Is Health Care a Right?

Sally_ICURN · Jan 21, 2003

Originally posted by maureeno
The ratio of pay of corporate CEO's to worker is 400/1.

But one freedom in the US...Capitalism. Freedom, says GWB, that our young military people are about to defend. Possibly with their lives.

[puke]UGH![/puke]

Gromit · Jan 23, 2003

Scoff all you want, Sally, but while you scoff, think of the other freedoms that are being supported.

ALL wars have economy at the root of the problem, if you dig far enough, its obvious no matter when and where the conflict.

Otoh, for whatever the reasons, just before Sept. 11, a year ago, we were doing quite nicely worrying about ourselves.

If GWB is correct, and some that dingle-nut he wants to hunt, is out to unleash a biological weapon here, and it DOES happen, then everyone will be blaming the president for doing nothing.

In a no-win situation, I'd prefer to go on the offensive. (bears a striking similarity to my Bucs on the Eagles' turf.... Ok, no football. Sorry. its on the mind.)

In any case, this will devolve simply:

Liberals : You aren't taxed enough! you should care for everyone! You may work full-time and then some, but then you can afford to pay extra!

Conservatives: You should keep more of that hard-earned bread, it offers more opportunities to employ others, and make even more bread! After all, you work harder, make better decisions, should you NOT reap the benefits?

Two ways of thinking, each has its pitfalls, and neither side is about to concede. Those that wish universal healthcare (paid for by the rest of us) will always be in a battle against those who are on the other side of the coin, and tired of paying the way for everyone else.

In short, the conflict has not peaceful resolution.

Bush didn't create the problem, so don't bring him into it.

ANnot4me · Jan 23, 2003

No matter what, we pay. It's never free to anyone; if they don't pay we do. I suspect it would be cheaper to put everyone above board.

In my opinion, the cold-hearted attitude the haves hold toward the have nots will be the demise of this empire (they all fall eventually). I have seen more than one person change their tune after some unforseen tragedy put them in the poor house.

The way we treat our children, the elderly and the poor is disgraceful and uncivilized. Nothing to be proud of...

Flo1216 · Jan 23, 2003

Chigap....

My sentiments exactly.

NurseRachy · Jan 23, 2003

In my opinion there is no bigger human right than health care!! In Australia we have public hospitals and although there are waiting lists for procedures every procedure, operation, test etc is free at the hospitals. When getting scripts filled from prescriptions then you have to pay for the drugs, but not whilst you are in a public hospital. This care is subsidised through our taxes, but hey - it works for me!

Without health you are dead! Simple!

mark_LD_RN · Jan 23, 2003

I hate the saying "the haves and the have nots" why is it far to tax the haves to death to give to the have nots. many of which would not help theirself if the could.

I am basically a have not, even when i was flat broke and had no help,no insurance i never depended on the crutch that the haves should pay my way in life. it is each persons responsibility.

no i am not totally heartless as one might think, neither is most other conservatives, and the haves for that matter. they are not out to deny the poor and the elderly. they like myself would gladly help the elderly who have paid there dues monitarily or through hard work as well as the handicapped .and be glad to do it.

I will never agree with the bleeding heart liberals that health care is a right . and that the haves need to give up their share so the have nots can be equal. how is it fair to make them pay a larger percentage. to punish the haves for being successful is the equivelent to punishing a child for being good. if we continue to punish the haves we will all be have nots!

kmchugh · Jan 23, 2003

This is a hot button topic for all of us, because as nurses, we deal with the issues of health care every day. Personally, I am frightened by how rapidly we are being pushed into being a country of rights without responsibilities. Now, it is the right of health care coverage. Not to sound mercenary, but what about my right to say "enough?" For every right proposed by someone, the answer to how to pay for that right is to dip into my pocket a little deeper, to make me, as a "have" pay for the rights of the "have nots."

One of the things I remember from early civics classes was the simple maxim "your rights end where my nose begins." Its simplistic, but its eloquent. Your rights do not extend to enabling you to trample my rights. Entitlements, such as health care, that cost the taxpayers, cannot, therefore be rights, as they infringe on the rights of others.

To those of you who believe health care is a right, I have a simple question. I have posed this question to another poster in this thread, but she did everything but answer the fundamental question.

What is the limit? Or, if you prefer, what level of taxation is enough?

I have been to countries where the government provided health care, and everyone was taxed at a rate of 50% and higher. Should we pay a 50% income tax? And if the answer is yes, what is the upper limit? At what point can we say we will pay no more taxes? There will always be someone with another social program, without which there can be no social justice. Do we constantly raise taxes higher and higher, to the point that no one is paid for anything, we simply receive from our government all that we need to live? And if that is the goal, then what is my incentive to continue to work? I'll get the same things whether I work or not. Perhaps it escaped some of you, but this is the lesson we should have learned from 75 years of socialist rule in Russia.

We keep adding to the list of "rights" supposedly guaranteed by our constitution, while subtracting from the list of responsibilities some have to our society. I am afraid that we will soon reach the point when only the very poorest and criminals will have any rights, while the responsibility of providing those rights is borne by the middle class, whose rights are being trampled willy-nilly. Where do we stop this trend? When is enough enough? And when is enough too much?

Kevin McHugh

Q. · Jan 23, 2003

Originally posted by kmchugh
Personally, I am frightened by how rapidly we are being pushed into being a country of rights without responsibilities. Now, it is the right of health care coverage. Not to sound mercenary, but what about my right to say "enough?" For every right proposed by someone, the answer to how to pay for that right is to dip into my pocket a little deeper, to make me, as a "have" pay for the rights of the "have nots."

I am afraid that we will soon reach the point when only the very poorest and criminals will have any rights, while the responsibility of providing those rights is borne by the middle class, whose rights are being trampled willy-nilly. Where do we stop this trend? When is enough enough? And when is enough too much?

Kevin McHugh

I couldn't agree with you more, Kevin. I've said this numerous times, but I, as a married, childless homeowner, feel that I bear this burden unfairly. The other day in fact, my husband and I were driving down the road in my 1995, 98 thousand mile Geo Prizm (as opposed to his 1994 110 thousand mile Cavalier) and we noticed all the expensive SUV's and other cars on the road that are at least $20,000. My husband then asked: if the average household income in America is $25,000/year, how is it that I see so many expensive vehicles on the road? And how is it that we, who are considered "affluent" are driving used, 8 year old cars? We didn't have an answer to this question.

I believe it was chigap, who scoffed at the haves "attitude" toward the have-nots. Let me say that I have been in the poor house, and it is because of this that I hold this opinion very strongly. Being "in the poor house" did nothing to make me want to have the government dish out all of my basic needs from the food I eat, to the choices I make, to the housing I have and the healthcare I recieve. In fact, it made me want that even less.

nimbex, RN · Jan 23, 2003

hell, I can't even afford my own US health insurance.... husband laid off from work, I carried secondary coverage.... crappy, but 20% co-pay. I needed a stress myoview, $570.00 plus cardiololgy fees. can't pay daily bills pluss this test which was co-ercered on me, being a cardiac nurse, having years experience... now having chest pain, stress of work, single income.... HTN... ect...... so I did it... the primary had a solid point..... I would have stressed me too...

yet now I am in collections... because I cannot pay MY HOSPITAL the lousy 20 percent that it demands....

yet I work my orifice offf in a county hospital, while those self pays and medicade get a free ride........

tough to swallow as your poor credit is pounded to sh*t

Especially when being a prisoner is a free ride.......

fergus51 · Jan 23, 2003

WHY DO PEOPLE THINK UNIVERSAL CARE WILL COST MORE?!!

Americans spend MORE per capita and as a percentage of their GDP than Canadians do ALREADY! The problem isn't with the amount of money we spend, it's with HOW it is allocated. We waste so much more money on administration and get bilked so much more often by companies like Tenet. Reduce some of that and put the money into prevention and I bet we could provide the same health care access to children that we do to prisoners.

In the end, it doesn't matter whose fault it is that uninsured people get sick and use health care without paying for it, because we all wind up paying for it anyways. Why not look at a common sense way of reducing those costs instead of saying "It's their own fault and I refuse to try to help because they should fix the situation themselves". It's a normal sentiment, and may be completely true, but not likely to happen ever.

maureeno · Jan 23, 2003

Article 25, Declaration of Human Rights:

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

semstr · Jan 23, 2003

Tracy Fergus, very well said!

I always find it very hard to explain our system to US-citizens, because it is so different.