Do you support universal healthcare?

p0mt3 wrote: Padraic wrote: micky wrote: off on a tangent.... but I am the curious sort.... I might be ignored...  but I would be at the risk of an interesting tangent... I am curious just how much personal experience do you all have...that seem to have such a high degree of interest.. and presumably knowledge on the subject quick show of hands..err... posts..... how many here have insurance under our current system... if you don't.. why.... how many have had to use it. ... for what.... and were you.. as a CUSTOMER.. satisfied. I'll start.... I ...as one who had employer provided insurance.. wasn't satisfied when my ex-wife got a infection that went septic... and she was in ICU for a week after she nearly died (after being misdiagnosed I might add).   At the end .. we were presented a bill for THOUSANDS of dollars.... insurance only covered 90% of the total....that was in the fine print.. not that we had much of a choice.. since insurance from other providers for a family of 5 would have meant I was working to pay for insurance... timidly raises hand.... I guess I'll probably be in the minority here, but I am highly satisfied with my insurance.  They cover everything and my co-pays are pretty low.  And hell yes I have had to use it - labor and delivery services for my two kids weren't cheap, and my eldest son spent a week in a hospital when he was six months old....that was a bill I would have had a tough time paying (would have wiped me out, really).  That's why I'm for at the very, very bare minimum some sort of universal catastrophic coverage - no one should have to be bankrupted or wiped out because they or their children got seriously ill.  . . . Just a little asterisk, here . . . labor and delivery services are free in England.

I thought all healthcare was "free" in England.

p0mt3 wrote: stonebeard wrote: p0mt3 wrote: Your tax dollars are at times going to go towards something you don't personally subscribe to no matter how much you rant and rave about it. That's how this society works. Wouldn't you rather have your tax dollars go towards something that is at least MORALLY right? First off, only talking about "rights" here, of which I think few if any exist. They're independent of society. Taxes are necessary for a good society, as far as I can tell. But as someone doesn't have a birthright to paved streets, a police department, and public schooling, that person also does not have a right to healthcare, in my mind. Simply, a "right" to anything is iffy to me, because I'm not sure we're special enough to deserve anything purely because we exist. But we can gather around an confer if something is good enough that we should have it (freedom, life, perhaps a degree of healthcare) but calling those "unalienable rights" and so one just brings nothing meaningful to discussion, and presumes things about the universe that aren't, in my opinion. Okay, so let me ask you this . . . how consistent is your stand on this? Would you also say that animals don't have any 'rights' simply for existing? Or are you one of those people who think animals deserve rights that humans don't? Also, if you're questioning 'rights' to begin with, I do worry a little. When you say that, I have to wonder . . . would you have been one of those people back in the civil rights movement who said, "Ehh, when we talk about giving these black people 'rights', that's a bit iffy for me. Yep, I'm just not sure. What ARE 'rights', anyway, really?" Seems to me you're only thinking from your own perspective and not considering much else that goes on outside of your general area. Of COURSE we have rights for simply existing! What was all of that bloodshed over in the past for equal rights and whatnot if rights didn't truly exist? What, it's something we made up? Are you insane? Perhaps I have misunderstood your point, in which case . . . clarify, please.

I think I'm pretty consistent on it. I don't put animals above people at all, but just about equally, perhaps slightly lower. I try to avoid using "rights" in reference to a societal norm like suffrage or something like that because I think it's obvious that we're not born with the inherent right to vote when we turn 18 one day. It's a "right" only in as much as it's something we as a society have called "really good" and "would not like to be without." I still think that's different from saying it's something anyone, past or future should have had. That sounds short-sighted to me, because I'm not ready to say some societal norms should be universal when I don't even know if I'm morally relativistic or not. it's born of uncertainty. I think too many people have the illusion of being certain of many things, least of all that we're born with unalienable rights--only because we currently think we do.

stonebeard wrote: p0mt3 wrote: stonebeard wrote: p0mt3 wrote: Your tax dollars are at times going to go towards something you don't personally subscribe to no matter how much you rant and rave about it. That's how this society works. Wouldn't you rather have your tax dollars go towards something that is at least MORALLY right? First off, only talking about "rights" here, of which I think few if any exist. They're independent of society. Taxes are necessary for a good society, as far as I can tell. But as someone doesn't have a birthright to paved streets, a police department, and public schooling, that person also does not have a right to healthcare, in my mind. Simply, a "right" to anything is iffy to me, because I'm not sure we're special enough to deserve anything purely because we exist. But we can gather around an confer if something is good enough that we should have it (freedom, life, perhaps a degree of healthcare) but calling those "unalienable rights" and so one just brings nothing meaningful to discussion, and presumes things about the universe that aren't, in my opinion. Okay, so let me ask you this . . . how consistent is your stand on this? Would you also say that animals don't have any 'rights' simply for existing? Or are you one of those people who think animals deserve rights that humans don't? Also, if you're questioning 'rights' to begin with, I do worry a little. When you say that, I have to wonder . . . would you have been one of those people back in the civil rights movement who said, "Ehh, when we talk about giving these black people 'rights', that's a bit iffy for me. Yep, I'm just not sure. What ARE 'rights', anyway, really?" Seems to me you're only thinking from your own perspective and not considering much else that goes on outside of your general area. Of COURSE we have rights for simply existing! What was all of that bloodshed over in the past for equal rights and whatnot if rights didn't truly exist? What, it's something we made up? Are you insane? Perhaps I have misunderstood your point, in which case . . . clarify, please. I think I'm pretty consistent on it. I don't put animals above people at all, but just about equally, perhaps slightly lower. I try to avoid using "rights" in reference to a societal norm like suffrage or something like that because I think it's obvious that we're not born with the inherent right to vote when we turn 18 one day. It's a "right" only in as much as it's something we as a society have called "really good" and "would not like to be without." I still think that's different from saying it's something anyone, past or future should have had. That sounds short-sighted to me, because I'm not ready to say some societal norms should be universal when I don't even know if I'm morally relativistic or not. it's born of uncertainty. I think too many people have the illusion of being certain of many things, least of all that we're born with unalienable rights--only because we currently think we do.

Thank you for clearing that up.

As for how I respond for that, well . . . go read my last post at the bottom of the previous page in response to Chris S and you'll get the gist.

Whatever we may have already or only 'think' we have, we still need to operate within the world that has been built around us, manufactured or not. I still say as far as 'fake rights' go, healthcare for all certainly seems like something that should have been here all along.

I like to get in philosophical discussions...

even if I leave unsatisfied, it keeps my mind sharp. Yay!

KoS wrote: For me, animals have some rights that humans aren't entitled because they can't think for themselves. Same thing with children, the handicapped and the mentally disabled. Adults have to be responsible with their lifestyle choices. No one but yourself should be responsible for the things that you consciously choose for yourself.  One of the less spoken about arguments is the fact that almost all health-care services are based on treatment and not prevention. I would gladly pay for a health service that focuses on preventive care rather than treatments and has a fully digital chart and prescription system.

How could you prevent pneumonia, or appendicitis? Sorry, but apart from some very specific infectious diseases most medical problems are not the result of improper prevention.

Bad word choice is all my fault, but any person with some intelligence could get the gist of what I was saying by the context alone. But, seeing as this is a political discussion, all rationality is throw out the window.

The really chilling future healthcare-by-insurance offers us is the genome. We will be assessed at birth and will have to pay differential premiums based on gene predictors. This may well be rational and economic, but something in me rebels when the medically disadvantaged are financially penalised.

This talk of individualism is, in my view, uninformed by history. We are a communal species. We achieve greatest efficiencies by cooperation, not competition. That's how we caught the mammoths, that's how we harvested our crops, that's how we defended our cities. It is only a country that believes these basic communal things secure that can indulge in rampant individualism - and we've seen in the wake of 9/11 just how draconian that country could be in limiting liberties in the quest for communal security. Even in the USA individual rights are subservient to those of the community. Those who think otherwise, the Constitution notwithstanding, might benefit from considering history.

So to healthcare. I live in a country where universal healthcare is a right. There is health insurance, and we do have a private system, but our public system is robust and works well. Like all such systems it is under pressure because of the baby boom bubble and the dramatic rise in elective surgery. New Zealand is not a democracy and is not socialist, but we as a people would never tolerate a system like that in the USA. To deny a fellow citizen access to care is tantamount to shoving them outside the gates of the city when the enemy comes into view. To withhold your largesse when someone else is in need - whether from their negligence or not - is one of the most selfish and abhorrent things a human being can do. I believe every single one of you who has participated in this debate would open the gates of the city, even if it meant a little more crowding and a little less food.

Raff wrote: As to healthcare not being a right, well... It is easy to say when you are 20. Lose your good health, and then come and tell me. I am sorry if this post implies any negative wishes on my part, but seeing people speak of other people's lives in such terms makes me sick. In the past few years I have seen the fragility of our human condition first hand, and like to believe it taught me a lesson.

In the past few weeks, I've gone through something similar.

My aunty passed away due to cancer, which was preventable, but due to her insanely spotty public healthcare, she didn't make it...

I have a firm belief she would still be here if not for the sh*ttyness of the Australian public health system.

I don't feel comfortably going into any more details, so I'll leave it at that.

What Raff said is right; Its hard to say until you're affected first hand by it.


-Joel



Edited by progkidjoel - September 04 2009 at 07:19

Good grief this thread's difficult to follow.    Anyway Yep Epignosis I've just been catching up on the last days posts and you did say you were off for a beer and wouldn't be coming back!  It's all quite interesting though. 

akamaisondufromage wrote:   I have another question for our American friends (Its your debate after all).  Preventative healthcare has been mentioned a couple of times here (Not always with any sense) one of the ways of making any health system more efficient is to stop people getting sick in the first place so a lot of money has been spent in this country on things like cancer screening to catch it before it gets hold.  I am guessing that in the states you would have to pay for this so the majority of people would avoid it as I guess it is expensive.  How does the current system deal with this issue? Do you have any preventative healthcare?

Of course!  And if you are on an insurance plan, they will cover things like mammograms, colonoscopies, etc.  I assume Medicare pays for these things as well but I'm not 100% positive.

Our healthcare here is excellent, for the most part - our problems are not with quality, but with access and affordability.