Healthcare is NOT a basic human right. - page 46

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... Read More

  1. by   forrester
    It also talks about providing for the general welfare.
    Public health affects us all, whether in terms of communicable diseases or in terms of an epidemic of obesity which is driving the cost of healthcare over 17% of GDP.

    We would save 1 trillion dollars a year if we could just go back to 1980 obesity levels. There, no more health care crisis.
  2. by   tewdles
    Our federal government supports other things that are not basic right to bear arms, right to freedom of speech, etc.
  3. by   sneeds
    Yes, but then the processed food industry would be unhappy and send their army of lobbyists to put a stop to that nonsense. lol. Healthcare depends on sick people to drive profits. Big business drives government. Therein lies the problem. Get rid of lobbyists, make it illegal to buy votes.
  4. by   John Silver
    Well, that is where the U.S. Constitution breaks away- It clearly states (based on the Declaration of Independence) that the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are NOT rights granted by a government, but are human rights inherent to us due to our creation, however that may have been done.

    The Constituionally guaranteed rights are spelled out in the Bill of Rights, but were designed to be "generic" in recognition that they could not possible predict how life would change in subsequent generations. There is no "right" to drive a car, to have electricity provided to your house, to have access to food, to vote, to have access to healthcare, or even to get married and have children.

    Each generation has had to make decisions about what "rights" mean, and how they change over time.

    The government has a Constitutional obligation to "provide for the general welfare".
    Last edit by John Silver on Apr 5, '13 : Reason: misspelling
  5. by   sneeds
    Well, when big business buys government and uses tactics such as purposeful obfuscation and social engineering so that said generations, whom are too busy trying to eek out a living, cannot (out of ignorance) and/or do not have time to actually stand up for their rights in such a way that they can make decisions about what "rights" mean and how to change them, then the general welfare of said generation is not being provided. Straw man is alive and well. Fox is guarding the henhouse. And, yes, leaving the constitution open for interpretation was ingenious, and very advantageous.
  6. by   sneeds
    I was just thinking, it would be good to have a legal and ethics category in allnurses.
  7. by   SuzieVN
    This was debated on Intelligence Squared. If you agree, it's not a universal right? You may change your mind after watching the debate.

    Home " IQ2 Debates
  8. by   Clementia
    Several points leap to mind:

    Point#1: "Rights" are actually a very narrow category. An inherent (that is, inborn) human right is a right you enjoy by virtue of being born a human being, and is something you do not earn and that no one can morally take from you. The only ones I can think of that qualify are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit (not the guarantee) of happiness. I believe many of the perks that we consider rights properly belong in the categories of freedoms or reasonable expectations.

    Point #2: There are many parties who have an interest in the universal healthcare discussion. Among these are the government, who is trying to set up this system and will be allocating funds toward it; the average taxpayer, who will be providing the funds allocated; the wealthy, who stand a very good chance of being disproportionately taxed to fund the program; the working poor, who despite their best efforts cannot afford their own health insurance coverage; those who are afflicted with conditions like quadriplegia or profound mental retardation, who have no outside support yet cannot reasonably be expected to support themselves; and the nation's healthcare workers, whose labor and time are demanded for the actual hands-on health care. It's very difficult to balance all these claims justly, and yet all these claims must be given weight.

    Point #3: It's very easy to turn straight to emotional arguments when discussing a topic this weighted. The pro-universal health care side accuses the anti's of being uncaring and preferring to see deserving people die in the streets rather than shell out a penny for their care. The anti's accuse the pro's of being bleeding hearts who would rather bankrupt the country than not treat someone's hangnail. It would be nice if people could back off on the emotion and acknowledge that this is a tough issue and that the other side's view is worth respectful attention.

    Just some thoughts that have surfaced in my mind after reading through the entire thread. Very interesting comments posted by (almost) everyone.
  9. by   marcopollo
    Obamacare is insurance for the poor, rich pigs and corporations will pay the tab or elses ...
  10. by   Laurie52
    Quote from marcopollo
    Obamacare is insurance for the poor, rich pigs and corporations will pay the tab or elses ...
    The burden for this will be borne by the ever shrinking middle class.
    And I'm curious, or else's what?
  11. by   marcopollo
    Revolution = freedom from the right mind set ...
  12. by   calivianya
    Nevermind. I don't want to stir things up.
    Last edit by calivianya on Jun 14, '13 : Reason: Changed my mind
  13. by   LadyFree28
    Quote from calivianya
    I wish there was a way to determine who "deserves" free care - if we could find a way to help some people, and make others pay for their care (or at least just a percentage), it would help the funding problems quite a bit.

    I know that sounds monstrous. I really do.

    However, I don't think someone who makes the effort to take care of himself/herself and has something terrible happen is the same as someone with a chronic disease who has gotten there because of bad life choices. You all can call me uncaring and evil and horrible if you want. However, healthcare is one of the only areas where it seems like no one has to pay for their mistakes. There is NO personal responsibility in healthcare. There are people who are wealthy enough to afford healthy food and a personal trainer, who eat nothing but fast food, and expect a magic bullet to take care of their inevitable, non-congenital heart disease when it develops and expect us to fix them for free. Why? So they can mess up their heart again? So they can have three more quadruple bypass surgeries down the road when they once AGAIN refuse to change their diets or their lifestyles? You know you've all seen it. I had one patient I was taking care of (she told me I was one of the kindest people she ran into, so don't think I'm letting the patients see what I think because I don't) who had bilateral AKAs from her diabetes. She was also on dialysis and had diabetic retinopathy, so you can imagine how poorly controlled her diabetes was. She was complaining about how hard it was to eat healthy. I was 100% in agreement with her and was even sympathetic until I saw her family bring in a large pizza with every meat on it you could imagine, as well as a whole liter of regular Coke, and she ate the whole pizza and drank the whole Coke right in front of me. Yeah. It's really hard to eat healthy when you don't even try. The worst part is that she did this at *every meal* - ignored the heart healthy carb modified diet she was ordered in the hospital and had her family bring in fast food and delivery alternatives. You know what? I can't force her to eat well. I can't. But I really do think that there should be some tradeoff where if you blatantly ignore all efforts to save your life by medical professionals that maybe you should have to pay a bit more than everyone else. Really. It just makes me sick some of the enabling we do in healthcare.

    As long as everything is perfectly free, what incentive do people have to help themselves? Obviously, they don't care about living and they don't care about their quality of life if they're exemplifying the behavior I was just talking about, but maybe if healthcare for accidents/illnesses/injuries was free and healthcare for self-induced, reversible problems was expensive, people would actually care about taking care of their bodies.

    I can't imagine there would ever be a fair way to implement a system like that, so I know it's a wash, but if there was just SOME way to determine the cost of care based on an individual's compliance to medical advice he or she had received I really do believe that people would be healthier. Many people tend to care about their wallets more than their lives.
    I actually understand your viewpoint.

    I can only see this happening if there was equal access to quality food.

    I found that eating foods from local farmers, better milk, fruits, veggies, meats, poultry, options and tips how to utilize healthier selections are not always available in my area. I don't shop at a market within a 10 mile radius in my area, because the selections are subpar.

    If I could afford it or it was expanded, I would have my own garden or a community garden.

    Healthcare is sooo interrelated to our personal life, how can it NOT be a human "right"?? Now, I am speaking from a perspective of someone who had a major medical trauma, which basically forced me into reviving Medicaid, and eventually Medicare, with a period of NO insurance, because I couldn't afford it, couldn't work....and I know that the lack of access to healthcare affected my recovery, especially mentally. I have always believed it to be a human right, and even more SO because I have experienced that lack if access to healthcare.