Try to make a decision for yourself on this topic without doing any background research. Should access to health care be guaranteed to everyone? Then, take a look at these articles (1), (2)
and compare them to your original thoughts. How closely aligned were
your ideas with either one of them? Did your opinion change after
reading either article? Post to the blog other materials you can find on
this subject.
A couple of assumptions:
1.
Regardless of insurance status, citizenship, etc., anyone who presents
to an emergency department with a true emergency should receive at
least stabilizing treatment for whatever acute problem they are having.
2. This is about patients, not politics. We are not discussing which group of politicians is right or wrong.
47 comments:
If asked this question before looking over the articles, I would quickly respond "privilege". I've always had the mindset that all people, regardless of background, race, sexuality, etc. should be treated equally in the health system, regardless of health care status. This was talked about in the Whole Foods article. I've had little knowledge of the systems in Canada and the UK and have always been more keen to those systems. As mentioned in the article, though, the wait or lag time between the patient and the meeting with the physician is unthinkable to me. To know that these individuals are so close to adequate health care, but so far away due to the wait time. That being said, if the US took a more "privilege" approach, would that mean that here as well, the wait time would be just as unbearable? Personally, I think the waiting list is just as bad as not having coverage. You're waiting and waiting...are you ever seen? How does the condition progress during the wait?
On a different viewpoint, I can understand how health care is viewed as a right. We've all heard the expression, "work hard for your money"; the term "money" can easily be exchanged with health care. As a working citizen, it is your right to be covered.
While writing this post, I found myself for the first time viewing health care as a right. Naturally, no one wants to turn away someone who is sick because of their lack of coverage, but if we were to take the privilege route, the patient just waits and may never see the physician. So essentially, in some situations, it's just as bad.
As the first article says, this country was founded on the idea of a free market economy. Just like any other business, healthcare is for profit. With this mind, I want to say that health care should be a privilege. We pay for every other service we receive, why shouldn't we pay for healthcare? The sad reality is that not everybody can afford health insurance. In that regard, I think everybody should have access to at least a minimal care for emergencies.
I think every individual should have access to basic healthcare services. Providing people with the minimum healthcare ensure that people maintain a healthy life and prevention of most disease states. If we look at it, it is actually cheaper preventing diseases by providing these basic services than treating or managing chronic diseases and disease states.
Amie Freeman
I think that basic and emergency healthcare should be provided to all people, as it is the humane and morally correct thing to do. However,I feel that some healthcare is a privilege. Those who inflict their own disease (obesity, drug addiction, etc) should not be treated for free. I feel that if you make a lifestyle choice, knowing it is extremely damaging to your health then the responsibility of treatment lies in your own hands. If you do not have or cannot afford health insurance, you must be prepared to foot the bill. Most doctors offices have payment plans for this reason. Or those in this situation should look at making lifestyle changes. I think those without health insurance tend to abuse the system and those who pay for or have insurance tend to get the short end of the stick. This is a very generalized comment and of course there are always exceptions to the rule, but for the most part, it's what I believe. Some aspects of healthcare are not a NEED but we feel entitled to all of it... for free.
Basic healthcare should be a right. I think it should be a right for the safety of the community and preventing disease. It is a privilage when it comes to surgeries, elective services, and long term care regimens.
In my opinion, everyone has the right to basic health care. As Danielle Lindland stated, healthcare is a “right for the safety of the community and preventing disease.” It is definitely cheaper to prevent diseases at an early stage then waiting until later and treating a chronic disease. However, I do feel that patients should be held responsible for their actions. I don’t think a person should be allowed to smoke 2 packs of cigarettes a day, and then expect someone else to pay for their lung cancer treatment because they cannot afford it.
As a business minded individual, I see health care as a privilege offered to the American people. However, there are obviously great flaws in our current system and health care costs are becoming more and more outrageous. Government should intervene to make health care affordable and available to all patients. Our government should provide health care for the poor, elderly and disabled and make it affordable to the rest of the population to purchase in the free market. There should be regulations and restrictions placed on health care to ensure this affordability. I do not, however, feel that health care is a right. It is provided as a service and therefore should remain in the private sector and be guided by government.
Nick Scaturo
Everything sounds nice and rosy on paper, however, when it is applied in the real world, that's when we get to see how it is really practical. "Everyone should be equal", "everyone should get paid the same wages" and "everyone should be entitled to healthcare" are all slogans that idealists love to shout but always fail to deliver. Their heart is definitely in the right place but their vision of a utopian society always falls short and ends up hurting the very same people that were supposed to have benefited.
Should everyone have “free” healthcare? First of all, there is no such thing as free of anything. Someone has to pay for it. For example in France, the UK, Canada and those Scandinavian nations that have “free” healthcare, the tax rate borders around 70% of your salary to pay for this “free” service. Second, patients have to wait for a very long time to see a doctor or schedule for a monogram visit. One of my Canadian buddies had to wait close to eight hours to see a doctor for his flu. He was in the doctor office for only five minutes. And all this time, he had to sit in the lobby for close to eight long hours with a burning flu infecting other patients! Is this the kind of quality care that you want to for your grandmother or ill child? Third is the issue of who will be eligible? In states like Arizona and Idaho, the hot and controversial topic of illegal aliens benefiting from emergency hospital visits have pushed angry citizens to the ballot boxes by the busload. Will this “healthcare for all” agenda even have a snowball’s chance in Hell if millions of citizens across the country will vote the same way? Not likely. Fourth, forcing healthcare on people who don’t want it is paramount to dictatorship. If young and healthy people who don’t use alcohol or tobacco products are required by law to buy health insurance, where will this go? Will there be laws in the future that force us to live in certain areas for our own good? What about making us eat certain foods? This is certainly not the scenario I want for my children.
I have mixed feelings about healthcare being guaranteed to everyone. Before I read the articles, I had the opinion that everyone should have the right to healthcare. This was due to the documentary, "Sicko" that I saw a few years ago, which was biased towards a right to healthcare. In the film, if I remember correctly, a patient who did not have insurance presented at an ER, after he accidentally dismembered 3 or 4 of his fingers. His fingers were successfully preserved and taken to the hospital, but the physician asked the patient which fingers he would like reattached. The patient could not afford to pay for surgery to reattach all of his fingers, so he is currently missing 1 or 2 of them. It is sad that anyone would have to make that decision. Since I read the articles, I think that there are too many political and financial conflicts that will probably never allow the United States to provide everyone healthcare. Mr. Mackey of Whole Foods brought up a good point about our self-inflicted health problems, including obesity, diabetes, high cholesterol, etc. I don't think people that do not take care of themselves should have the right to "free" healthcare. But, as others have mentioned, I agree that healthcare should be more affordable and there should be a minimum standard of care, as well as exceptions in emergent situations.
Before reading the articles, as an empathetic person that always wants to help others, I would say health care should be a “right” for everyone. But knowing that we are all human with many flaws, there will be people who will abuse this right and that would lead to greater healthcare problems in the future such as how Mr. Mackey of Whole Foods presented in the article. Thus, alike most have commented above, I am “yay” for the right of basic health and privilege when it comes to other services, which in a way would help people to take responsible in maintaining their health and practice good health lifestyles.
- Tammy Pham
Generally, I have viewed healthcare as a privilege, because in order to have effective, quality healthcare, it must be paid for. Take away the funds that are required to provide quality healthcare, and that quality decreases, which in the long run affects everybody. The privilege I am referring to can apply to surgeries and other extensive health services. That said, however, I do believe that basic preventative immunizations and emergency, life-saving healthcare should be a right. Payment for such services should still be the responsibility of the patient, either through reduced costs or some type of payment plan. I agree with Whitney Gibson on her last comment...there are some healthcare services that are necessary, but there are others that are not true needs and there are patients who feel entitled to them at no cost.
I think that healthcare should be provided to everyone. I think if someone shows up in an emergency room and needs treatment, insurance issues shouldn't get in the way of helping them. That being said, I can absolutely see why a "universal" healthcare system would just not be the best idea in the U.S. right now. In other countries, it seems to work great, but here it seems that people have more self-induced illnesses and take more prescription medications than in a lot of other countries. Even pharmacists I've worked with have noticed the differences between here and other countries. I believe healthcare should be provided to everyone to an extent, but I also see that there will be those out there that take advantage. Either way, I don't think treatment should every be refused to someone presenting in an emergency room with medical need.
Normally we would never even consider demanding that private organizations provide services for people that cannot afford it. Restaurants are not required to feed starving people, hotels to not have to accommodate homeless people. Hospitals though are daily put in a situation where people with no means to pay for their expenses are placed on their doorstep at the brink of death. If healthcare is a privilege then those people unfortunately have to die even though the resources to save them are right there. If it is a right then all Americans have to come up with a way to pay for life-saving treatment that can easily hit six figures for every person admitted. I think we can all agree that no one deserves to die when there is a good chance they could be saved. But determining which treatments are feasible, how they will be paid for, and what can be done to reduce the cost of healthcare short of a government takeover incorporates a large gray area that will be almost impossible to achieve a majority consensus on.
Jabon Efird
If healthcare is a privilege, then the disadvantaged and poor people will be at a loss. I believe everyone deserves some level of treatment for basic disease prevention or a life-threatening disease. This is not about rights or privileges, it is about service to humanity. If we start talking about rights and privileges, then it becomes a controversial situation. After reading both articles, I must say that I do not side with any of them because if it is a right, then other basic needs like food, clothing and shelter must be part of those rights and if it is a privilege, then where do the poor stand? One thing that I find it difficult to understand is how a country can decide to spend millions of dollars on the poor people in another country but then shuns from the immediate needs in their own country. That same compassion that led these country men to give to other poor nations should lead them to show kindness to the ones that they see every day.I know this service is costly and must be paid and that is why other selective treatments should not be included when showing mercy. I don't see how someone will come and beg me for some money for food and also ask me money for the latest Lebron or Nike shoes. That will be asking for too much.
....Vida Ohene Agyeman
I could not agree more with Margaret Thatcher’s quote, “the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” I believe that health care is a privilege, not a right guaranteed by the constitution. I do not believe that the freedom of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness had anything to do with healthcare, as the founding fathers did not have system of healthcare in place. Healthcare was definitely not on the top of their priority list. Not to mention, it is not equal to grant everyone the right to healthcare, because in order to do that the hard working middle class is going to have to pay for it. It is not fair to raise taxes of citizens who work hard for their money in order to support those who do not. And I am not saying we should get rid of helping the less fortunate at all, but I truly believe the current system encourages lazy living. Why work hard for your living if you can just live off of the government? Sadly, I think that is how a lot of Americans think. Raising taxes of the working class to support those who do not work is robbery, and definitely not equality in any way shape or form. If health care was a privilege and everyone had to pay for their own health insurance, health insurance would actually be much cheaper for the vast majority of people as they would no longer have to provide insurance for a substantial percentage of the population. I am honestly scared of the direction healthcare is taking, it is in great need of reform and more government involvement and steps toward socialism are not the answers.
Before reviewing any articles I always thought that those in need of immediate care should not be ignored, they should be treated, I do not think this means that is an exclusive right. I do not think that people can be lazy and just expect that someone somewhere will cover all their medical costs and some people really take advantage of that. It is morally wrong to take advantage of fellow citizens hard work. It isn't fair that I should have to work hard to be sure that I am taken care of only to know that I'm also having to take care of someone else who chooses not to place an importance on their health (in general, in cost, in coverage). I have always viewed, and been taught, that it is a privilege because I believe you must work for what you receive no matter what it is. After reading the articles I still stick with what I felt before, health care is a privilege. The Whole Foods article states many things that I agree with, it should be my choice who I choose to provide my health care benefits and companies should work with their employees to offer them the best options cost-wise and program wise. Health care companies should also show a breakdown of what exactly you pay for. I think that by classifying health care as a right people will never change their lifestyle and obtain it for themselves, they will continue to let someone else work hard so they can be covered as well. By stating that it is a right we are all bound to go broke. Is it a right to have an iPhone? Is it a right to have a cell phone period? Is it a right to have a laptop, iPod, expensive clothes? No. Yet some people spend money on these things before they purchase food let alone health insurance. It is a privilege to get to live in this great country. It is a privilege to get the opportunity to freely make the choice to purchase what we want- to do the research and get what fits our needs best in everything this should include health care. I agree very much with the views Vida -we do not need to just leave the poor of our country out in the cold, but we reach out to other places ignoring the ones right here on our home ground who need help instead we leave it to the another class of citizens who end up struggling as well. We need to take the health care reforms being put into place seriously and visualize how it is going to effect our futures as well as our countries. Whether something is a right or a privilege we must learn not to take it for granted or abuse them.
After reading the articles, my opinion stayed the same in that I think everyone should have a right to healthcare. I think there should be basic healthcare services provided to everyone. Whether it be a right or privilege, the system is going to be abused. Offering basic or emergent care can help keep the communities safe and healthy and help to save money in the long run.
I completely agree that anyone who comes to an emergency room in the United States has a right to be stabilized and treated, regardless of race, citizenship status, economic status, health insurance, etc. I also think that ideally, everyone in America (and even the world for that matter) should have access to health insurance and health care. Unfortunately, I think there are many challenges we would face as a society if we were to put these ideals into action. Politics aside, I think one of the biggest struggles would be increasing the number of hospitals and clinics to accommodate additional patients, as well as being able to pay doctors and other healthcare providers enough money to make it worth their time and exhausting schedules. I think regardless of what America decides to do, it cannot be done drastically. Changes such as this would have to be done very gradually, reassessing the current situation each step of the way.
I have always believed that health care is a service and thus, a privilege. Yes, it is one of high demand and need as well as the lack of such a service can provide fatal. However, it is still a service just like any other service that is provided by individuals who have committed their time and effort to specialize and share their expertise – in oversimplified but basic terms, it is a trade. As the Whole Foods article states, health care is comparable to food and shelter: these are things that you work for. Many spend their lives working towards this ability to provide themselves and their families with the comfort and human needs of food and shelter. Why should good health be any different? For those who lack such essentials, there are charities and volunteer-based services, outreach programs that open community service opportunities for those in a position to provide and help for those in need. The articles have not changed my opinions on this matter. There are rights that exist which do not have any direct economic impact. Freedom of speech and expression, freedom from discrimination based on race/gender/etc, freedom from the physical abuse/harm of others: these are not merely privileges, these are RIGHTS that everyone is entitled to at no expense to others. Health care is not one of these rights. Health care is a much-appreciated gift that can be given, not a right that one should demand for no exchange, nor expect as an entitlement at birth.
Before reading the articles, my opinion about health care would have been that it is a right. I think it is important that everyone have access to health care so that they can have help in preventing disease and living a healthy life. After reading the two articles I have a mixed opinion on health care. I like how the first article said that everyone should have basic health care but there should be other services that they could buy separately. The second article brought up a good point which was that we should try to reduce the amount of debt that our country has and that by having less governmental control in health care it could reduce it. If I had to choose between either the first or second article's idea on health care then I would go with the first one. What made me go away from the second article's idea on health care was the fact that people would be waiting to be seen by physicians and be admitted into hospitals.
Sarah Martin
Before reading article, I was pro for universal healthcare for all. However, after reading the articles, my views have changed a bit.
Healthcare has become a commodity in the U.S. and rightly so. In response to the rising demands for healthcare services, costs for those services have gone up exponentially. As the article "US Health Care: Entitlement or Privilege?" went on to say, we should build a framework where all people should be able to access the most fundamental basics of healthcare to maintain health and quality of life as all persons should be entitled to life. On the other hand, "luxury" services should be paid for directly by the patient. America's free enterprise is what drives our economy and we should continue to stick to that model even if it means having to pay out of pocket for health services. Everything else has a price tag, so why should healthcare services be any different?
My opinion of healthcare being a privilege has not been altered after reading these articles. I do agree with my classmates when they state that there should be basic healthcare services provided to each and every person regardless of whom they are. It would be inhumane to deny someone the emergency care they may need. Beyond emergency medical needs, every other aspect the health field has to offer is a privilege. Unfortunately there are people in this nation that abuse the rights that they do have and ruin it for everyone else. I think that if people would prioritize better then they would be able afford the proper healthcare that they need. Don’t get me wrong, there are things the government could do to make healthcare more feasible for all, but it is unfortunate that some people are careless when spending their money as opposed putting it towards the proper health insurance they need. I’m sure there are plenty of people in this nation that have an iPhone, but not health insurance.
-David Williams
The Declaration of Independence states that everyone should be entitled to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". To me this over 200 year old document still sums up the healthcare debate in the country. Life and the pursuit of happiness, two of the three tenants of this statement directly correlate to healthcare. Life itself requires healthcare as does the pursuit of happiness, and all individuals deserve to attain them through receiving necessary medical care.
No doubt emergency care should be available to all people, but I am also a firm believer in preventative care and screening. If these services are provided to all people, for low cost or free, less money will have to be spent on medical maladies that could easily be caught early and stopped. Nationally there is a push towards healthier living in America and this is such a positive change. There is no question that this is the key to a healthy nation. People whose ailments are caused by their own vices or poor health decisions should be encouraged to make healthier life choices and coached along the way. A person with a pre-existing medical conditions should never be denied access to healthcare, this is direct discrimination.
After reading the article, as well as many of the comments, my opinion concerning healthcare has not changed. I believe that basic healthcare should be a right, and not a privilege. Don't think I am not aware of the fact that we will have to pay taxes to accomplish this, but very few things are as worth it as healthcare is. Many of the people I know from countries with universal healthcare are terrified when they get sick or injured here, because they know they are going to have to work with our terrible system. I also know people that need preventive care, or surgeries, yet because they can’t afford it they simply forgo it because they can’t afford it.
However the comment earlier, that stated that other counties, pay out 70% of their salaries, is both unthinkable, and false, the present is actually around 20% I hate the idea, that people that can’t afford our healthcare, which by the way is that unequaled highest on the planet, are lazy and undeserving, when I know people that work three jobs, have families to raise, and still can’t make enough to get the treatment they deserve, or maybe can, but have to make other important sacrifices, that may out weight the medication or treatment they need to prevent illness. Now I know that it is not everybody, but the amount of people that simply munch off other aid systems without any kind of job is insignificant in comparison.
I understand that the idea of a longer wait time magically appearing is a major fear people have of implementing universal healthcare. But why would this happen in the first place? Well that reason that this would occur, since more people can afford to get treated, then more people will get treatment, and if more people can get treatment, then more people will, leading to longer wait times. I do agree that this service should only be available to legal us citizens, or legal immigrants however, I feel that paying for those that don’t pay is not right.
I found it very interesting that both articles decided to quote the Declaration of Independence and the US Consitution to make their points. The Declaration of Independence is a philisophical document that does not have any legal standing in the United States. The Whole Foods article then takes it a step farther and says that reading the US Constitution (which is a legal document) does not provide for any mention of a right to healthcare, food, or shelter. If you are to buy that argument, then you also have to agree that women would not be able to vote and that slaves are only 3/5ths of a person. My point is, times change, so laws have changed, and more more need to change. So the question still becomes, is healthcare a right? I believe it is. What kind of society are we creating when patients can not get basic medical care. Medical professionals, when we take our oaths, do not add stipulations that we will only help people when they can afford it. The first line of our pharmacist's oath is "At this time, I vow to devote my professional life to the service of all humankind through the profession of pharmacy." All humankind does not mean some people, some of the time.
I feel that the arguments that patients who make personal choices that negatively impact their health, such as smoking and obesity, should therefore be denied services is a false one also. Who is to say that by being provided basic medical care and counseling, these patients would not realize their health choices are negatively impacting their lives? Because the fact is, the majority of patients without health coverage are the poorest and least educated of all of us. By providing coverage to everyone, we can educate these patients, help them make correct decisions, and then healthcare costs as a whole could go down.
The Whole Foods article also says that the system will get too backed up and the waiting lists in countries like Canada and Great Britain are incredibly long. Now, I do not live in those countries so I have no idea what that is like, but I do know that those countries are not dictatorships. They are democratically elected. If the patients in those countries did not like the system and think that is an intrinsic good, they would elect candidates that would would support those views. But they have not. So it seems that the patients there find value in the system.
Denying medical care to certain patients seems like an inherent contradiction to what why we decided to pursue this career in the first place. Patients continue to suffer under this current system, and as a whole, society therefore suffers. Isn't it our job to improve patient health and decrease suffering?
~Chris Pavero
My opinion on healthcare has not changed after reading any of the articles. I believe that healthcare is a right for Americans and those that are citizens in the United States. I believe that everyone who is a citizen in the United States and enters the emergency room should be provided with treatment in order to stabilize them. I do not agree with providing treatment to those who are not citizens because many people try and take advantage of the system and the law of EMTALA in order to receive treatment and not pay. As US citizens we pay taxes and contribute to the US and I believe that we are the ones that should receive the advantages of our healthcare system as opposed to those that do not qualify as citizens and are here illegally. It is not that I do not care for those who are not citizens because I want everyone to have better healthcare and be treated for any illness they may have but I just find it to be unfair if we provide treatment to those that do not contribute.
Before reading the articles, I would say that healthcare should be a right to everyone to an extent. I feel that if someone is in dire need of some treatment that could determine if a person lives or dies, then he or she deserves that treatment regardless of how much it costs. I just seems right to me, if a person denies treating someone that he or she could save, can the blame of that persons death not be put upon the person who denies treatment to that individual? After reading the articles I realize that people who are not insured actually cost people who are insured more money as they land in that safety net. I never thought that universal healthcare would solve this problem though, there are too many negatives to this idea. I am happy to hear also, that the government thinks that no US citizen should be denied healthcare and they are actively working to fix the problem.
I think healthcare should be a right. No one should be refused treatment just because they cannot afford it. However, I think it is the job of the patient to ensure they are living healthy lifestyles. For example, patients should not smoke, eat poorly, and binge drink, then turn around and expect someone to pay for their treatment. Healthcare should be a right, but it us up to society to not abuse this right. If it is excessively abused, then it will become a privilege.
-Curtis Austin
I do believe that nobody should be denied stabilizing emergency medical treatment if it is a life threatening situation, regardless of ability to pay/insurance coverage. I do however feel that in order to maintain a sustainably funded healthcare system, there must be a line drawn at some point on how much healthcare is available to anyone for free.
Evan Palmieri
I believe that healthcare should be a right. Everyone should have access to healthcare regardless of income. However, after seeing how universal healthcare systems based on this notion function in other countries, giving everyone access to quality care is unfortunately more of a privilege than a right. The issue is extremely complicated and it will be immensely difficult to find a solution to match the ideal situation of providing quality care to all Americans to the reality and logistics of the idea.
I agree with the mass of the other student replies. I believe that everyone should receive stabilizing treatment. This treatment should be provided regardless of the individual. However, a line should be drawn at some point.
-Brittany Rector
I think that in certain situations healthcare should be a person’s right. However, to be able to continue to provide adequate healthcare for the traditional doctor’s visits, we must make it a privilege to some extent. In emergency situations, I do not believe that a person should be denied service due to inability to pay or lack of insurance. It is the civil duty of healthcare professionals to ensure the safety of their patients. As far as your typical healthcare on a daily basis, I believe that in order to maintain the level of care we provide we must limit the amount of free healthcare a person can get.
I think that healthcare should be provided to everyone - but only to a certain extent. Some sort of base level can be provided and then if a person wants additional coverage, then that is on them. There are some instances where need for healthcare cannot be helped (such as emergency situations). In those situations, people should be entitled to healthcare and this could be included in the basic healthcare coverage plan that I alluded to earlier. Even though I'm saying that I think healthcare should be provided to all citizens, I don't think that a high level of coverage should be provided. A base level seems justifiable and like I said earlier, any additional insurance coverage should be attained on a personal basis.
Healthcare is a privilege, not a right. I think the best course of action to establish this principle it to decrease the availability of government funded healthcare programs and increase encouragement and opportunities for less fortunate people to get jobs and get their own healthcare. The abuse of systems like Medicaid is outrageous and too many capable people go on it because it is the easiest course of action and so readily available. I absolutely do not believe programs like Medicaid should be taken away because they are a necessity for some people and families, however those programs should be a last resort. The first course of action should be to get a job and pay for your own healthcare and hospital visits. I don’t think it’s fair that students like us are working our butts off in school and our own jobs so that our taxes will fund and facilitate people that are abusing the system.
-Jessica Osteen
After reading both articles I side with the Whole food's side. They said "everyone should have the right to purchase health care", which I totally agree with. This would label health care as a privilege, but What goes along with healthcare being a privilege is that a lot of people cannot afford it. Many people see this as limiting their right to healthcare but it is not because they still have the right to purchase it despite its price. This should be solved with forcing the health insurance companies to make their insurances more affordable but people also need to understand that it won't be free. People need to make sacrifices and decide if healthcare is a priority in their purchases.
If Health Care is going to be a right then the government should have the right to tell us how to live. What to eat not to smoke or drink and to exercise daily.
I have felt that health care is a privilege. If it were a right, it would eventually lead to an infringement of the rights others in indirect ways. Financially, have health care be a right is impossible without increasing taxes and allowing the government to take over the system. It leads to a cascade of difficulties that shouldn't be overlooked. I do agree that the idea of free health care is such a wonderful idea, but there are un-foretold consequences that will ensue. If anything, basic health care would be the most beneficial to be considered a right. In a way that helps to equalize the two sides and bring them together. All in all it is a difficult controversy indeed.
I personally believe that people should have access to healthcare no matter their circumstances which would constitute it as a right. Basic necessities need to be fulfilled to help the patient to live a healthy life. The insurances can then help the patient to then have access to the other care options that are just a bonus. The basic needs that should be a right should be available to those who are uninsured. There are many programs and waivers to help those who truly need. Some hospitals have these types of systems even though they may insurance. There has to be regulation so people wouldn't take advantage of the system. However, the people should be accountable for maintaining their own health by eating well and not partaking in detrimental activities.
My initial opinion on this topic was that health care insurance should be a privilege. After reading the articles I have a slight shift in my thoughts about health care. I believe that different levels of health care should be available. For example, I think that everyone should be provided with basic health care insurance that will give them access to a basic prescription coverage as well as basic hospital and physician type of coverage. It’s really hard to see that many people are living with diseases because they cannot afford health care coverage and prescription coverage. With this basic coverage at least everyone can have a relatively decent life. With that being said, with this level system, people can purchase extended or extra coverage that will cover a more vast range of things. This extensive coverage can include more access to luxury types of services.
I liked the eight ways to reduce healthcare costs introduced in the Whole Foods article. This article appealed to me, because I don’t think everyone should share in the cost of universal healthcare. I think that we should have healthcare reform, but universal healthcare is too extreme. If the eight steps outlined in the article lowered the cost of insurance, more people would be covered. Insurance coverage for everyone, regardless of citizenship, is too big of a burden on taxpayers.
I think that basic healthcare is a right but you have to define what all is included in the explanation of basic. Amie Freeman said that it is cheaper to prevent diseases by providing basic healthcare and I agree. I also completly agree with Katelyn Palmer and everything she said!! I think she is my brain twin because everything she posted is exactly how I feel!!
-Meleane Tonga
I personally think we all should have access to basic healthcare services regardless of skin colors, genders, social status, etc. However, at the same time, it is going to be privilege to have certain levels of healthcare service, as it needs to be paid. In some point, we are responsible for our own health status affected by our personal life style. Therefore, it is the right to have healthcare services, and privilege to have higher level of services as well.
I want to share this email interview I had with a Russian buddy last year about how the Soviet univeral health-care system worked and how it ended up hurting the very people it was supposed to help. When reading this email interview, please keep in mind how ObamaCare mirrors that of the Soviet's plan and how your life will be affected. Below is a copy of our conversation:
Luong: Privet Dennis (Hello in Russian). Since you're from the former Soviet Union, could you please relate to all of us how the Soviet Universal Health Care System worked? Didn't you guys have a similar health plan like ObummerCare to cover all the masses under communism?
What are the pro's and con's of this and is it wise to copy this plan? Bashui spasibo (thank you very much).
Dennis: Privet Luong. In the former Soviet Union, they actually had single-payer healthcare: that is, the government provided all health services free of charge. Naturally, that led to widespread abuse of the system -- people would often call the EMS even for relatively minor illnesses, which no doubt cost the taxpayers plenty. Worse, the government (partly because of their egalitarian insanity -- "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"
-- and partly to limit costs resulting from such misuse) strictly limited the wages of medical personnel (much as ObummerCare is trying to do, but even more so -- from what I've heard, doctors were being paid about as much as factory foremen), which of course disincentivised any extra effort on the part of the medics and resulted in healthcare quality on a par with that in South America. (That last part was further exacerbated by the serious shortage of medical personnel resulting from the aforementioned overuse of the system and from new college grads being isincentivised from entering the healthcare field.) The only possible advantage of this system is that everyone is covered free of charge. As for the disadvantages, I've already discussed them -- exorbitant cost to the national budget, overcrowded hospitals, a severe doctor shortage, and bad quality of healthcare.
To copy such a plan would be sheer insanity (although to be fair, ObummerCare doesn't actually go THAT far). Please feel free to pass this on to anyone interested in the healthcare debate. Long live America.
Part 2
Luong: Thanks again for your answers. One of my Canadian friends informed me that he had to wait eight whole hours just to see a doctor for only five minutes! (Canadians also have a European-style healthcare as they love to emulate anything European, even their march down the road to socialist perdition). Could you imagine being sick with the flu and having to wait that long to talk to a doctor to receive a prescription for his flu?!?
That's insane! So based upon what you told us, former Soviet citizens were forced to pay for a lousy healthcare even if they don't want to, is that right? In other words, it's like me forcing you to buy rotten food at premium prices. Can I make that analogy?
Also, you mentioned a shortage of doctors and nurses, but what about medical supplies such as bandaids, needles, equipments, etc...?
Dennis: Hello again, Luong. Yes, all Soviet citizens were forced to pay for their state-run healthcare system, whether or not they actually used it -- and, of course, between the
excessive demand, the shortage of funds and the inefficient use thereof, the quality of healthcare was predictably lousy. Yes, your analogy is pretty good -- but an even better analogy would be that it's like if I was to force you to pay premium prices for SOMEONE ELSE to get the rotten food that they might not even really need free of charge. (Kind of like some of them New Deal relief programs, if you happen to remember that far back.)
As far as the medical supplies, yes there was often a shortage of those (and what supplies did get produced were often defective), but that was only indirectly related to the healthcare system. You see, in the Soviet Union they had a centrally-planned economy, where the government owned all the means of production, ran them at taxpayer expense, paid fixed wages to the workers, and sold all the products at fixed prices. Needless to say, this meant that there was no incentive to strive for either quality or production efficiency either on the part of the factory management (because the factory would get the same subsidy regardless of product quality or production costs) or of the individual workers (because they would get the same pay whether their work was good or bad), and the products would usually be sold at a loss (because the government held all the funds for the factory, so if the production cost was more than the fixed sale price, it was the government's loss and not the factory's -- and besides, the sales prices were generally set so low that no factory could possibly hope to recoup its costs from sales revenue); this last circumstance actually served to disincentivise production (because the more stuff the factory makes, the more money it loses) and thus ensured severe, persistent shortages of everything in general. (Sounds a lot like our own Government Motors these days, doesn't it?) In short, the very last thing we want is to follow this path, because that way lies ruin and poverty. Which is why it's so important to oppose socialism in all its forms.
Long live (and prosper) America.
Part 3:
Luong: Hi Dennis. Thanks again for your help in explaining how this universal healthcare fraud really works. Hearing it straight from a former Soviet citizen sure beats anything from UC Berkeley or Capitol Hill. Just to let you know, I saved everything you had to say about this subject as my records for future reference.
So far, we covered the impact of this universal healthcare on the
citizens. But what about the Soviet leadership? Did Stalin, Khrushchev or any of the Politburo members or other high-ranking Communist officials ever use this system, or did they have their own special one which was a thousand times better than that of the average Ivan?
At the end of the Cold War, not only did the Berlin Wall come
down, but another more important wall came down as well: the propaganda wall that protected communist lies. One of these lies was of a "classless" and "equal" new society where everyone would receive the same pay, same education and same healthcare. Of course, none of this nonsense was
true as we discovered that communist elites in Czechoslovakia had their own shopping malls while their counterparts in Romania lived in one of the most biggest and luxurious mansions in the world (1). All of this while the
average citizens had to stand in long lines to get a couple of
potatoes to feed their starving family back home in their small apartment which they had to share with two other families.
But perhaps the prize for the biggest commie hypocrite goes to none other than Mao Tse-Tung of Red China. In their excellent book which I strongly encourage everyone to read, Jung Change and Jon Halliday details how Mao had his own private healthcare which served only himself! He never spent a single minute in a hospital. Instead, the hospital went to him!
-- "He [Mao] never went to a hospital. The hospital facilities,
along with the top specialists, came to him. If he was not in the mood to see them, they would be kept hanging around, sometimes for weeks." (2)
On top of that, Mao had a special farm produced the best food only
for himself while over 38 MILLION (38,000,000!!!) Chinese starved to death during the Great Leap Forward years of 1958-61. His favorite fish had to be shipped from 1,000 km away alive in a "plastic bag filled with water and kept oxygenated." Even his tea came from the "very best leaves [which] were picked for him, at the ideal time." But the biggest mind-blower was the fact that he had over 600 villas made for him, some of which he never stepped foot in.
So I ask you to elaborate how what kind of healthcare did the Soviet
elite enjoy which no one else could. Thanks.
Sources:
(1)http://www.traveladventures.org/continents/europe/palace-of-parliament.shtml(<-- check out the gold leaves on the walls of this monster palace!)
(2)Chang, Jung and Halliday, Jon. "The Unknown Story: Mao" p. 326. Anchor Books. New York, New York.
Part 4:
Dennis: You're right on the money with this one. Yes, the Central Committee and Politbureau members had special hospitals and clinics with better supplies and equipment (imported from Germany, France and Britain, not Soviet-made), as well as more (though not necessarily better-quality) doctors and nurses for more prompt and personalized service (though in practice they would mess up almost as often as the ones serving the regular Ivans, for most of the reasons described above). They also had a special network of stores stocked with better-quality goods, they were entitled to ride in Cadillac
limos free from charge, and yes they had their own suburban villas outside of town. And of course they had personal servants (often new army recruits, or even former political prisoners released from the gulag and unable to find other work). If you want to get a limpse of what life was like in the Soviet Union back then, I'd like to recommend three different Tom Clancy novels to you: *The Hunt for Red October, Red Storm Rising*
and *The Cardinal of the Kremlin* (yeah, I know, these are works of fiction, but Mr. Clancy has really done his research on life in the USSR). Also, specifically about the Soviet heathcare system, there's *Cancer Ward* by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, which has more of an insider's perspective on this topic.
Luong: My dad LOVES Alexander Solzhenitsyn!!! He would recite to us scenes from "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" for us to better understand how communism destroys the very soul of people. You Russians are so blessed with such talented people like Mr. Solzhenitsyn!
Going back to the Soviet Universal Healthcare System, how did it differ from those in eastern Europe under Soviet control? And how did it differ from those in free but socialist western Europe right now (e.g. Germany, France and Scandinavia)?
Spasibo.
Dennis: I think I've already covered the differences between the Soviet healthcare system and that in socialist Western Europe -- the Soviet system was completely government-owned and government-operated, whereas that in present-day Western Europe is (for the time being) "only" government-financed and government-controlled. So there's still SOME
incentive for the West European doctors to provide decent service, whereas in the Soviet system there was none whatsoever. As for the differences between the healthcare system in the USSR proper vs. that in the colonies: from what I've heard (which isn't much), in the colonies the "official" (government-run) healthcare system was even worse (due to egregious
underfunding), but on the other hand it was easier to find "underground" doctors (i.e. private practitioners) who would provide a much higher quality of service to those who had enough money to pay for it. (There were some even in the USSR -- I remember my parents hiring a private vet when the family cat got very sick.)
Part 5:
Luong: OK, so far, we have covered the "what, who, how and when" of the Soviet Universal Healthcare System. But the most important question is WHY! Why did the Soviet government implement such a rotten system knowing that it would bring about poor results for its citizens?
Propaganda to show off to the West or what?
Dennis: Why? The answer is obvious -- ideology! The whole Soviet system was based on egalitarian Marxist ideology: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". This premise inevitably leads to the conclusion that the nation's resources (and ultimately the world's resources) should be distributed equally among all people, without regard to what contribution (if any) the person is making to the community. The only problem is, with this kind of economic system there's no incentive for anyone to work at all -- hence all the Soviets' economic problems.
Luong: The answer is that obvious given that the communist leaders who imposed this Soviet Universal Healthcare System (SUHS) on their poor citizens don't themselves use it? Sure fooled me! But I guess that some of us are "more equal than others" (THINK: Animal Farm), right Dennis? :-)
Sorry, but I like my answer better; that the SUHS only served as a propaganda tool against both the Soviet citizens and foreigners to fool them into believing that communism takes care of the average man on the street. And we see examples of this in other communist projects such as "free housing", "jobs for everyone", etc...where you are given a small apartment with no heating and jobs that no one wants. All just pure propaganda to fool both the masses and foreigners.
Am I right about this?
Dennis: Yes, that's right -- that's the main tool they used to spread the Marxist ideology abroad and promote it at home. But the key thing to remember about the Soviet leaders from Lenin to Chernenko is that they were the ultimate in hypocrisy. In other words, they could simultaneously believe in "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", and at the same time believe that their leadership role entitles them to special privileges such as their own manor house and Cadillac limo and better clothes than all the others get. Beats me how anyone's mind can actually work like that, but that pretty much sums it up. (If you've read 1984, you prob'ly know the word "doublethink", which describes a similar mental phenomenon.)
Luong: Hi Dennis and others. Sorry for the late reply; I've been up to my neck here with family, school, work and planning for our vacation. I've been away but still thinking about you guys ;-)
I forgot to mention another good explanation for why the Soviet government implemented their Healthcare System: control. What better way to have more control over the daily lives of its citizens than making them pay a ton of taxes for something which they think is beneficial? By robbing them, the government gets them hooked on their own money (which is now owned by the government).
"Do whatever we say or else, we won't give you your fair share of the pie." Sort of like the story of the hunter and his dog who got lost in the woods for days with no food. Finally, the hunter thinks of an idea. He cuts the dog tail off and cooks it. After eating most of it, he feels sorry for the dog and offers it the rest. Upon eating the left over, the dog thinks to itself,"Wow, what a great master I have!"
And it's not just healthcare that the government uses. We have seen over the years other clever government smokescreens such as "War on Poverty", "No Child Left Behind", "Protect the Environment", etc...that all serve the same purpose.
Remember folks, it always has to sound good to fool the ignorant masses.
Dennis: Yeah, that too -- how did I forget about this aspect of the Soviet system?
Post a Comment