Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What I find absolutely shameful as a nation is that this conversation isn't even necessary in most other nations. Their governments and their citizens have already decided that health care is, in fact, a right. Only in America does money come first, only in America are the citizens more worried about the financial consequences of a major illness than they are about the illness itself.
Only in America does socioeconomic class determine your worthiness for having the ability to be cured or treated for diseases and other ailments. The irony is how loudly we proclaim ourselves a "Christian" nation while simultaneously denying mercy and medicine to the poor. Strange how ALL of the secular nations have universal health care while in America supposed "Christians" sit around on forums discussing who lives and who dies just so the wealthy can afford a slightly better car or a slightly bigger house. And let's face it - that IS what it comes down to.
The World Health Organization ranks our health care system at 37th in the world - dead last among industrialized nations and puts us more in line with "developing" nations. America should be ashamed at such an abysmal ranking, and it all stems from the extremely poor accessibility of health care here.
Instead, we rely on a business model - insurance - that makes it's money by NOT providing you with the services you pay for. All of the other civilized nations have figured out how insane that is - especially considering our very lives WILL one day depend on it.
And why should there be an age cut-off for health care? Do we now want to dispose of our elderly because, as non-producers, they aren't worth saving? That sounds like the ideology of an ant colony rather than sentient human beings. My grandfather lived to be 92, at 85 he repainted his house all by himself; at age 89 he helped put a new roof on his church. Should we have instead cut him off at age 70 and told him, "Sorry, buddy, but now that you've retired and aren't making someone else money, you aren't worth healing."
It's unfortunate that many Americans think health care is just another luxury item like a fur coat or diamond ring - that anyone could even make a case that health care is only something we "want" rather than something we need is pitiable in and of itself. It takes a lot of propaganda and self-delusion to get to that point.
This debate is a privilege for the healthy and wealthy - most people who oppose universal health care already have more than most. But if you're poor or, worse, disabled, this is not some academic message board debate. No, it is quite literally a discussion about our very survival.
Heaven forbid the thought of medical care as a right, where the hell did that ever occur?
I don't know about anyone else but, like I wrote yesterday, I got the idea from:
"... to promote the general Welfare;" --- Preamble to the Constitution (one of the six core purposes of the United States government)
"... that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" -- Declaration of Independence
"That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..." -- Declaration of Independence
=======================================
I also think that, not only is it a fundamental right, but providing it for others is a sacred responsibility.
“... ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ "--- Matthew 25: 45-46
=======================================
That's where I got the idea, anyway. Others' responses may differ considerably.
The World Health Organization ranks our health care system at 37th in the world - dead last among industrialized nations and puts us more in line with "developing" nations. America should be ashamed at such an abysmal ranking, and it all stems from the extremely poor accessibility of health care here.
A recent Bloomberg (BLOOMBERG!!!) study ranks the United States at 46th overall, which puts us behind many Central and South American countries and a surprising number of Middle Eastern and Asian countries. We're even behind countries like Slovakia, China and Iran.
Even worse, the Bloomberg study reveals shows that, while our per-capita health care cost is the second highest in the world, our outcomes are among the worst. Only tiny, 9th-ranked Switzerland's per-capita health care cost is higher, but they're clearly getting world-class ("Top 10") health care for their money.
A question for those who actually know the answer:
In the UK and Canada are elective procedures such as cosmetic surgery and elective medications such as viagra completely covered by the state sponsored healthcare system?
In the UK and Canada are all possible life perpetuating health care measures continued until the soul is finally freed from the body?
In the UK and Canada, what is the definition of "universal health care"? Are all types of care provided at all times to all? Or is there a point at which the state sponsored care cuts off and people are required to pay for care above and beyond point X?
What is point X?
My premise is that THERE DOES HAVE TO BE A POINT X.
The point of this thread is to get us all thinking about RIGHT v NEED v WANT.
As others have said, bioethicists spend their lives studying this question.
At this time of year, it seems particularly appropriate to remember the words of two of the most memorable Christmas personages in western literature. These words seem to characterize this particular debate rather well:
"... then let him die, and decrease the surplus population!" -- Ebeneezer Scrooge
"Business? Mankind was my business! The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, benevolence, were all my business!" -- Jacob Marley's Ghost
Wishing the very best of The Season to all here, and to all of your loved ones,
Not sure what the OP means by the statement above regarding people preferring not to think. I think some good view points have been made in this particular thread. I think I've made it clear that in my opinion, the right to die in a healthcare delivery setting ought to be included.
But another aspect to the question seems to also be personal responsibility. Does society owe unlimited healthcare to a smoker? A drug user? Someone who is disinterested in safe-sex? Someone who drinks and drives and brings harm to themselves and unfortunately others. What about a gang member who is involved in a shoot out and winds up in some ER on the taxpayer's nickel. I recall years back where one of the national magazines ran an article on a gang member who cost the citizens of LA and CA over a million dollars in medical care to tend to his wounds. Really? Is this meant to be a right? Is that what people want?
Is it a right for anyone to be treated at MD Anderson, Sloan Kettering, Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic, Boston Women's, or one of the other world class, top of the line medical centers? Is that what you want? I think some of those I listed do not accept any Medicare payments or Medicaid. Should they be forced to treat anyone who comes to through their door?
Some compare the US to other countries which is a faulty comparison. The USA is far more populated, diverse, and is a gun culture and violence prone. DUI is a lifestyle here. Domestic violence is part of the daily scene in many homes. WE are a want it now culture. Other places with universal coverage have waiting lists and yes they do deny treatment of some people. Check it out. The UK does that now. I'm guessing the others do as well at some level. Not here, we put you in ICU or operate on you no matter what your age. It is nuts! I think Americans fear dying more than any other culture. The "right to life" and the "pursuit of happiness" never meant the right to eternal life and the eternal pursuit of happiness. Recall former governor of CO Richard Lamb who once said "the old people have a duty to die".
I think a lot of people here have never had any major health issues. Good for them. But I'm sure they would change they're thinking if and when something happens (medically) later on in life.
It sounds like they feel I, at 45, have no right to dialysis or a later kidney transplant as it is only prolonging the inevitable. But I intend to prolong the inevitable for at least another 40 years and have a pretty good chance of outliving many of these who feel I should just go into hospice now and wait to die.
Last edited by marlinfshr; 12-20-2013 at 03:50 PM..
I come from Europe and my answer is: people should have the right to universal heath care, like in canada or UK.
Then why don't you tell us about all the Europeans, most of them elderly and/or on the fringes of the economy, who died during the heat wave (how strange, given the "global warming" hype) of 2003. Although they don't like to own up to it, most of Europe adheres to the old Orwellian maxim that "We're all equal here, but some are ore equal than others."
The nature of the over-hyped welfare state is, quite simply, the it becomes easier to "fall through the cracks" as one becomes older, and likely a bit more alienated.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
