Is free healthcare a moral right?

[kiahzero]

Poll question: Is free healthcare a moral right?

I don't want to say too much here for fear of contaminating the poll, but I will describe what I mean by the question.

"Free healthcare" refers to healthcare that has no direct cost to the recipient of the care; instead, everyone pays into the system regardless of one's health status. This does not necessarily mean that everyone pays the same amount into the system.

[Nutmegger]

1. Our current health care situation is greed gone wild.

Socialized health care is the only answer. It's a moral obligation.

[midnight]

45. nutmegger that is great. Health care situation is greed

gone wild....

[hfojvt]

70. Does socialisation or socialism mean that things are free?

I don't think so? I would say that basics should be free - necessities. Things like vaccinations, annual check-ups, preventive care, but not things like organ replacement or cancer treatment, etc. I do not see why those need to be as expensive as they are, but the 'free stuff' model seems unworkable to me with anything beyond basics.

[Bolshy]

72. Socialism means many things

but it does mean that things are owned collectively. Therefore, you wouldn't pay for a new TV, you would simply get a TV based on what your needs are (and others' abilities to provide it).

Organ replacements would be done the same way, people would have to wait for them like they do now, but they would not have to pay for them (and money would not be a factor in whether you live or die).

If you want to see how healthcare in socialism works, check out Cuba's medical system, which is world-class. By the way, socialist societies can provide better preventive care because the system would be geared towards preventing stuff instead of letting people get sick and then making them pay for treatment (Cuba is a great example of this).

[hfojvt]

74. you say that it means many things

and then you presume to define it.

Cuba is not a good example to me, since they are a dictatorship and also because they have a large, nearby hostile capitalist country.

But welcome to DU, comrade :hi:

[Bolshy]

75. Of course it can be defined

it is many things, and those many things include the things I listed.

Cuba is a dictatorship, a dictatorship of the proletariat. Therefore, it is democratic. Furthermore, the US siege has not been able to stop Cuba from establishing great things for the workers.

Thank you, comrade.

[hfojvt]

77. "Many is a word, that only leaves me guessing. Guessing about a thing

I really ought to know..."

It means many things could mean 'it means a, b, c, d, e, f, g, etc.' or 'it means a to some people, b to others, c to still others, etc.' Either 'there are many definitions' or 'there are many things included in the definition' or both. Everyone has their own definition, or there are various schools of thought, so I was asking to find out that person's definition, not a 'true' definition.

[Bolshy]

80. What is socialism?

socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat. Socialism is a society with a worker state. Socialism is a society with minimal private property.

Those are facts that are not up for debate (I could go on).

[hfojvt]

83. everything is up for debate

What you have stated are not facts. They are definitions. Definitions that not everyone agrees with, even self-described socialists. The graduate course I took on socialism studied a writer who divided socialism into 4 types (a classification system and an author I no longer remember) which did not agree on the things you listed. Here are quotes from two of my favorite socialists - Orwell and Schumacher

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1828179#1831303

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=77390#77578

They make your 'facts' into moot points. What you listed may be from the gospel according to Marx, but not everybody reveres that gospel, even on the left.

[Nutmegger]

81. Free? Hardly.

Socialized health care will simple install a single payer system where the government pays all costs of health care for all citizens.

Considering we have money for a fake "war", we have money for health care.

[BOSSHOG]

2. I think its a liberal value

as opposed to the conservative value of fuck you and your silly ass health problems, we only care about you before you are born and if you are on life support so we can make political capitol of your condition.

[unpossibles]

3. I am for socialized medicine 100%

the way I see it, not only have I spent many years uninsured and under-insured, but even with benefits it sucks to try to figure out where you need to go sometimes to not pay extra for being "out of network" or what have you. Also, those of us with insurance pay for everyone else as it is in the form of higher premiums. And all of us pay more in the form of uninsured people having to wait until a problem is an emergency.

I know many people who live in countries with socialized medicine, and they love it.

[Bridget Burke]

4. Yes.

As your message pointed out, healthcare would not exactly be "free." The money would come out of our taxes.

If I continue having pretty good health & not requiring expensive procedures--I promise I will not complain about those folks getting surgery & chemo & all that other "interesting" stuff.

[pinto]

5. I support Medicare for all.

[TahitiNut]

6. The alternative we're seeing ....

... is the enrichment and profiteering of a few from the suffering and death of many. Since that's morally reprehensible and the 'system' permitting/enticing it has not self-corrected as claimed, the eradication of that 'system' and its replacement with a 'system' that does not incorporate the elements of abuse is required.

[northzax]

7. that's not free, right?

since people are paying? it is a disingenuous question.

[kiahzero]

8. How is it disingenuous?

It's not "free" in the same sense that, say, food stamps aren't "free" - someone's paying for them, because, as our conservative counterparts are so apt to remind us, "there's no such thing as a free lunch."

Edit: It is, however, free in the sense that there is no direct cost to the recipient of the care.

[northzax]

11. your question was 'free' healthcare

not subsidized or pooled risk/expense health care. there is a big difference between the two.

[kiahzero]

12. Is your version of "free" healthcare possible?

I'd wager that most people would consider the plan I outlined to be "free," in the same sense that, say, Medicare is "free."

Besides, there's no claim that I'm retroactively changing the definition, which is precisely why I attempted to carefully define what I was asking about in the OP.

[GeorgeGist]

9. Your definition of "Free healthcare"...

is illogical.

[kiahzero]

10. How so?

I can't fix it if the problem isn't clearly described.

[endarkenment]

13. yes but it isn't free and it isn't a right

Society has an obligation to provide healthcare for everyone, it is a basic element of a decent society. That does not make it free, it makes access universal. It may in fact be rather expensive, just not on a case by case basis and not charged to the service receiver directly. Also I'm not convinced it is a fundamental right of an individual, instead I see it as a fundamental obligation of a just society.

Corallary: healthcare services should be removed from the market economy.

[BoneDaddy]

52. Absolutely true

It is a hallmark of a great and free society but I think people get confused that there are no guarantees, no real rights as individuals.

[frankenforpres]

14. NO, i do support it though n/t

[Toucano]

15. The word "free" and your explanation of it are problematic for me.

If "...everyone pays..." then it isn't free, so why characterize it as free?
If there's "no direct cost", but still an indirect cost, it isn't free.

It really mucks things up.

Concealing the true cost of care is not going to make things better. It never does. You don't pay the TRUE cost of those fresh Chilean strawberries you can buy in February
because the environmental impact of shipping them is left out of the equation.

Society can't make good decisions if the true costs of ANYTHING are concealed.

Instead, I would say:

Everyone has a moral right to basic, quality treatment and care regardless of their ability to pay.

I also support the rights proposed by FDR in the Second Bill of Rights, namely:

A job with a living wage
Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies
Homeownership
Medical care
Education
Recreation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Bill_of_Rights

[kiahzero]

17. Because it's the common parlance.

Nothing is "free (as in beer)," under your definition, so it's a meaningless concept.

[Toucano]

21. I wouldn't consider that common parlance.

Not in the discussion about financing a healthcare system. In fact, I would go so far to say this is the first I've ever encountered the word "free" in a discussion about healthcare.

Far more common is language about HOW to PAY for it.

[kiahzero]

24. You walk into the doctor's office.

You receive health care. You walk out of the doctor's office without paying a dime or proving that you have some sort of insurance plan.

I contest that most people would call that "free."

However, all of this quibbling is entirely without a point, because the question clearly described what I was talking about, and you're not complaining about that definition, you're complaining about my choice of a term to describe that definition.

[peaches2003]

16. Change the wording of the poll

You really need to change the wording of the poll. You explain that you really don't mean 'free' health care since people will be paying into a fund in varying amounts, I presume based on ability to pay. It is misleading to say healthcare will be 'free'.

[mr blur]

18. Perhaps you mean "Free at the point of access"

as we have here in the UK.

Of course we pay for the Health Service through taxes but no-one is ever refused health care based on how much money they have. It's available to all, regardless of background, status, income, savings, insurance. In fact, if you were to visit here and needed to be taken into hospital you would be treated before anyone thought of asking you how much money you had or where you were from.

[kiahzero]

25. Precisely.

That was exactly the meaning I was trying to encapsulate.

[rinsd]

19. So its not free healthcare.

If my taxes are raised to pay for universal insurance I do not really have a problem with it but its hardly free now is it?

[WindRavenX]

20. yes

Every human being has the right to housing, food, health care, and dignity.

[Matariki]

23. Does that mean that every human being has the right to other's labor

or the right to the 'means of production'? do we have a right to land to farm on, or the right to food others grow and produce? who or what 'gives' us these rights?

[WindRavenX]

26. Inherent human rights are self-evident

They need no moral or divine justification.

No one is given the right to exploit others, as cut-throat or laize faire capitalism is a system built upon exploitation and gain, all of which are in direct conflict of basic human rights.

[Matariki]

28. It's a philosophical question or maybe a semantics question.

You say housing, food, health care and dignity are rights. Yet in fact there are many homeless and starving and untreated sick people all over the world, so I would argue that those things are obviously NOT rights existant rights. I think what you are trying to say is that everyone SHOULD be entitled to those basic necessities of life.

And then I wonder, do you think farmers and doctors should be required to work for free? I'm wondering how you get to the premise that people have an inherent and self evident right to other people's labor? So I wonder about your definition of the word 'right'. What does it mean to you?

Now, I would argue that a society benefits by having all it's members cared for at a basic level. Perhaps this is just a semantic thing, but to me that's a different thing than a right.

[WindRavenX]

29. I think you're reading too much into the wording

Everyone has a right to those things, it's the question of how they are achieved that is difficult.

Of course there are starving people in the world. But that's not because the right to be fed isn't a right, it's because it's ignored. We have more than enough food and resources to meet the needs to people.

[LeftishBrit]

22. Yes. I think it's one of the essential aspects of a modern civilized state.

[bobbolink]

27. Is "Free" fire protection a "moral" right?

As far as I know, NO COUNTY in the U.S. demands "proof of insurance" before coming to put out a house or business fire. We take it for granted that we are ALL protected equally.

Why should health care be any less important or "moral"?

[NashVegas]

31. Fires Can Spread

That it's in a community's interest to put out a fire is obvious.

Some aspects of health care's community interest are less obvious.

[Cleita]

33. Disease can spread too. Having a health population

and one that has access to health care when needed would keep epidemics from spreading. Imagine if those African countries that first developed AIDS would have had a health system in place to identify and contain the disease to begin with, I believe it wouldn't have spread into the world wide epidemic it became.

[bobbolink]

55. You were much more measured in your response than I would have been.

I appreciate your peace-making. :hi:

You notice there was NO REPLY to your answer? Interesting....

I can't figure out just WHAT people actually want in this country for health care, or disease management, or anything else.

Other countries at least have their thoughts together!

Thanks for all your efforts on this issue! :applause:

[Pacifist Patriot]

58. And that doesn't even touch the more conservative hot buttons.

A healthier population reduces absenteeism and boosts productivity. I personally don't think of people as economic commodities, but it is another way of looking at it.

[endarkenment]

54. No they really aren't less obvious.

Perhaps not as immediate, but certainly it is obvious that a community's self interest is in ensuring that the community itself is healthy.

[bobbolink]

56. Health care should be a very OBVIOUS part of "homeland SECURITY"!!

It's clear that this country is in no way prepared for an epidemic.

PREVENTING SAID EPIDEMIC SHOULD BE OBVIOUS TO ANYONE!

[Cleita]

32. Actually Thom Hartmann, who besides being

a radio host is a historian, talks about the "commons". He calls fire protection, roads and those other things we take for granted part of the commons, but he also includes education and health care as something that we should all contribute to and share in.

[Pushed To The Left]

42. Thom Hartmann is awesome!

I've been listening to him more and more these days.

[The Straight Story]

30. Some good discussion going on here, so a kick to keep it flowing(nt)

[Orangepeel]

34. people in the US pay for all necessities -- water, shelter, heating oil

everyone should have healthcare, but I'm not against people who have the means to pay for it paying for it.

[kiahzero]

35. I have a question about that

Should someone be substantially worse-off financially because of an illness?

[Orangepeel]

38. *should* they be?

I'd say no, in a perfect world, although of course they probably are. People with severe illnesses have to spend money to treat them, plus, they often can't work much.

People are worse off financially for a whole lot of reasons they shouldn't be. (First and foremost, because they didn't win the parent lottery). But they are also worse off financially because they aren't as attractive (many studies show that attractive people make more money and are more likely to be hired), because they aren't as smart, because they have more kids, because they have an addiction, etc. Luck and circumstances play a huge part in one's financial situation.

Don't get me wrong -- I am absolutely for universal health care. But, even as someone who has a LOT of medical expenses because of my husband's medical conditions, I'm okay with the cost being on some sort of sliding scale rather than free. Fortunately, we have good insurance, but we'd certainly have a lot more money in our bank account if we didn't have premiums and co-pays. But that's life. Should somebody who is lucky enough not to have health issues have to pay higher taxes because of my husband when we *can* pay (well, after insurance; there's no way we could pay the full bill)? I know I don't want to pay more to pay for some rich person's surgery.

[kiahzero]

39. I'm in somewhat of the same boat.

I admit, what had me thinking about the issue initially was the absolutely obscene amount of medical expenses I've incurred. Without insurance, I would be out roughly $60,000 a year for my prescriptions; that doesn't even include physicals, consultations with my G/I specialist, or dental care. I've been under the course of treatment for six years, and I'm 23 now. For the next 20 years or so, the drug that makes up $56,000 of that price will remain patented, so its price will not drop noticeably. That means, assuming that my course of treatment stays about the same, by the time I'm 43 (when I estimate the drug will enter the public domain), I will have generated $1.5 million dollars of medical expenses, all for a genetic disorder - an accident of birth. Thankfully, I come from a middle class family, so I have health insurance. However, if I ever lose coverage, even for a day, I'm screwed, because the insurance companies can refuse to pay for any treatment for a lengthy period of time (probably a year, possibly more) because it's a "pre-existing condition." Unfortunately, my father has had to turn down numerous vastly superior job offers because of the insurance policies - if the insurance didn't cover me, even a $50,000 raise would be less of a salary. Of course, this is nothing compared to what would have happened were I from a lower or working class family, so I consider myself fortunate in that respect.

[Orangepeel]

40. ouch. that's awful

sorry you've had it so tough, kiahzero. My husband had a congenital heart condition that recently necessitated a transplant, so I know the vagaries of luck in terms of health and the financial cost of miracles. But you're much younger than he was when things started to go south for him.

I do think that everyone should have access to high quality care and that no one should be ruined financially because of health care costs. I just don't think it needs to be free to everyone. Somebody has to pay the costs -- individuals or society -- and I think society should pay less of the costs for people who are financially well off than it pays for people who aren't.

[kiahzero]

41. Well, that could presumably be handled in the tax policy.

In any sensible taxation scheme, which would presumably include the taxation necessary to pay for single-payer health care, the rich are taxed at a higher rate. I just don't think it makes any more sense for a rich person to suffer a detriment because of an accident of health than it does for a poor person. Obviously, the severity of the problem is several orders of magnitude worse for the poor, the logic is the same.

[bobbolink]

59. So you would rather the whole health system cost MORE?

You say "Don't get me wrong, I'm all for universal health care", but I think *you* have it wrong, because apparently you don't understand what it means.

The whole purpose of Universal single payer health care, besides the fact that *everyone* will finally get health care, is making it AFFORDABLE. To do that, all the paper pushing must be eliminated. The very minute you want "sliding scale", you increase the cost tremendously. You have to have all those people who push that paper, and you have to have all those people who make all the decisions about the "scale" and who gets what. Then we're almost back where we started---HUGE OVERHEAD.

I really don't understand what it is with Murkins--so afraid that somebody is going to get something they didn't "earn". Other countries don't worry about that all the time. What makes us fixate on that????

Do you know that there are plenty of Murkin tourists who have become ill or injured in other SANE countries with Universal Single Payer health care, and they weren't charged ANYTHING for their care? WHY would that be?

BECAUSE IT WOULD COST THE HEALTH SYSTEM OF THAT COUNTRY *MORE* TO FIGURE OUT WHAT TO CHARGE THAN IT WOULD YIELD IN RETURN.

Think about it again. Do you REALLY want to pay that much more for a whole system with all that paperwork and overhead, just to hang on to our Murkin ideas of watching that somebody doesn't "get away" with something? Other countries are doing just fine, are healthier, and pay less. What is wrong with that????

Please, do me a favor (and yourself!) Watch this short video about single payer, made by a Stanford student. I think it will clear up some misconceptions for you:

http://www.grahamazon.com/sp/whatissinglepayer.php

[Cleita]

36. Many nations have it written into their Constitutions as a human

right. I have always felt that to deny someone in need of something that is available for their needs is immoral. Now we seem to realize that we can't let people starve while the stores are full of food, so we try to make sure that everyone gets access to food one way or the other, but when it comes to other needs like shelter and health care we seem to think it's a commercial product like a yacht that you have to be able to afford before you can have access to it.

[dysfunctional press]

37. if we go to such a system, i think that there should be a token co-pay for doctor visits-

something like $10 or $15- mostly just to ward off hypochondriacs and to keep people from running to the dr. for every little sniffle or scraped knee that they can tend to themselves.


and "free healthcare" is really an incorrect title for what you describe-

because it isn't "free"- people would pay for it with their taxes, much the way the employer deducts the cost of health insurance from the paycheck at work.

[Cleita]

43. Wow! I haven't heard the hypochondriac argument since the

early days. Actually, privatized medicine encourages hypochondria because those who can afford the doctor will go to the doctor. The doctor will encourage hypochondriacs for the fee. When everyone is covered, the doctor is too busy with real sick people to coddle hypochondriacs and do unnecessary but lucrative surgeries, like hemrhoidectomies(sp.?), hysterectomies and tonsillectomies, that they used to do in the past to pad the bottom line.

Copays will often discourage poor people because they can't even afford the $10. Most NHC systems who started out with copays have dropped them as unnecessary. Also, little sniffles need to be looked at too. They could be something far more serious that can be caught in time.

[bluedawg12]

46. When health care is totally free people demand

all care with out regard to cost.

I have never heard a person who has full government coverage ever say: this is costing my fellow citizen too much, or I am being unfair to society.

I have heard people that are uninsured ask to have only the necessary treatment/tests and no frills.

It's not the hypochondriac argument- it's about human nature. it's about over testing, when their are no financial consequences.

A sprained ankle in a commercially insured person when given options for x-ray's, physical therapy and perhaps, later, an MRI will almost always go for the full gamut, unless their co-pay is high.
A person paying totally out of pocket looks at you in earnest and say's if no harm will come, let's wait a little while and see how things turn out.

The health care costs go to hospitals and testing. After only a $65 doctors visit, the patient will end up paying $375 a week for PT, $2,400 + for an MRI and if surgery is involved the hospital marks ups $1 liter of sterile water to $15.


My plumber makes $175 for 1/4 hour of work. That's a pretty good hour rate. I think we should have pluming insurance. Oh, and vet-pet insurance. They are starting to get out of hand.

[Cleita]

49. Oooh, you have your little right wing talking points down pat.

I have never heard a person who has full government coverage ever say: this is costing my fellow citizen too much, or I am being unfair to society.

Unless you are Canadian, I believe you that haven't heard those people because I doubt if you know anyone who uses NHC. The fact is that everyone contributes to national health care in those countries so most likely they are using money that they paid into the plan throughout their lifetime.

I have heard people that are uninsured ask to have only the necessary treatment/tests and no frills.

Who is going to be handing out frills, in your mind? I have Medicare, our NHC (which I have paid into all my life and now I am using it when necessary) and believe me there are no frills. The plan specifically outlines what treatment is authorized and what isn't. NHC would work the same.

It's not the hypochondriac argument- it's about human nature. it's about over testing, when their are no financial consequences.

About testing. Generally, testing is to find a diagnosis. Sometimes several tests must be administered until one nails the problem. This is not overtesting, it's a necessity and it is done to save lives. Again, my experience with Medicare is that there are guidelines to the doctors on what is permitted. There is no willy nilly testing to make the labs rich. However, I can see this happening with uber riche people who have money to spare and the doctors will usually comply. But trust me, no health plan whether private or state run allows rampant testing to go on.

A sprained ankle in a commercially insured person when given options for x-ray's, physical therapy and perhaps, later, an MRI will almost always go for the full gamut, unless their co-pay is high.
A person paying totally out of pocket looks at you in earnest and say's if no harm will come, let's wait a little while and see how things turn out.

Again, NHC plans like Medicare are managed and only the tests that are needed will be given. I had a stroke and I had to do all those things you mentioned above under the guidelines of Medicare because they were necessary diagnosis tools and therapies, but I wasn't given one extra test or therapy that I didn't need because it wouldn't have been paid for. NHC would work the same.

The health care costs go to hospitals and testing. After only a $65 doctors visit, the patient will end up paying $375 a week for PT, $2,400 + for an MRI and if surgery is involved the hospital marks ups $1 liter of sterile water to $15.

The reason the hospitals mark up prices to those who can pay is to cover those who can't pay. If they could bill the state or federal government for the cost of caring for uninsured and indigent patients, they wouldn't have to charge $15 for water.

My plumber makes $175 for 1/4 hour of work. That's a pretty good hour rate. I think we should have pluming insurance. Oh, and vet-pet insurance. They are starting to get out of hand.

Pet vet insurance would be nice, however, I'm sorry your plumber is so expensive, but you can fix your own plumbing or get a neighbor or relative to help you if you can't. You can't do the same for your health.

[sandnsea]

50. Have you known someone with Medicaid?

I doubt it because the people I've known with Medicaid feel guilty about using it for themselves. The kids, no. But they don't go for themselves unless they're really sick. It's a pretty humiliating experience besides.

And there is vet-pet insurance, and home maintenance insurance too.

[hfojvt]

71. I knew a guy in his 70s who had shoulder surgery

so he could keep playing golf. Mostly paid for by the government. Then there was our friend in his 60s who smoked and drank himself to poor health. He never expressed any guilt for his benefits. Perhaps he felt it though, since he typically paid when he asked for a favor.

[sandnsea]

73. Medicare isn't Medicaid

No senior should feel guilty for using their Medicare. I can't understand why you would think they should.

[dysfunctional press]

63. if a "sniffle" or any condition persists- it should be looked at by a dr.

but if somebody wakes up with a runny nose, they don't need to rush off to the e.r. on the first day. if you make it totally free(besides the taxes) people will tend to be irresponsible, and the system will get overloaded. i would also waive the co-pay for follow-up visits for a continuing condition.

[Cleita]

69. That's such nonsense. No one with or without insurance

rushes off to the doctor at the first sign of sniffles. Also, if I have to see my doctor right away like when I hurt my elbow and got a nasty infection, I was seen by the nurse in the doctor's office first to determine if the doctor needed to see me or if she could treat it. I don't know what kind of access to a busy doctor's time that you think people have.

[bobbolink]

57. You're so afraid that someone will get something for nothing, that you would deny THOUSANDS medical

care????

Did you not learn ANYTHING from Katrina???

[dysfunctional press]

62. that has absolutely nothing to do with it- why would you even think so...?

and as i poiunted out in my post- it isn't free anyway.

the reason i think that there should be a token co-pay is to keep dr.s offices and e.r.s from getting jammed with people who don't need to be there, so that people who DO heed the care can get it in a timely manner.

[bobbolink]

64. Your answer shows your fear of someone getting something you think

they don't deserve.

Meditate on that.

Then realize that if your way were followed, it would be as much a debacle as our current system.

If you reead my words, you either dismiss what I'm telling you, or want to further punish those of us with NOTHING!

[dysfunctional press]

65. no- that has absolutely NOTHING to do with it-

i'm against people getting something they don't NEED, at the expense(in terms of time and proper treatment, not money) of somebody who DOES need it.

meditate on THAT.

[bobbolink]

66. It's been pointed out to you that you have learned NOTHING from Katrina!!!

Dammnit, instead of hotly defending yourself, why can't you for ONE MINUTE think of all of us who don't HAVE that $10!!!

Just read your words, and you'll understand why poor folk don't have any more trust in Dems than they do in Repubs!!

You're giving the very same goddamned talking points!!

You'd rather people drown in Katrina that get $$$ to get out, and die of illness rather than having the health care they need!!!

This is what the RW has done all these years, and it's KILLING US!!

oh, and thanks for your thoughtful consideration that your damned "idea" would cost much more.

[dysfunctional press]

68. you seem to have a lot of anger, that you're projecting without comprehending...

maybe you should see a doctor about that.

[bobbolink]

82. I'm glad to know you can keep in character. RW talking points all the way.

WHen it's pointed out to you that there is information you have overlooked, as others have done on this thread, rather than considering it, and considering that others MAY HAVE SOMETHING FROM WHICH YOU CAN LEARN, you resort to personal attack.

You've learned it well.

Congratulations!

BYE now...

[raccoon]

76. There should be a token co-pay because some people will go

to the doctor at the drop of a hat. I have a relative who does that. She has insurance. Any little tiny symptom, she runs to the doctor.

There are some people who do this.

[bluedawg12]

44. Food, shelter, health care. Primary needs.

It's up to society to prioritize which of the needs, goods and services of the people get met by the government.

It's for the greater good. It should be a policy.

What duties does a government have to supply on a moral basis?

Why isn't food for everyone a moral right?

Why isn't a shelter for everyone a moral right?

Should a car for everyone be a moral right in places where there is no public transport?

How about jobs for everyone, is that a moral right?

Or are these matters of policy?

Life, liberty and the pursit of happiness, equality, those are moral rights.

Perhaps the question should be, does the government have a moral duty to provide access to health care to all of the citizens, based on some equitable formula?

[Greyhound]

47. Yes, although the term "moral right" is inaccurate.

:kick:

[SoCalDem]

48. In a moral universe, the government would pay to train the doctors,

pay them well, provide medical facilities, and there ya go.

A citizen should be able to show his/her biometric/cheat-proof ID and get top notch care...anywhere in the US..

The machines to "read the cards" would have to be installed, but hey.. if 7-11s can install card readers for ATM purchases, and the NSA can tell you what you had for lunch Thursday, last week, I think it's do-able.

Corporations/companies would then be able to pay IN REAL PAYCHECK WAGES.. MOOLAH..MONEY..DINERO...CASH, all that money they tell you you won't be getting because the insurance went up"..

I see NO problem in requiring proof of citizenship to GET the care..

How do we pay for it? TAXES paid from all the new jobs created because companies can now be competitive again..


The paperpushers at the insuarnce/HMOs? they can always find jobs at Wendys & Walmart :)





It's gotta be cheaper than invading countries, and occupying them :shrug:

[Cleita]

51. Yes, I always believed that doctors and other medical

professionals should be able to get their training without worrying about how to pay for it. It would insure that the best and brightest would get the education and training they need.

[crappyjazz]

53. Ask Tommy Douglas

you know, Keifer's grandpappy

voted Greatest Canadian

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Douglas

[AnnInLa]

60. There are no "moral rights"

except in context.

[WorldResident]

61. A moral obligation, but not a moral right

n/t

[walldude]

67. I have no health insurance. I am self employed

and I have a son with autism and another(adopted) with Muscular Dystrophy. I can't get health insurance for my family because of "pre-existing conditions". In other words, if the insurance industry can't make a fortune off you they tell you to fuck off. About a month ago my oldest son had an allergic reaction to something and I had to take him to the emergency room. The doctor examined him, gave him a couple tests, said he was fine and sent us home. Today I got a bill for $1600. For 15 minutes with a doctor, an EEG and some other test I can't remember what it is. It's going to take me a year to pay it off. Luckily it wasn't anything serious. I can only imagine what I'm going to be up against when my youngest starts showing symptoms from his MD. So when someone tells you how great America's health care system is send them my way so I can spit in their face.

[Vinca]

78. The self-employed are especially screwed and insurance companies

don't hesitate for a moment to drop you like a hot potato if you file a claim or . . . even worse . . . age! They want healthy twenty-somethings. Although the healthy twenty-somethings shouldn't get comfortable because they're one minor illness from being screwed, too. How anyone can be opposed to universal health care is beyond me. For those who focus on money, it would be cheaper. For those who focus on people, the benefits are obvious. I'll keep my fingers crossed your kids stay healthy.

[DaveJ]

79. They basically punish us for going to the hospital

That really is a horrific story. Not very many people can afford to come up with $1500.

That is a tragic way the system works now. It's why I don't even think about visiting the hospital for preventative testing, and I will probably die an early age from lack attention that I could have had if I'd had the money for it. But at least my owners will be happy that they got to own me during my best years.

The system has gone horribly horribly wrong, punishing people like that for caring about our kids.

I'm punished because I married my wife even though she was not in the beset financial situation and has two kids -- now we will never own a home.

People get punished for caring.