You answered 'is it a right' but not, if and how it should be improved. (I did not make that second part a question, but most posts were about how changing the current system would weaken/worsen it. So I added the question, how would you improve it. Please state either, I don't know or by doing this. Please don't mention/suggest how to weaken it.)

I understand you wish to have a market led approach... but you have not defined if the current market led approach is working for you...

All I want to know is, are you satisfied? If so, then thats your final answer.

'Its not a right and it works already'.

To be a little off topic, let's not personally attack each other. Okay? It always leads to an argument that is more fueled by hateful emotions against each other rather then a debate.


Firstly,
To even start this debate we must define what a "right" is. I assume that when Randee says right that she means the idea of legal rights which are arbitrary human constructs, created by legislative authority and subject to change.



Secondly,
I'm assuming, but because a majority of KAFers are American that the whole 'Is healthcare a right?' brings up a socialist society because of current politics. So because the topics are very closely related complete avoidance of bring socialism v.s. capitalism in this debate is unavoidable.



Thirdly,
I'm very suprised this "debate" hasn't quickly moved towards ethics.

Quoted Merennulli —

Fact of the matter is, it [Healthcare] IS a privilege. So is a computer and the internet.

Your comparison lacks one essential part. A computer and internet are not essential to human well-being and health. To make a comparison is unrealistic, even if you do believe it is a privilege.



To humor this debate, I little I'd like to compare universal healthcare with another lifesaving service. (This is obviously satorical and does not reflect what I think)

For too long now, fire departments across the United States have been socialist organizations, resulting in taxes on the American people.  

FACT: Most Americans never use the socialized services of the fire department.  

It is time to open the fire department up to private industry. We have the best fire departments in the world in the US, but that doesn't mean that anyone (even non-US citizens) should be able to dial up and have fires put out, etc. There are private companies (Halliburtion, Etc.) who could step in tomorrow and take over every fire department in America and charge the consumer directly.

So let's stop being so radical in this spectrum and play nice.

I don't believe in either a capitalistic or socialistic healthcare system. In a capitalistic system, while the society does not benefit, the individual does have superior healthcare. In a socialistic system, the society benefits, while the individual suffers.

I believe that a mix of both socialistic and capitalistic would be best. Those who are able to purchase healthcare from insurance companies should. While those who need healthcare and are unable to purchase it should be able to receive healthcare. I believe that this may solve the problems with having either spectrum of healthcare systems. Morally speaking, I believe in Life > Money.


Since I've now gotten the whole capitalistic vs. socialistic out of my system, I'll answer the question that was posed in the first post. Do I believe that healthcare is a right? I do believe that it is a right to receive healthcare, if you are in need of it. My logic behind it?

To generalize and speak very broadly,
I believe that most of us can agree on the Right to Life defined by the United Nations.

Quoted Article 6.1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights —

Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.

Logically speaking, if a child is sick with the Bubonic plague (which has recently crept it's head back into our world) and doesn't have healthcare, should the child not be treated? Does the child not have the right to life just because he cannot afford it? Has the right to life become a privilege of those who can obtain healthcare?

*Sigh* After I swore I would never come here again....but I'm bored, so why not make a post.

Quoted^(ref) Yoshiyuki (on 16 August, 2009, 12:09 PM PDT) —

Randee, aren't you British..? Why do you care about American Health Care Reform? 

Should it be a right? Ehhhh, most arguments for it I've seen are emotional appeals. Arguments against it say "if all doctors make the same wage no-one will have motivation to work" and thus seem to think that doctors only work for money. Some doctors do the work for the money and when the money is gone they'll do a crappier job, sure, but some doctors will still have pride in their work. I honestly don't think the government should be worrying about spending more on healthcare right now when we're still dealing with the effects of the recession (Even though Rahm Emanuel seems to think they have defeated it like a bunch of white knights ona crusade to defeat some mythical dragon or something). Also the ones mainly lobbying for socialized healthcare are, not the people who need it, but the medical industry. It's not what it seems at first glance.

Well, actually, I believe doctors wages have to be so high so that they can pay back for the 8 years of medical school and 2-4 years of college prior in order to obtain their license. Older doctors may be perfectly fine with a pay cut, but newer doctors as well as anyone in the field might not be able to afford it until those student loans are all payed off. However, this isn't my main point.

Anyways...I do have an idea. Instead of making a socialized health care system run by the government I think it would be better if the government worked WITH the health care system. The best way to do this would be to reward companies that lowered their rates to a certain amount while offering a certain amount of coverage with things like tax cuts and returns. Essentially you bribe them to lower their prices to more affordable rates, similar to how you bribe people to donate to charity by having it as a tax write off.

I say this because I think that the people who actually work in the health care industry should be in charge of how to handle it. You could ruin business and negatively influence wages by making a government run system. This way wages should -probably- stay the same and not make any big waves. Likewise companies that agree to this will have an edge over companies that don't, since they are now cheaper and still making profit. I mean it is essentially bribery, but it would probably work.

On whether it is a right or not, healing definitely is a commodity that people will market and that only those rare few who went through the proper training and paid for it can perform. To say that everyone should have access to it is something that I feel patients who can't heal shouldn't decide, but rather those who have the ability to perform such actions to. In short I leave it up to the doctors, I who can't perform surgery or save lives have no business telling them what they should be charging or not charging for doing it.

Quoted^(ref) daloveofurlife (on 22 August, 2009, 08:12 PM PDT) —

Quoted Article 6.1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights —

Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.

Logically speaking, if a child is sick with the Bubonic plague (which has recently crept it's head back into our world) and doesn't have healthcare, should the child not be treated? Does the child not have the right to life just because he cannot afford it? Has the right to life become a privilege of those who can obtain healthcare?

The UN leaves it for each country to decide how thats achived... and who pays for it? America already is better than 120 countries.

Quoted VongolaXI —

On whether it is a right or not, healing definitely is a commodity that people will market and that only those rare few who went through the proper training and paid for it can perform. To say that everyone should have access to it is something that I feel patients who can't heal shouldn't decide, but rather those who have the ability to perform such actions to. In short I leave it up to the doctors, I who can't perform surgery or save lives have no business telling them what they should be charging or not charging for doing it.

The UK example:

In the 1950's, the British Doctors union voted 99% to keep the healthcare system private.

Unfortunately, the people voted in a party that would make it free for all... In that case, the generally vote overruled Doctors wishes... Though fundamentally, it was workers who overruled the middle and upper classes as it was the workers who voted in the Labor Party in and who could not afford a doctor.

Quoted^(ref) randee (on 22 August, 2009, 05:45 AM PDT) —

'Its not a right and it works already'.[/color]

It's not a right, but that doesn't have anything to do with if it works. How you define "working" depends on your perspective. I work and have health insurance. The system works for me, but that doesn't mean it works, nor am I in a location where I can witness it not working. The cost of living is low enough where I am that a Wal-Mart clerk's paycheck is enough to live off of if you're frugal. I'm not qualified to say it works for someone in a different region. That said, they're not qualified to say what will work for me. A nationalized system will NOT work for me. It will strip me of my quality of healthcare and bring down my livelyhood to that of the Wal-Mart clerk. If at the end of the day, I have the same result for my hard work as someone who has put in no effort to a degree, self improvement, or job productivity, what is going to keep me doing it? What will keep the infrastructure working that requires trained professionals doing work that isn't as easy?

And yes, there is a difference between improving lives and firefighting. A fire spreads, damaging and killing the community. Just as it's the place of government to protect the citizens from foreign and domestic violence, so it is for communal threats. That's why we have a CDC, before you make some comment about preventing disease spread.

I'll emphasize it's not saving lives that we're talking about. The existing healthcare system provides for emergency care of the uninsured. What's being debated is forcing them to purchase a state mandated minimum insurance, so they're not left with crippling debt after said emergency care. What's being debated is also the minor care. Antibiotics because Junior has a skin rash, heart medication because Senior has high blood pressure, and repeated diabetes testing because that cake tasted so good and every time I visit my doctor can't believe I could be that fat and not have diabetes.

There's nothing "radical" or "not nice" about having a dissenting viewpoint. There is, though, a problem with dismissing someone offhandedly because you didn't want to hear something.

And yes, life is more important than money, but reality trumps life. We have the systems of care that we do now because people have the wealth to reinvest and incentive to do so. Taking that away from them instead to force a state-mandated ideal takes away the incentive and takes away the capital for reinvestment. The system grinds to a halt economically as the agendas of the state outpace the value the state places on human life. As I mentioned earlier, this plan is horribly damaging to rural areas. It's no surprise that Obama's powerbase is in the larger cities where cost of living is high, and the cost of the choices made by people there would be covered by people they've never met. It's easy to say "yes, rob everyone else and give to me, I'm worth it." The inspiring thing, though, is that even in places where this helps, where they benefit from this redistribution of wealth, many people have enough sense to say no. To demand reality dictate policy rather than wishful thinking and the false promises to make the system work by increasing costs and not increasing pay-in from the one tax bracket that can't get out of paying its taxes.

Yes, we have one of the most expensive healthcare systems in the world. Why? Because we're willing to pay for it as individuals. We continue to pay the rising cost of insurance so that we can take our children to the doctor every time they have so much as a sniffle. Is it efficient, no. Even so, enough people suffer as it is in this country from undiagnosed malpractice. Not the things that show up in lawsuits, but the little mistakes. The arrogant doctor who decides "That looks like X. Rather than test it, I'll just treat it as X." With a state-enforced system, allowing someone to doctor-hop to get away from that is not affordable. The insurance companies already discourage it, which is why I spent 9 months sick as a child while my family was cured of the same symptoms in a week, but my doctor refused to listen and insisted it wasn't the same thing.

Instead of subsidizing it or trying to define it as a right, look to the economic reality. Why doesn't everyone have insurance? Most without it lack jobs that pay enough. But on the other hand, we have shortages in several professional fields, not the least of which is the medical field. If you want to throw a program at the problem, put it into something that might actually help the situation, such as making these people a part of the solution rather than making them into a drain on it. I don't agree with the wanton government spending in either case, but spend it on training the people who need this new healthcare to take the jobs needed to provide it. When they're filling those jobs and getting paid for them, they'll be buying their own health insurance and feeding back into the system in a positive loop. Their spending on other things also stimulates the rest of the economy to open up more jobs.

If you put the effort towards getting people work rather than making it so they don't have to, you create a positive feedback loop rather than a negative one, and have a better chance of success with less detriment to individuals.