Digg

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Health Care: A Right or Privilege?

bradstinyworld.com — Do you as a person have a right to healthcare? If it is a right, then it is the government ’s responsibility to ensure that you get it. If healthcare is a mere privilege, does the government have the legal right to manage how much it costs? If it is a right of the people, what is the difference between healthcare and elective medical treatment?

Bury

bradhart2 59 days ago

113 diggs
digg it

141 Comments
Who Dugg It?
Blog It
Email It

bradhart2, on 05/10/2008, -1/+5It is a tough one, just when you think you know the answer there is always some reply to stick you with
cashman57, on 05/10/2008, -3/+19The government should get out of the health care business and leave us alone. I don't want to have all of my medical decisions made by an insurance company bean counter or DC bureaucrat.
I know what is best for me, they don't.
- MarlinFische, on 05/10/2008, -8/+3fine let them remove the price controls and oversight see what happens. While you're at it get rid of medicare, madicaid, and childhood health care. BTW that would eliminate all the immunization programs. Will you or your kids be safe if the government doesn't provide these services for tens of millions?
  - Kent4jmj, on 05/10/2008, -3/+8Simple fact the more money we give to government the worse healthcare becomes and the more it costs. Read Ron Pauls "Manifesto" for an introduction into this topic. You've been lied to, we all have.
  - cashman57, on 05/10/2008, -3/+10If we remove price controls we would be able to afford our own health care. If we get rid of medicare and medicaid prices will go down. Proof of that is the increase in prices when those two government programs were instituted. Do you have any idea how many kids die from immunizations? Myself and my child will be far safer without a government agency sucking up tax dollars and pretending it does something. If you want socialistic medicine go to Canada and get on a waiting list.
    - bradhart2, on 05/10/2008, -4/+3it is completely naive to think the prices will go down with they get rid of medicare and meicad. The people receiving those programs simply will go without and be told too bad so sad when they show up at the emergency room without cash or sufficient credit.
      - mciampa1214, on 05/10/2008, -0/+4Greater competition will usually lower market prices. If the government stopped covering costs at a rate decided by politicians and lobbyists the healthcare companies would be forced to lower prices to a point where most people could afford care. If they didn't another company would step in and do it for them and take their business.
    - cashman57, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3bradhart2- look at what has happened in health care realistically and you will see that I am right.
      In the 1950's 80% of Americans paid for their own health care and could afford it and the indigent were taken care of with free clinics and publicly funded hospitals.
      Then came the government and decided that if we were to have a great society we should pay for medical bills and the price went up and fewer Americans could afford their health care so they came up with medicaid and the cost of health care went up and fewer Americans could afford their health care.
      Now if you can show me where in the Constitution it says "Provide health care" I will agree with you that it is a proper use of the federal government.
- Qong, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2You are absolutely right.
  When the government is allowed to make our decisions for us, that removes our personal freedom. That is not in any way a good thing, and that is exactly what socialized health care is.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/11/2008, -2/+3Everyone helping everyone, or every man for himself.
  
  In the USA, if you can't pay you ***** die. Everywhere else you get fixed and often for free.
  
  American hospitals are no better than European ones.
  They have access to the same equipment and medical training is standardized.
  - cashman57, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3Nothing is free and you can't make the argument you "get fixed" if the government decides whether or not you are worth treating.
    - MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1The government doesn't decide whether you are worth treating. You and your Doctors do.
      That's how it is in other countries. The government funds the hospitals, doctors make the medical decisions.
  - Qong, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1That isn't true at all. Many hospitals are non profit organizations, they write off health care costs of those that cannot pay their bills every single day. You clearly have no clue as to what you're talking about.
    America has the best hospitals and health care professionals in the entire world. Absolute world class, top of the line establishments.
Jack999, on 05/10/2008, -2/+3Perhaps the most enduring - certainly the most quoted - tradition in the history of medicine is the Hippocratic Oath. Named after the famous Greek physician Hippocrates, this oath was written as a guideline for the medical ethics of doctors. Although the exact words have changed over time, the general content is the same - an oath to respect those who have imparted their knowledge upon the science of medicine, and respect to the patients as well as the promise to treat them to the best of the physicians' ability.
- bradhart2, on 05/10/2008, -0/+7the original also says it should be taught freely, i wonder why med schools leave that one out these days.
Kent4jmj, on 05/10/2008, -6/+11The Right of private property, you're money, has precedence because it is the foundation of Freedom and Liberty. No one especially the Government has the authority to take it from you. That would be stealing or what is other wise known as Income Tax. Frederic Bastiat in his classic work "The Law" called it PLUNDER.

We had a health care system that worked well without government regulation where even poor uninsured people still had access. See Ron Paul's Manifesto on the subject.
- bradhart2, on 05/10/2008, -5/+3anyone who doesn't think they have the right to be taxed for whatever the government wants to do with the money is grossly mistaken.
  - Kent4jmj, on 05/10/2008, -5/+5How does this comment contribute to the discussion?
    Does the Gov. have the right to income tax?
    Does it not have that right?
    Does it have a limited right?
    Where do you get your arguments and what do you base your arguments on?
    It sounds like you are advocating that we bend over and spread em. If so haven't we had enough? I know I have.
    - bradhart2, on 05/10/2008, -3/+13whether you think you have had enough or not is pointless. The federal courts have time and time again said you pay or you go to jail.
      - Kent4jmj, on 05/10/2008, -6/+4And with that kind of defeatist attitude they will continue to do the same. You are part of the problem not the solution. To continue on the path we are now on will lead to the collapse of this country. It has already begun. When one begins to feel really sick it is a chance to do something about it so that one does not end up in the hospital or worse.
        Whatever the gov. wants to do??? That is not the attitude of real Americans.
      - SinningCyndy, on 05/10/2008, -4/+2You Yanks pay a pitifully small amount of taxes. It is a wonder you ever get anything accomplished at all.
      - cashman57, on 05/10/2008, -6/+4http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI ...
        That's what the court said. There is no Constitutional basis for the income tax. The IRS was instructed to show where that basis was and could not.
        You need to actually read some news now and then.
      - Coven, on 05/10/2008, -4/+5cashman, Amendment 16 to the Constitution reads thus:
        "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
        There you have it, Constitutional basis for the income tax.
      - Kent4jmj, on 05/10/2008, -3/+416th Ammmen. Can be revoked and should be as it infringes on the fundamental freedom of liberty which includes the right to private property.
      - eir574, on 05/10/2008, -3/+7@Kent4jmi:
        
        What's your solution for providing the government with some sort of budget for things like defense and infrastructure? Do you just want to leave it up to the states to raise militias?
      - cashman57, on 05/10/2008, -2/+3Coven, why didn't the IRS use that in court?
      - Kent4jmj, on 05/11/2008, -3/+2The repeal of the Income tax would reduce budget by about 40% which is the budget we had around 1997. Surely the gov. could live within that budget if it were forced to. 700 bases around the world in 130 countries not necessary. there we just made up most of that 40% loss.
        Get rid of NSA, homeland security, DOE and a few others and we have a surplus. Not bad huh?
      - eir574, on 05/11/2008, -1/+4What functions of the NSA and DOE do you see as being unnecessary and/or capable of being transferred to individual states (in which case your state taxes would probably go up)?
      - Qong, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1I think the real point to be made is that our tax money is currently being wasted. The government is a bloated bureaucracy that throws our money away every single day.
- ssn697, on 05/10/2008, -8/+13three comments in to hijack the thread with your pseudo political libertarian fairy world crap. A new record.
  
  You know what you do even faster? Run away when asked to provide working examples of successful Libertarian countries, after all the failures are provided. Chile, New Zealand, Hong Kong, etc.
  
  Scurry along...
  - Kent4jmj, on 05/10/2008, -7/+6We are not talking about "working examples." So you're pretentious intellectual superiority betrays your insincerity to discuss the topics.
    - ssn697, on 05/10/2008, -5/+12How can we discuss a topic, when you can't provide a single real world example of your premise working?
      
      Give me some actual examples, not theory, but in practice, and we can discuss.
      - mciampa1214, on 05/10/2008, -3/+6We can discuss it because the question is whether healthcare is a right or a privilege. Not how it would actually be implemented.
  - Kent4jmj, on 05/10/2008, -5/+7We are the real world example, the US, and we are not working. Can't see the forest for the trees?
    - ssn697, on 05/10/2008, -6/+12I asked for a real world example of your Libertarian ideas working. Why can't you provide one? Why the need to change the subject?
      - chaosium, on 05/10/2008, -4/+3Africa.
    - ssn697, on 05/10/2008, -4/+12We grew to become the most powerful and wealthy nation on earth, and you are going to use this latest administrations failures to say America is a failure? Meanwhile, you can't point to a single country that has been a success with your proposed theories?
      
      WHO can't see the forest through the trees?
      - Kent4jmj, on 05/10/2008, -5/+5I did not say that this administration is the cause of our failures. It has inherited the socialist leanings of all our recent administrations of both parties and added substantially to it. To the degree that those "theories" are either implemented or not will show the success of a country.
        When gov. gets out of the way and stops regulating and taxing private property the nation prospers.
      - ssn697, on 05/10/2008, -4/+5"When gov. gets out of the way and stops regulating and taxing private property the nation prospers."
        
        Again, provide real world examples of successful Libertarian countries. You saying it doesn't make it so. If we believed you, all those horrible socialist countries wouldn't be rated as the happiest people, and they wouldn't have surpluses.
        
        If we listened to you, we would have to ignore Chile and the Chicago boys, Hong Kong, etc.
        
        Quit just making claims, and provide proof.
        
        Actually, I am bored with your unwillingness to actually debate real world. I am busy watching Cage Rage. It is infinitely more interesting that your mental masturbation. Your myopia is boring.
    - ssn697, on 05/10/2008, -6/+13Hmmm, you digg me down, but don't answer. Same as it ever was... Same as it ever was...
      - Kent4jmj, on 05/10/2008, -4/+4I will not be forced into a contrived artificial discussion. I never brought up 'real world examples' you did to try to force the discussion to be limited. I have talked about principles that have verifiable consequences. The more gov. intervention, the more regulation, the more taxes the less freedom, choice, quality, and prosperity we have. You have been running away from an honest discussion of these principles for your own reasons.
      - ssn697, on 05/10/2008, -6/+6Ah, so you want to have a pretend conversation, based on theory and principle only. When I try to bring real world examples of those theories and principles in, you refuse to discuss their failure.
        
        You fail, miserably.
      - brad3378, on 05/10/2008, -1/+4Welcome to Digg.com
        I don't like a system that discourages an honest debate either.
      - mciampa1214, on 05/10/2008, -3/+4@ssn697: There weren't too many real world examples of democracy before America. Everything starts as a theory.
      - trogdoor, on 05/11/2008, -2/+4"There weren't too many real world examples of democracy before America"
        
        Please tell me you are joking.
  - cashman57, on 05/10/2008, -6/+8The first 140 years of the united States is the successful Libertarian country, but you wouldn't know anything about that would you?
    - JohnReb, on 05/10/2008, -6/+15So your example of a successful Libertarian nation includes slavery, no sufferage for women, the horrific slums of NYC and San Francisco, and robber barons?
      - chaosium, on 05/10/2008, -7/+2It's what the Founding Fathers would have wanted.
        
        I think Libertarians just silently masturbated in History class without actually listening.
    - KMye, on 05/10/2008, -5/+9LOL - 19th Century America: Utopia!
    - ssn697, on 05/10/2008, -5/+10I feel magnanimous this weekend, so I took Cashman of block. This was the first comment I read. He is going back on block.
      
      Anyone who thinks the US was founded as a Libertarian society is either purposely lying, or willingly ignorant of history.
      
      Tell us about the Magna Carta, cashman. You know, the document that the Constitution is based off of (or do you even know that?). Tell us all how that was a Libertarian country?
      
      It is funny how in the 1400's "traditionalists saw the 1225 Magna Carta as the "golden age", much like Ron Paul supporters seem to thing the late 1700's is where we need to be (despite the founding fathers saying laws HAVE to change, and the Constitution should be thrown out after 8 years).
      
      See? It only took one comment of yours for me to remember why I have you on ignore. Now, post some one liner with no facts. It is what you do best.
    - cashman57, on 05/10/2008, -5/+3I remember why you pretended to ignore me. I made more sense than you do and know far more about the history of this Great Nation than you do. Please keep pretending to ignore me, it saves me from reminding you of your inanity.
      Of course every time you claim to ignore me you follow me all over the place digging down my comments.
      LOL!
  - brad3378, on 05/10/2008, -1/+6I'd like to answer your question, but could you please elaborate on your definition of the word "Successful"?
    What makes a country successful?
    The average income of its citizens? The Median income?
    The power of its military? The Infrastructure? GDP?
    The freedom of its citizens? The debt held by government?
    The happiness quotient? The availability of resources?
    The "fair" distribution of resources?
    
    Frankly, you bring up a good point. I'd love to answer your question, but I'm not sure that I can.
    I believe that we all have our own personal utopias.
    Needless to say, my utopia differs from yours and likely differs from the next guy.
    My personal utopia involves not being fearful of my country's financial status.
    - avengingturnip, on 05/10/2008, -1/+8Not being invaded by the U.S.?
      - JohnReb, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1So you consider Africa and South America to be full of successful states?
cashman57, on 05/10/2008, -5/+13In 1987 I was involved in an incident which left me with three fractured cervical vertebrae. I sought the best option for my return to a healthy life and discovered an innovative doctor whose procedure had a very high success rate. The government and insurance companies would not cover the procedure but luckily I had made provision for my own health care and made my decision to use the innovative procedure which gave me the quality of life I have today.
If you want to kill innovation and guarantee lousy health care put someone else in charge of your health care decisions.
I am glad I was in the united States where our health care innovations are far and away above the socialistic health care of other countries. I am glad I stopped paying into an insurance company for medical care.
Why anyone would want to turn their health care decisions over to some insurance company bean counter or DC bureaucrat is beyond me.
- bradhart2, on 05/10/2008, -4/+6what you are saying amounts to people having no fundamental right to health care.
  - cashman57, on 05/10/2008, -3/+6What I am saying is that we need to make provision for our own health care and leave the government out of it completely.
  - rjwusa, on 05/11/2008, -3/+5The right people have to health care is to go out and work to pay for it or to utilize a clinic that provides health care. Other than that, government (taxpayers) should not be footing the bill to pay for the health care of U.S. citizens, or anyone else.
    - Qong, on 05/11/2008, -3/+2Well said. People need to take responsibility for their actions. Especially when it comes to health care, of which most problems are derived directly from personal choice. Tax payers are not responsible for the personal choices made by others.
- vault, on 05/10/2008, -5/+6Would you like a cookie, cashman? Most of the country does not do what you did...and what is a child whose parents don't have insurance supposed to do? Work in a sweatshop just like 19th century America?
  
  Sure, the parents SHOULD provide for their kids, but if they don't...
  - cashman57, on 05/11/2008, -4/+5Would you like to have a country where everyone can afford their own health care or would you turn your health care decisions over to some DC bureaucrat?
    - vault, on 05/11/2008, -4/+3Rather have a country where everyone can afford it, but what you're suggesting wouldn't make that happen. In order to make it that affordable we'd need to cap malpractice settlements, cap drug prices, legalize imported meds, negotiate prices ahead of time with a body representing doctors, etc.
      
      You can't do that without heavy federal government involvement which you seem opposed to. Without any regulation, then they'll all just charge as much as the market will bear. They won't have to make it affordable to everybody, they'll just charge as much as they can for a service they know people can't live without. This isn't like soda, potato chips, beer, etc...you can't die from not having those products. You can die without access to health care.
      
      And people would still need health insurance regardless...what happens if you get cancer? You're telling me the average American is going to set aside a 'provision' for that happening in the future? Or that the free market would somehow bring cancer treatment down to a few grand tops for the whole length of the treatment? No, that's the point of insurance.
AussieCynic, on 05/10/2008, -8/+6In a civilized Country every person living within it has the right to healthcare, whether they have the funds to pay or not. It should be an expected aspect of life not a priviledge for those who can afford it.
It is often said you tell a countries attitude to its citizens by the way they treat their old, young sick and crippled.
- cashman57, on 05/10/2008, -0/+5Nobody is turned away from emergency rooms. We were far better off when the government was not involved in health care.
- Qong, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2I agree with that.
  But the government should not be supplying health care to those in need. Health issues generally come from personal choices that people make, that is not something that tax payers should be held accountable for. I would much rather have people that are able to afford to pay doctors a reasonable sum for the work that they do.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/11/2008, -2/+2Nobody wants the American healthcare system except Americans.
  
  For some reason they think Socialized medicine means the government gets to decide what and how operations are performed, what treatment you receive, etc.
  
  This isn't necessarily the case for the rest of the modern countries who have socialized medicine.
  
  The people who choose the privately owned insurance based system only think they are getting a better deal. If you get really sick, you run a high risk of your insurance company dumping you. If you get a permanent condition that requires expensive medication nobody will insure you.
  If you can't afford insurance you're dead meat.
  
  If the government operates a bunch of hospitals, Doctors make the medical decisions, and anyone can go... then you have that safety net.
  You don't die when you can't pay. You get the operation that you need.
  - InRussetShadows, on 05/11/2008, -1/+3The Cubans want American-style health care. So does every Canadian that comes south for treatment, and every person who flies to the United States to get treatment. So your argument that "no-one wants it" is uhm...well...ignorant? Yes, I'll go with that word because I'm feeling kind.
    
    As far as "don't die when you can't pay", you die in line because the waiting lists are years long, and even basic care becomes optional. Do some research on experiences in the UK and Canada, just to name a few countries. You'll find that not everyone is happy with socialized medicine and it's far from the Utopia that you imagine it is.
    - MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Flat out ***** wrong.
      
      Also waiting lists aren't long, there's also "prioritization". If you can't wait you don't.
      I mean you act like it's a 3 month wait to get an x-ray, when it's really 30 mins if it's not an emergency.
      
      Also "every Canadian that comes south for treatment", you forgot to mention usually in those cases the Canadian is getting for free what would cost 50k to an American without insurance (I hear there's a lot).
      
      "If you can't afford insurance you're dead meat." You don't even have an excuse for this.
      
      Nobody wants the American healthcare system except Americans.
      - Qong, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1You are flat out wrong. The only issue with the American health care system is that the government continually involves itself in it. Which hurts competition and raises costs.
        As for your comments about countries with socialized health care getting good treatment, 'prioritized' as you say, for people that need it most; then tell me how thousands of people can die in France due to a short heat wave? Could those lives not have been saved if they were able to see a doctor?
bstory, on 05/10/2008, -11/+3Health care should be a right and not a privilege for a corporate few to profit from.
- InRussetShadows, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Why stop there? Why not declare a right to emotional happiness and ban psychologists? How about a right to be well-fed and then require the government to control all grocery stores and restaurants?
bradhart2, on 05/10/2008, -4/+5I keep wondering how many of you have actually read the post. Do you or don't you have a ***** fundamental right to healthcare is the question asked? Not is the government responsible for paying for it, but do you as a human being have a right to health care. Is healthcare a basic human right?
- Kent4jmj, on 05/10/2008, -1/+5 It is not a right defined by the Constitution which is the supreme law of the land therefore government is not obligated to provide it.
  "Do you as a person have a right to healthcare? If it is a right, then it is the government’s responsibility to ensure that you get it." From the post.
  But why do you invite discussion when you're mind is already made up?
  - bradhart2, on 05/10/2008, -2/+3who said anything about my mind being made up and who said anything about constitutional guarantees which are very different than rights. The question is do people have a basic human right to medical care? The fact is I am still undecided on that issue. If it is a basic right then regardless of what the constitution says the government has a responsibility to ensure it. If it is a privilege we pay for then the government has no right to restrict it. Be very careful how you answer that because that ending life is healthcare related activity and that means suicide, abortion, capital punishment, and any other right to life issues that you might be in favor of.
    
    Flat out if healthcare is not is not a right then the government has no right to regulate abortions. Furthermore if there is no right to healthcare then if you show up unconscious at an emergency room they would by their own rights to look at you and say we are not treating you. Furthermore if if Healthcare isn't a right then an insurance company has the right to terminate your coverage if you go comatose.. Flat out if we don't have the right, every insurance company in this country at this very moment has the right to say pull the plug on every coma patient.
    
    I am unsure where I stand at the moment.
    - Kent4jmj, on 05/10/2008, -1/+5First point the Constitution comes first then Government. It and it alone defines us as the Supreme law of the land. So if you're looking for 'Rights' you have to go to it not the Gov. because gov. is an instrument of the Constitution. If what you are looking for is not their then a change can be made to improve the Constitution by Amending it.
      
      This understanding of the Hierarchy of the Constitution is recognized by the Supreme Court and our elected officials though both are try to ignore when they can.
      
      "if healthcare is not is not a right then the government has no right to regulate abortions" Neither does it have a 'right' to fund it or protect it in the courts.
      
      "emergency room" But as recent history shows, see the "Manifesto", no one was turned away. Doctors believed they had a responsibility to treat the poor and uninsured and they did.
      
      "insurance company has the right to terminate your coverage" In a free society one is free to enter into a contract with another, one that is clearly defined. Don't you think that in a consumer driven relationship such as this the insurance companies would meet the need of its customers or find that their customers were going to another company that was meeting their needs?
BFNews, on 05/10/2008, -6/+4In a country as wealthy as America, no one should have to worry about how they are going to pay for their health care, and should never have to face bankruptcy due to medical expenses.
- cashman57, on 05/10/2008, -1/+6So it is better for the government to go bankrupt or send the bill to unborn Americans?
- InRussetShadows, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1This is faulty logic. "In a country as rich as America, no-one should..." 1) worry about crime 2) worry about employment 3) worry about their dating life. The list goes on, and every option is poisoned by what you think all of us "should" do with our money. Why don't you do that with your money by oh, I don't know, contributing with like-minded individuals to such a cause?
stonebear, on 05/10/2008, -1/+2Human right, yes; fundamental, but not basic. I use Maslow's hierarchy of needs to define the difference (you can get it easily from Google Photos): Health care is a second tier safety need, rather than first tier physiological need. In my opinion; both the first and second tiers are within the scope of effective state provision, and thus comprise a reasonable mandate, whereas the needs above will tend to exceed it's ability to provide effectively. Until the state can fully guarantee the first tier, it should not be expected to guarantee the second, though it never-the-less falls fully within its mandate. While the United States possesses the means of fully provisioning both first and second tiers for the entirety of its population, the class system required by the inequality engine which drives its economy effectively prevents either from being fully provisioned.
Kent4jmj, on 05/10/2008, -3/+8If we are talking about health care as a right then we are talking constitution and government involvement. So no it is not a right.
- bradhart2, on 05/10/2008, -4/+5if medical care is not a right, by the same principal the government would have no business interfering in any medical choice including death, abortion, the right to die or even a medically assisted suicide. I would say the vast majority of people who have commented that the government should stay out of healthcare are those same do gooder republicans who were against pulling the plug on teri shaivo. You really can't have it both ways without being a hypocrite.
  - Kent4jmj, on 05/10/2008, -2/+5No interference on the Federal level. Yes. Both in the form of money and court involvement.
    But that would mean no support either which would put one hell of wrench in planned parenthood's gears as much of its funding would dry up.
    And wasn't it a Federal court that allowed Terri to die? If the Fed had stayed out of it Terri would be alive.
    - SinningCyndy, on 05/10/2008, -5/+9it doesn't matter what level the law is at it either is a human right or it isn't I am going with no it isn't a basic human right. However I do believe the US government does have a responsibility to ensure basic healthcare is taken care. Your constitution and thus your country was founded on the notion that the government would provide for the general welfare of its people. Without ensuring healthcare for every one they are doing a pretty piss poor job of promoting the welfare of the people.
      - Kent4jmj, on 05/10/2008, -3/+7That is a typically modernist interpretation of the 'general welfare' clause. It is the wrong one because it ignores the context in which it was written. The Constitution was written to LIMIT governmnet.
        Tthe same men who risked their lives for independance because government was tyranous were not about to 'sneak' in a clause which would allow the whole damn thing to unravel. The general wellfare clause is a small PART of the Constitution not the other way around.
      - SinningCyndy, on 05/10/2008, -7/+4has anyone told you today what a ***** idiot you are?
      - Kent4jmj, on 05/10/2008, -3/+6Good rational response. You win the discussion. Sign me up to be on your team.
      - rjwusa, on 05/10/2008, -3/+6Why don't you answer with a rational response instead of calling names, SinningCyndy? What? A fuzzy foreigner discussing the U.S. Constitution?
      - SinningCyndy, on 05/11/2008, -1/+3I am a birth citizen US citizen if I wanted to claim it. I was sired by one of your air force pukes. who your own government despite DNA confirmation chose not even reprimand. It is hard to understand how your government let him get off scot free when my mother is 14 years older than I am and he is 42 years older than I am. I guess the importance your government and air force places on pilots is out weighs them sleeping with 13 year olds. You wonder why even as a college student in the states I don't want to claim your government as my own. I know your constitution very well in fact and once I have my law degree am going to do what I can to go after that bastard that sired me.
      - Qong, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1Well, I'm not sure what that has to do with the discussion at hand. You guys sure get off topic fast haha.
        Sorry but I have to bury those comments.
      - rjwusa, on 05/11/2008, -3/+2SC, if it was up to me, your dad would be behind bars, if in fact there is evidence that supports your allegations. Thank God your mom was not in the US, where those guiding and influencing her could have talked her into an abortion, which would have meant not having you here on this earth. I pray that you find healing from the cruel pain that you have suffered. I come from a pretty rotten past. My advice to you is to not let the circumstances of your conception to become an all consuming hate. Lay it in the hands of Jesus and ask for deliverance from the pain. Lastly, from behind my keyboard, I may have been too course with you. It was not my intention to open wounds. However, I take partial exception in your claim in knowing our Constitution 'very well'. To know it well, one must study the other founding documents and the intent of the framers when they wrote the Constitution. The general welfare clause has been misinterpreted and taken out of context by crooked politicians to allow them to spend money on programs that are unconstitutional in their own right. If you are striving for intellectual honesty, learn the framers meaning and intent. Don't be like those in our government who interpret an twist the language for their own favorite pet projects to buy votes.
      - flip2trip, on 05/11/2008, -3/+3"Your constitution and thus your country was founded on the notion that the government would provide for the general welfare of its people."
        It doesn't say PROVIDE it says PROMOTE---big difference.
Kent4jmj, on 05/10/2008, -2/+8"On the other hand, what is a tax? A tax is the coercive expropriation of the property of an individual by the rulers of the State. The rulers use this property for whatever purposes they desire — usually the rulers will distribute it in such a manner as to insure their continuance in office, i.e., by subsidizing favored groups.(Like insurance and pharmaceutical an medical lobyists) In addition, the rulers decide which individuals will pay the taxes — the decision consisting of expropriating the property of groups disliked by the rulers." (That be us.)

Starting to get yet?
- SinningCyndy, on 05/10/2008, -6/+3I get it you have yet to understand the question the post raises, from the looks of it probably haven't read it at all. You are simply here to rant and rave about your government because you like to hear yourself talk.
  - Kent4jmj, on 05/10/2008, -2/+6You're inability to connect my discussion to the original post does not prove my not having read it but you're failure to understand the connections I am making.
tehbored, on 05/10/2008, -8/+7Why shouldn't health care be considered a right? Of course, technically a constitutional amendment would have to be passed to make it so. I would probably favor such an amendment.
- Kent4jmj, on 05/10/2008, -1/+5At least that would be legal. Using means made available by the Constitution
- cashman57, on 05/10/2008, -3/+7What right does the doctor have if you have a right to health care? Should he be forced to be at your beck and call 24/7?
  - SinningCyndy, on 05/10/2008, -5/+4Not your doctor, but you should be able to see a qualified doctor during reasonable business hours for routine healthcare or seek emergency care 24/7 from an emergency healthcare facility. However I am one of those who don't think it is a human right, but a directly provided for mandate of the US Constitution. Promoting the general welfare is one of the constitution's first directives. Bettering the lives of the countries citizens, whether some of them want it or not, is one of your governments reasons for being. A right to healthcare could also be considered a blessing of liberty and there also be seen as a constitutional mandate.
    - cashman57, on 05/11/2008, -3/+4I see you can't understand the difference between "promote" and "provide".
      Please keep those definitions in mind if you ever read the Constitution.
  - SinningCyndy, on 05/11/2008, -2/+3in order to promote many issues, especially in the here and now when there are loudmouth assholes like you playing at armchair politician, they simply have to provide it for it to get done. You really should quietly go back to your commune and hide with the rest of your pompous windbag friends and wait out the end of times.
    - cashman57, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1"loudmouth assholes"?
      I see the depth of your argument and your linguistic limitations.
      Actually I have been involved in politics since the '70s and have actually done something about our way of life. From delivering yard signs to gathering signatures on petitions to driving people to vote and calling voters, I have worked on trying to change the way things are to a more positive country for the next generation.
  - MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1What you did was define "right to health care" as limitless access.
    
    You're not making a reasonable argument.
    
    If someone has the "right to healthcare", then the Government should be charged with the duty of finding someone WILLING to perform the surgery or care within a reasonable amount of time.
    
    You can't use absolutes here, just look at the "right to bear arms" there's numerous limits on that.
- brad3378, on 05/10/2008, -1/+8Who should pay for it?
  Should we tax the elderly, who will be receiving a bulk of the care?
  Should the elderly get a free ride?
  Should fat people pay more taxes than healthy people?
  If the government pays the bills, should they be allowed to do genetic testing on us to determine risk and/or tax rates?
  Should taxes be used to pay for optional services such as nose jobs, liposuction, hair implants, etc?
  Should the government subsidize medical schooling to encourage more students to become doctors?
  Should the government determine wages for doctors? If so, should brain surgeons be paid the same as prescription monkeys?
  
  These are just some of the kinds of questions we need to be asking ourselves if we get the government more involved in our health care system.
  - MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1Take money from military spending. Not all of it. Not most of it.
    Tax is an option for the future, but it has to be low, and it won't cost more because people won't be paying insurance premiums.
    
    If you are rich and don't give a ***** about other people, then you need to continue to convince people to support the current system because you don't have the risk of running out of money paying for treatment, or finding companies willing to insure you, even thought they might.
- InRussetShadows, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2Because rights NEVER compel others. My rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness do not require others to do a thing.
bincoder, on 05/10/2008, -2/+8I have the right to make babies. You have the right to make babies. I have the right to marry who I wish, you have that right too. I have the right to not be forced to be your familys 'daddy' and you have the right to not be forced to be my 'daddy'. Fair enough it seems.
- mciampa1214, on 05/10/2008, -2/+3If only that was so
rocr69, on 05/10/2008, -9/+3Is there a single country with socialized medicine clamoring to emulate the US? Even Asian countries like Japan and Taiwan have socialized medicine.

Just like education, healthcare is a right. It's fundamental, perhaps the most fundamental.
- cashman57, on 05/11/2008, -0/+5Is there a single socialistic health care that is anywhere near as innovative and cutting edge in medicine as we are here in this Great Nation?
- GRX100, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2The US hasn't had a free market health care system for over 40 years.
- InRussetShadows, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3Every time a Canadian comes south for health care because they're tired of waiting is a vote for non-socialized health care. Every time someone flies to the US to get to a specialty clinic is a vote for non-socialized health care.
vault, on 05/10/2008, -8/+2I went over the solution to the healthcare crisis here http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/TV_Producer_Expl ...

Of course, this system which would actually give everyone lower taxes and much better health care was still dugg down by the survivalist paramilitary white supremacist ronbot troofers.
- bohemianowl, on 05/10/2008, -1/+6since you (unprovoked) have to call people names, STFU stupid ass bury brigade troll
rjwusa, on 05/10/2008, -4/+11The U.S. Constitution makes no provisions for health care being a guaranteed right. Americans have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Translation; you are free to go out, get a job, and to pay for or barter for doctorin' and health care. Federal involvement in providing health care to those who believe they are entitled to 'free' health care aims to take money from the productive, to spend on the less productive. This is socialism and contrary to the Constitution. There are free clinics that those who cannot afford health care can go to. These clinics offer health care more often far superior than the medical care offered in other countries. It is not the government's job to ensure that everyone gets to go to the Mayo Clinic for every ailment from a yeast infection to a case of the clap.

In answer to vault's comment; "....Of course, this system which would actually give everyone lower taxes and much better health care was still dugg down by the survivalist paramilitary white supremacist ronbot troofers...."

If that is how you feel, I'm sorry. But, I bust my butt to secure the services of the best doctors and medical care that my earned dollars allow me. I resent the prospect that the federal government may force me to go to the hospital and doctors they deem I should go to, so that everyone should have access to medical care. In order for someone who already has access to an urban medical clinic to have guaranteed medical care, I will be forced to settle for less quality in medical care. What's the point of me working and running a business if I am going to be punished under a socialist system? I might as well fake an injury to draw on disability and social security. Sure, take from the productive, so the have nots can have equal to what I pay a premium for? That's unAmerican.
- vault, on 05/11/2008, -4/+4Did you actually read the post? My solution is completely optional, lowers taxes, and you only pay for it if you want to. It's neither free nor socialist...it's the option to buy something on your tax return.
  
  http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/TV_Producer_Expl ...
  - Kent4jmj, on 05/11/2008, -4/+4The gov. has no right according to the Constitution to give me an 'option' It is not within their scope.
    - vault, on 05/11/2008, -2/+4The constitution could be amended if that turns out to be true, which it's not, but ok. What's the real reason you're so opposed to this anyway?
    - herecomes, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2Does the Constitution grant Government the right to tax the people and provide services? If not, how did our freeway infrastructure get built?
      
      Framing this debate in terms of whether or not Health Care is a "right" is a red herring. The real question is whether we, as a nation, are willing to treat our less fortunate citizens with compassion, or whether we simply want to leave them to suffer.
- SinningCyndy, on 05/11/2008, -3/+2First of you say Americans have "the right to life" that would suggest their is a constitutional guarantee for basic healthcare which is part of what makes life possible for many.
  
  I love how so many of you have hijacked the post without ever reading the post that was dugg. The question is very simple do humans, not Americans, have a right to healthcare?
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/11/2008, -1/+5Most countries where the government provides healthcare to all citizens, you get to choose what hospital you go to.
  Usually you go to the closest one, and then you get transfered to one with a specialist.
  
  The only reason I can fathom for Americans being forced to specific hospitals by their government is because your system is almost 100% privately owned, instead of the government running all the hospitals.
  - cashman57, on 05/11/2008, -4/+3Countries with socialistic health care do not have the cutting edge medical treatments we have so any one of their hospitals would be like the others.
    - vault, on 05/11/2008, -1/+4Yeah, Japan, Germany, and the UK...they're in the dark ages. Takeda, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca...no name companies.
    - MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3That's not true. Everyone has access to the same medical equipment. The manufacturers are international. Medical Science and training is standardized.
      
      Someone who gets a Medical Doctorate in Europe can get a job in America and vice versa.
  - rjwusa, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2I've been into a few VA hospitals. After seeing them, I'd rather government stay out of the hospital business.
- eir574, on 05/12/2008, -0/+5"I bust my butt to secure the services of the best doctors and medical care that my earned dollars allow me. I resent the prospect that the federal government may force me to go to the hospital and doctors they deem I should go to,"
  
  If that's been your experience, then you've been fortunate. I know someone who was told less than three months before giving birth that she had to find a new doctor and a new hospital because her insurance company was involved in some sort of dispute with the one she'd chosen. Before that, she says she tried to change doctors, and her insurance company wouldn't allow it. This is Blue Shield, by the way. When I was growing up, my father ran his own business (as a dentist) and so we had insurance through a provider's network. We lost that when he was forced to give up his practice due to a medical problem (he couldn't wear gloves anymore, which is obviously a deal breaker). My mother had previously had uterine cancer and even though she'd had a complete recovery since her uterus was removed before the cancer spread, no one wanted to give her halfway decent insurance. We ended up being one of those classic cases in which we were technically insured, but in which any catastrophe would have threatened to bankrupt my parents.
  
  I'm not in favor of a purely government run socialized medicine system. But, the current system has some serious flaws, and they can't all be fixed just by telling people to work harder.
coffee200am, on 05/11/2008, -3/+5Gee...Diggers bitch about Big Brother but are willing to turn over the most intimate details about their bodies and habits to a government agency....
- Qong, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3Right man, I really don't understand how people can actually WANT the government to be involved in their lives. Please, just keep me out of it.
CronX, on 05/11/2008, -1/+3Do you as a person have a right to healthcare? I have a right to Selfcare. Health care is a personal responsibility not a right.
I'm also for thinning the heard and made for profit suicide Booth's.
Vibe69, on 05/11/2008, -1/+3The more complicated the issue, the more locally it should be handled. That is what I have learned from Ron Paul. So at the very least , it should be a state issue if not even more locally handled.

This idea sounds like the opposite of a free market anyway.

Free markets are in the tecnology industry & the internet industry. Look at how excellently they are doing!
GRX100, on 05/11/2008, -1/+0Ask the question another way: Do mobs have the right to force doctors and nurses to work under compulsion in a form of modernized slavery? The answer to that question is a resounding "no". But conversely, systems absent government enforced interventions and control provide people with the care "health care rights" advocates claim to desire in the first place.
Qong, on 05/11/2008, -2/+5It depends on what you mean by health care. Health care is provided by people that work to make a living and provide for their families, doctors, nurses, surgeons; these people have to be paid for the work that they do, just as everyone else does.
Not that we have cleared that up, we come to the point in which we decide who exactly pays for this health care. I believe that it is a personal responsibility, as the vast majority of health problems are a result of personal choice. For example: If you have drank alcohol every day for the past 30 years and now have a liver that is no good, then that is your problem.
So knowing that most health problems are actually a personal choice freely made by individuals, we can come to the conclusion that individuals are responsible for their own health care. Not tax payers and not the government.
Personal actions demand personal responsibility. It's as simple as that. That is true freedom.
- vault, on 05/11/2008, -2/+6Yeah, personal responsibility. So let's say you get into a car accident and become disabled, in other words...you are no longer able to work. Now what?
  - Qong, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Why should the taxpayers be held responsible for another persons accidents? I don't believe that they should honestly.
    People in the situation that you described should be taken care of by their family, or enter a different line of work. There is plenty of work to be done that doesn't require physical labor. If the person in the accident had their brain damaged, then that would be a different issue.
    But in general, people should not be responsible for the well being of other people. Just as you can choose not to give the homeless guy in the corner a place to sleep or some money; we should be able to choose whether or not our money goes to pay for other peoples health care. The government should not ever take a persons money unwillingly for something that does not benefit them directly.
    I'm not into forced handouts. I think that voluntary charities work just fine.
- MarlinFische, on 05/11/2008, -2/+1No one is saying healthcare workers aren't entitled to be paid for their services or work normal shifts during routine business hours. Also the alcoholic with liver damage goes beyond basic healthcare. Should he have the right to go to a doctor and receive treatment for breaking his leg or the flu? Yes. should he be eligible for a free liver? No. The difference is one is basic health that everyone should be entitled too, no matter who they are or where they live. The other is life care to prolong a life he is throwing away.
  - Qong, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1So you want to make the distinction between who does and does not receive public health care? So do I!
    Good luck doing that though... It would be much easier and much better for the country to stop the hand-holding and force personal responsibility for personal actions.
    - MarlinFische, on 05/15/2008, -0/+0the one thing I didn't put in on this was he should be elligible for medical including mental health care to help him stop drinking if he wanted it. If you have stopped drinking with an acceptable time of sobriety (years) I wouldn't be opposed to saying okay you can go on the transplant list.
- cashman57, on 05/11/2008, -2/+3"vault" As one who was injured and cannot work I know that my disability insurance works far better than the social security disability insurance. It did not take me four years to get my claim processed as it does in many social security disability cases. Also when I was young and able to work I purchased gold coins as a hedge against inflation and as a means to pay for my medical expenses. Because I had made provision for myself I was able to get a cutting edge procedure that gave me the quality of life I enjoy today.
  Any more lame arguments?
  - vault, on 05/11/2008, -2/+3lol so it isn't that you set aside a provision, it's that you had disability insurance. Got it.
    - Qong, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1What does that even mean? He took his problem into his own hands. That is a very respectable action on his part and he should be commended for it, not ridiculed.
grumpyrain, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2It depends on your worldview and what society deems to be the "price" of a person. There is a very slippery slope when it comes to arguing that at some point, a person is not worth the financial burden of keeping them alive. All sorts of questions inevitably arise about the treatment of the severely disabled. Historians call that world view Utilitarianism.

My own view is that human beings have dignity and value. Everyone should be entitled to a basic level of health care. A public health system can work in tandem with a private health system. This means that there is a safety net for those not in a position to afford health care either for their own stupidity, in-opportunities, or injury or illness that limits their income. I don't believe a child should be denied healthcare because their parents made unwise choices with their vocation or lifestyle.

That does not mean that I support a bottomless pit of tax dollars being wasted. As far as I am concerned, if you want things like choice of hospital, choice of doctor, private rooms, accommodation for family or other things that are not strictly required, you should pay for them either through insurance or your own money.

I also believe that certain activities assume risks. Activities such as smoking and drinking, fatty and sugary foods, even driving are statistically linked to healthcare costs, and as such should be priced into a trust fund (not general election coffers) for the purpose of providing healthcare (but not compensation) to those suffering illness or injury as a result of these activities.
- MarlinFische, on 05/11/2008, -2/+0The problem with not including your activity risk list into the mix is the government has said those products are safe enough to use, by not forbidding their sale or forcing the producers to cover the associated costs. While the tobacco industry has been sued countless times they are allowed to continue pushing the product with no regard to public safety. In the end if the government will say these products are safe enough for you to use by allowing the sale, then they are responsible for providing for the consequences of use, even if it means taxing the use directly for future care need by users and the producers who care more for profit than people.
  
  Of course neither the US nor state governments really want people to quit smoking or they would make it so you could only afford do it as a part time hobby, something so many chain smokers claim they are doing anyways. If a pack of smokes was $20 or $40 you wouldn't see very many kids starting in the first place and within a generation or two the only people smoking would be those who could grow it themselves or using affordable amounts for their religious ceremonies.
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

Health Care: A Right or Privilege?

Login or register to add a comment