Is healthcare a "right?"

You have the right to whatever healthcare-related goods and services you can afford.
Like all other rights, you are not entitled to have someone else pay for the exercise of that right.

 

no you don't. The overwhelming VAST majority of people with insurance, are insured through their employer. They have no choice.

it is a proven fact that single payer provides better care at a fraction of our cost.

 

How did the US become the wealthiest nation on earth, when our economy is based on pesky profits? Shouldn't Stalinism have carried the Soviets to that status?

The thing about thought experiments is that you actually have to think about them. Do you think there might be other variables between the US and your single payer countries? Or are we identical to Denmark?

 

Unless we have some document that details the definition the FF provided for that term, it is left to interpretation.

I agree - it doesn't mean equality of affluence or intelligence or talent. What I read it to me is 'equally important'. Of equal relevance. But if one baby, simply by virtue of their parents' income, is not provided the healthcare that is readily available, they are not regarded as of equal importance.

Christians often say that God put doctors on the earth to do His work. I wonder what God thinks about a system in which His work can only be performed if the patient has enough money to pay for it.

 

Their priorities, for one.

 

The doctor may choose to work for free.
No one should be forced to pay him for the goods and services he provides to someone else.

 

Again, I have no idea what this statement has to do with the proven fact of single payer providing better care at a fraction of our cost?

I prefer facts. The facts show single payer is better than our system.

 

Taxpayer dollars are used to protect us against foreign adversaries, to pay for fire depts. to protect our homes, a police dept. to protect us against crime. There is no means test for how much protection you get based on the taxes you pay. Why not use taxpayer dollars to more efficiently protect our health? It's clearly a great benefit to the country if its citizens are well cared for. The world is replete with examples of nationalized health producing better health outcomes at a lower % of GDP than we pay. After all, as citizens of the country are we not all in this together?

 

We took a big step toward single-payer with Obamacare. Have you seen the savings yet? We were promised big savings.

 

this statement shows you have no idea what the ACA does, or what single payer is.

premiums rose at a slower rate after the ACA was implemented, than before. The ACA did not address cost of care, only access to insurance.

 

?????????????? The Faustian bargain of the ACA as originally conceived was sending more biz to private health insurers. Of course, since then the Repubs have been sabotaging the ACA relentlessly.

 

Good point. But I'm sure you can think of half a dozen other differences. What other factors might have an effect on healthcare costs and outcomes?

But (I'm guessing) your mention of priorities is meant to convey that they put greater value on healthcare. But we are told they spend less of their GDP on healthcare than we do. How does that square?

 

''No one ever advocates barring some people from emergency treatment, and that is evidence of the recognition of medical care as a moral right.''

Actually, in the little minds of many on the far right, Republican death panels are the proper way. Remember the old refrain, "let him die"?

 

Well - even if it took 15 min - which is overdoing it - I think that in an hour a nurse could hand out more than 4 pills - that is 100 dollars an hour.

Where do I sign up !

 

I meant that they prioritized their people, not specifically healthcare.

As for how they are spending less and getting more, there are countless threads on that already. Bottom line, to provide healthcare by 'for profit' corporations is not the most fiscally responsible or cost effective way to do it.

 

Economically diverse:
The cost of living in CA is outrageous compared to the flyover states. The expenses to operate medical facilities in different areas is
vastly different - even to provide the exact same level of service. There is no reason to tax people in middle America for the outrageous cost of coverage that would apply to someone in Silicon Valley. You collect the tax locally and apply it locally. Your money working for you, what is wrong with that? And then if Cali wanted to give every illegal alien in America free dental, they could!

Culturally diverse:
Why would a taxpayer in the bible belt want their tax money to go to an abortion clinic when there aren't any abortion clinics in their entire state?
This doesn't apply anymore; but how would a Muslim community feel about being taxed for insulin made from pigs? (or worse being injected with it)

The more locally funded and regulated something is, the better it will be tailored to that community. And yes, some cultures are more prone to certain conditions than others. There are know absolutes in medicine except we all will die, but different demographics have different medical needs - or do you think men need to go see the OBGYN as well? Or maybe my wife should be screened for testicular cancer... Don't be stupid.

 

Which have only been limited due to prior Obamacare mandate, and socialist medicine.

Obamacare was the primary driver behind the removal of options in the healthcare marketplace.

Basically we've seen a monopolization of health care under it, which is, of course, what socialism is about.

Everyone gets the same plan. Well, except the people who create the socialist system. They'll still have choices.

Capitalism is choice and competition. Socialism is no choice and stagnation.

But then, you argued that gas is cheaper with one gas station instead of ten competing gas stations, so I know I'm wasting my time really.

 

You have a right to defend yourself and a right of government not to interfere and take it away without due process. You do not have a right to a service without compensation or forcing others to pay.

 

Uh, no. Employer sponsored healthcare predates the ACA by decades.

absolutely false.

also false.

what are you talking about? There are TONS of different plans available, that are compliant with the ACA. Is it that you don't know what the ACA does? Or do you just not know what socialism is?

ah, I see. It's that you don't know what socialism is. Got it.

lol, please quote me saying any such thing.

 

That isn't true, they often will ask the family where they prefer to be transported, or at least they do at the facility I work at. Hell, you can choose to lay there and die if you want to.

 

no, they won't. Local city/county EMS will be taking you to the nearest ER. You have no choice where you are taken. Sure, if you are by yourself you can lay there and die. Or, if the people you are with when you apparently drop dead do not call 911, you will lay there and die. but, once 911 is called, the unconscious patient will be taken to the nearest ER, regardless of what any other person present has to say.

 

Hmmmm ~ not being forced to pay for the military industrial complex's profiteering. I'm with you on that one.

As for government needing due process to interfere in self defense, yes, that's what I've said when cops interfere with people, especially in the ghettos.

 

Still not familiar with the constitution? National Security is mentioned but no invented right is.

 

Is healthcare a "right?"
We must change with the times. Healthcare is now a "right"--as it should be.

 

You have the right to whatever healthcare-related goods and services you can afford.
Like all other rights, you are not entitled to have someone else pay for the exercise of that right.