Poll: Do you support universal health care?

Woo!

Health care is a right, like food, water, shelter, education. It should not be determined by privilege.

I wholeheartedly concur.

I'm sure everyone believes in universal health care. Is anyone going to say, "I think some people should not be allowed to see a doctor?" The question is really "do you believe in government mandated or provided universal health care?" I am in favor of that but that is controversial

Well, you know what I meant. :)

You were there that day. I know you're in favor of it.

What day?

Who wants to pay the taxes for that ?! I can barely pay for myself to go to the doctor that's what health insurance is for. Plus universal? I'm not gonna pay for people to go to the doctor who don't deserve to. Do you want an insurgent to get the same healthcare as you're getting. The moment he's shot by a US soldier he'll escape and cash in on your tax dollars, then turn around and commit some awful act of terrorism again.

And what makes it your job to decide who 'deserves' to go to the doctor? Are poor people just not worth it? Let them die because they can't afford health insurance?

Oh, and lumping the poor in with terrorists was a nice touch. Kind of Godwin-esque.

"Godwin-esque?" Who is Godwin?

I've never heard Dan lump the poor in with terrorists... ;)

If you had universal health care, you wouldn't HAVE to pay for yourself to go to the doctor. That would be paid for you. Oh, and incidentally, medical costs would be much lower.

As for insurgents... um, I fear you have been overseas too long. Last time I looked there really were no *insturgents* in the US. We haven't had a civil war here in 141 years, so I think all the insurgents are dead by now. Ot certainly seems unlikely that there is anyone here who is A. an "insurgent" fighting a war against the US government, who might be B. "Shot by a U.S. Soldier" (who are not allowed to perform law enforcement domestically except in an emergency) who then haveing been shot by some kind of dreadful military weapon would be able to C. "Escape", in order to D. "cash in" on our tax dollars. I am thinking about it, but somehow the danger there seems to be a step or two below being struck by lightning (while standing on a rubber mat inside a building).

You're looking for a job right now. Wouldn't it be nice while not employed to at least know that your health care was taken care of?

hrm. i'm actually wondering if the OP read "universal health care" to mean international health care. health care for everyone in the world (or universe ;) )

if that's the case than we would be morally obligated to try to provide health care all over the world, including in those countries where insurgents thrive?

oh, see, now that would just be crazy.

And those damn Martians... always expecting to invade our planet and then get a free lunch when they're injured in UFO accidents. A bunch of frigging commies if you ask me. (The red planet? Coincidence? I think not.)

I'm glad that someone else thought "extraterrestrial" when they read "universal" health care.

But what you said is just silly. Mars already has universal health care so they wouldn't come here if they were injured in an accident.

Tau Ceti 3 is another story they have notoriously bad health coverage.

If you had universal health care, you wouldn't HAVE to pay for yourself to go to the doctor. That would be paid for you. Oh, and incidentally, medical costs would be much lower.

Really? You mean like in England and Canada which have universal health care, and their citizens come to THIS country to have complex surgical procedures done?

Sorry, I've seen what universal health care did to my grandfather in England, and I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

By what I said, I wasn't trying to argue that universal health care is best for *everyone*, but it sure as hell is better for people who are unemployed/employed w/o benefits. Also, the English and Canadian systems do have major faults, no doubt, but that doesn't mean universal health care is impossible. It just means someone needs to come up with a better system.

�you had universal health care, you wouldn't HAVE to pay for yourself to go to the doctor. That would be paid for you. Oh, and incidentally, medical costs would be much lower.

Really? You mean like in England and Canada which have universal health care, and their citizens come to THIS country to have complex surgical procedures done?

Canadian citizens travelling to the united states to get complex surgical procedures done have nothing to do with the cost of having the procedure done.� It has more to do with the wait time.� The wait time in Canada is a major flaw in some areas (not all) of our health care system which is not to be confused with the cost to the individual patient.

Heh, just thinking about how that would be implemented hurts my head...

:)

Awwl.. poor joolee... try not to think.

;)

That's how I usually operate.� I think it's just, working in the industry w/a private insurer...the whole idea...ow!� OK, stopping thinking.���

Health care is NOT a fundamental right. To claim it is to hold some people in slavery to others. The simple question to refute universal health care is "Who will provide it?" Doctors, Nurses? How will they be paid? By Who?

Sooner or later you get to the point that some will provide the services to other at their own cost, hence holding them in slavery.

Health care, like education, and housing, and countless other things, is not a basic human right.

Well, what ARE basic human rights then?

The most basic human right is the right to life. And from that flows the right to property. The problem with universal health care is that it denies the right to property to some (those who would end up funding it). You cannot have a right that by its very nature necessitates the abrogation of another person's right.

The United States had the best system of health care in the whole world prior to the government getting involved. How many doctor's nowadays make house calls? Even in small towns? HMOs? You can thank the government for those. Higher doctor's fees and rates? You can thank Medicare/Medicaid proscribed fees for those.

But who decided that the right to *property* is second only to right to life?�� Honestly, my right to own a sofa is not more important than my neighbour's right to have emergency surgery.

Without the right to life, the right to property means little. If someone can take away your life at a whim's notice without repercussions, then your sofa really isn't yours. IT is merely yours until someone decides to kill you.

And emergencies are completely different than universal healthcare. Doctors and the like are bound by an oath to apply life saving care, but not necessarily life-improving care. If you get hit by a bus and are in danger of bleeding out, that's one thing. If you contract cancer that is not an immediate life-threatening situation.

Without the right to life, the right to property means little. If someone can take away your life at a whim's notice without repercussions, then your sofa really isn't yours. IT is merely yours until someone decides to kill you.

I agree with you that my right to life is a fundamental right.� I disagree with you that my right to property is the next most important right.� There are many many many more rights that are much more important in my estimation.

And emergencies are completely different than universal healthcare. Doctors and the like are bound by an oath to apply life saving care, but not necessarily life-improving care. If you get hit by a bus and are in danger of bleeding out, that's one thing. If you contract cancer that is not an immediate life-threatening situation.

But if you deny the indigent of society access to cancer treatment, they will nevertheless die from the illness, thus infringing on their right to life.� (on a side note, my mother was diagnosed four years ago with a fairly nasty form of breast cancer.� The diagnosis came in on September 13.� She had a masectomy on September 19.� Over the next 8 months, she had a series of chemotherapy treatments at a world-class cancer treatment facility in London, Ontario.� She's been cancer free for 4 years.� All of this was possible because of our evil universal healthcare systm that you wouldn't wish on anyone)

Without the right to life, the right to property means little. If someone can take away your life at a whim's notice without repercussions, then your sofa really isn't yours. IT is merely yours until someone decides to kill you.

I agree with you that my right to life is a fundamental right.� I disagree with you that my right to property is the next most important right.� There are many many many more rights that are much more important in my estimation.

And emergencies are completely different than universal healthcare. Doctors and the like are bound by an oath to apply life saving care, but not necessarily life-improving care. If you get hit by a bus and are in danger of bleeding out, that's one thing. If you contract cancer that is not an immediate life-threatening situation.

But if you deny the indigent of society access to cancer treatment, they will nevertheless die from the illness, thus infringing on their right to life.� (on a side note, my mother was diagnosed four years ago with a fairly nasty form of breast cancer.� The diagnosis came in on September 13.� She had a masectomy on September 19.� Over the next 8 months, she had a series of chemotherapy treatments at a world-class cancer treatment facility in London, Ontario.� She's been cancer free for 4 years.� All of this was possible because of our evil universal healthcare systm that you wouldn't wish on anyone)

mmm. . see I wholeheartedly disagree. I don't think the right to property comes before basic human necessities like shelter, food, water, education, healthcare. And as for what the government has done to healthcare, those changes have still been made under the institution of capitalism. So big insurance companies reap heavy capital gains while ordinary citizens' needs suffer. Because the bottom line is whatever is profitable.

I do not believe that a free unregulated market would solve all of healthcare's problems. We have seen that increasing deregulation in public resources has made those resources even more inaccessible to people.

We are the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee healthcare for its citizens. And I think people need to realize that the European countries that have universal healthcare don't do it just because "it's a nice thing to do," or becuase they are pinkos or wasteful spenders. When all of your citizens are guaranteed healthcare, education, housing, water, food, jobs, a living wage. . . your society functions better! If nobody's sick or homeless or jobless or working 50 hours a week and living in a shit-hole apartment and can barely feed their kids, if nobody is denied surgery or medication, then you have a LOT more people in your society who contribute to it.

don't think the right to property comes before basic human necessities like shelter, food, water, education, healthcare.

See my reply below. WHO is to provide these so-called rights?

And as for what the government has done to healthcare, those changes have still been made under the institution of capitalism. So big insurance companies reap heavy capital gains while ordinary citizens' needs suffer. Because the bottom line is whatever is profitable.

And what country were these changes done? There hasn't been a truly capitalist nation in almost 160 years.

We are the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee healthcare for its citizens.

Yah yah yah, and if all your friends jumped off a cliff would you do it too?

And I think people need to realize that the European countries that have universal healthcare don't do it just because "it's a nice thing to do," or becuase they are pinkos or wasteful spenders. When all of your citizens are guaranteed healthcare, education, housing, water, food, jobs, a living wage. . . your society functions better!

So, that's why several European nations are dealing with devalued currencies, double-digit inflation, and skyrocketing unemployment? Sorry, that's a nice theory, but the practical implementation of it doesn't work nearly as well as the theory of it.

"So, that's why several European nations are dealing with devalued currencies, double-digit inflation, and skyrocketing unemployment?"

Last time I checked, we were dealing with all of those things too. And it's not because we're giving out healthcare.

I find your position on this issue and economic philosophy utterly heartless and cynical.

you heartless, cruel bastard. yes, I mean it. and yes, I've been waiting a long time to tell you it.

If I do not receive proper medical care, I WILL DIE. How's THAT for a basic human right?

My medical care is absolutely a right, and I'll be DAMNED if I let some selfish loony anarchist like you take it away from me.

Like I give two whits what an immature weasel such as yourself thinks.

Medical care does not grow in nature. It is a man-made value, good and services produced by people. WHO is to provide them to you?

No person can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty, or an involuntary servitude on another person. Any alleged "right" of one person, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right. A right does not include the material implementaiton of that right by other people. it include only the freedom to earn that implementation by one's own effort.

Unless you feel the right to free speech requires someone to provide you with a lecture hall, radio program, or printing press through which to express and exercise your right. You cannot claim by right, the fruits of someone else's labor or property.

If life is a basic human right, then medical care is a basic human right. I don't expect you to understand the logic, though. People like you rarely do.

LOL...that's because there IS no logic to your statement. But then again, people like you rarely use logic. I expected my post to cause a little cognitive dissonance with you, but wow, you just went to the "no, the sky is green" logic. LOL.

Thanks for the laugh.

You deserve everything that happens to you. And I hope you lose your job the same day you're diagnosed with a curable, but extremely costly illness. And you can't afford the treatment. And you wither away and die like your idiotic backwards philosophy dictates you should.

Sound reasonable to you?

No problem, my wife's health insurance should cover it just fine. And if not, we have our own contingent private health care policy that kicks in full force if we both become unemployed or loose health benefits; and if we need help, we have a loving and caring family that would step in to help out, just as we have for them in the past. Sorry bud, I, unlike some, actually plan for eventualities such as what you describe. But see, then that would be called personal responsibility; a concept I know you are completely unfamiliar with.

You really are a numbskull and one day I hope you have a very rude awakening as to how the world really works. Then again, with your room-temperature IQ, perhaps you can qualify for "free" coverage under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Medicaid.

orry bud, I, unlike some, actually plan for eventualities such as what you describe. But see, then that would be called personal responsibility; a concept I know you are completely unfamiliar with.

YOU IGNORANT FOOL! Do you really think that every uninsured American is simply irresponsible? Do you really think that their situations are fully in their control? Are you really so pompous and self-righteous that you think everyone has the same advantages you so proudly boast of having?

You came from nothing. At some point. There was some beginning where you, or your ancestors HAD NOTHING, and no one to take care of them.

And if I'm very, very lucky, YOU will one day also have NOTHING. And I hope I'm there to see it. Because I, for one, will NOT help you.

And if I'm very, very lucky, YOU will one day also have NOTHING. And I hope I'm there to see it. Because I, for one, will NOT help you.

But, ironically, federally funded insurance would be there to help him.

:)

I think there's actually lots of logic there. Medical care is an imperative in order to live. It's not a frivolity. Everyone on this planet has had to see a doctor at some point. It's a normal part of life. And if the required care isn't a matter of life or death, denying that care often dramatically debilitates life, even if it doesn't end it.
So there is a logic that right to healthcare is a right to life. Right to life doesn't just mean to have a pulse. It means right to *live.*

And I think it's a cheap shot to say "people like you rarely use logic." Not being hardcare capitalists does not signify an abandonment of reason.

So, the doctor who is to provide this care is suppose to live his life, how? How will he be compensated and make his living?

The model is that he would be compensated by the government, who is in turn funded by taxpayers.

Thread's full of cheap shots, on both sides.� Fun.

Was it really necessary to start name-calling, lawrence?

Yes.

I was tempted to take the bait when Andy made his first "Not a fundamental right" post. But then I remembered who I was dealing with and how the discussion would go, and I just decided it isn't worth it. I'm not going to change his mind, and he's not going to change any of ours, so why even bother?

Besides, I think I knew in the back of my head that somebody else would rise to the challenge. :)

see now.

i do not consider health care a right, mostly for the reasons that starfox listed.

however i DO consider it a moral obligation of an advanced society with the capability to provide such services to provide them to the greatest extent possible.

it may not be a right, but that doesn't mean that it isn't important, mopstly for the reasons that i think lawrence listed, a society functions best when its citizens are healthy, educated and employed.

mopstly for the reasons that i think lawrence listed, a society functions best when its citizens are healthy, educated and employed.

while I agree with that point, I can't take credit for introducing it to the discussion - it was Lauren. :)

oops. i was too lazy to back up and check it.
thanks.

Lauren. . Lawrence. . .same name, really. :)