[Tuco]

Is healthcare a human right, such that government is ethically required to act for the benefit of the individual in need of healthcare services. If a person's health care needs are not being met, is it society's responsiblity to meet them? Is it my fault that you want to buy a new car and have a nice house, but yet you don't put the same resources towards paying for your own health care?

[Mulderator]

Only emergency medical care should be a "right'. Here is the problem, which I see all the time in my job and that is people who are on government funded healthcare. I see people come in who are healthy as oxes, yet they are at the doctors constantly--it is a psychological need to be cared for. Of course, if it wasn't being provided free by tax dollars, they wouldn't be doing it. Therein lies the biggest problem with government healthcare--just take a look at Canada. It is a precious resource that if given away will cause the entire system to collapse.

It is a complicated problem, but I do know the answer is NOT free healthcare provided by the government.

[700mb80min]

yep , go to my local hospital and almost always you will see the "regulars" sitting around with no ailments at all , but i have to get in line with a real injury and wait my turn ! ...they are starting to do a quick assessment and then back to your chair to wait a few more hours only to deter your next visit . i`ve heard they now have a watch list for such cases and will " bump" the real emergencies. so health care being a right is wrong , as mulder said , pay as you go to a point will indeed improve our system anyways .

p.s.....i once had an argument with a guy because he said because i was a smoker , my taxes should be higher to pay for my health care ....i told him he drove like a nut and maybe his should too......

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by 700mb80min

so health care being a right is wrong , as mulder said , pay as you go to a point will indeed improve our system anyways .

Frankly, I think it should we need a system that works well with self insureds. I have a client that pays their own settlements up to $50,000 and then insurance kicks in. We need a system where people pay for the basic doctor visits (or at least a portion) and at some point if they have "real" healthcare needs, a combination of insurance and government funded (not government run) benefits kick in. Otherwise, as 700 says, whenever people get something for free, there are those that will want to take "full advantage" of it thereby clogging up the system. As I mentioned, we have the same problem here as Canada does with the "regulars" although not to the same degree because the people here with "free" healthcare is much smaller than in Canada.

The other big problem we have is with emergency care. Since an emergency room cannot by law turn away anyone regardless of ability to pay, many people without insurance use the E/R as their primary healthcare provider. Now while the E/R is permitted to turn away "non-emergency" patients, as a rule they don't because they are afraid of being sued and/or accussed of "patient dumping" which carries heavy administrative penalties. This, again, is the problem with "free" healthcare--it is heavily abused.

[Wet Chicken]

I wonder if they are going to let him wear his clothes in jail?

[700mb80min]

I wonder if they are going to let him wear his clothes in jail?

...you sniffin paint again ?

[Fidelista]

Human rights are only that which is demanded, and reflect what ethics drive the population. In effect--no it is not a "right" in the sense that it is accepted by all.
Healthcare is not an issue with Gov employees {socialist} or the rich, only those who are 'working poor'. These folks , by the millions, and increasing in number, have a problem.
I for one , feel that all should be treated as best we can, as is done successfuly in many western nations.
As far as "needs" being met? what about bridges and roads---all the other things that benefit all--does society have responsability?---of course---thats whats we pay for!.>f

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by Fidelista

Healthcare is not an issue with Gov employees {socialist} or the rich, only those who are 'working poor'. These folks , by the millions, and increasing in number, have a problem.

Well, you need to get your facts right. The "poor" have healthcare supplied by Federal and state programs. It is the middle class that is not covered and they "choose" not to have healthcare. You buy into the rhetoric of the growing number of uninsured, but if you look at the statistics, the number of poor uninsured has decreased and the increase is in the middle class who can afford it but choose not to.

[marcus77]

Heathcare is not a "right", it's a neccessity.

Everyone should have healthcare. Unfortuately, due to some people abusing the system, getting proper healthcare for everyone is difficult. I have healthcare through my work, and only use it if I need it. But, there are people on federal healthcare provided via welfare that abuse it by getting breast enhancements or other non-health related items.

People need to stop abusing the system, and then maybe we could make healthcare an universal item.

[alex_holker]

Healthcare isn't a right, any more than insurance or welfare is a right. But the government taxes the country to provide things things that the private sector wouldn't. That is one of the government's main purposes.

Alex

[Guyzer]

In Canada each province mandates that a person MUST be insured through the Medicare program. Doctors must also opt into the system. IMO being forced to be part of the program makes it ones right to have access to receive proper and timely health care.

[Fidelista]

Originally Posted by Mulder

Well, you need to get your facts right. The "poor" have healthcare supplied by Federal and state programs. It is the middle class that is not covered and they "choose" not to have healthcare. You buy into the rhetoric of the growing number of uninsured, but if you look at the statistics, the number of poor uninsured has decreased and the increase is in the middle class who can afford it but choose not to.

The "poor" do indeed have Gov help.
The military and most Federal--State workers ect have Gov help.
The workers with GOOD jobs have coverage.
The wealthy need no help.
What about the millions of families that are working but the Companies that employ them provide nothing.
Working poor do exsist, regardless of what we , who may be more fortunate , may believe.
Millions who may earn just enough to keep a roof over their families and cannot afford the cost of individual healthcare coverage.
I have heard the arguement that Gov should stay out of the healthcare business, and now Business wants out the healthcare business {providing affordable coverage}.
Seems to me that everybody wants to wash their hands of the subject.
More companies everyday want to reduce or eliminate payments to 401k's--and reduce or eliminate payment to medical coverage. I see this in my work.
If business provides nothing , as they want, and the Gov provides nothing --what is to be done for the worker?.
The "working poor " are a reality and ignoring them, or suggesting that they all become well off---get high paying jobs with good benefits is not dealing with reality.
I am not worried about those who can afford to "choose" , and I think we may differ about what is the "middle class".
And hello Mulder. >

[linskyjack]

Reading the replies to this thread, one gets the sense that the right winger thinks that every American without health insurance is a malingerer(sp?) I know so many people who put in a hard week at work but can't afford or receive health insurance. Mulder--you are dead wrong when you say the middle class doesn't buy into health care----. Most want health care but with premiums outstripping wage increases, and small businesses finding it more and more difficult to even find coverage, it often becomes impossible.

[Fidelista]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

Reading the replies to this thread, one gets the sense that the right winger thinks that every American without health insurance is a malingerer(sp?) I know so many people who put in a hard week at work but can't afford or receive health insurance. Mulder--you are dead wrong when you say the middle class doesn't buy into health care----. Most want health care but with premiums outstripping wage increases, and small businesses finding it more and more difficult to even find coverage, it often becomes impossible.

Sometimes I think it may not always be political thought that is behind this attitude--though it is for some.
I have good coverage, a good job, home, retirement --ect---it would be easy to believe that there is no problem if I wasn't exposed to it. In fact , it would be comfortable to hold this belief.
Some may just believe that all is well because it is for them.
I am not a healthcare expert , but I will never accept that we cannot do a better job ---that the current situation is beyond improvement.
And you are right --I know many, and work with many more who are shortchanged when it comes to Health Coverage.>f

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

Reading the replies to this thread, one gets the sense that the right winger thinks that every American without health insurance is a malingerer(sp?) I know so many people who put in a hard week at work but can't afford or receive health insurance. Mulder--you are dead wrong when you say the middle class doesn't buy into health care----. Most want health care but with premiums outstripping wage increases, and small businesses finding it more and more difficult to even find coverage, it often becomes impossible.

Are you dense or do you deliberately misread everything? This is going to be about the 15th time I've had to correct you this week. I never said the middle class didn't buy into healthcare, I told Fidelsta to "get his facts straight" because you liberals buy into the rhetoric that this is a problem for the "poor" when it fact the increase in people uninsured is a "choice" not something forced on them while the situation for the poor has gotten better than it was:

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba460/

The Census Bureau recently reported that the number of Americans without health insurance rose in 2002 to around 43.6 million, up from 38.7 million in 2000 but below the record 44.3 million who were uninsured in 1998. With health care costs increasing, many public health advocates are worried that this number might rise further. Why do more than 43 million Americans lack health insurance? Who are they?

Income and Insurance.
A common assumption is that most uninsured Americans simply cannot afford the cost of coverage. However, the evidence points to other factors in many cases. For example, during the last decade, the [b]ranks of the uninsured have increased among affluent households and decreased among low-income households.

From 1993 to 2002 the number of uninsured people in households with annual incomes above $75,000 increased by 114 percent.
The number of uninsured in households with annual incomes from $50,000 to $75,000 increased by 57 percent.
By contrast, the number of uninsured people in households with incomes under $25,000 fell by 17 percent.

About three-quarters of the rise in the number of uninsured over the past four years has been among households earning more than $50,000 per year, and almost half of that has occurred among households earning more than $75,000 per year. In fact, almost one-third of the uninsured now live in households with annual incomes above $50,000 and one in five live in households earning more than $75,000 annually.

Eligibility for Government Insurance.
Another common assumption is that most uninsured Americans simply have no access to affordable coverage. Yet according to research by the public policy arm of Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, approximately 14 million uninsured adults and children are currently eligible for government coverage, such as Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), but have not bothered to enroll. Consider this: Virtually all children from low-income families are eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP. Yet the parents of more than five million eligible children have failed to enroll them. In addition, close to nine million nonelderly adults qualify for Medicaid but are not enrolled.

Age, Health Status and Insurance
Young adults (18-24) are less likely than other age groups to have health insurance, averaging 70.4 percent in 2002, compared with 82.0 percent of those 25 to 64 and 99.2 percent of those aged 65 and above. Indeed, according to the Census Bureau, 41 percent of the uninsured (17.9 million) are between the ages of 18 and 34. Good health is common in younger people, which may help explain why so many of them don’t obtain health insurance. They consider other uses of their money more valuable.

For example, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics 2001 Consumer Expenditure Survey, households headed by young people between ages 25 and 34 spend more than three times as much of their income on entertainment and dining out as on out-of-pocket health care expenses. For even younger heads of household (18-to-24-year-olds), the annual expenditure on entertainment and dining out is almost five times more than out-of-pocket spending on health care. By contrast, households headed by individuals ages 65 to 74 spend almost 50 percent more on out-of-pocket health care than on entertainment and food away from home. If the young uninsured had unmet health needs, they likely would shift some of this discretionary spending into health care.

Uninsured Status Duration
Many people assume those without insurance are not covered for years. However, when measured on a monthly basis, spells without health insurance tend to be of short duration. Census Bureau data show that about three-quarters (74.7 percent) of these spells are over within one year, while only 2.5 percent last more than three years. The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association found that of those uninsured households with incomes below $50,000 who didn’t quality for public coverage, nearly half (5.7 million) were uninsured six month or less.

Government Policies Make Things Worse.
Well-meaning government policies increase the ranks of the uninsured. For many people struggling to make ends meet, free care is a substitute for buying coverage. Federal law prohibits hospitals from turning away patients in need of emergency care, so providers rarely refuse treatment for acute conditions. According to an Urban Institute study, public and private organizations spend an average of about $1,000 on free medical care annually for each uninsured individual.

State governments are also making it increasingly easy for individuals to obtain insurance even after they become ill. State guaranteed issue laws encourage people to remain uninsured until they need care. For every sick person who gets insurance, another two or three healthy people drop out because of rising premium costs, thus making the overall level of coverage worse.

Another way government discourages health insurance is by crowding out private insurance with government coverage — principally Medicaid and CHIP — that replaces private coverage. According to a study in the Quarterly Journal of Economics on the expansion of government programs in the early 1990s, 50 percent to 75 percent of the new Medicaid spending was offset by a reduction in employer coverage. Employers realize that their low-income employees have a government alternative and would rather have more wages than health insurance. Finally, although government provides tax subsidies for employer-sponsored health insurance of $141 billion in 2000, there is very little tax subsidy for people who buy their own insurance.

Bush Administration Proposals.
President Bush has proposed a refundable tax credit of $3,000 per family (or $1,000 per individual) for up to 90 percent of the cost of health insurance. This would allow low-income workers to get the same tax subsidy that the wealthy currently enjoy.

The Administration has also proposed allowing workers with flexible spending accounts (FSAs) to rollover up to $500 in unused funds each year, and it wants to expand access to medical savings accounts (MSAs) to all employees. Currently, FSAs have a use-it-or-lose-it feature whereby any unused funds are forfeited each year; and currently, only small employers and the self-employed have access to MSAs.

MSAs let people accumulate money tax-free for medical needs. Any funds not needed for medical care can be used for other purposes or rolled over for future health care needs, including paying health insurance premiums between jobs. Thus MSAs help people remain insured. They also make insurance more attractive. According to the Internal Revenue Service, 71 percent of people with MSA plans were previously uninsured.

What I am tired of hearing is hi-jack, is liberals like you (and yes you are a liberal no matter what you call yourself) painting an inaccurate picture simply to case aspersions on the Bush Administration. If we want to make intelligent decisions, you have to know the facts, not swallow the rhetoric.