Healthcare as a "right"
Graham has a post up about Al Gore's opinion on America's right to healthcare.
I disagree. Strongly.
Last time I checked, rights were things that didn't cost money. Rights don't take from one person to give to another. They are a product of mere human existence. They are the things that cost nothing but are worth everything.
Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, free speech, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble, freedom of religion, freedom to petition, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, and freedom from forced self-incrimination.
These are the things worth shedding blood for. These are the things worth dying for. It is insulting to every person who ever fought or died for these ideals throughout the course of human history to even think about elevating "healthcare" to the same level as our most basic, inalienable rights.
Healthcare is NOT a fundamental right. It is a privilege and nothing more.
7 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
| TrackBack URI
You can also bookmark
this on del.icio.us or check the cosmos
Al Gore just lost my vote…
I like Al Gore and I respect the way he's re-invented himself. Prior to reading this, I was actually hoping for Mr. Gore to enter the race, so I can have a Democratic candidate to root for. No longer, as I fundamentally disagree with pretty much eve…
Trackback by Trusted.MD Network — October 18, 2007 @ 9:54 am
[...] usual, Gore’s thinking is superficial and sloppy. OnThePharm sums up the problem with health care as a “right”: Rights don’t take from one person to [...]
Pingback by Health Care BS » Blog Archive » Al Gore: Now He’s Braying about Health Care — October 18, 2007 @ 10:02 am
fine, call it a privilege if you like. it's still something that every citizen of a modern society should have. we have the knowledge and the tools, there's no reason that only people with money should be able to access them. and it's better for society as a whole to keep every member healthy. whatever you label it, i believe universal health care is an excellent goal for a society.
i'm a brainwashed Canadian, though.
Comment by sweetpepper — October 18, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
Sooo, with one fairly major health problem/ accident/ hospitalization you can potentially lose everything you've worked for just because you don't have insurance? What kind of enlightened society is that? Why shouldn't every child and adult get preventative care, including vaccination, to optimize their health? I think this would cost society a lot less in the long run (not to mention keep people happier).
Right now we have a system where insurance companies don't want to pay for preventative care like colonoscopies. This is because health insurance is tied to employment, and since the average worker switches jobs a fair amount, the insurance company is betting that you won't be on their roster when you finally get colon cancer. This is understandable from an economic standpoint, but it is unacceptable from a healthcare one.
I'm talking about regular people with common conditions here – not the IVDA that comes in with his or her third episode of endocarditis. There should be some sort of standard healthcare provided by the government on the basis of a consensus of physicians. Premium healthcare insurance could still be purchased by those with the means and desire to do so.
Comment by Kirsten — October 18, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
Good luck getting your colonscopy with a single-payer system. More than likely you'd end up flying to Dubai or somewhere else where the free market still reigns to get a timely scope done.
Or if you're Canadian, you'd come to the US…
Comment by RJS — October 18, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
"Good luck getting your colonoscopy with a single-payer system. More than likely you’d end up flying to Dubai or somewhere else where the free market still reigns to get a timely scope done."
This is always one of the most faulty arguments I hear against socialized medicine, and I'll tell you why.
The entire argument boils down to basically two groups:
Group 1: People who can't afford insurance and would enjoy having some form of health care without incurring years of debt, or in worse cases, bankruptcy. (something i think we can all agree, from a humanitarian perspective, isn't too much to ask of society to take care of the less fortunate).
Group 2: People who can afford insurance and don't want to be denied timely and proper treatment that they would currently be able to obtain in the current system. (also something entirely understandable. You've worked hard to get to a point where you can afford to give your family and yourself the best health care in western civilization)
Two completely understandable arguments, as a society, we want to be able to help our fellow man, unfortunately, rarely at the cost of helping ourselves, as well.
The mistake in the argument, and what most people don't seem to realize, is that socialized medicine does not go so extreme as to completely remove the ability to receive timely care if one has the money to receive it.
There will still be privately run medical centers (especially in the USA where corporations will immediately see the possible cash cow that is privatized hospitals for the wealthy), where those with the funds can pay as much as they're willing to receive treatment without a waiting list.
Health care for the people that can currently afford it in the USA's system won't change all that much, you'll just go to smaller hospitals with even better doctors who are able to sustain a privatized hospital. The only difference will be the people who currently receive no treatment at all, will receive at least, satisfactory treatment.
So, it boils down to:
Current system:
Wealthy: Accessable healthcare with no wait times.
Poor: No health care, or health care followed by a lifetime of debt.
Socialized government + Semi privatized hospitals:
Wealthy: Accessable healthcare with no wait times.
Poor: Accessable healthcare with wait times.
How anyone can look at that, and still want to deny their fellow human beings medical treatment, on the false premise that they'll need to go to dubai to get a camera shoved up their ass without having to wait a couple of weeks, a lie peddled by the right wing media and politicians in the pocket of the medical insurance corporations, is one sick human being.
Comment by Majupra — October 19, 2007 @ 12:39 am
Let's assume health care is a privilege. By ABSOLUTE definition then, if you have no insurance, you can't seek care for anything without paying for it. If your best friend is in an accident and losing copious amount of blood then you must stand by and what him die. If you truly believe health care is a privilege, then there is to be no free care including in the ER's.
What is life threatening? Chest pain? chest pain brought on by a bad burrito?
Either health care is a right for all – mild to deathly ill OR it is a privilege for all – mild to deathly ill.
I don't care which side you choose, just be consistent and not a hypocrite. You can't have it both ways.
Comment by Pergurd — October 22, 2007 @ 8:31 pm