Is healthcare a right or privilege?

tewdles, RN · Jan 28, 2010

Discrimination - 'unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice'
How is our treatment discriminatory?
In facvt, those with money carrying those without is more discriminatory than anything said here. How is it fair for one portion of society to carry another?

That is my hope...that your treatment is NOT discriminatory.

Because the attitudes expressed about the poor somehow needing to have "personal responsibility" relative to their inability to afford health care in our current broken system is discriminatory.

discrimination - treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit

Frankly the entire discussion about right vs. priviledge is a strawman and unimportant...healthcare is a necessity and without it people die who might otherwise live.

I couldn't agree more with the sentiment that our congress should not be in the position to design our health insurance or delivery systems...experts in the field need to do that...the congress simply needs to craft legislation based upon the recommendations of the experts. This, unfortunately, is not the way it was caused to happen, mostly because of the arrogance of our political leadership...they believe they are the intellectual elite of the country apparently. I have been emailing my senators with my displeasure about this process...

How fair it might or might not be for a more "priviliedged" member of our society to "carry" a less "priviledged"member of society is sort of a sophomoric sentiment, IMHO. Altruism is an important element in social/group living in the animal kingdom (which, of course, is where we live).

tewdles, RN · Jan 28, 2010

http://www.lpb.org/programs/fredfriendly/view.cfm

this is a panel discussion on "reinventing healthcare" which first aired in 2008 (I believe). it is, at minimum, interesting.

MarvinMartian · Jan 28, 2010

That is my hope...that your treatment is NOT discriminatory.
Because the attitudes expressed about the poor somehow needing to have "personal responsibility" relative to their inability to afford health care in our current broken system is discriminatory.

That, perhaps, explains the decline in values, morals and the economy in America today. I didn't realize it was discrimination to expect people to take personal responsibility. In that case Dr. King, Jesus and a whole bunch of other people were actually discriminating against us. Amazing...

discrimination - treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit

Legally discrimination requires an act. A thought in and of itself can not be discriminatory. I can hate a certain group of people all I want but if I continue to 'treat' them the same as everyone else I in fact have not discriminated against them. In any case, to take the position that there is no group out there that you do not harbor some sort of ill will towards is quite frankly false. There is a group out there you despise because you are human.

Frankly the entire discussion about right vs. priviledge is a strawman and unimportant...healthcare is a necessity and without it people die who might otherwise live.

This is a strawman as well. People die anyways whether there is healthcare or not. Frankly though, people dying is not our concern unless we CHOOSE individually to make it so. People might starve to death in say the Sudan if you don't give them all of your money.

Also, whether people will die or not is irrelevant. Someone dying doesn't lend any credance to your argument solely because you assume that a person's death is of sufficient importance to warrant imposing your will on everyone else.

How fair it might or might not be for a more "priviliedged" member of our society to "carry" a less "priviledged"member of society is sort of a sophomoric sentiment, IMHO. Altruism is an important element in social/group living in the animal kingdom (which, of course, is where we live).

Altruism is not an important part of society at all. Societies are built and maintained out of necessity. From your little group of friends to nations. The need to survive and the recognition that survival most often comes by surrounding yourself with similar people. Altruism is a lofty ideal that has no basis in biology whatsoever.

Biology is a hard master...

Sophmoric indeed. Pfft...

tewdles, RN · Jan 29, 2010

Review your zoology if you think that animals do not sacrifice self for benefit of group...altruism.

You are patently uninformed if you think that people in the USA do NOT die for lack of access to meaningful healthcare.

Your comments that "everyone dies" is a bit amusing to a Hospice nurse.

You are free to minimize discrimination to only those actions or attitudes which break the law...that, however, does not change the definition of the word.

Do you want to have a discussion about the teachings of MLK or Jesus?

MarvinMartian · Jan 29, 2010

Review your zoology if you think that animals do not sacrifice self for benefit of group...altruism.

First, that only occurs in a few mammals not the majority. Also... It is NOT altruism but survival as I said. Does one take a bullet for the president because of altruism? No... It's because of the realization that that person is more important to the nations survival than I am. Altruism means UNSELFISH. That means you have no motive other than the other person. Even subconscious motives.

Therefore not altruism.

You are patently uninformed if you think that people in the USA do NOT die for lack of access to meaningful healthcare.

I quite specifically said it isn't our problem unless we choose it to be.

Your comments that "everyone dies" is a bit amusing to a Hospice nurse.

Are we pulling experience cards here?

You are free to minimize discrimination to only those actions or attitudes which break the law...that, however, does not change the definition of the word.

Nope, I merely minimize discrimination to it's definition. Which this does not qualify as.

Do you want to have a discussion about the teachings of MLK or Jesus?

No need. They BOTH espoused personal accountability and responsibility. It's your contention that demanding personal accountability and responsibility for one's actions is discriminatory and therefore you are the one pointing out their discriminatory behavior. I merely point out the silliness of the argument.

tewdles, RN · Jan 30, 2010

Look...you can twist words and definitions any ol' way you want...I am not going to get into a peeing contest with you.

You have your opinion and I have mine...I am content to leave it at that.

That is what makes our country great...just not perfect.

Bella'sMyBaby · Jan 30, 2010

I'll make sure to tell the State Surveyors at our next annual survey that our Medicaid Residents don't have a right to health care!!! Wonder what they will say to that!!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!

MarvinMartian · Jan 30, 2010

I'll make sure to tell the State Surveyors at our next annual survey that our Medicaid Residents don't have a right to health care!!! Wonder what they will say to that!!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!

Hah... I work at a private pay facility. As far as we are concerned they don't. HAH

Nah, children, disabled people and elderly DO have a right to healthcare as far as I am concerned.

Able bodied working age people don't. I state that proudly. They need to CONTRIBUTE to society.

tewdles, RN · Jan 30, 2010

onekidney is back?

springing · Jan 30, 2010

I just had this debate with a bunch of people in a philosophy forum!

My take: whether healthcare is a right or a privilege is COMPLETELY meaningless. Really. Healthcare is essential for society to function properly. If you want to live in a civilized, productive society, you MUST provide healthcare. Complaining that it isn't a "right" misses the point that sometimes life isn't fair; you might not like the fact that it is necessary, but it is. So is some form of government; so are prisons (which your tax dollars ALSO go to support. Maybe we should just be executing felons, it would save money!); so is public education.

Substitute healthcare for education. Can you imagine ever having a debate about whether or not we should be providing free education to children? Can you imagine people complaining that their taxes shouldn't go to provide public education for someone else's children (and, sadly, this does happen)? There are many families who could never afford to send their children to school if school cost money, or even if there was no bus service. They would also benefit from putting their kids to work instead of sending them to school. Maybe we should be pushing for that, eh?

Without taxes going to support social services, or some way of providing and delivering social services to those who could not afford them otherwise, you don't have a country. You have Somalia. The fact that an organization that usually provides free care to impoverished, underdeveloped nations recently set up a free clinic in Tennessee should be considered a national shame.

The strange thing about all this is that between providing healthcare and enshrining free speech, healthcare is far more important when it comes to extending your lifespan. Yet one is considered a right and one is not.

lindarn · Jan 30, 2010

No one ever died because they could not do long division, or diagram a sentence. But people ARE dying because they have no access to healthcare. Or cannot afford the exhorbitant premiums. JMHO and my NY $0.02.

Lindarn, RN, BSN, CCRN

Spokane, Washington

tewdles, RN · Feb 1, 2010

So...we have a portion of our society which does not see the death of fellow citizens for lack of health care access as problematic...we have citizens who base the value of fellow humans upon whether or not they are "contributing" to society...and we have political leadership which is more interested and engaged in playing politics, improving their payscale, and remaining in power than they are in actually improving things for the everyday american.

How do we, as american citizens, reconcile these things? How do we insure that our government be as concerned about the well being of it's population as it is with other, off shore events?

Do you think it is possible that we could convince our elected aristocrats to relinquish control of health care reform so that experts might have a voice in the design?