edit: I edited the title from insurance to care because i think that's what I'm more accurately asking Obviously this is a Huge topic but this thread stems specifically from an exchanged between Space Ghost and a few other posters in the current thread about the public option. I believe everyone should have access to affordable insurance. I think healthcare should be affordable in general. However, how can we truly say someone else's profession is a right to the rest us. I agree with space ghost in a perfect world that we would pay small fees to cover minor conditions without the need of using insurance and more serious problems requiring extensive work by doctors and staff would be covered by insurance. so where does that leave preventative care. its funny, it seems like there is a contradictation in what people feel are driving up costs, some people feel that we don't get enough preventative care, theory being that more expensive problems can be prevented. while others say that is the doctors who are worried about liability the forces them to advise paitients to overly use their healtcare insurance with unforced proceedures. Is preventative care really something that should mandated to be kept affordable. because a procedure maybe developed that can let's say predict with over 90% who will have a heart attack, does that mean everyone should have access to it. especially if that procedure may cost lets say $1200 a visit. should an insurance company be required to cover it. as medicine becomes more advanced it becomes more expensive. this is a reality we have to accept, and at some point 300MM people may not be in an all class to afford every thing.
cops and firemen don't spend 7 years in school spending their own money or scholarships they've earned to get to their profession. the only other comparable system is teachers, and we always b**** that they aren't paid enough anyway. if you're going to make that analogy, then that would require a total revamp of the system where the costs of training medical professional and constantly innovating is passed down to the tax payer.
You aren't answering the question. Nobody is talking about complaining about the police, just saying that there are professions that people rely on as a "right." Police protection and fire protection are functions of government that fit this description.
I don't think health insurance is an inalienable right because that suggests every person on the world should theoretically have a right to it. I don't think that's feasible or reasonable. I do think that in an industrialized, first world country, it makes sense to ensure as broad access to health care as possible because it makes humanitarian, economic, and political sense. A healthy society is what every society should strive for, so it just makes sense to move in the direction of ensuring the citizenry has access to health care where feasible. Connecting this thread to the Iran thread, one way to achieve that would be to have more "community health centers" and let a lot of basic visits be handled by non-doctor professionals (nurses, etc) which would be a whole lot cheaper. There's just no need to visit a doctor for the flu or common cold. Implementing a second level of cheaper basic care could go a long way to both improving health care quality and lowering costs.
The US isn't the only country in which doctors get paid. Or the only place with 7 years + of training required. Shirley, there's a model out there that provides healthcare while allowing doctors to make a decent living. (and by decent -- I mean high). Judges and lawyers do OK too. And they play a pretty big part in the whole inalienable rights industry.
It would be nice to live in a world where the most basic thing, health, wasn't fair game for greed and extortion. In DonnyMostVille the government would do a lot fewer things, and would do those few things much better, one of those things would be health care. The one thing that knows no political party is health. No one gets out of here alive. Everybody should pitch in to make sure no one has to worry about that one, basic, binding fear we all have in common... not wanting to suffer/die. Of course, personal responsibility is part of promoting a society of health. So make that an invaluable part of the picture as well. (in other words, hey Mr. Smoker, get ready to not be first on the list for a lung transplant) Can private health care work? Sure. But the insurance system we have isn't pure. Privatize everything. I don't care. But without some form of collectivism and charity, this experiment known as society becomes a freaking nightmare.
Taken from a previous post: AM - do you see some other instruction/function/subroutine in this program that I am missing? That would enable an answer to the question? No? That's right, there isn't one. Then why are you asking - it's like trying to get a Commodore 64 to run Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2. ("Hi, do you have COD:MW2 on datacassette? What? There's no 8-bit support? BS. Well how many tapes would it take in theory, 2 or 3? It would take 14 million you say? Hmmm..")
exactly, we have the government for the law. so its no argument paying judges, and its no argument paying prosecuters. not only that, some people probably go their whole lives without encountering either one, so the demand is no where near the same.
I think you might want to distinguish between inalienable rights and civil rights. I don't think there are a whole lot of inalienable rights, and certainly health care wouldn't be one. Civil rights are a little bit different, and I think that there is a strong case that health care would be considered a civil right.
civil rights are protected by the government. do you think we should do away with private insurance all together and have the government be in charge of health care?
You can just change your definition to civil rights are those rights that are recognized by the government. That doesn't mean the government has to be in charge of them, just that it will look to protect them. Take for instance the anti-discrimination portions of the Civil Rights act, which protect private relationships (i.e. you can't not rent to someone because of their race, color, creed, etc.). Doesn't take the government running apartment complexes to make it happen. It's just something the government should look to make sure everyone has access to. It doesn't really entail changing the definition even, the government can protect rights without running the system.
the difference is that no one is preventing you from getting healtcare. you're right, an apartment complex can't discriminate against me, but no one is responsible for me to be able to afford to live there. let's simplify the question. lets say a drug company comes up with a magical pill to guarantee good health to the age of 100. Lets say it costs $150K. is their supposed to be some kind of guarantee that every citizen has a right to that pill?
Back in the day, people developed drugs and essentially "gave" them to society... since it was such a benefit for the common good, they asked not to profiteer from their creation, but to see it be used to help people... one of the smarter posters here (I'm looking at you, Otto) can probably help me with this one. Well, I can remember one example for sure, Jonas Salk...and the polio vaccine. When news of the vaccine's success was made public on April 12, 1955, Salk was hailed as a "miracle worker," and the day "almost became a national holiday." His sole focus had been to develop a safe and effective vaccine as rapidly as possible, with no interest in personal profit. When he was asked in a televised interview who owned the patent to the vaccine, Salk replied: "There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?" (ripped from Wikipedia) Unfortunately this is not the way anymore.
I wouldn't consider such a pill part of health care that a government has the responsibility you can get access to.
at what point, do you say a government doesn't have the responsibility to cover this. this also goes to Donny's post above, polio was a high risk for everyone till the vaccine came along. the gov't is also trying to prevent a swine flu outbreak. at the same time, is it a woman's right to have prevenative measures that inspect for breast cancer? I know this is a sensitive subject, but i really would like people's thoughts.
You are going to want to make sure the basics are covered. I think something like basic access to coverage that could help prevent breast cancer would be included in the basics. This doesn't mean that the government has to pay for it for everyone. Obviously the current system is broken. I wouldn't throw in things like Viagra, abortion, etc.
