So basically what you’re saying is that as a physician, someone has the “basic human right” to my time and effort?

Think about the other human rights (freedom from slavery, life, liberty, recognition as a person, etc). None of them demand a portion of someone else’s life in order to be fulfilled.

I deff agree with BH

This is the occupy mindset that you have a right to things that aren’t yours (ie. other people’s money)

Read more …

Work hard get your own healthcare

I think that’s part of his point. Almost 80% of those that don’t have healthcare are employed and do indeed work hard.

Yeah, anyone who has to work multiple part-time jobs as opposed to one full-time job likely does not have access to company-provided health insurance. I mean if one of the people in this situation break an arm or get cancer, do you expect them to just deal with it or die?

Cogswell-
Just because something is expensive doesn’t mean it should be a right. All that tells you is that something is inherently wrong with the system. I’m not saying that the current healthcare system doesn’t have flaws, but issuing something that someone else has to provide as a “basic human right” is flat out immoral.

I’d also like to just point out that although this is not the case for everyone, or even a majority, without healthcare, MANY without healthcare spend excessive amounts of money on other things that (in any realistic world) would be way down the list behind healthcare — e.g. iphones, ipads, tvs, expensive cars, etc. Please note that I am not throwing everyone that is uninsured in this category, but in the past 3 months, I have seen at least 100 people that fit into this category. I’m also not implying that one can get health insurance for the price of an iphone. But, I am arguing that there is a complete lack of emphasis on personal responsibility in today’s society.

Read more …

No one is saying that people have the right to your time personally, BH. The point is that the government has a role in ensuring access to adequate health care to its citizens.

Also, you’ve just demonstrated why the private market cannot provide adequate care to all those who need it (What? MEEE? A physician help the sick people? PREPOSTEROUS! HOW DARE THEY THINK THAT I WOULD DO SUCH A THING!)

Read more …

Everyone has ACCESS to health care, no ER can turn you down due to inability to pay, its just that some people are fortunate enough to have insurance that makes the healthcare affordable. Access to INSURANCE does not equal access to HEALTHCARE, Let’s focus on the economy, then maybe more people would have jobs that provide them insurance. Then let’s talk about policies for people with pre-existing conditions, though I’m not sure about the government telling a company it has to take on a client that is for sure going to cost them more than they will make. I’m sorry to sound sympathetic, I’m just not sure that it wouldn’t lead to a slippery slope that causes loss of liberty.

I guess my syntax was a bit confusing, but I meant to posit whether you thought those who cannot afford health insurance should just deal with a broken arm or just die from cancer. And, I echo the points made by anon and blarg in that a distinction should be made in word choice between access to healthcare and access to paying for healthcare, although some would say that they are one and the same if you choose to not visit a doctor on the basis of not being able to pay for it. However, at this present time, we have a healthcare system that puts people without insurance into crippling debt for the smallest of injuries, especially if they had to ride an ambulance. These people without health insurance aren’t the welfare leeches that opponents want to make them out to be; they are people who don’t make enough money to invest in long-term protection from health protections when they constantly face a litany of short-term expenses. Yes, I do see the vicious cycle in this situation as the cost of healthcare at present does result from the present subsidization of people who can’t afford that healthcare, but I don’t think the answer is callousness. Do you want you want to live in a society, in a country that says you can’t afford to recover from an injury, live without pain, or just live? We have a very serious healthcare problem in this country as not every job, maybe not even most jobs, provide health insurance at an affordable rate, if at all. A public option ends this vicious cycle by finding a way to end the very practical problem that not everyone can pay for their health issues and passes the subsidization of healthcare to all people without the bungling middle men of private insurance companies with their complicated networks of who I can and can’t see. And, I know it’s easy to get divisive over things like whether abortion, hormone therapy, etc. should be covered, but I think there exists a common ground of ailments over which we should have compromised two-three years ago to get the public option in full swing. I just can’t imagine this world that BH and King George see in which you just have the money to pay for healthcare, or what they expect people without it to do.