Health Care is a right

Published

I would do a poll on this, but I do not know how to - or maybe you need to be a premium member.

At any rate, I would like to hear some discussion on whether you feel health care is a right or not.

I personally do.

Specializes in LTC.

As far as the service sector...well, thats where I currently reside to put myself through school. I doubt there'll ever be any shortage of unskilled labor, whether its a temporary position in order to ultimately get ahead, or a permanent life plan. And even without a college degree, a solid work ethic is more then enough to provide for a simple lifestyle. I fail to see how this ties into the free market or how it's been sloping downward.

People working in the service sector often have a difficult time making ends meet. Their health needs, food and shelter aren't things that the market can provide. That's where the government comes in. Through taxation they are allotted modest housing and food stamps for survival. The problem is, the federal poverty line needs to be re-calculated, people are falling through the cracks.

That's how it ties in, the free market has failed these people.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

The solution is to stop pre existing conditions requirements and that you can't be dropped when you get real sick. About 5 pages of legislation.

.

Preventing pre-existing conditions requirements in health insurance is fiscal death. No insurance companies can possibly survive under those circumstances, not without jacking up rates significantly. The only way that works is to force everyone (The young, 20-30 year olds) to pick up coverage. That way the insurance companies make a profit on these low expense policies to cover the more expensive patients.

Does this reasoning sound familiar? It should. It's the basis for social security. Essentially the young and the healthy will pay premiums(in the private sector) to cover the cost of the sick and the elderly. And when the young age, then the next generation will be covering them. Btw, how many people out there under the age of 30 actually expect social security to be there when we retire?

Personally, I'm not all too happy about this in either aspect. 1) That system doesnt work, period. You pay into it now, and hope that others will pay into it later. and 2) I'm considered one of the young and healthy, and yes...I currently maintain coverage at roughly $100 a month. But in these times...it's a very real possibility that it may not be practical to keep it in the near future. Why should the government be able to tell me that I dont have the option of forgoing unnecessary medical coverage to afford more immediate needs?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
People working in the service sector often have a difficult time making ends meet. Their health needs, food and shelter aren't things that the market can provide. That's where the government comes in. Through taxation they are allotted modest housing and food stamps for survival. The problem is, the federal poverty line needs to be re-calculated, people are falling through the cracks.

That's how it ties in, the free market has failed these people.

We tried that in the 60's. We called them communes. They didn't work either.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in PHRN, ICU, CCU, ER, NICU, Flight Nurse.

people don't bother to think about the real reasons health care is so expensive. they'd rather pick an easy target to hate, like...the pharmaceutical companies. which is strange, because you can get generics of 90% of the medications out there for $10 or less.

as for the education, i am not talking about people who don't have desire to get a college degree. obviously. i am talking about kids that are smart enough to get a college degree and do want to, but are not smart enough to get a sponsorship and not rich enough to pay the ridiculous price per semester. you don’t need to be super duper smart to get a college degree. not only astronauts or some other super smart people need to go to college. i know there are a lot of good community colleges, i am just saying that a kid with low-income parents would have many college's doors closed to him. no choice, that is not fair.

you give the example of you damn fine education for $3000 a year. i'll give you an example: my cousin went to one of the 3 best colleges in france (would be like harvard in the us). he now works in nyc and makes tons of money. do you know how much he paid for his education? not a single dime! and no sponsorship! and he doesn't have the brain of an astronaut, he’s smart and works hard that's it. that’s all he needed. if you’re poor, rich, super smart, or average smart, it doesn't matter, doors are open to anyone.

as for your comment for what make the cost of healthcare high, i would certainly disagree with what you say. the fact that people go to get medical attention for insignificant reasons (which, i don't think it is true here in the us, considering the cost of health care) don’t really make health care more expensive (in a socialized health care system, that would be a different story). the fact that doctors pays high premium for reliability insurance also plays a very minor role in it. and last, the fact that the government plays a role in the health care industry is the last thing that would raise the health care cost. in fact, and nobody argue on that, it certainly lower the cost.

the main reason for the raising of the american health care cost is the fact that the health care is an industry for profit. that’s it. advertisement, lobbyist, marketing, non-central bureaucracy, etc. are what make the health care cost high more than anything else.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
As far as the service sector...well, thats where I currently reside to put myself through school. I doubt there'll ever be any shortage of unskilled labor, whether its a temporary position in order to ultimately get ahead, or a permanent life plan. And even without a college degree, a solid work ethic is more then enough to provide for a simple lifestyle. I fail to see how this ties into the free market or how it's been sloping downward.

"thats where I currently reside to put myself through school" Imagine if you had a family to feed and insure!

"doubt there'll ever be any shortage of unskilled labor" unemployment rates and retirement losses have guaranteed this!

"a temporary position in order to ultimately get ahead" without a higher education or higher IQ, how is that possible?

"a solid work ethic is more then enough to provide for a simple lifestyle" tell that to the unemployed in America. Once you factor in insurance costs, you'll have no lifestyle let alone a simple one.

"I fail to see how this ties into the free market or how it's been sloping downward" Keep people ignorant and uneducated and you will reduce your competition, whereby insuring supreme domination/greed. Just look at Wall Street, what has happened there is going to happen to the insurance companies.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
People working in the service sector often have a difficult time making ends meet. Their health needs, food and shelter aren't things that the market can provide. That's where the government comes in. Through taxation they are allotted modest housing and food stamps for survival. The problem is, the federal poverty line needs to be re-calculated, people are falling through the cracks.

That's how it ties in, the free market has failed these people.

As I said, I work in the service sector. It's actually quite easy to make ends meet. Well, not entirely...but thats only because I'm currently only working part time due to school. I can afford to cover all of my bills, living modestly, working 2-3 days a week.

The service sector is NOT enough to make ends meet when you have a family depending on you, but then...the individual has an obligation to obtain something beyond a minimum wage job flipping burgers before they make the choice to have children. One might argue that we have an obligation to provide food and shelter to the needy. But we under no circumstances have a right to subsidize the needy's right to have children. Personally, family is very important to me, and I wouldn't mind having 5-10 children. I'm 25 as it is, and sometimes I wonder if I'm waiting too long before starting a family. But I know that I'm doing the responsible thing by setting myself up financially and obtaining a career so I can comfortably support said family. But if I have to make the sacrifice of putting off my own family for the time being, why on earth should my income be taxed so that others don't have to go through such inconvenience?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in LTC.

the main reason for the raising of the american health care cost is the fact that the health care is an industry for profit. that's it. advertisement, lobbyist, marketing, non-central bureaucracy, etc. are what make the health care cost high more than anything else.

agreed.

it's wasteful. :yeah:

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Agreed.

It's wasteful. :yeah:

You seem to be forgetting that these people produce a service/product. They're entitled to their profits. Unless you think they exist for no purpose but to serve in the capacity of a slave to anyone in need.

If you honestly believe it to be wasteful, by all means...step up to the plate and fill the need/provide those services without compensation. You're free to do that, you know. That's whats so great about capitalism.

The funny thing about anti-capitalists are that they always expect others to work without profit, but they never seem to be the ones to volunteer.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in LTC.
As I said, I work in the service sector. It's actually quite easy to make ends meet. Well, not entirely...but thats only because I'm currently only working part time due to school. I can afford to cover all of my bills, living modestly, working 2-3 days a week.

The service sector is NOT enough to make ends meet when you have a family depending on you, but then...the individual has an obligation to obtain something beyond a minimum wage job flipping burgers before they make the choice to have children. One might argue that we have an obligation to provide food and shelter to the needy. But we under no circumstances have a right to subsidize the needy's right to have children. Personally, family is very important to me, and I wouldn't mind having 5-10 children. I'm 25 as it is, and sometimes I wonder if I'm waiting too long before starting a family. But I know that I'm doing the responsible thing by setting myself up financially and obtaining a career so I can comfortably support said family. But if I have to make the sacrifice of putting off my own family for the time being, why on earth should my income be taxed so that others don't have to go through such inconvenience?

It's interesting how we assume that just because something is working for us means that it can work for everyone. The fact is the rules aren't streamlined, there are differences depending on where you are and who you are, among other things.

You have admitted that not everyone can or wants to go to college, and that some would be better suited learning a trade (which I might add does require further education). But, it's true that not everyone is going to college or learn a trade, some people will stay in the service sector for the rest of their lives.

Are you suggesting that people who fall in the lower (service sector) socio-economic class shouldn't have children? What "job" should they attain that will pay them more with no skills?

You make the faulty assumptions that poor people who work in service sector jobs:

1) Can rise above if the work hard enough. (you admitted yourself that not everyone is cut out for college)

2) Don't "sacrifice" and are not "inconvenienced".

So you're trying hard to better yourself. Good for you. You are doing what you are capable of doing, and so is just about everyone, congratulations.

Do you not realize that these people are the backbone of our entire economic system? What would we do without them? Who would serve us our food, rent us our videos, sell us junk at Wal-Mart, bag our groceries, operate the cash register at the gas station, on and on?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in LTC.
You seem to be forgetting that these people produce a service/product. They're entitled to their profits. Unless you think they exist for no purpose but to serve in the capacity of a slave to anyone in need.

They don't actually produce anything. They're the middlemen. They're "service" is sketchy and unreliable and incredibly wasteful. Medicare runs at about 3% overheard. Can any private insurance company boast at such an accomplishment?

If you honestly believe it to be wasteful, by all means...step up to the plate and fill the need/provide those services without compensation. You're free to do that, you know. That's whats so great about capitalism.

Of course it's wasteful. We spend more money on health care than any other country on the planet, and contrary to popular belief, we don't have the best health outcomes. I am free to advocate for a better solution, and I do.

The funny thing about anti-capitalists are that they always expect others to work without profit, but they never seem to be the ones to volunteer.

Why do you assume you know me? It's not a "one size fits all" world.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
This America. You are free to make choices, even poor ones. Some people feel that they don't need health insurance (mostly young folks) and choose to go without it. Should they be mandated to buy it?
OR or should employers be mandated to provided at least some level of ins that employees pay into Altough small group plans are far from inexpensive,,they are still cheaper than individual plans?
Up Vote Up Vote ×
It's interesting how we assume that just because something is working for us means that it can work for everyone. The fact is the rules aren't streamlined, there are differences depending on where you are and who you are, among other things.

Drive is finding a way that works, regardless of the differences in your environment. It's the law of nature that everyone and everything has to adapt to their surroundings. Of course this works for me, otherwise I wouldn't be doing it. But if it didn't, you can be damn sure that i'd be doing something else that did work.

Are you suggesting that people who fall in the lower (service sector) socio-economic class shouldn't have children? What "job" should they attain that will pay them more with no skills?

I'm suggesting that noone should have children, unless they can adequately support them. Is that so unreasonable?

You make the faulty assumptions that poor people who work in service sector jobs:

1) Can rise above if the work hard enough. (you admitted yourself that not everyone is cut out for college)

2) Don't "sacrifice" and are not "inconvenienced".

They absolutely can rise above it. Theres always room to move up in any field. You can start out flipping burgers at mcdonalds, and if thats as far as your interest in your own life takes you. Great, enjoy your one bedroom apartment, your bus pass, and your rice and noodles. But even without formal education, theres no reason you cant learn the ropes, move up to shift manager, and eventually store manager in a few years. Is it a glamorous job? Not really. But it pays enough to start a family. If you really want to put in the effort, you can make it a point to move on to casual dining and then more upscale restaurants. All....with no additional college. And...if for whatever reason you can't make it in that field, find somewhere more suitable. There are plenty of other fields. Construction, transportation, etc. A lot of which you can start out making enough to support a family. It may be a difficult path finding a niche, but it seems like everyone expects things to be easy.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion