Health Care a Right?

[Grammatron]

I was listening to the radio in my car on the way home from work and heard the radio host (Larry Elder) read Kerry's speech while he was visiting striking workers here and call them heroes because they are fighting for the right of health care. Now forgoing one of the worst uses of hero ever, when did health care become a right? Did I miss a constitutional amendment somewhere?

PS I have not been able to find a link to his speech, but I found the press release by the striking Union. http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040226/dcth027_1.html

 

[Tricky]

No, health care is not a "right", but I believe it is a good thing. I cannot be convinced that having sick and dying people everywhere and spreading disease is beneficial to the country. Obviously, there is a point where we have to say "the government will not subsidize your hypochondria", but really necessary health care seems so obviously beneficial to a country that it should scarcely merit debate. The question, of course, is what is "really necessary". A difficult question, but one that we must address.

 

[Grammatron]

No, health care is not a "right", but I believe it is a good thing. I cannot be convinced that having sick and dying people everywhere and spreading disease is beneficial to the country. Obviously, there is a point where we have to say "the government will not subsidize your hypochondria", but really necessary health care seems so obviously beneficial to a country that it should scarcely merit debate. The question, of course, is what is "really necessary". A difficult question, but one that we must address.

Of course it's a good thing; I would like to see someone saying it's a bad thing. But this is a corner stone of the strike, the a person bagging groceries deserver full coverage and strikes because they don't want a co-pay, while teachers have to pay one and earn about as much why does it make the grocery store employee right let alone a hero?

 

[Ladyhawk]

Years ago, Teddy Kennedy proposed a bill that would force employers (with more than 15 employees) to provide catastrophic health benefits (minimum) for its employees. The bill, as anticipated, failed. Why? The cost. Employer groups with less than 500 employees simply don't get the full benefit of discounted premiums. Many have formed pools between them to self fund their own health plans via "associations". I don't have any stats handy on how successful they have or have not been.

As an aside: I personally think that this is one of the real key issues behind the gay marriage thing, if you look closely enough. For fear that gay marriage will open the door to polygamy , and the like, the word "dependent" would take on a whole new different meaning, and employers would be responsible for honoring coverage for those dependents. Mind you, I'm not advocating that attitude; just pointing it out....

 

[corplinx]

Well, lets see. In the third world, health care is a privelege. In America, its a fringe benefit of living. Even the poorest among us can receive adequate health care.

Is adequate enough? Hell no, we need MRI-on-demand for everyone! Of course, even true social healthcare systems don't have MRI on demand.

 

[Tricky]

Of course it's a good thing; I would like to see someone saying it's a bad thing. But this is a corner stone of the strike, the a person bagging groceries deserver full coverage and strikes because they don't want a co-pay, while teachers have to pay one and earn about as much why does it make the grocery store employee right let alone a hero?

It's pretty obvious that low-earning people are going to have to have more government assistance for health care (if we assume that health care is a good thing) than higher wage earners. Admittedly, that is a difficult formula, maybe even as bad as income taxes, but if a low-earning (or worse, non-earning) person develops a problem that requires attention, then somebody has to pick up the bill. Perhaps the copayment seems a niggling amount to argue over, but it could be a significant, even unreasonable amount in a very poor family. But even so, if you would give a poor family thousand of dollars for an expensive treatment that you deemed was necessary, then why would you argue over the chump change of copayments, especially if the expensive treatment could have been avoided by early treatment?

Most businesses have found that investment in preventing health problems is much less expensive than treating those health problems when the go to "full bloom". I would like to think that the government could recognize this too.

 

[Jocko]

Employer groups with less than 500 employees simply don't get the full benefit of discounted premiums. Many have formed pools between them to self fund their own health plans via "associations". I don't have any stats handy on how successful they have or have not been.

Glad you asked. In my experience, it's a grand failure. I've been in such plans through employers for over 8 years now, and it's always the same- whatever meager savings can be squeezed from group rates are passed along to themselves... the employer uses the slightly lower rates to justify their lower contributions. End result? Compromises in quality and no employee savings to show for it. Of course, your portion is paid pre-tax, so there's a modest premium there, but you're still paying the same amount for less - in my experience.

All that aside, I would never call health care a right. It's not. It's a perk when provided through your employment, like a 401(k) plan or extended vacation time. But as usual, a few decades of tradition have elevated it to the Bill of Freakin' Rights.

What about my homeowner's insurance? What about insurance for the car I drive to work every day? Should I expect my employer to take care of everything for me?

Hell no!

If you want to go on strike for better pay to afford better healthcare, then fine, I can respect that kind of honest approach. But demanding it as a basic human right (and I mean GOOD healthcare, any dolt can wander into a clinic and get his finger sewed back on for free) is disingenuous at best.

 

[mgidm86]

All I know is that I'm tired of the commercials on the radio stations here in Northern Cali:

"Feel sorry for and help support grocery clerks in Southern Cali by not shopping at Safeway, Albertsons, or Raleys".

Sorry, but I am not offered any health benefits at all at my place of employment, so I'm not real sympathetic. How can I get radio ads aired to help me and my fellow employees at my small company? It must be nice. I also don't know who is "right" in this quarrel. Perhaps the union is being ridiculously greedy? How do I know they are not? These people are lucky to have a decent paying job at all. This isn't to say they can't fight for more, but leave me out of it.

Besides if I don't shop at these 3 major outlets, I'm left with very few choices. And guess what...there are tons of great deals at these stores because of the strike! Hey, times are tough.

BTW, I read just now that they reached an agreement.

Oh yeah...no, it is not a right in the USA.

 

[BillyTK]

Of course health care is a right—btw, does it have to be written in your Constitution for something to be recognised as a right?—it's a logical extension of personal sovereignty, and this is something that the British health care system is predicated on. But saying it's a right doesn't mean it should be free, anymore than the right to own property means that people should be given stuff they don't have to pay for. How health care should be paid for though, particularly in terms of access to health care, is probably a different argument.

 

[evildave]

My recent experience has been interesting.

I have been monitoring high blood pressure for a while now, and had a check-up. They did a blood test while they were at it, and said I should watch my diet because of the cholesterol.

I got laid off, and put on COBRA (California's mandated 'laid off' medical insurance, for a mere $430 a month - and this is what they charged EVERYONE who was laid off). So I go shopping for insurance.

Guess what? I've been turned down for insurance by two different carriers. Seems I'm a "high risk" because of the blood pressure, and my last Cholesterol test. Goody. I monitor my health and do whatever the doctor says, and so I have a RECORD that shows three numbers that automatically make it impossible for me to get insurance.

So, that means when COBRA runs out in a few months (and it's no bargain at $430 a month rate, and covers absolutely nothing preventative at all), there is no "health insurance" for me, unless I can find another job with another full-time employer.

Isn't that nice?

A couple hints to all of you: if it looks like you might be laid off, make sure you DO NOT have a checkup, DO NOT get any optional blood work. DO NOT let them put you on any medication. Get your own insurance BEFORE you're laid off. And DO NOT let the company pay for it, or it'll end up getting SNAFU'd into "COBRA", which is about 5x~8x normal health insurance rates AFTER you are laid off.

Most importantly, just never, ever get old or sick. Then you can pretend that health problems will never happen to you or your family, and that health care is a 'privilege'.

You get sick, and get laid off, and guess what? Your insurance rates will go up until it's a choice between that payment and the mortgage. And then you'll be risking the house anyway every time you get sick or hurt.

People in the UK and Canada gripe about their VAT and other taxes, but they would probably gripe a bit more if they had to shell out over $5000 a year for medical insurance that doesn't cover squat whan you go visit a doctor, doesn't cover tests the doctor recommends, and basically doesn't cover most doctors within an hour's drive of where I live. Oh yeah, and in four months, they won't have any legal obligation to continue to cover me at all. The fact that I have been continuously covered for years with no hospital stay at all is meaningless.

Yeah, it's not a "right", but then again, driving isn't a "right", either. See how well you can live in most of America without a driver's license.

 

[iain]

Whether it's a right depends on whether a given society sees it in that way. In the UK, healthcare is generally seen as a right, though it certainly isn't written down in any constitution - woe betied the government that stops universal healthcare.

Also worth noting that the UK with it's "socialist" universal healthcare system actually spends about half what the US does as a proportion of GDP (6.5% of GDP vs 13%) but, if you look at indicators like infant mortality, life expectancy and so on, the UK is actually on a par or slightly ahead of the US on most of them.

 

[Earthborn]

Did I miss a constitutional amendment somewhere?

No, not a constitutional amendment. Something better, Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Last time I heard, the US has signed it too. If I remember correctly, they came up with the idea in the first place.

 

[Kodiak]

Well, lets see. In the third world, health care is a privelege. In America, its a fringe benefit of living. Even the poorest among us can receive adequate health care.

Is adequate enough? Hell no, we need MRI-on-demand for everyone! Of course, even true social healthcare systems don't have MRI on demand.

Hey politicians! You want my vote?

Provide me with sponge bath-on-demand!

 

[BillyTK]

Well, lets see. In the third world, health care is a privelege. In America, its a fringe benefit of living. Even the poorest among us can receive adequate health care.

Is adequate enough? Hell no, we need MRI-on-demand for everyone! Of course, even true social healthcare systems don't have MRI on demand.

Not too sure if a "true social healthcare" system exists or what it would be, but apart from that reservation, France probably.

 

[Tmy]

IS there a right to education? (I think its in the Declaration of Independance). How about "pursuit of happiess". Cant be happy if your dead.

We do have some right to health care. For example if you call the police or ambulance in some emergency they HAVE to treat you. Wether you have insurance or not they are not allowed to let you bleed to death. Now that doesnt mean ALL healthcare is covered.



"the a person bagging groceries deserver full coverage and strikes because they don't want a co-pay, while teachers have to pay one and earn about as much why does it make the grocery store employee right let alone a hero?"

Heros dont get the summers off.

 

[Segnosaur]

Hey politicians! You want my vote?

Provide me with sponge bath-on-demand!

You can probably get that, but it will be from a 300 pound ex-convict named Bruno who got the job on a work release.

Enjoy!

 

[RandFan]

All I know is that I'm tired of the commercials on the radio stations here in Northern Cali:

"Feel sorry for and help support grocery clerks in Southern Cali by not shopping at Safeway, Albertsons, or Raleys".

Sorry, but I am not offered any health benefits at all at my place of employment, so I'm not real sympathetic.

The saddest/funniest aspect of this whole mess is that while the workers were striking because the stores wanted workers to pick up some of the cost of health care, SAG (a union, Screen Actors Guild) was raising the premiums of its members for health care.

It seems that what is ok for Unions is not ok for grocery stores. Who knew?

 

[RandFan]

How about "pursuit of happiess". Cant be happy if your dead.

The Declaration of Independence
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

I think you could have made a more persuasive argument using right to life.

That being said, my response to your post is that it is very difficult to be happy if your homeless, destitute, ugly, socially inept, etc..

The response to my point should be that it is governments obligation to ensure your pursuit of happiness. It is impossible to pursue happiness if you are dead. I doubt such an argument would carry the day in front of SCOTUS but that is JMO, I am not an expert.

We do have some right to health care. For example if you call the police or ambulance in some emergency they HAVE to treat you. Wether you have insurance or not they are not allowed to let you bleed to death. Now that doesnt mean ALL healthcare is covered.

You are quite right. My niece had a child last year that was born premature and had a hole in it's heart. My niece had no health insurance. As you can imagine the tab to treat her child was astronomical. The child was recieved top notch health care and is doing fine.

 

[Zero]

My understanding is that Americans recieve emergency health care regardless of their ability to pay. What this translates into is emergency room visits for every poor person in the country, for nearly every health problem. This is basically nationalized health care, so crying against it is a bit after the fact, isn't it? The solution is simple; make the system official, and more efficient. For instance, a trip to the emergency room costs much more than a doctor's office visit, for the same treatment. Wouldn't it be better for everyone, since we pay for the trip either way, if we(the taxpayer, and hospital and insurance customer) paid for the $40-70 office visit, instead of for the $200-300 emergency room trip?

 

[Tmy]

The problem with Health Care is that were fighting on the wrong front. We're trying to get everyone insured and not trying to control the costs that make insurance so expensive. Lobbysist make sure that aint going to happen.

Everyone in the medical field cries poverty, yet so much money is being spent. WHOS MAKING THE MONEY!?

My insurance costs have increased so much that the company has been forced to drop to lower coverage. The premium is still rediculous. Adn thats for a single plan. Forget family plans!

I really dont think we should begrude those who have insurance or pay less co-pays. We should be working on a better Health cares system. As already mentioned ther is so much waste.

I have a friend whos an EMT and he complianes how people missue the ER responce because thats really the only option availalbe.