints in any way so I don't know what is going on. NSAIDS and heat/ice help, but it never goes away.

Now what if I didn't have the possibility of insurance once I graduate? I wouldn't be able to find out what was actually wrong with me and persue possible treatment...instead I would have to self medicate with NSAIDS until the pain became too much and then would come the visits to the ER because I can't afford the $60 exam fee required by the local doctor office and then the pain pills...and since pain pills won't cure the problem, it will only get worse, leading to tolerance and dependence and so on. I will become angry and bitter and hateful and frustrated and my life would revolve around my pain pills....hmmmm, sound like any patients you may have come across?

Pets to People

131 Posts

Then don't worry, because most of them ARE perfectly willing to stay poor and take the free bees. QUOTE]

Most don't want to stay poor, but it is VERY difficult to come off of government assistance unless you make a big change, such as graduate from college or obtain some other type of employment that pays more than $9-$10/hr, which is more than what most people on assistance could ever obtain anyhow. I will give you a real life example and that is of my family.

As I mentioned before me and my husband are full-time students, my husband switched to working from a job that paid only minimum wage to one that paid a whole $9/hr. We lost all but maybe $100 of our food stamps, which is for three people, he now had to pay an extra $60-80 per week to cover gas to get to his job which is in the next town, which is where the only jobs around here are. So to make a long story short, his switching jobs to one that made more money left us IN THE HOLE...we couldn't even afford to feed ourselves.

Pets to People

131 Posts

You see this? The last part of your quote really says it all. But let me ask you this-Why should a grown adult even have to be coaxed to "Try harder" and take care of themselves vice having the rest of society take care of them? They are not being "Penalized" by losing a free bee. They are simply being taken off their cushion and being put on the same keel of others who do not qualify for the free bee.

Oh, I don't know...maybe it has something to do with the people suffering daily health problems that they can't get taken care of because they don't have insurance, such as overwhelming depression because of the struggles they are going through, perhaps it could also have to do with the fact that they can't improve themselves without some type of education, which involves a time commitment many don't have because they are most likely working well over 40 hours per week if not working more than one job and may be a single mother with no one to help with kids and housework so she can do homework after working a ten hour day. Many don't know they can do any better because their life is all they know and is passed down through the family, they don't know the resources available to them, they are completely overwhelmed and feel helpless...the list goes on....the world is not black and white PRICHARILLA.

This misperception that everyone who is poor is just lazy and looking for a handout is rampant and wrong, maybe you should get down here in the trenches with me and see for youself instead of sitting up on your high horse and judging people you know nothing about accept what you see on TV or hear from other people whose opinion mirrors your own. I mean, everyone who is fat is just lazy too, right?

Specializes in Trauma.
Look at the study done in oregon when they did a medicaid lottery. there are better outcomes here in this country for patients that are funded...

second, arguing the legality of the law is kind of silly when the president is a professor of consitutional law, don't you think?

That is a myth that keeps getting repeated.

In an Aug. 8, 2004, column in the Chicago Sun-Times they criticized Obama for calling himself a professor when, in fact, the University of Chicago faculty page listed him as "a senior lecturer (now on leave)."