Before we get into it, I'm going into first year nursing... but I'm not some young kid. I'm 34, married with a family, studied philosophy in my early 20's, and lived well below the poverty line for my entire life. I'm saying this to avoid any fallacious arguments stemming from status or authority.
Now that's out of the way...
Why is health care not a right?
It's not a right because it requires others to fund your health care costs. You do not have a right to the money of other people.
What about those in need of health care?
We all love helping people, and that's important. Which is why there are countless organizations, churches, synagogues, companies, online charitable organizations, and other opportunities for your access.
If health care is a right, it's immoral.
A socialist view of health care requires the theft of citizens money through taxation to fund your health care needs. Just because I need health care does not mean I can take money of others, even when done through governmental force.
What's the difference between access to things like fire services, and health care services? They're all services aren't they?
The difference is that citizens who pay for services should receive services. Taxation pays for fire services, people are therefore owed that service.Consider, outside of municipalities where services aren't paid for, firefighting is volunteer, or paid for out of pocket. At least that's how it works in Canada...
When is health care a right then?
When you pay for it, however, it's a contractual right. Not a human right. I'm owed the service because I paid for it, that's it.
Who's responsible to take care of me then?
You are. Crazy idea right?
Are there exceptions?
Obviously, those with zero capacity to care for themselves.
I suspect heading into a Canadian nursing program with my views will be an interesting experience.
So what you are saying is that we should let poor people, children/babies, disabled people and elderly people die on the streets because they weren't born with a silver spoon in their mouths? Am I am hearing this correctly?
My boyfriend (a Libertarian) and I (liberal) have gotten into arguments over this. I think that healthcare IS a human right. No one should be denied access to healthcare because they are of a lower SES.
I sure hope that YOU have paid for EVERY bit of healthcare for you and yours, OP. Anything else would make you an ugly hypocrite.
I could very well be wrong, but this article sheds some light on the actual origins.
The articles describe how you can't determine where a drug originated based on the headquarters of the corporation, which is true, however the research for the majority of truly new drugs has been done outside of the US. New drugs that have come out of US based research recently are not actually new drugs, it's been "new" drugs like vimovo, which is just two already available generic medications combined into one pill which then raises the price of the two drugs from $40 a month to $2500 a month.
You don't seem to completely agree yourself that healthcare is not a right, you do seem to believe that at some point society has an obligation to alleviate unnecessary suffering, you stated in your first post that those unable to care for themselves need to be cared for. If you want evidence that we as a society generally believe that healthcare is a right, there are a number of laws in both your country and mine that establish this right through law.
If you want to look at it as a purely what-benefits-you libertarian point of view, then consider that if you're willing to help pay for those who can't care for themselves then why wouldn't you pay less to keep them from getting to the point where they can't care for themselves?
My point was that there is always exceptions. I just don't think it should be the rule is all. Yes, it is a right established by Canadian law. I've stated many times it's a positive right, it's just not a fundamental human right.
Well, I pay what is required of me through taxation. That doesn't mean I don't think that should change though. I'm a free market capitalist.
The articles describe how you can't determine where a drug originated based on the headquarters of the corporation, which is true, however the research for the majority of truly new drugs has been done outside of the US. New drugs that have come out of US based research recently are not actually new drugs, it's been "new" drugs like vimovo, which is just two already available generic medications combined into one pill which then raises the price of the two drugs from $40 a month to $2500 a month.
Thank you for the information, I will research more on what you're saying before I comment further.
So what you are saying is that we should let poor people, children/babies, disabled people and elderly people die on the streets because they weren't born with a silver spoon in their mouths? Am I am hearing this correctly?
My boyfriend (a Libertarian) and I (liberal) have gotten into arguments over this. I think that healthcare IS a human right. No one should be denied access to healthcare because they are of a lower SES.
I sure hope that YOU have paid for EVERY bit of healthcare for you and yours, OP. Anything else would make you an ugly hypocrite.
No, I'm saying people should get service, they just should also be billed for it. I've already stated there are exceptions within the OP.
Technically for me to be a hypocrite, I'd have to not pay into the system I'm in. If you read the thread, you'll see I have said several times that I do. As to your comment though, I've been fortunate to have had zero health issues.
My point was that there is always exceptions. I just don't think it should be the rule is all. Yes, it is a right established by Canadian law. I've stated many times it's a positive right, it's just not a fundamental human right.
Well, I pay what is required of me through taxation. That doesn't mean I don't think that should change though. I'm a free market capitalist.
I'm not sure why you don't think free market capitalism isn't compatible with universal healthcare coverage. A number of universal systems, or socialist as you refer to them, such as those of Australia, France, Sweden, Germany, Netherlands, and Switzerland are primarily based on for-profit privately run insurance and hospitals.
No, I'm saying people should get service, they just should also be billed for it. I've already stated there are exceptions within the OP.
Technically for me to be a hypocrite, I'd have to not pay into the system I'm in. If you read the thread, you'll see I have said several times that I do. As to your comment though, I've been fortunate to have had zero health issues.
And what happens if they cannot pay?
And no, you still would be considered a hypocrite as you didn't pay 100% for you and yours, even though you've "paid into the system."
I'm not sure why you don't think free market capitalism isn't compatible with universal healthcare coverage. A number of universal systems, or socialist as you refer to them, such as those of Australia, France, Sweden, Germany, Netherlands, and Switzerland are primarily based on for-profit privately run insurance and hospitals.
Well, something can also be for profit and not a true free market, I would make a distinction there. As for an alternate system that is two tier. I would not be against a true two tier system. That would at least allow others to choose to pay for their own if they so desire. Currently the province I'm in doesn't allow for privatized health care, to cover care that's already covered publicly. In fact, the majority of Canada that's the case.
Thank you for the information, I will research more on what you're saying before I comment further.
There is various research you can look at that moves treatment forward, as an example, the use of beta blockers in the treatment of heart failure come primarily from the COMET trial, which came out of the UK national health programs:
There are a number of similarly impactful studies that come out of various national health organizations. It's commonly misunderstood that the high cost of drugs in the US is due to all of the research done in the US, but in reality US drug companies spend more on marketing than on R&D.
I don't believe people are so downtrodden that there is zero access to money anywhere. If that's the case, then they'd fall into a very exceptional category. I mean, give me a break... do people have cars? Internet bills? Takeout? Insurance? How about the fact the avg home where I live in Ontario is half a million? I've already laid out several options in the OP for people who fall into an exceptional category.
And no, you still would be considered a hypocrite as you didn't pay 100% for you and yours, even though you've "paid into the system."
That's silly, what you're suggesting is that no one can critique the health care system unless they pay 100% of their coverage. I'm sorry, that makes no sense.
Technically for me to be a hypocrite, I'd have to not pay into the system I'm in. If you read the thread, you'll see I have said several times that I do. As to your comment though, I've been fortunate to have had zero health issues.
No, many of us here would say that "hypocrite" is continuing to benefit from a system that you decry as immoral. If you had the courage of your convictions, you'd move to someplace that would permit you to live out what you claim are your values -- some country that doesn't provide universal healthcare coverage, and where everyone pays for their own healthcare or does without.
Why are you even wasting your time on this site? It's not like you're going to change any of our minds, and you've made it clear that nothing anyone else says is going to sway you. Good luck with your nursing career.
The articles describe how you can't determine where a drug originated based on the headquarters of the corporation, which is true, however the research for the majority of truly new drugs has been done outside of the US. New drugs that have come out of US based research recently are not actually new drugs, it's been "new" drugs like vimovo, which is just two already available generic medications combined into one pill which then raises the price of the two drugs from $40 a month to $2500 a month.
True -- the US pharmaceutical companies have gotten lazy, and are much busier patenting the "'me, too' drugs" and reformulations of existing drugs in order to extend their patent lives than actually developing new drugs.
ThePrincessBride, MSN, RN, NP
1 Article; 2,594 Posts
So what you are saying is that we should let poor people, children/babies, disabled people and elderly people die on the streets because they weren't born with a silver spoon in their mouths? Am I am hearing this correctly?
My boyfriend (a Libertarian) and I (liberal) have gotten into arguments over this. I think that healthcare IS a human right. No one should be denied access to healthcare because they are of a lower SES.
I sure hope that YOU have paid for EVERY bit of healthcare for you and yours, OP. Anything else would make you an ugly hypocrite.