Should Medical Care be a Right?

[alforddm]

Since everyone here has done an amazing job of keeping things civil on the "Political Observations" thread, I'd like to get a bit further into something that hasn't been discussed although it's been touched on a bit.

I think we have enough varying opinions here to make for a wonderful discussion.

Should medical care be a right?

I'll start this off with just a couple of observations... 1) Nowhere in the US constitution is medical care mentioned. 2) Everything not specifically given to the federal government should be left to the states. 3) Many if not most of our ailments are due to our lifestyle choices or the lifestyle choices of others.

However, in the flip side is the right to life.

 

[Dood]

Well, I VEHEMENTLY disagree with this statement

3) Many if not most of our ailments are due to our lifestyle choices or the lifestyle choices of others.

- and suggest it be removed from the discussion

1) Nowhere in the US constitution is medical care mentioned.

its because there wasn't any real medicine back then

Back in 1787 "medicine" was little more than superstitious folk lore and snake oil salesmen and people basically had to fend for themselves - people didn't know about bacteria or viruses and thought you got sick because you were not virtuous or did something to tick off God. Not until after the Civil War did physicians ponder sterilizing equipment or even washing their hands between patients :shock: which are things we take for granted now a days

I am totally convinced that if the Founding Fathers had modern medicine it would have been made a right or at least mandated that the independent States must offer public health care

And IMHO, relying on a document written 250 years ago to guide all facets of modern society is antiquated to say the least.

2) Everything not specifically given to the federal government should be left to the states.

I can agree to this BUT what about the poor states? States like Alaska are going to have a much higher overhead just because of their climate and the fact their population is spread out over hundreds of miles, with few if any roads so they need to helicopter people to the Hospitals they have. What about Arizona and Florida with a disproportionately high population of senior citizens who need more care? What is to prevent a mass exodus to states that have a better health care system just because they have more state money? The poor who cannot afford to move are going to be left without health care again

Pooling at least some of the money Federally to be sure all states offer basic care and then letting the States decide what they will and will not cover makes the most sense

 

[karebru]

Since everyone here has done an amazing job of keeping things civil on the "Political Observations" thread, I'd like to get a bit further into something that hasn't been discussed although it's been touched on a bit.

I think we have enough varying opinions here to make for a wonderful discussion.

Should medical care be a right?

I'll start this off with just a couple of observations... 1) Nowhere in the US constitution is medical care mentioned. 2) Everything not specifically given to the federal government should be left to the states. 3) Many if not most of our ailments are due to our lifestyle choices or the lifestyle choices of others.

Agreed, but sometimes things just happen. There is nothing in The Constitution, or the Bible, for that matter, about life being perfect or fair, and the government can't make it that way. The Bible tells us how to make things better by helping each other.

However, in the flip side is the right to life.

The Rights stated in The Declaration Of Independence (not The Constitution) are given to us by God, not the government. The Constitution opens with...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

If you want to take, "general welfare" as meaning health or health care, it says "promote", it doesn't say provide.

No one has a right to something that violates someone else's rights by forcing them to give it to you. That means health care, food, shelter, etc.
And no one can provide you with life, but God.

 

[alforddm]

Well, I VEHEMENTLY disagree with this statement
3) Many if not most of our ailments are due to our lifestyle choices or the lifestyle choices of others.
- and suggest it be removed from the discussion

I disagree, from the CDC website...

Heart disease: 611,105
Cancer: 584,881
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 149,205
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 130,557
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,978
Alzheimer's disease: 84,767
Diabetes: 75,578
Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,979
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 47,112
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 41,149

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifestyle_disease

So, heart disease, diabetes, stroke, some cancer, and intentional self-harm are all largely due to lifestyle choices. Do all of these cases come from lifestyle choices? Of course not, but how many of these problems would we really suffer, as a society, if we all ate right and got the recommended amount of exercise? It could also be argued that many accidental deaths are due to lifestyle choices ie driving while intoxicated, texting while driving etc.

Please understand I'm not trying to minimize health problems. My father-in-law has diabetes and high blood pressure (Native American). My mother-in-law is in remission from liver cancer (Medicare). When my son was 13 he broke both bones in both arms on a trampoline. He was doing flips and happened to land wrong even landed on the trampoline. He had to have emergency surgery due to a compound fracture to put plates in his arms. Our medical bills would have been extremely expensive if we had not had insurance.

But, I do think it is relevant to the discussion.

 

[Zinnia]

I have an issue with #3 as well. Because our government has interfered to allow or even force unhealthy toxins and lifestyles on people, I seriously doubt that the majority of health problems are entirely our own doing. Yes, we have some control, maybe even a lot of control of our own health, but what about all the drugs, toxins, vaccines, air pollution, water pollution, etc. that 'higher powers" have their hand in?

 

[karebru]

And IMHO, relying on a document written 250 years ago to guide all facets of modern society is antiquated to say the least.

I agree, but... our founders provided us with a Constitution that can be updated and amended. This has been done throughout our history. Our Constitution protects us from tyranny. The way it is being ignored today is a serious threat to that security.

 

[Deer Heart]

I have an issue with #3 as well. Because our government has interfered to allow or even force unhealthy toxins and lifestyles on people, I seriously doubt that the majority of health problems are entirely our own doing. Yes, we have some control, maybe even a lot of control of our own health, but what about all the drugs, toxins, vaccines, air pollution, water pollution, etc. that 'higher powers" have their hand in?

I agree with this statement. I was actually quite shocked when I was visiting Scotland to find all of their meats are even sourced down to the farm they came from (EVEN IN DOG FOOD). Not only that but it is CHEAPER to get wholesome food there. You had to HUNT for junk food that was as junky as american food and even then it cost more than just picking something wholesome. IE. WATER was a lot cheaper than SODA which is not true in some parts of America. Especially in gas stations when you just want something cheap to drink to keep you going (I had a serious problem with this when I was working on the road). Even their chocolate did not have certain preservative chemicals added that American chocolates get (American chocolate is more bitter than chocolate in most other countries as a result. The preservative is bitter in taste and most Americans are used to that taste)


EDIT - I also forgot to mention I REALLY don't think it's fair to say those diseases are all primarily self imposed statistics either, a lot of those things have strong roots in genes (diabetes and heart disease for eg.), to even insinuate that they are all self imposed isn't accurate or fair at all. I know you pointed that out too, but then why try to use those statistics as your argument in the first place to claim that they mean that most illnesses are self inflicted by most Americans? Even the suicidal injury. They could have mental issues NOT being treated for lack of insurance in the first place. Had they received proper psychological treatment in the first place and felt safe and encouraged to do so it might not have come to that. Not only that but because of our system, a lot of our Dr's have become one trick ponies, treating symptoms a lot of the time but not the disease because it is cheaper that way and the insurance companies would rather pay for the cheap option of anti-depressants (that may push a mentally unstable person into becoming suicidal) vs. say mental evaluation and exploration and medication ONLY when absolutely needed. Which takes longer but can be just as effective without side effects.

I honestly have not met a single Diabetic person who was the stereotype you see on TV where they still eat doughnuts and whatnot even knowing they'll lose their legs. Most of them I know lead much healthier and careful routines and lives but unfortunately are stuck with the disease. Several of which lead those careful lives BEFORE being diagnosed because they knew it ran in their family. Unfortunately, they still got it. Oddly, a lot of the diabetic persons who I've dealt with were actually elderly, too. I'm blessed in that it does not run in my family, nor does heart disease, baldness does though - my poor brother. :roll:

 

[HOWsMom]

I was actually quite shocked when I was visiting Scotland to find all of their meats are even sourced down to the farm they came from (EVEN IN DOG FOOD). Not only that but it is CHEAPER to get wholesome food there. You had to HUNT for junk food that was as junky as american food and even then it cost more than just picking something wholesome. IE. WATER was a lot cheaper than SODA which is not true in some parts of America. Especially in gas stations when you just want something cheap to drink to keep you going (I had a serious problem with this when I was working on the road). Even their chocolate did not have certain preservative chemicals added that American chocolates get (American chocolate is more bitter than chocolate in most other countries as a result. The preservative is bitter in taste and most Americans are used to that taste)

This is awesome - I WISH the healthy stuff was cheaper than junk food here !!

 

[Deer Heart]

I was actually quite shocked when I was visiting Scotland to find all of their meats are even sourced down to the farm they came from (EVEN IN DOG FOOD). Not only that but it is CHEAPER to get wholesome food there. You had to HUNT for junk food that was as junky as american food and even then it cost more than just picking something wholesome. IE. WATER was a lot cheaper than SODA which is not true in some parts of America. Especially in gas stations when you just want something cheap to drink to keep you going (I had a serious problem with this when I was working on the road). Even their chocolate did not have certain preservative chemicals added that American chocolates get (American chocolate is more bitter than chocolate in most other countries as a result. The preservative is bitter in taste and most Americans are used to that taste)

This is awesome - I WISH the healthy stuff was cheaper than junk food here !!

They also label their DV% of sugar on packages, something they can't do in america or you'd be too scared to touch most of the food. I had a friend visit from out of country who wanted to know before eating a cereal I purchased, what the DV% of the sugar was and was baffled to find only the amount in that serving of one bowl listed. She laughed and said "I guess that's how they get away with putting so much sugar in there. No one knows what that size amount is compared to what their Daily Value actually is. What is that amount supposed to even mean to me??" Which is true, with DV they would have to take into account not just how much sugar is in there but how many sugars you are actually taking in (from other ingredients too)

 

[alforddm]

I just wanted to thank everyone one who had posted thus far. Many of you have disagreed with one of my starting points and have given Valid reasons for your opinions. You have given me alot to think about.

Thank you! This is why I wanted to open this discussion. I often found there are things I have not considered and there are few places these days I feel comfortable asking for differing opinions.

I love rabbit talk and all of you!

 

[BlueHaven]

How would you possibly discern if someone got illness due to lifestyle?
There is no way, that you can do that. I had thyroid cancer and I know four other people that also got it.
Four of us are at normal healthy weight, have healthy life style. Do you refuse to cover any of them? Only the overweight one?
Is the over weight increased due to the thyroid issue if it cant possibly function normally if its full of cancer and has been for years?
Actually the only way to get thyroid cancer that we know of, is exposure to radiation. Either by medical treatment, testing, invironmental, only sometime genetic.
Does someone get cancer because your just unlucky, or because you don't do ten thousand steps a day?
Did you get some disease due to smoking a few cigs when you were a kid? What if you stopped smoking at age 18? 25?
40? Or was it your work environment.
Who would judge this? The government? The health insurance companies? Really?
The ones that don't really want to pay out coverage if they can possibly get out of doing so?
The hospitals that are building 5 star resorts with three story water fountains? Those are tax write offs you know. To stop paying on all the profits they make. BILLIONS per QUARTER but keep raising rates..
No governmental agency or medical agency could possibly discern this. Perhaps lower rates for people at healthy weight? Even people that aren't mobile? The mentally ill? children?
Way to complicated.

 

[myrkari]

Hi! I'm probably not going to play in this thread much, just like I didn't play in the Politics thread much, because I'm from a whole different continent than you guys and our cultures are different and so on and so forth, so I'd be cross-talking with you all because I don't fully understand your medical care system.

But I want to express my major distaste for #3 too. I know lots of people have already said why they don't agree with it much, and alforddm replied already, but I also want to chime in. I agree that obesity and diabetes and heart problems and such are in part (possibly mostly) attributable to the changes in diet and activity that humans in general have experienced over the last however many years. And I agree that a lot of "health problems" could be improved, if not fixed, by eating better, getting outdoors more and moving around properly.

Having said all that, the reason I disagree so strongly with #3 is because it, to me, seems to boil down to the blanket statement of "your illness; your fault; your problem" and most importantly it isn't accurate, but it also doesn't promote open and productive discourse in the context of this thread or in the wider world. On top of that, it encourages a culture of assigning blame and fingerpointing amongst society, and frankly I expect it counts among the 'divide and conquer' style tactics I read a number of people take umbrage against over in the other thread. This is so important to me and I hope I don't sound like a silly hippy when I say it because really I'm not, but I just... I hope you guys get it.

When we ignore the HFCS and aspartame and all that other fake rubbish that real food has been replaced with in the name of profits, and we ignore the companies advertising junk food to kiddies and cigarettes to adolescents and alcohol to anyone who'll listen, and the factory farms dosing out antibiotics and estrogen like candy or feeding ground up cows to other cows because it's cheap, and the variety of waste dumped in our water, and the smog surrounding our cities, and the changes to our world that now mean many people have to do dangerous or otherwise unhealthy jobs (even just sitting at a desk for 10 hours a day) to earn the money necessary to survive etc., etc.,... When we ignore all that in favour of pointing our fingers and telling the diabetic fatties with bad hearts that they shouldn't be sat on their butts eating cake...who wins? Not us.

Besides, there are tons of illnesses that aren't anything to do with lifestyle choices OR changes in the way the world works. Diseases have been around far longer than cheeseburgers and playstations. Sometimes people get sick. C'est la vie.

--

Sorry, that got a bit long and a bit ranty. Re: food contents and labelling in the UK - we are a bit better with it over here, yeah. Our meat is also a little better, as far as I'm aware - one of my American friends was amazed at the variety of choice as far as where to get meat from when he visited, he told me there weren't many options and wasn't much clarity back home, although I don't know how true that is - and on most prepared items we have the traffic light system with DVs. Anything with lots of fat, salt or sugar has a big red splodge on the packet surrounding the values. Anything a bit better in terms of DV is green. So you can spot at a glance if something's secretly hiding a ton of sugar that you weren't expecting. We've also got way less HFCS, we stuck with real sugar. Which is why our teeth are still real bad :lol:

 

[Dood]

Those statistics are useless without demographic information

How many of the people in those statistics are over 80, 70, 60 years old? Parts wear out and need replacing - young people and professional athletes even die of heart attacks, they think a virus is to blame, just one more vaccine to be added to the list to force people to be healthy and not tax the health care system

People in apartments, on fixed incomes and who rely on public transportation and must carry their groceries are stuck with cheap food available locally and cannot have a garden plot or livestock - even people with large lots in the suburbs have trouble raising their own meat

Living in poor hygene conditions with rats and roaches and smog so thick the pubic is warned to stay inside

And then there is the whole propaganda machine promoting Micky D's as a "healthy" choice from cradle to grave

There is no way you can force the American public to do what's best for them - Prohibition is a perfect example of how well that went over :cheesysmile:

But if government had the gonads to TAX this unhealthy junk instead of SUBSIDIZING high fructose corn or grade AAA beef then maybe they could offset some of the health care costs of those who chose to indulge in these lifestyle choices

 

[MamaSheepdog]

Should medical care be a right?

No.

No one has a right to something that violates someone else's rights by forcing them to give it to you. That means health care, food, shelter, etc.

Through taxation we are already forced to provide food, shelter, and medical care to the indigent.

That was never what the Founding Fathers intended.

Charity should come from the heart and be freely given. Who among us feels their heart swell with goodness and compassion when paying their taxes?

Anyone???

I thought not.

Text below is from http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/libr ... fare-state

America’s first settlers and Founders were certainly not oblivious to the problems of poverty, nor were they callous in their treatment of it. Yet they explicitly urged its alleviation by means other than the federal government. This ideology was concisely expressed by James Madison, who declared that "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." And Ben Franklin once stated, "the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it."

Giving the poor a hand up rather than a hand out continued beyond the Founding era through a variety of private organizations and charities known as mutual aid societies. After visiting America in the early 19th century, Alexis de Tocqueville made note of this phenomenon when he wrote, "Americans of all ages, all conditions, and all dispositions, constantly form associations. ... Wherever, at the head of some new undertaking, you see the government in France, or a man of rank in England, in the United States you will be sure to find an association."

These types of organizations originally opposed a government-run, government-funded welfare state because they viewed mutual aid as an expression of independence and personal responsibility. With dues from members, they provided services such as unemployment insurance, workers compensation, health insurance, life insurance, and sick pay. In many cases, a fraternal society would hire a doctor to care for the members' families giving them access to reliable, inexpensive healthcare. Additionally, these organizations established a privatized safety net through orphanages, hospitals, and homes for the elderly.

1) Nowhere in the US constitution is medical care mentioned.

its because there wasn't any real medicine back then

I am totally convinced that if the Founding Fathers had modern medicine it would have been made a right or at least mandated that the independent States must offer public health care

At the time they believed that their care was state of the art- and it was- for the time period. Physicians practiced medicine to the best of their abilities with the knowledge and tools available to them at the time, just as they do today.

In two hundred years they will probably be appalled at what we consider to be quality medical care; the pharmaceutical drugs which have so many side effects that once you take one you are destined to be on a whole host of others to treat the problems created by the first; the focus on treating symptoms rather than finding the underlying cause; and the lack (or outright banning) of utilizing natural and herbal remedies to treat disease.

There were people of all economic classes then as now, with varying abilities to afford medical care. But as noted above, the American way of handling that was to form their own organizations to help others- not through involuntary taxation.

 

[Miss M]

^^^ Well said!

 

[myrkari]

I'm surprised by the number of people saying "no" outright. I don't intend to be personal towards anyone here - I'm just playing a little bit of Devil's Advocate and stirring the pot for discussion's sake, certainly not intending to pick on anyone's views in particular to make my point - but are those of you saying "no" currently healthy or, if not entirely healthy, then in a position where you aren't both in agony/imminently dying and entirely deprived of access to any kind of healthcare? If you weren't, do you think that would make a difference?

I'm just saying... I already believe eveyone should have access to healthcare (that's the definition of 'a right' that I'm using, I haven't made any consideration of whether it is free or subsidised or government-run or whatever, I mean within reach as a service in all salient ways) and I imagine I'd hold that belief considerably more strongly, and with considerably more volume and ferocity, were I in dire need of said healthcare at the present time. If my arm was hanging off, I'd fight my way to a surgeon, you know? Nobody could tell me I hadn't the right, as a human being, to medical assistance - not without getting a kick to the groin for their trouble.

Because I'm sure that situations can have an effect on opinions, etc., I would hazard a guess that many of the people who currently don't have reliable access to healthcare would argue hardest that it should be a right for everyone. And on the flipside of that coin maybe the people who are healthy or financially able to absorb the cost of being unhealthy or even for example just related to a physician and able to get care in that way, and who might therefore feel that because they don't need guaranteed access, being obliged to help provide it for others is inappropriate, would argue the hardest that access to healthcare for all shouldn't be a right.

 

[Zinnia]

I don't think the government should provide healthcare... any more than I think they should enforce it or tell me how I can or can't treat my health... or what I can eat. My situation? I live below poverty level and have had poor health since birth, for reasons beyond my family's control. I don't see the government providing healthcare as a scenario that would play out without the usual partnering with greed.

 

[MamaSheepdog]

The term "Right" needs to be clearly defined. The Founders believed that there were natural God-granted rights to all people, and the Constitution is based upon that- our rights were granted by God, NOT the government.

These natural rights are:


Personal Security (Life):

(1) Not to be killed.

(2) Not to be injured or abused.

Personal Liberty:

(3) To move freely.

(4) To assemble peaceably.

(5) To keep and bear arms.[18]

(6) To assemble in an independent well-disciplined[13] militia.

(7) To communicate with the world.

(8) To express or publish one's opinions or those of others.

(9) To practice one's religion.

(10) To be secure in one's person, house, papers, vehicle[14], and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

(11) To enjoy privacy in all matters in which the rights of others are not violated.[7]

Private Property:

(12) To acquire, have and use the means necessary to exercise the above natural rights and pursue happiness, specifically including:

(1) A private residence, from which others may be excluded.

(2) Tools needed for one's livelihood.

(3) Personal property, which others may be denied the use of.

(4) Arms suitable for personal and community defense.

http://www.constitution.org/powright.htm

are those of you saying "no" currently healthy or, if not entirely healthy, then in a position where you aren't both in agony/imminently dying and entirely deprived of access to any kind of healthcare?

As far as I know, I am healthy as is my family. Do I have any medical testing to back that up? No.

We have not had health insurance for going on sixteen years now, and seek care on a cash pay basis.

If my arm was hanging off, I'd fight my way to a surgeon, you know? Nobody could tell me I hadn't the right, as a human being, to medical assistance

Everyone does have a right to seek medical assistance. But they don't have a right for it to be given to them or subsidized by someone else against their will.

As noted above, I have the right to personal property which others may be denied the use of. The money I earn is mine, and I have the right to spend it as I see fit.

I have recently been involved in two charitable efforts in the rabbit community for families-complete strangers to me- that are facing large medical bills. While I was not in a position to donate cash outright, I did donate packages of my Critterz Chewzit toys for auction to both efforts, and paid the shipping charges as well.

In our small rural community (which has a large population that would be considered poor), when local families are faced with overwhelming bills whether for medical or funeral costs, we have fundraising events at our local general store.

 

[SuburbanHomesteader]

Nobody could tell me I hadn't the right, as a human being, to medical assistance - not without getting a kick to the groin for their trouble.

I don't believe there is anyone in the United States that doesn't have access to medical assistance. Just ask any of the millions of illegals here.

The question is "Who pays for it?" Socialism works great until you run out of other people's money.

If I choose to donate money to a hospital or clinic, that's my decision. If you force me to pay for somebody else's medical care, that's stealing. Medical care is a service - just like getting a new roof or getting your car fixed. Health care - that's your responsibility. It's not up to the government or anybody else to make sure you take care of your health.

Is transportation a "right"? Why not shoes and clothing? What about housing? And food...certainly a full belly is a "human right".

Where does it stop? And where does the idea of personal responsibility come into play? What about the consequences of bad decisions?

As a famous actor recently said to a college graduation class: "Life is not fair. It never will be. Deal with it."

Freedom. Responsibility. Independence.
Life. Liberty. Property.
Borders. Language. Culture.

It seems nobody believes in these things anymore. Years ago, I told my colleagues that I feared the United States was turning itself into another France. It seems to me that we are almost there. Sadly, more and more people in this country feel that's a good thing.

 

[alforddm]

I'm surprised by the number of people saying "no" outright. I don't intend to be personal towards anyone here - I'm just playing a little bit of Devil's Advocate and stirring the pot for discussion's sake, certainly not intending to pick on anyone's views in particular to make my point - but are those of you saying "no" currently healthy or, if not entirely healthy, then in a position where you aren't both in agony/imminently dying and entirely deprived of access to any kind of healthcare? If you weren't, do you think that would make a difference?

There people, who for religious reasons, will not participant in insurance or government run healthcare. They believe that by using any form of insurance, you are replacing Gods care in your life with mans. The Conservative Mennonites that I knew purchased auto insurance because it was required by law but would refuse to file a claim in the case of an accident. They would pay for repairs out of pocket, even for the other person. They also refused to participate in Government run healthcare. There was a group in Cuba who would not use the government clinics but instead pay out of pocket for care at a private clinic. I knew one Mennonite gentleman (he has passed away) who had heart surgery. They paid for everything out of pocket. Many in his religious community donated to help to pay his bills and they all got paid even though he was an older retired gentleman.

In case anyone is wondering, I spent alot of time with a group of Conservative Mennonites when we lived in California. They spent alot of time explaining their beliefs and why they believed that way. I loved them and their commitment to one another and God.

I will also add that this group does not send their children to public school. They believe that the education of their children is their responsibility and they by sending them to public school they are shirking their duty to their children.