Should Healthcare Be Funded As A Basic Human Right? - page 6

by jayp

32,251 Unique 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. 3
    If you have never worked in an ER, then I suggest that you take the opportunity to visit one. This nation's ER's are overrun with people who don't see a doctor on a regular basis, who come in because they need an excuse for work (called out on friday and now it's sunday night or monday morning), drunks, drug seekers and a few mother's to be who haven't had any prenatel care. I know that I sound hard hearted, but ER's have become 24 hour Urgent Care.
    People refuse to go to the county health dept and wait to be seen. People can't afford to have a regular doctor because of the cost of the visit, and so on and so forth. Too many times, I have seen patient's who just don't seem to have any common sense.
    To me, it just seems like we need to get back to the basics.
    GM2RN, lindarn, and PRICHARILLAisMISSED like this.
  2. 3
    Quote from PRICHARILLAisMISSED
    Semantics aside, until said "moral" is officially recognized as a "right", a moral it remains...
    That's the problem, we do recognize healthcare as a right but also not as a right as the same time, which is the root of many of our problems.

    The bulk of our healthcare costs are due to treatment of both acute illnesses (hospitalizations) and "high maintenance" treatment of chronic conditions (frequent hospitalizations and patients requiring full time care such as SNF's). All of these patients already have a "right" to care, whether it be through EMTALA or guaranteed coverage of chronic illnesses defined as "disabilities".

    So basically we've said we, as a society, view the cardiac cath or open heart surgery for the patient having an MI as a right, both of which are very expensive, add on the potential need for long term treatment of complications and you could be talking $1 million in care.

    Yet for whatever reason, we are unable to connect treatment of CAD in the form of open heart surgery with treatment of CAD in the form of preventative care. If we've decided treatment of CAD is a right, there we should be just as willing to treated early as we are to treat it late, but instead we chose to call it a "right" once it has gotten really, really expensive. Personally, given the choice, I'd rather pay for the much cheaper preventative care if I'm going to get stuck sharing the bill for the open heart surgery, but for whatever reason we'd rather help pay the really expensive bill and not the cheaper one.
    nrsang97, lindarn, and martinalpn like this.
  3. 1
    Quote from PRICHARILLAisMISSED
    Ok, It's not that I'm trying to insult you, I swear I'm not but this is very naive. To be clear, it is not ONLY elderly and disabled citizens who stay on medicaid for a very long time. Many of the recipients are able bodied, but do all they can to stay on it. I'll visit this quote in detail in another post. I don't want to crowd this one.
    Of course people try and take advantage of the system, I don't think anyone disagrees we should work to prevent this, but just preventing everyone from getting assistance isn't the answer. There are those who try and take advantage of the fact that we treat pain with opiates, does that mean we should stop treating patients in pain with opiates all together?

    Quote from PRICHARILLAisMISSED
    That is a discussion for a different topic. I was simply addressing one of your comments. You lead me to believe that families of 4 who qualified for medicaid made $600 a month or less. I was simply bringing to your attention that the $600 a month is also (SIGNIFICANTLY) bolstered through other social programs.
    Still not sure where you're going with that. You're argument seems to be that it's not really that bad that some families only make $600 a month since they also get government assistance, yet you also seem to be arguing that they shouldn't get government assistance
    nrsang97 likes this.
  4. 1
    Quote from neurorn6
    If you have never worked in an ER, then I suggest that you take the opportunity to visit one. This nation's ER's are overrun with people who don't see a doctor on a regular basis, who come in because they need an excuse for work (called out on friday and now it's sunday night or monday morning), drunks, drug seekers and a few mother's to be who haven't had any prenatel care. I know that I sound hard hearted, but ER's have become 24 hour Urgent Care.
    People refuse to go to the county health dept and wait to be seen. People can't afford to have a regular doctor because of the cost of the visit, and so on and so forth. Too many times, I have seen patient's who just don't seem to have any common sense.
    To me, it just seems like we need to get back to the basics.
    That's what we're shooting for. The response to the argument for Universal coverage has always been that we don't need Universal coverage; we have ER's. Getting back to more preventative care would be the main advantage of universal coverage.
    nrsang97 likes this.
  5. 2
    Quote from PRICHARILLAisMISSED
    Back to this...

    The first thing that popped into my head when I read this was an incident in by BUS 101 class way back when. For extra credit one of my classmates brought in her boss to tell us about his profession. He was a Bankruptcy lawyer (can anyone see where this is going?). Anyway, at the end of his schpeel (did I spell that right?) our Professor wanted us to ask him at least 5 non "Yes or no" questions. I was one of the lucky students who was picked to ask a question. My question was

    "How do you justify helping some prick erase his accumulated debt? I mean he took the credit out, and by signing contracts he gave his word he would pay it back. How is that fair to the creditors?" He didn't answer me directly. His response was "Well what do you say about the single mother whose savings are completely wiped out by her childs cancer?" I rolled my eyes and asked him what percentage of his clients were in financial straits due to medical reasons (the ONLY acceptable excuse in my opinion) vs sheer irresponsibility? Hah, if you could see the look on his face! The Professor saw that the man was getting reeaaally uncomfortable and interrupted by thanking him for stopping by.

    Anyway, that's what I thought of when I read the above quote. I think you readers can see how this happened.

    Admin, please don't erase this post for going off topic, as it actually reflects the topic. You see, it is the above way of thinking that pushes for the nonsense of Government funded healthcare as a right. The people mean well, but while they advocate for the group of people who deserve it, they eventually group all people whether deserving or not into the "Deserving" group.

    And that is how mistakes that cost the middle class are made.
    You lost me here, are you saying healthcare costs aren't a major cause of bankruptcies? Study Links Medical Costs and Personal Bankruptcy - Businessweek
    Medical bills prompt more than 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies - CNN
    nrsang97 and lindarn like this.
  6. 4
    I would like healthcare for all people. I have never in my life earned enough money to have healthcare.
    Preventive Medicine would save us all a great deal in the end.
    100-200 dollars a month is a conservative estimate of food costs for a small family - about the cost of crappy healthcare if I'm not mistaken. According to maslow's hierarchy of needs, food will always take precedence over healthcare. Shelter, or safety is next. According to this humans are predisposed to being unconcerned with health if one is concerned solely with survival. It also suggests that if pursuing health is unavailable that a person may potentially never self-actualize.
    If that is all true, than what is "life". what is "liberty"? More importantly, how does one pursue happiness when under survival conditions? By survival conditions, I mean to say those conditions that are similar to being lost in the woods - a constant search for food, water, and safety.
    It is far too easy to dismiss other people. I find it callus and cold to disregard people who are, many of them, victims of circumstance... There are people that abuse the system, yes. These people are some of them Wealthy and some of them Poor. Both ironically seem to abuse the system for the same reason.
    We cannot punish all people for crimes that individuals commit. That seems highly immoral, oppressive, and downright wrong.
    lindarn, VanLpn, wooh, and 1 other like this.
  7. 4
    I think that it is selfish and entitled to believe that because YOU have insurance that people who do not should just suck it up or die. A previous poster compared healthcare or an education to cable TV and owning two cars. That attitude represents a sickness in this country that universal healthcare coverage cannot fix.
    lindarn, wooh, nrsang97, and 1 other like this.
  8. 3
    Quote from neurorn6
    If you have never worked in an ER, then I suggest that you take the opportunity to visit one. This nation's ER's are overrun with people who don't see a doctor on a regular basis, who come in because they need an excuse for work (called out on friday and now it's sunday night or monday morning), drunks, drug seekers and a few mother's to be who haven't had any prenatel care. I know that I sound hard hearted, but ER's have become 24 hour Urgent Care.

    People refuse to go to the county health dept and wait to be seen. People can't afford to have a regular doctor because of the cost of the visit, and so on and so forth. Too many times, I have seen patient's who just don't seem to have any common sense.

    To me, it just seems like we need to get back to the basics.
    I have been an emergency room nurse for a really looonnngg time. There has always been those that abused the system and we have always seen those who didn't really have an emergency or see a doctor with regularity.....those who have had no prenatal care, wanted drugs and the local lushes especially when it is cold outside. I used to go to work and stop at local fast food restaurants and get left over food for the homeless in the winter for their warm meal......we cared for them. The ED....at least in the inner city, has always been the urgent care that is open for 24 hours.

    What I have a problem with is the sense of entitlement.......but I do believe that as a leader of the free world we have an obligation to provide healthcare to our under served population. We have the obligation to stop the fraud and abuse....not punish those truly in need or those who have paid for medicare their entire live only to have it limited when they need it most.

    Stop the greed and corruption and the benefits to those who are not "entitled" legally to receive them and there will be enough money to care for those who need help.

    As far as people not having common sense....as someone once said here on AN...you can't fix stupid.
    lindarn, nrsang97, and Conqueror+ like this.
  9. 2
    Quote from wannabecnl
    Wow, VICEDRN, here I thought I was reading about the study YOU recommended to me, along with another by the same authors, and giving some thought to what conclusions THE AUTHORS were drawing from the study, not just viewing them through my own opinion.

    If you go back and read my original answer to this thread, I was merely expressing my concerns that a) health care may or may not be a right but it is definitely a commodity that incurs costs, b) a black market for health care will be formed if people can't access the care they want through the normal channels, and c) studies used to compare outcomes across countries with different health care payment systems need to be analyzed carefully to tease out any bio/social/economic confounders that may be skewing the data. After you replied, I then added the point that d) increased access to health care does not always translate to better health outcomes, which is heavily supported in the medical literature. I'm not sure where you went from there, and I think we need to agree to disagree, especially given that I actually read what you recommended and then got slammed again for it. However, I'm glad I took the time to read the articles and do hope to download the actual papers from the studies, as well as the one they are working on now with the health outcomes. So thanks for pointing me toward these well-designed studies.
    You can keep repeating the "black market" argument even after I told you that there is no secondary market is the uk or Germany because in fact, they are perfectly satisfied with their care. As for your points a and c, the fact remains that you can make excuses about why studies you "analyze" do not apply to Americans but the truth is it boils down to the fact that you are smart enough to see the truth but want to make excuses as to why it's not true.

    There is no heavily supported proof that our pay for play system has better outcomes. In fact, we spend more money and have poorer outcomes than countries with universal coverage systems.
    lindarn and wooh like this.
  10. 1
    The problem will always simply lie in the fact that the working class will foot the bill. One way or the other.
    HM-8404 likes this.


Top