Should Healthcare Be Funded As A Basic Human Right? - page 3

by jayp 39,196 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. 5
    Quote from wannabecnl

    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.
    Did you look at England and Germany? You can buy private insurance in England. About 8% of people do. It really isn't worth it to them to do so. They are generally satisfied with their care.

    In Germany, when you reach the top income tier, you opt into another level of insurance but Germans actively try to avoid this or they don't take advantage because it embarrasses them to act like health care is more than a right.

    Let me know when you had looked at that study regarding health outcomes for funded Americans.
    silenced, VanLpn, dawnma, and 2 others like this.
  2. 9
    I grew up poor in Appalachia. No running water or bathroom (I am under 60 by the way). We were raised to work hard, help others and not ask for handouts. Before becoming a nurse, I had a child with a terminal illness and no money. Yet we found away with the help of God and CHOP to give him the best care possible. I raised a family, without insurance for the larger part of their lives. Healthcare is not a right. We are not guaranteed medical coverage. Because of entitlements, we have become a nation waiting for the next handout. Our citizens have forgotten their pride.
    This is not Canada, Great Britain or another European Country. Basically, if you need the services of a doctor or hospital, then you make arrangements to pay the bill. My daddy raised 5 kids on nothing and managed to pay his bills. Maybe we need to get back to basics and have a little pride.
  3. 5
    Quote from neurorn6
    I grew up poor in Appalachia. No running water or bathroom (I am under 60 by the way). We were raised to work hard, help others and not ask for handouts. Before becoming a nurse, I had a child with a terminal illness and no money. Yet we found away with the help of God and CHOP to give him the best care possible. I raised a family, without insurance for the larger part of their lives. Healthcare is not a right. We are not guaranteed medical coverage. Because of entitlements, we have become a nation waiting for the next handout. Our citizens have forgotten their pride.
    This is not Canada, Great Britain or another European Country. Basically, if you need the services of a doctor or hospital, then you make arrangements to pay the bill. My daddy raised 5 kids on nothing and managed to pay his bills. Maybe we need to get back to basics and have a little pride.
    Could not agree more.

    I think it could work only if the American people took better care of themselves.
    But most want a magic pill to take all the problems away.
    Comparing our country with other that have government health care is not the same. The average american doesn't know what the inside of thier local gym looks like, and practically no one knows what eating healthy really is...just what " a better alternative choices" are according to the label...if even that.

    Let everyone that supports free health care work for free...actions not words
    Last edit by eroc on Dec 4, '12
  4. 4
    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.
  5. 4
    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!
    VanLpn, tewdles, nrsang97, and 1 other like this.
  6. 4
    Quote from MunoRN
    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
    Last edit by PRICHARILLAisMISSED on Dec 4, '12
  7. 0
    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.

    Quote from PRICHARILLAisMISSED
    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.
    Quote from PRICHARILLAisMISSED
    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.

    Quote from PRICHARILLAisMISSED
    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?
    Quote from PRICHARILLAisMISSED
    I hope this clears some things up for the "PC" crowd
  8. 1
    Quote from VICEDRN
    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
    jeannepaul likes this.
  9. 1
    Quote from PRICHARILLAisMISSED
    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.

    Quote from PRICHARILLAisMISSED
    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.

    Quote from PRICHARILLAisMISSED
    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?
    kms_rn likes this.
  10. 1
    "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
    eroc likes this.


Top