Healthcare is NOT a basic human right.

Nurses Activism

Published

If one were to read the Constitution one would realize that the Constitution does not grant anyone freedoms, liberties, or rights. The Constitution only protects freedoms, liberties, and rights from transgressions on part of the government. A right is something that is inherent to the individual, comes from that individual, and is maintained by the individual. You are born with such rights like the right to speak freely, the only thing that can be done to that right is to have it infringed. No one can grant a right to another, only limit or impede the exercise of that right.

Healthcare is a human invention that does not exist in the natural environment. Only through the work of others and through the taking of resources from one party and giving to another does healthcare exist. You cannot force someone to give effort and resources to another and call that a right. In the absence of human intervention the individual would live their lives and succumb to the natural forces which would act upon their bodies.

Do I think we should provide preventative care and basic primary care? Sure. Do I think that we can? Maybe. Do I think that healthcare is a basic human right? Absolutely not.

I've been mulling something over. Going back to the original points of this thread, about healthcare being a "right" or not....clearly the Constitution is irrelevant to that discussion as it is not a Constitutionally-protected "right".

However, the idea of "rights to healthcare" intrigues me: at what point, at what line, do we determine the end of the "right"?

Follow me on this. Man is seen staggering at the side of the road, bleeding from a cut on his head. Good Samaritan stops and offers the man help; he has a Band-Aid in his car to apply to the cut. First Aid has now been offered and received...."right"? No, just empathy to one's fellow man. Ok, now it looks like the injured man might be in need of more than a Band-Aid; the Good Samaritan calls 911 (free service now offered in the US). An ambulance is sent to pick up, and brings the man to the ER. During the ride, the man receives an IV (which may or may not be free depending on your service area). Patient arrives at hospital, is seen by a doctor, who determines a CT scan is in order.

Ok, are we still behind the line for the man's "right" to all of this, or is it starting to cross over into "extra"?

So he has the CT, and there the brain bleed becomes evident. Dang, he's gonna need surgery! And probably months of physical rehab and speech therapy!

Is it his "right" to get that surgery immediately? He cannot pay (let's throw that in, since after all that's at the crux of the issue)....does he still have the "right" to top-of-the-line care, or only the initial Band-Aid/ambulance ride/IV....whatever? Does he have the "right" to expect the surgeon and the entire OR, PACU, rehab facility, therapists and floor staff to care for him free?

If no one can very clearly define "healthcare", how can we call it a "right"? A "right" to EXACTLY what?

And if you agree that he should get the EMS treatment as his "right" but not the brain surgery and fabulously expensive recovery, then you're really NOT calling healthcare a "right", only the part YOU feel is....enough.

I seriously doubt even the members of this board could come up with a suitable, agreeable definition, so how the heck are we as a country going to call it a "right"?

(and remember, I do support the ACA :) )

Specializes in Nephrology, Cardiology, ER, ICU.

Just a friendly reminder - please keep to the topic at hand: healthcare, not immigration or race. Thanks everyone!

Specializes in ICU, PACU, OR.

First of all-I think that those who are unable to work-not even a bit, fall under a level of social care that is part of a civilized society. No one is denying that. There will always be a fraction of the population that need help.

You have to admit and be truthful-we all know that there are those who have no incentive to work or contribute because it's easier to draw disability long past the time they could at least deliver a pizza, or throw a newspaper or do some form of work.

We have programs right now that have been mismanaged and aren't working but could be better managed and be sufficient for those TRULY in need. If we go to a single payer system believe me there will continue to be a supplemental insurance option for those who can afford it or whose employers offer it as a perk. This happens in the UK. There will always be a demand for less waiting time and the ability to have a choice of your own physician-not one selected for you.

Second-911 service is funded by anyone with a phone. Check your phone bill.

Third-doctors and other professionals take positions in a community and are required to take a certain amount of indigent care as part of their payback for loans and part of their dues coming into practices. The more senior doctors are get out of indigent care and take a minimal amount of or no new medicare patients. Those patients are cared for by the newest doctors in the practice. So the guy that got hit on the road would probably not be seen by the "Primo" doctor.

But lets think about this. If you were not a nurse-or if you were a nurse and could bill for insurance. Would you limit the amount of cases you would take that were uninsured or on gov't insurance programs? Would you dedicate your life to be underpaid and overworked and absent from your home and family so that you could do more for mankind? Would you just take a nominal fee?

Do you honestly think that people will be honest when 2014 comes around and they don't take the insurance and manufacture reasons why they can't pay for insurance?

Do you honestly think that if everyone gets insurance that the problem with healthcare access will be solved?

First of all-I think that those who are unable to work-not even a bit, fall under a level of social care that is part of a civilized society. No one is denying that. There will always be a fraction of the population that need help.

You have to admit and be truthful-we all know that there are those who have no incentive to work or contribute because it's easier to draw disability long past the time they could at least deliver a pizza, or throw a newspaper or do some form of work.

Not aimed at cdsga, just quoting as a basis of my comments then aimed at the void:

I think way too many people are overestimating the number of people that fall into that second group and underestimate those that fall into the first group. Or can work, do work, but still don't make enough to pay for healthcare or even basic human survival.

First of all-I think that those who are unable to work-not even a bit, fall under a level of social care that is part of a civilized society. No one is denying that. There will always be a fraction of the population that need help.

You have to admit and be truthful-we all know that there are those who have no incentive to work or contribute because it's easier to draw disability long past the time they could at least deliver a pizza, or throw a newspaper or do some form of work.

We have programs right now that have been mismanaged and aren't working but could be better managed and be sufficient for those TRULY in need. If we go to a single payer system believe me there will continue to be a supplemental insurance option for those who can afford it or whose employers offer it as a perk. This happens in the UK. There will always be a demand for less waiting time and the ability to have a choice of your own physician-not one selected for you.

Second-911 service is funded by anyone with a phone. Check your phone bill.

Third-doctors and other professionals take positions in a community and are required to take a certain amount of indigent care as part of their payback for loans and part of their dues coming into practices. The more senior doctors are get out of indigent care and take a minimal amount of or no new medicare patients. Those patients are cared for by the newest doctors in the practice. So the guy that got hit on the road would probably not be seen by the "Primo" doctor.

But lets think about this. If you were not a nurse-or if you were a nurse and could bill for insurance. Would you limit the amount of cases you would take that were uninsured or on gov't insurance programs? Would you dedicate your life to be underpaid and overworked and absent from your home and family so that you could do more for mankind? Would you just take a nominal fee?

Do you honestly think that people will be honest when 2014 comes around and they don't take the insurance and manufacture reasons why they can't pay for insurance?

Do you honestly think that if everyone gets insurance that the problem with healthcare access will be solved?

Yes, absolutely I agree that some people have no incentive to work or contribute when they physically and mentally could.

Yes, no doubt some programs have been mismanaged and could be better managed to serve people in need.

Yes, private insurance does exist in the UK, as you mentioned, and I believe the majority of the population do not use it and instead use the National Health Service. As far as I know, private insurance is quite expensive and not easy to obtain for people with pre-existing conditions unless they obtain the insurance through their employment. I too think that there will continue to be a demand for less waiting time and choice of doctor i.e. private insurance.

In regard to your question "If you were not a nurse - or if you were a nurse and could bill for insurance. Would you limit the amount of cases you would take that were uninsured or on government insurance programs? If I think of the UK, the majority of nurses work for the National Health Service, and I believe receive government pensions, as doctors in the UK do. I cannot answer your question as I am not a Nurse Practitioner nor do I plan to become one. I do think you have asked a very valid question. There are many unknowns as to how health reform will evolve, for nurses, independent practitioners, and patients.

Do I honestly think people will be honest when 2014 comes around, and they don't take the insurance and manufacture reasons why they can't pay for insurance? I have reservations.

Do I honestly think that if everyone gets insurance that the problem with healthcare access will be solved? No. I hope it will be a big improvement. I prefer the UK system that uses taxation to pay for health care, leaving out the insurance companies. The UK system has problems too. I absolutely do not suggest that the UK system is problem free or that patients have not experienced problems related to care. I just know that the UK system does provide the population with access to health care from birth until death, and I believe the vast majority of people in the UK value the National Health Service.

Specializes in ED, LTC, SNF, Med/Surg.

I've seen alot of posts on here regarding "access" to healthcare. I don't feel that "access" is as big of a problem as some would lead you to believe, especially those who support the ACA. As I've pointed out before any hospital that accepts federal funds must treat anyone who comes in regardless of ability to pay. Let me assure you that almost every hospital in the US accepts federal funds. There are relatively few private hospitals still in business. As a matter of fact I cannot think of a single hospital off the top of my head in the entire country that does not accept federal funds.

Now, as far as pre-hospital care, the ambulance doesn't take your insurance information over the phone before sending the squad. Taxes, mostly municipal, support the fire department. You're not going to get turned away if you call 911, regardless of your ability to pay.

Now, as it concerns a PCP, or family doctor, no they are probably not going to see you for free. That doesn't mean that they will not see you if you don't have insurance. It may mean they will not see you if you don't pay them. This for some could be a problem, if there were not literally thousands upon thousands of free clinics all across the US. I live in a very small town, and there is a free clinic twice a week that also provides prescription assistance. So I find the whole "access argument" quite base-less.

Specializes in PDN; Burn; Phone triage.
Those who took the time, money and effort to immigrate here LEGALLY tend to object to those who commit felonies to cheat there way into the country.

My mother (legal immigrant) is a viscous anti-illegal immigration proponent. My former roommate (legal immigrant) is also a viscous anti-illegal immigration proponent. My former roommate actually worked for the New Zealand Consulate and dealt with legal and illagal immigration regarding New Zealand immigrants in the United States. He LOVED to find and assist in the deportation of illegal immigrants, he thought it was shameful and dishonorable to his country.

I personally do not hold the zealous ideals of those I mentioned, but I certainly understand it.

I for one am not an immigrant. I was born here. I am native.

My husband is a Canadian immigrant via spousal visa to me. (He's technically a permanent resident -- has no interest in becoming an American citizen right now.)

Navigating the immigration system gave us both a cold, hard look at how difficult it is to immigrate to the US. The cost alone makes it unattainable for many...and that's *if* you meet the very strict requirements needed to be able to immigrate. (Spousal visa is the easiest, most direct path -- coming from a rich, non-brown country, it was more a matter of rubber stamping and paying fees than any real scrutiny for us. The process still took about 16 months and ~$8,500 directly in fees.)

So we're both pretty...blase? about illegal immigration. He's certainly not objecting to anything. Now if only he'd naturalize and we wouldn't have to deal with USCIS ever again.

I've seen alot of posts on here regarding "access" to healthcare. I don't feel that "access" is as big of a problem as some would lead you to believe, especially those who support the ACA.

A free clinic? Twice a week! Well there's no problem at all with access!!

Every free clinic around here you'd have to wait all day HOPING you'll be seen. Which is really easy to do if you're trying to keep a roof over your head with your job that pays just enough to get by, as long as you keep it. Or your child gets sick on Thursday night. Free clinic isn't open until next Tuesday night. Think we're going to be wasting ER resources for a simple case of otitis media? And then how do you pay that bill?

I can't afford a surprise ED visit, and I've got a decent job and insurance that will pay some of it.

It never ceases to amaze me how easy people who have never been poor think that it is to be poor.

Uh....yes it is. We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Exactly how do you expect people to exercise their right to life without the ability to maintain their health? Life and health kinda go together

I've been mulling something over. Going back to the original points of this thread, about healthcare being a "right" or not....clearly the Constitution is irrelevant to that discussion as it is not a Constitutionally-protected "right".

However, the idea of "rights to healthcare" intrigues me: at what point, at what line, do we determine the end of the "right"?

Follow me on this. Man is seen staggering at the side of the road, bleeding from a cut on his head. Good Samaritan stops and offers the man help; he has a Band-Aid in his car to apply to the cut. First Aid has now been offered and received...."right"? No, just empathy to one's fellow man. Ok, now it looks like the injured man might be in need of more than a Band-Aid; the Good Samaritan calls 911 (free service now offered in the US). An ambulance is sent to pick up, and brings the man to the ER. During the ride, the man receives an IV (which may or may not be free depending on your service area). Patient arrives at hospital, is seen by a doctor, who determines a CT scan is in order.

Ok, are we still behind the line for the man's "right" to all of this, or is it starting to cross over into "extra"?

So he has the CT, and there the brain bleed becomes evident. Dang, he's gonna need surgery! And probably months of physical rehab and speech therapy!

Is it his "right" to get that surgery immediately? He cannot pay (let's throw that in, since after all that's at the crux of the issue)....does he still have the "right" to top-of-the-line care, or only the initial Band-Aid/ambulance ride/IV....whatever? Does he have the "right" to expect the surgeon and the entire OR, PACU, rehab facility, therapists and floor staff to care for him free?

If no one can very clearly define "healthcare", how can we call it a "right"? A "right" to EXACTLY what?

And if you agree that he should get the EMS treatment as his "right" but not the brain surgery and fabulously expensive recovery, then you're really NOT calling healthcare a "right", only the part YOU feel is....enough.

I seriously doubt even the members of this board could come up with a suitable, agreeable definition, so how the heck are we as a country going to call it a "right"?

(and remember, I do support the ACA :) )

Ok, fair enough. However how can access to healthcare *not* be a basic human right as interpeted by the Constitution but the right to marry whomever anyone choses (same sex, inter-racial, etc) is or cleary hoped so in some quarters including Mr. & Mrs. Obama?

So you can drop dead in the streets of untreated disease for lack of access to healthcare but that is fine long as one has other *rights* and freedoms? Merely require information and clarification of the thought process here.

France does not have a "socialized" healthcare system per se, the following pretty much sums things up: France Fights Universal Care's High Cost - WSJ.com

What persons must understand is that for the most part modern healthcare in the UK and many EU countries grew out of the ruined economies and for that matter countries of WWII. When the war was over governments looked around and there really were few other options as most private insurance companies were either gone or in very bad shape.

Understand this as well; France, Germany and other EU countries have a strong nationalistic feelings amoung the populations. That is one is "French" not "African-French" or "gay-French" or any of the hundreds of ways Amercians break themselves down into groups. As such persons fall into line with what is good for the State/country ahead of themselves.

France places huge value on early education for children because it is there that they begin to learn what it means to be "French" and how they one day will fit into society.

The French don't mind paying "high" taxes for healthcare because by and large everyone has access to the same level of care. The wealthy and or those willing to pay extra for insurance to cover the gaps in what the state does not are welcome to do so, others make do with what they've got and are happy.

While we're on the subject of healthcare in France a few interesting tidbits:

Doctors by and large are employees of the French government who pays for their education. Thus you do not have post grads drowning in debt like the USA. Free from that burden many French physicians are far more altruistic than many of their American counterparts. Yes, they may earn less but see themselves in a different role within French society as opposed to the average American doctor.

French public hospitals are by and large to opposite of what one normally finds in the USA. They actually *are* the place most citizens go from poor to wealthy for state of the art care and or for serious treatment. This is because the state run hospitals have vastly more funding (via taxpayers) than private. The former for instance most always has 24/7 staffing of doctors including often specialists whilst the latter does not (it cost money to have all those doctors on staff, and the private hospitals don't always have).

Don't know if it was mentioned in the OP posted with my link but France is actually experimenting with fee for service care (American style healthcare) in a limited way in an attempt to drive down healthcare costs. Turns out giving facilities buckets of money to spend on whatever they wish isn't always the way to spend healthcare Euros wisely, especially when so much of it seems to go missing and or the places request more and more.

Specializes in PDN; Burn; Phone triage.
A free clinic? Twice a week! Well there's no problem at all with access!!

Every free clinic around here you'd have to wait all day HOPING you'll be seen. Which is really easy to do if you're trying to keep a roof over your head with your job that pays just enough to get by, as long as you keep it. Or your child gets sick on Thursday night. Free clinic isn't open until next Tuesday night. Think we're going to be wasting ER resources for a simple case of otitis media? And then how do you pay that bill?

I can't afford a surprise ED visit, and I've got a decent job and insurance that will pay some of it.

It never ceases to amaze me how easy people who have never been poor think that it is to be poor.

+1!

I did referrals/social work consults for a free urgent care clinic that operates 3 nights a week; my job was to refer people who did not have a PMH/came to the clinical with a chronic problem to one of the safety net clinics in the area.

Average wait time for someone with an actual issue/"acute" chronic problem was anywhere from 12-16 WEEKS for an appointment. And that's for a GP ---) specialists, if we could find one that would take an uninsured/poor pt, had waiting lists of 6 months to a year. All required ID, as well as either proof of employment (paystub) or, more vexingly, proof of unemployment, which is a lot harder to attain than it sounds when you're not on disability or receiving unemployment.

I think of the 8 or 9 safety net clinics that we referred to, two had "walk in" days once a week and (the biggest one in the area) theoretically took same day appointments but in reality the process of getting an appointment could stretch into weeks of calling every morning to try to get in for the day.

This particular urgent care clinic was the only one of its kind in the area and practitioners were extremely picky about what they would see or treat. We also had a 50 pt quota for the night --) people would line up for HOURS before opening to get in before we met quota.

+ Add a Comment