Should Healthcare Be Funded As A Basic Human Right? - page 2

by jayp 38,545 Views | 210 Comments

The United States of America is a nation known and heralded worldwide for its democracy, freedom, and wealth. Through our commerce, we have become a prosperous nation. Through our commonalities we stand united. Through our... Read More


  1. 2
    Quote from loriangel14
    This topic was already discussed ad nauseum not to long ago and it got into a mud slinging match. Let's not go there again.
    @ loriangel14

    But the topic actually IS about this. It is asking whether or not healthcare should be funded as a basic human right. There really is no way around it this time. I doubt even the "Peace keepers"
    (Hi Admin ) would really want to step in on this one. That would be like interrupting a topic on specialty recommendations by telling posters that speaking of ICU and Nephrology is off limits.

    Besides, these are the types of discussions that let some of the nurses speak up and give an actual opinion, unlike at work where they're expected to act like things are ok just because "they have always been done that way."
    lorirn58 and jeannepaul like this.
  2. 2
    As you discuss this topic, please do so keeping in mind the Terms of Service.

    We promote the idea of lively debate. This means you are free to disagree with anyone on any type of subject matter as long as your criticism is constructive and polite. Additionally, please refrain from name-calling. This is divisive, rude, and derails the thread.


    Our first priority is to the members that have come here because of the flame-free atmosphere we provide. There is a zero-tolerance policy here against personal attacks. We will not tolerate anyone insulting other's opinion nor name calling.
    loriangel14 and brian like this.
  3. 7
    Quote from PRICHARILLAisMISSED
    Access to healthcare should be a basic human right, sure. But no. Funding of healthcare should not be. And please don't come back at me with something like "Well, we fund this or that..." because I don't care. We probably shouldn't be funding "This or that" either.
    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.

    Quote from PRICHARILLAisMISSED
    I swear, the sense of entitlement in this country is absolutely mind boggling. People.... An individual's insurance plan is supposed to fund their access to health care. And I don't want to hear that some people cant afford it. The ones who TRULY can't afford it qualify for medicaid. Hell, how many millions of our citizens cry poverty, yet they sure can afford to have 2 cars and damn cable TV! WITH PREMIUM CHANNELS AND HIGH SPEED INTERNET!

    Incredible!!!
    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 necessites 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.
    MandaRN94, dawnma, tewdles, and 4 others like this.
  4. 13
    Most of my family lives in Europe/Germany. All I know is that they pay signifantly less (per capita) for health care than we do here in America and - more importantly - they have an longer average life span.

    I wish more Americans would realize we do not have the best health care system.
    MandaRN94, sharonp30, silenced, and 10 others like this.
  5. 8
    I don't care to choose a side for this debate, but here's my story:

    preface: I'm a veteran and a single mom. My son's dad is nowhere around and pays no support, so for me childcare for work and school all has to be paid for by me. Some people at work have another adult at home to stay with their kids, or they work when their kids are at their other parent's house. Not me, it's just me and my 8 year old son. (I have 2 older kids, but no longer living with me, my daughter has her own family and my son followed my footsteps and joined the Navy).

    Story: After the military, I have worked various customer service and waitressing jobs. I started school to become a nurse and soon after, divorce was filed and I was on my own. I applied for medicare for my son when my ex moved away and lost his insurance (I didn't apply for myself, I qualify for VA care, but I don't think my state gives medicaid to non-pregnant adults between the ages of 18-65 anyway.) When I applied, they told me I was well under the poverty line and qualified for food stamps as well and gave them to me. (Yay for us, we were able to eat more than just ramen!) I continued school and waitressing for the rest of my sophomore year. In the summer, I landed a student nurse/aide job at the hospital, I was SO excited. By the end of Summer though, I was dropped from public assistance because I made too much money. During the school year, I can't work a lot of hours, clinical schedules are hectic and I hardly see my son or keep up on schoolwork as it is. I reapplied for medical assistance for my son. I didn't ask for the foodstamps (again, I never asked the first time) but was declined the medicaid because the state feels I am able to work like I did during the Summer since I still hold the position and the hours are available for me to work. Over the next Summer, my work wanted me to work overnights. I couldn't get childcare for 20 hours a day (12 hr overnight shift then 6-8 hrs of daytime sleeping) so I was not able to maintain full time hours. We are broke, but I figure it out and we get by with no help from public assistance. I use school loans to supplement my income. To heat our house. To pay for my son's vaccines. To buy lots of brown rice because it's cheap and healthy. We don't have cable TV and I use a prepaid cell-phone. I drive a 17 year old car to and from my clinicals, with my brown bag lunch in the seat next to me. I will graduate this upcoming May and at the rate I spend/save now will be able to return some loan money and start paying the rest off and will get health insurance through my employer. We'll still eat rice.

    So, now, on to mandatory healthcare: If I had mandatory healthcare, my son wouldn't have missed his well child checkup last year. At least I have enough clinical skills to be able to know he's pretty healthy. But then again, if we move to a 'healthcare as a right' system, how will that affect HCPs pay? I certainly didn't get into nursing for the money, but I am going to rely on half my paycheck to pay off my student loans so I for one certainly can't afford a pay cut if one comes.

    It's a vicious circle, a double edged sword. As a user of the system, a victim of the system, and a victor over the system, I know reform is required, I just don't know where it must begin.
    sharonp30, tewdles, freki, and 5 others like this.
  6. 5
    When I was in nursing school, my class was divided between those who believed in a more public system (akin to Canada or the UK) vs those of us who did not want the government that involved in healthcare. I will repeat what I said then:

    First, framing this argument as a rights issue is ignoring one basic fact: healthcare IS, like it or not, also a commodity. Do you work for free? Does the electric company give power for free to your hospital or place of employment? Are the bandages and other supplies donated? In most cases, I suspect the answers are No, No, No. It costs money to provide care. It just does. Now, you may not think the poor should pay that money, but someone is paying for it, and it isn't suddenly going to get cheaper when the government is in the middle of it. So let's stop calling it free care, because it is not.

    My second argument during our policy class was this: if you think that a two-tiered system exists now, wait until Obamacare kicks in. It may not be legal, but that doesn't mean it won't happen. If a patient is willing to pay a $5000 bonus to have his/her CABG in 2 days rather than in 2 months, how long before s/he finds a surgeon willing to take the bonus and change the schedule? And isn't it the patient's right to spend the money how s/he wishes? If an aging relative needs in-home care that is not covered by Medicare or its equivalent, and if that person or family has money to pay for the service, you can bet that a licensed nurse will fill that need. Isn't that the nurse's right, too, to work within his/her scope of practice as a private duty nurse? Unless the government is going to take away every person's disposable income (look at the former Soviet Union, where people's homes, food, and clothing were all paid for, but it cost a month's wages to afford one pair of shoes), it's unrealistic to think that a tiered system will not persist.

    Finally, people have argued about better health outcomes in nations with a more socialized healthcare system. You have to look at all the factors that go into the supposedly causal relationship, because it's not always clear. Yes, we may have a higher infant mortality rate than some other first-world countries, but do the studies all account for preemies and multiples resulting from IVF that may be more prevalent here? Do other outcomes account for smoking rates, obesity rates, nutrition (not just "we're the richest country so we must have superior nutrition": I'm talking about Big Macs and soft drinks vs. fish and red wine), ethnic diversity (such as African American people having higher rates of hypertension and responding to different medications), sexual health, etc.? Giving everyone "free" healthcare is not going to equalize these causal factors unless, again, the government is allowed to come into our homes and force us to eat, drink, sleep, have sex, and work according to some standard.

    Once a tax is in place, it's almost impossible to get rid of it. Let's not force this through because it feels good to do so without considering the realities and implications.
    jeannepaul, HM-8404, bbuerke, and 2 others like this.
  7. 4
    Quote from PRICHARILLAisMISSED
    Then don't worry, because most of them ARE perfectly willing to stay poor and take the free bees. And remember, medicaid IS a free bee. So "No," I don't feel bad when they lose it because they now make more money than the required minimum to qualify for it. Now THEY get to see what it's like to pay others' way while also paying their own. You know, like the rest of us.

    And as for these single parents bettering themselves and losing the benefits because of it, why don't we fix that problem instead adding to our already too long list of handouts...
    As was mentioned by someone else, ACCESS should be given but not necessarily FUNDING. I was one of those single parents bettering myself. I went to nursing school when my son was in kindergarten. I was a single mom, going to school 40 hours a week, and started out waiting tables two nights a week. I was told that I made too much money to qualify for Medicaid (my son was approved for coverage but not me). Medicaid isn't given just because you ask for it. I received zero child support from my ex. I wound up having to work part-time at my son's daycare center, so there were days when I'd only see him in the mornings before school and kissing his sleeping face goodnight when I finally got home. I had no health insurance for that year but I did have access to health care. I had to spend 8 hours in the ER with bleeding and diarrhea and I'm still paying that bill. I was never willing to stay poor to collect the freebies, that's why I put myself through nursing school--so I could support myself and my child and NOT have to rely on assistance.
    sharonp30, tewdles, jeannepaul, and 1 other like this.
  8. 6
    Quote from PRICHARILLAisMISSED
    Access to healthcare should be a basic human right, sure. But no. Funding of healthcare should not be. And please don't come back at me with something like "Well, we fund this or that..." because I don't care. We probably shouldn't be funding "This or that" either.

    I swear, the sense of entitlement in this country is absolutely mind boggling. People.... An individual's insurance plan is supposed to fund their access to health care. And I don't want to hear that some people cant afford it. The ones who TRULY can't afford it qualify for medicaid. Hell, how many millions of our citizens cry poverty, yet they sure can afford to have 2 cars and damn cable TV! WITH PREMIUM CHANNELS AND HIGH SPEED INTERNET!

    Incredible!!!
    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.
    sharonp30, silenced, VanLpn, and 3 others like this.
  9. 0
    Quote from wannabecnl
    When I was in nursing school, my class was divided between those who believed in a more public system (akin to Canada or the UK) vs those of us who did not want the government that involved in healthcare. I will repeat what I said then:

    First, framing this argument as a rights issue is ignoring one basic fact: healthcare IS, like it or not, also a commodity. Do you work for free? Does the electric company give power for free to your hospital or place of employment? Are the bandages and other supplies donated? In most cases, I suspect the answers are No, No, No. It costs money to provide care. It just does. Now, you may not think the poor should pay that money, but someone is paying for it, and it isn't suddenly going to get cheaper when the government is in the middle of it. So let's stop calling it free care, because it is not.



    Once a tax is in place, it's almost impossible to get rid of it. Let's not force this through because it feels good to do so without considering the realities and implications.

    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?
  10. 2
    Quote from VICEDRN
    second, arguing the legality of the law is kind of silly when the president is a professor of consitutional law, don't you think?
    I'm not arguing the constitutionality of the law. I'm merely saying that as long as people have disposable income, they will find a way to get what they value. If they want health care beyond the mandated/provided level and can pay for it, they will create a demand for that care, and someone will step in to supply that care at a mutually-acceptable price. Call it a second tier, a black market, or supply-and-demand economics, but regardless, it will exist.
    bbuerke and PRICHARILLAisMISSED like this.


Top