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.
Shibaowner, my arguments were in regards to the nature of rights, and socialized health care. There is tons of stuff I don't know, in health care and otherwise. I'm not opposed to learning, if you have information, fill me in.
So in a two tier system like Canada, some here are saying privatized health care is offered for already insured services. Does that mean I can pay to queue jump? If so, do you feel that's immoral?
While wiki is a terrible source to use (I know), it states:
"Six of Canada's ten provinces used to ban private insurance for publicly insured services to inhibit queue jumping and so preserve fairness in the health care system. In a complex legal decision in 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that in some circumstances, such bans can be illegal if the waiting period was unduly long."
I'm Canadian living in the US (married an American), and I would take Canada's health care system any day over the system here. The only "edge" the US has that I've seemed to notice in my time here, is that the clinics/offices are much more aesthetically-pleasing and expensive-looking... not really a requirement for quality health care.
I have Type 1 Diabetes and it's insane here in the US. $275/insulin vial vs $30 (of course, I can only get it partially covered if I buy 3 vials at a time now which is way out of reach and my deductible hasn't been reached yet, but paying 20% on $600+ is still a lot for me and that's only for one of the insulins I take). People, mostly Americans, are swapping their diabetes supplies -including expired ones, on Facebook groups just for the price of shipping because cost is so out of hand here. I am insured through my employer and the coverage is meh and I work for a large, international corporation. My coverage at a much smaller employer in Canada was better. I am currently using recently expired rapid-acting insulin that I originally received in Canada in 2015. I am going home for Christmas and will be purchasing insulin in my hometown in Canada. My visit at an endocrinology clinic with a NP was around $300 here in Southern US. My visit with an endocrinologist (the best one I've had!) in Quebec was free and they ordered more comprehensive lab work. Sure, that waiting room/hospital was fugly and the waiting room was very full, but my care was perfect.
My husband is currently uninsured and at home with a possible inguinal hernia. He's in a lot of pain, but has been refusing for days to go to the ER because of the cost and what a gigantic medical bill would do to us. I'm not a nurse yet - I'm doing prereqs, so I am currently the only one employed grossing a bit under $25k/year (my husband lost his job after STD wasn't approved for his depression because he didn't have a "history" with the doc who filled out the paperwork.. He had no doc prior! and I paid with my HSA for his appointment with my family doctor, but all proper care for his mental health problems have been out of reach). You don't know how much I wish he was in Canada right now just to at least have his abdominal pain attended to. No wait in the US (which I think is largely inaccurate) means nothing when you feel like the price of care is too much of a barrier to even get to the ER in the first place. Plus, in Canada I didn't have to wait and wait and wait in emerg when I presented with high glucose (not in DKA) and suspected I had diabetes. My care was very "wham bam thank you ma'am." But that's the difference between something that can become a real emergency quickly (ending up in DKA) and someone showing up with a headache...
I like lots about the US and where I live, but this ain't it.
I'm so sorry you are going through this. You might want to look into Federally Qualified Healthcare Centers (FQHCs). These are available to all and they charge based on a sliding scale fee. Planned Parenthood does the same and is a resource for women's health. Here is a link to find a FQHC near you: https://findahealthcenter.hrsa.gov/
Since you are a student, you may qualify for Medicaid.
I think you're making a lot of assumptions about my political worldview, and myself in general. I'm hardly far right, I'm right leaning on some issues, left leaning on others. When did I ever suggest that I'm interested in discriminating against anyone?? I think you'd be hard pressed to find a single post.
Stop trying to dance around. You said healthcare is not a right and you advocate for privatized healthcare like the USA. That means people who can't afford to pay do not get healthcare. You also called yourself a Libertarian. So you advocate discriminating against poor people when it comes to healthcare delivery. At least have the courage of your convictions.
I've been fairly respectful and polite the whole time... that's not common behavior for someone trying to simply get a rise out of people.
What's with the obsession with focusing on my character, over simply giving me an argument as to why you think health care is a fundamental human right? This keeps coming up over and over.
You don't have the right or privelage to put something on the internet and NOT have someone speak of your character. Especially when you say things that aren't simply "this is my political standpoint." I don't care if you frame rainbows and ponies around your thoughts. It's not respectful in any form or fashion.
Great question. Well I do love people in spite of what others think of me. Outside of that, everyone assumes I want to be an RN. That's an option for sure. However, without a doubt assuming I complete my BScN, I'll do graduate work. I currently do have a goal of NP. I'm also REALLY interested in nursing theory!!! If you ask specifically why nursing theory, don't have a specific answer, just really fascinated by it.
I think you are just a "professional student." At 31 you still aren't really sure what you want. And if you are interested in nursing theory, you sure haven't made an effort to learn about it on your own. You wouldn't cut it here in the USA, because we do not have very generous social benefits.
Has anyone here seen someone refused care in the US due to lack of insurance?
Due to EMTALA people cannot be refused care in the ER. However, that is only for emergencies. Providers can otherwise turn people away for lack of insurance if they cannot pay with cash. A patient may receive treatment and then not pay for it afterward. If this happens the provider will not see them again. The provider can also report them to a credit bureau.
Stop trying to dance around. You said healthcare is not a right and you advocate for privatized healthcare like the USA. That means people who can't afford to pay do not get healthcare. You also called yourself a Libertarian. So you advocate discriminating against poor people when it comes to healthcare delivery. At least have the courage of your convictions.
I would say that whether or not it's discrimination is dependant on if it's a right.
The OP is a failed philosopher and a poor debater. He wants to debate if healthcare is a fundamental human right.
1. It is not incumbent on us to prove that it is. The majority of people in developed countries believe that it is. Since the OP is dissenting, it is incumbent on him to prove the rest of us are wrong. He hasn't even attempted to do so, because he cannot.
2. He never defined his terms, as other posters have pointed out.
3. He never responds to specific objections such as his original premises in his 3 step argument being incorrect.
4. He does not understand the purpose of argumentation. "Argument has two purposes. It is used to change people's points of view or persuade them to accept new points of view and/or to persuade people to a particular action or new behavior."
5. OP has completely failed to change anyone's point of view.
6. What is OP trying to accomplish. Tetra, please tell us the purpose of starting this debate. Over and over again, I have asked you to tell us this. Let's assume that you are correct and healthcare is not a right. So what? What follows from that?
7. From a practical standpoint, we must abide by the values and ethics of the nursing profession, whether we agree with them or not. It is clear that modern nursing is based on core values of equity and social justice and does recognize healthcare as a human right. The medical profession also takes this view now.
8. When asked uncomfortable questions, OP does not use this as an opportunity to defend his premise, but tries to weasel out of it. I think he is just trolling to get attention. He needs to put up or shut up.
Specializes in Critical care, tele, Medical-Surgical.
Tetra said:
Has anyone here seen someone refused care in the US due to lack of insurance?
Health insurance executives get millions in compensation.
Shareholders are paid dividends. The corporations have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders, not to the people who pay for healthcare that some never get.
We pay for the corporation to pay for the healthcare our physicians order. At least for now that cannot deny care or refuse to sell a policy due to a pre-existing condition. This was before Obamacare.
When we achieve single payer healthcare the millions in executive pay can pay hospitals and those who care for people.
Quote
Blues CEOs Banked $110 Million In 2015, Most From Bonuses, Other Compensation
I would say that whether or not it's discrimination is dependant on if it's a right.
Here you go again, trying to be weasely and trying to avoid the implications of your belief. What is discrimination? It is the quality or power of distinguishing. You are arguing healthcare is not a right and people should pay for healthcare. That leads to discrimination against those who cannot pay.
The OP is a failed philosopher and a poor debater. He wants to debate if healthcare is a fundamental human right.
Well I don't make money doing it, so that's most likely very accurate.
shibaowner said:
It is not incumbent on us to prove that it is. The majority of people in developed countries believe that it is. Since the OP is dissenting, it is incumbent on him to prove the rest of us are wrong. He hasn't even attempted to do so, because he cannot.
Yes I have the burden of proof, but not for the reason you stated. I've already stated, just because "the majority of developed countries believe that it is", does not make it a right. That's a fallacy known as argumentum ad populum.
Since I do have the burden of proof though, I laid out the following argument:
1) Fundamental human rights are not dependent on the actions of others.
2) Health care is dependent on the actions of others.
3) Therefore, health care is not a fundamental human right.
shibaowner said:
2. He never defined his terms, as other posters have pointed out.
Of course I did, you just didn't read the thread. I made a distinction between fundamental human rights (or natural rights) as being negative rights, and health care as a positive right.
3. He never responds to specific objections such as his original premises in his 3 step argument being incorrect.
Well, I've never really had an actual objection other than "I disagree with the first premise". I mean... okay, that doesn't really make the initial premise wrong though.
shibaowner said:
4. He does not understand the purpose of argumentation. "Argument has two purposes. It is used to change people's points of view or persuade them to accept new points of view and/or to persuade people to a particular action or new behavior."
WRTG - Purposes of Argument
5. OP has completely failed to change anyone's point of view.
Of course that's the purpose of argumentation. Don't know what your point is here though.
shibaowner said:
6. What is OP trying to accomplish. Tetra, please tell us the purpose of starting this debate. Over and over again, I have asked you to tell us this. Let's assume that you are correct and healthcare is not a right. So what? What follows from that?
I'm sorry if I missed it, what follows is the privatization of health care.
shibaowner said:
7. From a practical standpoint, we must abide by the values and ethics of the nursing profession, whether we agree with them or not. It is clear that modern nursing is based on core values of equity and social justice and does recognize healthcare as a human right. The medical profession also takes this view now.
Cool.
shibaowner said:
8. When asked uncomfortable questions, OP does not use this as an opportunity to defend his premise, but tries to weasel out of it. I think he is just trolling to get attention. He needs to put up or shut up.
Stating I don't know the answer to something means I'm trying to "weasel out of it"? Am I expected to be omniscient or something?
OP's belief is based on taxation being the equivalent of theft. Well, not paying taxes is a crime. People who live in a country tacitly agree to pay taxes as a condition of living there and in exchange for certain government services. It is part of the social contract for that nation. OP - I don't know how it works in Canada, but if you come to the USA and do not pay taxes, you can go to jail. A lot of people believe the earth is flat, but that doesn't make it so.
shibaowner, MSN, RN, NP
3 Articles; 583 Posts
As long as someone pays their taxes, they can do whatever they want with their own money.