Universal Healthcare

I believe you have brought up an important point in debating Universal Health Care, we do need to define what "services" we would recieve and what "criteria" will be utilized to determine the services. I do agree that the article was reflective of speaking in terms of economics. This debate opened up in hopes that others will bring forth additional information and sources.
I read through the other posts "grassroots for Universal Health Care" and I have some of the same questions to the system as you. The post defining individual "freedoms" and individual "rights" was aptly presented.Part of that debate is the core of the issue for some. A good article entitled "Health Care Is Not A Right" by Leonard Peikoff, Ph.D. can be found here:
http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/19...noright_lp.htm

So if you are game lets define the ground rules for this debate and proceed, I am always up to learning by listening to others viewpoints. As always for those joining in try to present facts and views but not belittle each other. We are entitled to our own opinions and if you chose to share them respect each other's too.
Michele

Now here is an article from NursingWorld and the ANA, I believe orginated in 1991, that defines Health Care services related to Universal "core of care" for all:

http://www.nursingworld.org/readroom/rnagenda.htm

An excerpt:Nursing's plan envisions a new and bold approach to universal access to a standard package of essential health care services and the manner in which these services are delivered.
The federal government will delineate the essential services (core of care) which must be provided to all U.S. citizens and residents. This standard package will include defined levels of:

Primary health care services, hospital care, emergency treatment, inpatient and outpatient professional services, and home care services.
Prevention services, including prenatal and perinatal care; infant and well-child care; school-based disease prevention programs; speech therapy, hearing, dental, and eye care for children up to age 18; screening procedures; and other preventive services with proven effectiveness.
Prescription drugs, medical supplies and equipment, and laboratory and radiology services.
Mental health services and substance abuse treatment and rehabilitation. Hospice care.
Long-term care services of relatively short duration.
Restorative services determined to be essential to the prevention of long-term institutionalization.
By taking this approach, traditional illness services are balanced with provisions for health maintenance services which prevent illness, reduce cost, and avoid institutionalization. Thus, hospital coverage and emergency care are covered, as are such services as immunizations, physical examinations, and prenatal and perinatal care.

The creation of federal minimum standards for essential services will necessitate modifications in existing public programs. The ultimate goal will be, over time, to merge all government-sponsored health programs into a single public program.

Also bringing up the point of eliminating the third party and reestablishing the Patient / Doctor fee for service is an idea not discussed, so let's add that to the matrix.
I know some will bulk at the article from modern captilism magazine, but I think it reflects the fears and presents some of the realities of a government funded National Health Care or Health Coverage plan, in addition what we do not realize is that if the FTAA succeeds with it's plan by 2005 and we are opened wide for this international border trade, it will impact us...
The entire process is so much deeper than we know, we are only touching broad surface areas with this debate.
What happened to Charity anyway? and what happened to community based services and clinics?
Do our Docs now travel and provide volunteer services for third world nations? Can they do that at home? Can nurses (if not overburned by unreasonable workloads ect.,ect. volunteer in thier communities? Parish Nursing is thriving...
I am rambling in this post but remeber back when they brought up the idea of Volunteer Nursing Corps, how bout Docs? I believe a better alternative than government mandate, paid for by tax revenues.
Furthermore, I(I am digging my grave here) I happen to chose to smoke (I know it is not healthy ect.,ect.) but I chose to do it, just as somone choses sex out of wedlock, and to shoot herion, have unprotected sex-contract a disease, so why then is the government going to mandate me by taxing me fiurther in my pursuit of smoking happiness?
Ponder the principles here....
My husband and I both designate portions of our paychecks to the charities of our chosing, I already work half the year for taxes, now more because I am able bodied and can work?
Ok, I will go back to topic next post...........

Excellent, so I will begin with trying to express my sentiments to question number one,
1. Is providing healthcare a moral obligation of government and should it become a "right"?

This article reflects my opinions and I believe represents a concise definition of the difference between "liberty" rights and "welfare" rights. Especially, that these rights are imposing differing obligations.
Michele


Liberty vs. Welfare Rights
Let's begin by defining our terms. A right is a principle that specifies something which an individual should be free to have or do. A right is an entitlement, something you possess free and clear, something you can exercise without asking anyone else's permission. Because it is an entitlement, not a privilege or favor, we do not owe anyone else any gratitude for their recognition of our rights.

When we speak of rights, we invoke a concept that is fundamental to our political system. Our country was founded on the principle that individuals possess the "inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Along with the right to property, which the Founding Fathers also regarded as fundamental, these rights are known as liberty rights, because they protect the right to act freely. The wording of the Declaration of Independence is quite precise in this regard. It attributes to us the right to the pursuit of happiness, not to happiness per se. Society can't guarantee us happiness; that's our own responsibility. All it can guarantee is the freedom to pursue it. In the same way, the right to life is the right to act freely for one's self-preservation. It is not a right to be immune from death by natural causes, even an untimely death. And the right to property is the right to act freely in the effort to acquire wealth, the right to buy and sell and keep the fruits of one's labor. It is not a right to expect to be given wealth.

The purpose of liberty rights is to protect individual autonomy. They leave individuals responsible for their own lives, for meeting their own needs. But they provide us with the social conditions we need to carry out that responsibility: the freedom to act on the basis of our own judgment, in pursuit of our own ends; and the right to use and dispose of the material resources we have acquired by our efforts. These rights reflect the assumption that individuals are ends in themselves, who may not be used against their will for social purposes.

Let us consider what liberty rights mean in regard to medical care. If we implemented them fully, patients would be free to choose the type of care they want, and the particular health care providers they want to see, in accordance with their needs and resources. They would be free to choose whether they want health insurance, and if so, in what amounts. Doctors and other providers would be free to offer their services on whatever terms they choose. Prices would be governed not by government fiat, but by competition in a market. Since this is an imaginary state of affairs, no one can predict what mix of private practitioners, HMOs, and other sorts of health plans would emerge. But market forces would tend to ensure that patients have more choices than they do now, that they would act more responsibly than many do at present, and that they would pay actuarially fair prices for health insurance—prices that reflect the actual risks associated with their age, physical condition, and lifestyle. No one would be able to shift his costs onto someone else. In a truly free market, I might add, there would be no tax preference for obtaining health insurance through employers, so most people would probably buy health insurance the way they buy life insurance, auto insurance, or homeowners insurance—directly from insurance companies. They would not have to fear that losing their job, or changing the job, would mean losing their coverage.

So that is what liberty rights—the classical rights to life, liberty, and property—would mean in practice. The so-called "right" to medical care is quite different. It is not merely the right to act—i.e., to seek medical care, and engage in exchanges with providers, free from third party interference. It is a right to a good: actual care, regardless of whether one can pay for it. The alleged right to medical care is one instance of a broader category known as welfare rights. Welfare rights in general are rights to goods: for example, a right to food, shelter, education, a job, etc. This is one basic way in which they are quite different from liberty rights, which are rights to freedom of action, but don't guarantee that one will succeed in obtaining any particular good one may be seeking.

Another difference has to do with the obligations imposed on other people. Every right imposes some obligation on others. Liberty rights impose negative obligations: the obligation not to interfere with one's liberty. Such rights are secured by laws that prohibit murder, theft, rape, fraud, and other crimes. But welfare rights impose on others the positive obligation to provide the goods in question.

Health care does not grow on trees or fall from the sky. The assertion of a right to medical care does not guarantee that there is going to be any health care to distribute. The partisans of these rights demand, with air of moral righteousness, that everyone have access to this good. But a demand does not create anything. Health care has to be produced by someone, and paid for by someone. One of the major arguments offered by supporters of a right to health care is that health care is an essential need. What good are our other liberties, they ask, if we cannot get medical treatment for illness? But we must ask, in return: why does need give someone a right? Fifty years ago, people whose kidneys were failing needed dialysis every bit as much as they do today, but there were no dialysis machines. Did they have a right to protection against kidney failure? Was Mother Nature violating their rights by making their kidneys fail without a remedy? It makes no sense to say that need itself confers a right unless someone else has the ability to meet that need. So any "right" to medical care imposes on someone the obligation to provide care to those who cannot provide it for themselves.

If I have such a right, some other person or group has the involuntary, unchosen obligation to provide it. I stress the word "involuntary." A right is an entitlement. If I have a right to medical care, then I am entitled to the time, the effort, the ability, the wealth, of whoever is going to be forced to provide that care. In other words, I own a piece of the taxpayers who subsidize me. I own a piece of the doctors who tend to me. The notion of a right to medical care goes far beyond any notion of charity. A doctor who waives his bill because I am indigent is offering a free gift; he retains his autonomy, and I owe him gratitude. But if I have a right to care, then he is merely giving me my due, and I owe him nothing. If others are forced to serve me in the name of my right to care, then they are being used regardless of their will as a means to my welfare. I am stressing this point because many people do not appreciate that the very concept of welfare rights, including the right to health care, is incompatible with the view of individuals as ends in themselves.

I might add that the difference between charity and rights is very well understood by the advocates of a right to health care. One of their main arguments for using the language of rights is that it removes the stigma associated with charity. A right is something for which you don't owe anyone any gratitude. But notice the contradiction. The reason for proposing such a right in the first place is the claim that certain people cannot provide for themselves, and are thus dependent on other people for their medical care. The advocates of a right to health care then turn around and insist on using the concept of rights to disguise the fact of dependence, to allow the recipients of government subsidies to pretend that they are getting something they earned.

It is also worth noting that the Supreme Court has never recognized a constitutional basis for any welfare right, including the right to medical care. The Court recognizes that the concept of rights embodied in our legal system is the concept of liberty rights. Welfare rights are a product of later movements to expand the role of government beyond the original conception of its role. In our constitutional system, there is no requirement that the federal government provide health care. Health care entitlements, unlike fundamental rights like freedom of speech, have to be invented by legislators


The entire article can be read here:
http://ios.org/pubs/Article3.asp

Lastly I came across this defintion in an Act from the State of Illinios, I thought it might be interesting for some to read this decleration entitlted:

Health Care
Right of Conscience Act.


Sec. 1. Short title. This Act may be cited as the Health Care
Right of Conscience Act.
(Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)

(745 ILCS 70/2)
Sec. 2. Findings and policy. The General Assembly finds and
declares that people and organizations hold different beliefs about
whether certain health care services are morally acceptable. It is the
public policy of the State of Illinois to respect and protect the right
of conscience of all persons who refuse to obtain, receive or accept, or
who are engaged in, the delivery of, arrangement for, or payment of
health care services and medical care whether acting individually,
corporately, or in association with other persons; and to prohibit all
forms of discrimination, disqualification, coercion, disability or
imposition of liability upon such persons or entities by reason of their
refusing to act contrary to their conscience or conscientious
convictions in refusing to obtain, receive, accept, deliver, pay for, or
arrange for the payment of health care services and medical care.
(Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)

(745 ILCS 70/3)
Sec. 3. Definitions. As used in this Act, unless the context
clearly otherwise requires:
(a) "Health care" means any phase of patient care, including but
not limited to, testing; diagnosis; prognosis; ancillary research;
instructions; family planning, counselling, referrals, or any other
advice in connection with the use or procurement of contraceptives and
sterilization or abortion procedures; medication; or surgery or other
care or treatment rendered by a physician or physicians, nurses,
paraprofessionals or health care facility, intended for the physical,
emotional, and mental well-being of persons;
(b) "Physician" means any person who is licensed by the State of
Illinois under the Medical Practice Act of 1987;
(c) "Health care personnel" means any nurse, nurses' aide, medical
school student, professional, paraprofessional or any other person who
furnishes, or assists in the furnishing of, health care services;
(d) "Health care facility" means any public or private hospital,
clinic, center, medical school, medical training institution, laboratory
or diagnostic facility, physician's office, infirmary, dispensary,
ambulatory surgical treatment center or other institution or location
wherein health care services are provided to any person, including
physician organizations and associations, networks, joint ventures, and
all other combinations of those organizations;
(e) "Conscience" means a sincerely held set of moral convictions
arising from belief in and relation to God, or which, though not so
derived, arises from a place in the life of its possessor parallel to
that filled by God among adherents to religious faiths; and
(f) "Health care payer" means a health maintenance organization,
insurance company, management services organization, or any other entity
that pays for or arranges for the payment of any health care or medical
care service, procedure, or product.
The above definitions include not only the traditional combinations
and forms of these persons and organizations but also all new and
emerging forms and combinations of these persons and organizations.
(Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)

(745 ILCS 70/4)
Sec. 4. Liability. No physician or health care personnel shall be
civilly or criminally liable to any person, estate, public or private
entity or public official by reason of his or her refusal to perform,
assist, counsel, suggest, recommend, refer or participate in any way in
any particular form of health care service which is contrary to the
conscience of such physician or health care personnel.
(Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)

(745 ILCS 70/5)
Sec. 5. Discrimination. It shall be unlawful for any person,
public or private institution, or public official to discriminate
against any person in any manner, including but not limited to,
licensing, hiring, promotion, transfer, staff appointment, hospital,
managed care entity, or any other privileges, because of such person's
conscientious refusal to receive, obtain, accept, perform, assist,
counsel, suggest, recommend, refer or participate in any way in any
particular form of health care services contrary to his or her
conscience.
(Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)

(745 ILCS 70/6)
Sec. 6. Duty of physicians and other health care personnel.
Nothing in this Act shall relieve a physician from any duty, which may
exist under any laws concerning current standards, of normal medical
practices and procedures, to inform his or her patient of the patient's
condition, prognosis and risks, provided, however, that such physician
shall be under no duty to perform, assist, counsel, suggest, recommend,
refer or participate in any way in any form of medical practice or
health care service that is contrary to his or her conscience.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to relieve a physician
or other health care personnel from obligations under the law of
providing emergency medical care.
(Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)

(745 ILCS 70/7)
Sec. 7. Discrimination by employers or institutions. It shall be
unlawful for any public or private employer, entity, agency,
institution, official or person, including but not limited to, a
medical, nursing or other medical training institution, to deny
admission because of, to place any reference in its application form
concerning, to orally question about, to impose any burdens in terms or
conditions of employment on, or to otherwise discriminate against, any
applicant, in terms of employment, admission to or participation in any
programs for which the applicant is eligible, or to discriminate in
relation thereto, in any other manner, on account of the applicant's
refusal to receive, obtain, accept, perform, counsel, suggest,
recommend, refer, assist or participate in any way in any forms of
health care services contrary to his or her conscience.
(Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)

(745 ILCS 70/8)
Sec. 8. Denial of aid or benefits. It shall be unlawful for any
public official, guardian, agency, institution or entity to deny any
form of aid, assistance or benefits, or to condition the reception in
any way of any form of aid, assistance or benefits, or in any other
manner to coerce, disqualify or discriminate against any person,
otherwise entitled to such aid, assistance or benefits, because that
person refuses to obtain, receive, accept, perform, assist, counsel,
suggest, recommend, refer or participate in any way in any form of
health care services contrary to his or her conscience.
(Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)

(745 ILCS 70/9)
Sec. 9. Liability. No person, association, or corporation, which
owns, operates, supervises, or manages a health care facility shall be
civilly or criminally liable to any person, estate, or public or private
entity by reason of refusal of the health care facility to permit or
provide any particular form of health care service which violates the
facility's conscience as documented in its ethical guidelines, mission
statement, constitution, bylaws, articles of incorporation, regulations,
or other governing documents.
Nothing in this act shall be construed so as to relieve a physician
or other health care personnel from obligations under the law of
providing emergency medical care.
(Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)

(745 ILCS 70/10)
Sec. 10. Discrimination against facility. It shall be unlawful for
any person, public or private institution or public official to
discriminate against any person, association or corporation attempting
to establish a new health care facility or operating an existing health
care facility, in any manner, including but not limited to, denial,
deprivation or disqualification in licensing, granting of
authorizations, aids, assistance, benefits, medical staff or any other
privileges, and granting authorization to expand, improve, or create any
health care facility, by reason of the refusal of such person,
association or corporation planning, proposing or operating a health
care facility, to permit or perform any particular form of health care
service which violates the health care facility's conscience as
documented in its existing or proposed ethical guidelines, mission
statement, constitution, bylaws, articles of incorporation, regulations,
or other governing documents.
(Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)

(745 ILCS 70/11)
Sec. 11. Denial of aid or benefit to a facility. It shall be
unlawful for any public official, agency, institution or entity to deny
any form of aid, assistance, grants or benefits; or in any other manner
to coerce, disqualify or discriminate against any person, association or
corporation attempting to establish a new health care facility or
operating an existing health care facility which otherwise would be
entitled to the aid, assistance, grant or benefit because the existing
or proposed health care facility refuses to perform, assist, counsel,
suggest, recommend, refer or participate in any way in any form of
health care services contrary to the health care facility's conscience
as documented in its existing or proposed ethical guidelines, mission
statement, constitution, bylaws, articles of incorporation, regulations,
or other governing documents.
(Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)

(745 ILCS 70/11.2)
Sec. 11.2. Liability of health care payer. No health care payer
and no person, association, or corporation that owns, operates,
supervises, or manages a health care payer shall be civilly or
criminally liable to any person, estate, or public or private entity by
reason of refusal of the health care payer to pay for or arrange for the
payment of any particular form of health care services that violate the
health care payer's conscience as documented in its ethical guidelines,
mission statement, constitution, bylaws, articles of incorporation,
regulations, or other governing documents.
(Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)

(745 ILCS 70/11.3)
Sec. 11.3. Discrimination against health care payer in licensing.
It shall be unlawful for any person, public or private institution, or
public official to discriminate against any person, association, or
corporation (i) attempting to establish a new health care payer or (ii)
operating an existing health care payer, in any manner, including but
not limited to, denial, deprivation, or disqualification in licensing;
granting of authorizations, aids, assistance, benefits, or any other
privileges; and granting authorization to expand, improve, or create any
health care payer, because the person, association, or corporation
planning, proposing, or operating a health care payer refuses to pay for
or arrange for the payment of any particular form of health care
services that violates the health care payer's conscience as documented
in the existing or proposed ethical guidelines, mission statement,
constitution, bylaws, articles of incorporation, regulations or other
governing documents.
(Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)

(745 ILCS 70/11.4)
Sec. 11.4. Denial of aid or benefits to health care payer for
refusal to participate in certain health care. It shall be unlawful for
any public official, agency, institution, or entity to deny any form of
aid, assistance, grants, or benefits; or in any other manner to coerce,
disqualify, or discriminate against any person, association, or
corporation attempting to establish a new health care payer or operating
an existing health care payer that otherwise would be entitled to the
aid, assistance, grant, or benefit because the existing or proposed
health care payer refuses to pay for, arrange for the payment of, or
participate in any way in any form of health care services contrary to
the health care payer's conscience as documented in its existing or
proposed ethical guidelines, mission statement, constitution, bylaws,
articles of incorporation, regulations, or other governing documents.
(Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)

(745 ILCS 70/12)
Sec. 12. Actions; damages. Any person, association, corporation,
entity or health care facility injured by any public or private person,
association, agency, entity or corporation by reason of any action
prohibited by this Act may commence a suit therefor, and shall recover
threefold the actual damages, including pain and suffering, sustained by
such person, association, corporation, entity or health care facility,
the costs of the suit and reasonable attorney's fees; but in no case
shall recovery be less than $2,500 for each violation in addition to
costs of the suit and reasonable attorney's fees. These damage remedies
shall be cumulative, and not exclusive of other remedies afforded under
any other state or federal law.
(Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)

(745 ILCS 70/13)
Sec. 13. Liability for refusal to provide certain health care.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed as excusing any person, public or
private institution, or public official from liability for refusal to
permit or provide a particular form of health care service if:
(a) the person, public or private institution or public official
has entered into a contract specifically to provide that particular form
of health care service; or
(b) the person, public or private institution or public official
has accepted federal or state funds for the sole purpose of, and
specifically conditioned upon, permitting or providing that particular
form of health care service.
(Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)

(745 ILCS 70/14)
Sec. 14. Supersedes other Acts. This Act shall supersede all other
Acts or parts of Acts to the extent that any Acts or parts of Acts are
inconsistent with the terms or operation of this Act.
(Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)