Is Healthcare a "right" and should it have limits on how much is consumed and by whom?

[Terrywoodenpic]

Yeah, and those that work pay for the food stamps of those that don't, even when they can. Why isn't it my right to keep the money I earn?

Some people are born antisocial, and lack any concept of civic responsibility.
which is why governments make such decisions, and not individuals.

 

[BSM1]

Some people are born antisocial, and lack any concept of civic responsibility.
which is why governments make such decisions, and not individuals.

Can't you see the rubbish in this statement? Why would you want the government to decide anything for you? You are talking about Totalitarianism at it's worse. Do you think morality can be demanded? Your statement should strike fear in every person who believes in personal freedom.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Can't you see the rubbish in this statement? Why would you want the government to decide anything for you? You are talking about Totalitarianism at it's worse. Do you think morality can be demanded? Your statement should strike fear in every person who believes in personal freedom.

In that sense, personal freedom is shorthand for lack of concern for others. selfishness and lack of empathy or a sense of common decency. such a person feels no commitment to society, more than they can get out of it for themselves.

Thatcher was such a person and said that there is no such thing as society.

Morality can be substituted with law, when faced with people who lack personal morality. That is why we have both taxes an prisons.

 

[ManSinha]

pcarl said: ↑
What I heard on the morning news was the renewed attempt to completely erase the Affordable Care Act, including protection for previous conditions. Another win for the insurance companies and their shareholders.

It is now in the hands of a Republican packed SCOTUS.

Being in that "community" - a significant portion of the hospital lobby may oppose this as they will be forced to provide expensive and essentially uncompensated care to individuals without any mode of payment who start using the emergency room for everything from primary care to serious illnesses which could have been nipped in the bud

But I agree it will affect the poor and underprivileged more than it will impact those with means

 

[ManSinha]

In the USA it is the various insurance companies that set limits to their treatments.

Other than dental insurance - I am not aware of the truth of that statement - that is why we have secondary and catastrophic insurance

 

[ManSinha]

Why isn't it my right to keep the money I earn?

It absolutely is - but then what about fire services, the police, defense and electricity - who would fund those? Part of our taxes do - not to mention defense

 

[BSM1]

It absolutely is - but then what about fire services, the police, defense and electricity - who would fund those? Part of our taxes do - not to mention defense

There is a difference in paying for services rendered and paying someone not to be productive.

 

[ManSinha]

There is a difference in paying for services rendered and paying someone not to be productive.

Now that is debatable is it not? Most people like peace - I would aver that for peace to exist - some kind of armed force is necessary. So either we have a Switzerland like situation where every individual agrees to get training and be armed or we pay a group of individuals to do that

Now as long as there is peace - one could argue the army is not being productive - they are acting as a deterrent - that is an intangible

And who is paying whom not to be productive? I have heard of certain farmers in the world being paid not to grow poppy but not sure what example you had in mind.

 

[Milton Platt]

It's sad that you do not understand the difference between providing good health services to all citizens and expending "unlimited funds ... on a given person's healthcare".

I do understand the difference. The original post touched on the subject of limiting healthcare in one way or another. Healthcare is always limited as a matter of practicality. That does not mean the absence of sufficient health care.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Not what God had in mind? Omniscient God put the tree in the Garden knowing that A&E would disobey Him and partake of the knowledge. Somehow, you want to believe God was upset because the timing wasn't right..

He was upset because they disobeyed and brought tragedy upon themselves.

Let's say my car is parked across the street, and I want to take my kids to the duck pond. My kids are excited about it, but I'm fiddling with my purse looking for the keys. I tell the to wait a minute, and not to cross. But being little kids, they don't listen and rush out into the street. They make it across the street, but in the process, a car slams on the brakes in order not to hit them, and skids in a semi circle, hitting them.

I always intended them to cross, but with me holding their hand, and looking out for oncoming cars. Because they disobeyed me, they brought tragedy upon themselves.

 

[ManSinha]

He was upset because they disobeyed and brought tragedy upon themselves.

But an all knowing god should have predicted that

 

[ecco]

Yeah, and those that work pay for the food stamps of those that don't, even when they can. Why isn't it my right to keep the money I earn?

Because you live in a civilized society whose norms have been forged over tens of thousands of years.

However, since you are a religious person, I wouldn't expect you to understand.

 

[ecco]

There is a difference in paying for services rendered and paying someone not to be productive.

Many farmers are glad that your tax dollars "pay someone not to be productive".

 

[ecco]

Not what God had in mind? Omniscient God put the tree in the Garden knowing that A&E would disobey Him and partake of the knowledge. Somehow, you want to believe God was upset because the timing wasn't right.

Perhaps you think that God wanted to shield them from morals until after all the incest was done with.

He was upset because they disobeyed and brought tragedy upon themselves.

Let's say my car is parked across the street, and I want to take my kids to the duck pond. My kids are excited about it, but I'm fiddling with my purse looking for the keys. I tell them to wait a minute, and not to cross. But being little kids, they don't listen But being little kids, they don't listen and rush out into the street. They make it across the street, but in the process, a car slams on the brakes in order not to hit them, and skids in a semi circle, hitting them.

I always intended them to cross, but with me holding their hand, and looking out for oncoming cars. Because they disobeyed me, they brought tragedy upon themselves.

In the circumstances you describe, you, the mother, could well be charged with neglect. You could be charged with a crime and the driver of the car could sue for compensation for the trauma he suffered.

As you, yourself wrote: But being little kids, they don't listen. Any responsible parent always works on the presumption that kids may not listen. However, an omniscient God KNOWS that.

Your omniscient God KNEW that Adam & Eve would disobey Him. He KNEW it for all of eternity before He ever created them.

Equally important is the fact that He created them in such a way that they would fail. Intentionally.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Healthcare is always "limited" in it's dispensation in one way or another, whether because of cost, or availability in a given area, etc. It is not a right. Rights are things granted by governments. In the U.S.A. at least, the government does not guarantee healthcare. People who believe that unlimited funds should be expended on a given person's healthcare only believe that if it is some body else's money being spent.

Everything the government does for 1 particular person which costs money, is somebody else's money being spent.

 

[BSM1]

Because you live in a civilized society whose norms have been forged over tens of thousands of years.

However, since you are a religious person, I wouldn't expect you to understand.

Hmmm...let me check....nope, I didn't attack you personally. This is why we can't have nice things.

 

[Milton Platt]

Everything the government does for 1 particular person which costs money, is somebody else's money being spent.

yes, in actuality, it is money that is supposed to be expended for the common good. We all contribute, and we all benifit. In the area of healthcare, if it is dispensed to all, then it is a fair use of money. some will contribute more and recieve less, and visa versa....that is how it works in all areas of government spending for programs of any kind. it would not be useful or practical otherwise. For instance,should an individual only be allowed to use roads in proportion to the amount of taxes they individually paid towards road construction and maintenance?

 

[Revoltingest]

The debate over the provision of healthcare in the US has raged for years and seems to be ramping up. I have had a very narrow view of those who consume it but I am reminded of an incident from my past:

Very unfortunate pregnant young lady with little pre natal care was brought to us in late stages of pregnancy with very very high blood pressures. They delivered the child (since that is the only thing that will allow the patient's pressure to be controlled effectively) but she had a major brain bleed and became a person who exists rather than lives.

No brain activity after several days and the family agonized about what to do. The father wanted the plug pulled and the husband did not. Finally he asked for their pastor. I requested to sit in the conversation as a mute observer. I shall take with me to my grave what the pastor kindly said to the husband: "If God wanted us to live on a breathing machine; He would have sent us all with one. The soul has left; the person you knew as your wife is no longer; it is time to let the body go"

On the flip side I see families of people who have very advanced diseases sometimes like dementia, demand that everything be done to keep them going. What are various religious view points if any?

For my own - if I am not mentating (meaning my brain is irreparably damaged), I am happy to be let go.

I remember an argument from a prior presidential election campaign.
Discussing government provided health care, one declared there would be....
"Death panels!".
An avid NPR listener, I heard this candidate's claim dismissed as an attempt
to frighten voters. The talking head explained that there would be no such
thing. But there would be a need to apportion limited resources using....
"End of life panels"
Hilarious, eh....each side trying to spin the same concept for political gain.

Everyone knows that there will be those who don't get what they want.
There will be budgets, & funds will be allocated based upon some agreed
upon set of standards. People (some panel) will evaluate a patient, & judge
the kinds & limits of care. This is necessary, & not a problem IMO.
We just need a friendly professional sounding name for the panel.
And the populace must understand that the panel might pull the plug.

 

[ecco]

Yeah, and those that work pay for the food stamps of those that don't, even when they can. Why isn't it my right to keep the money I earn?

Because you live in a civilized society whose norms have been forged over tens of thousands of years.

However, since you are a religious person, I wouldn't expect you to understand.

Hmmm...let me check....nope, I didn't attack you personally. This is why we can't have nice things.

How did I attack you? I am under the impression that you don't believe in evolution. Therefore you don't believe that humans evolved and have been around for tens of thousands of years. If I'm mistaken I will certainly apologize.

 

[ecco]

I remember an argument from a prior presidential election campaign.
Discussing government provided health care, one declared there would be....
"Death panels!".
An avid NPR listener, I heard this candidate's claim dismissed as an attempt
to frighten voters. The talking head explained that there would be no such
thing. But there would be a need to apportion limited resources using....
"End of life panels"
Hilarious, eh....each side trying to spin the same concept for political gain.

Either your memory of the argument has failed you or you bought into the Conservative Right Wing "Obama Lies, Grandma Dies" BS from day one.

The Republican Right Wing anti-ACA people intentionally conflated two separate and completely different things to scare the sheeples.

One thing was a panel of non-politicians that would periodically review the overall costs of ACA and make spending recommendations to Congress.

The other thing was to include, in the ACA legislation, provisions to pay physicians for discussions about end of life alternatives with patients. This is something that ethical doctors do. The provision merely said that they should get paid for their time.

There was no spin on the part of the Democratic ACA proponents. The spin was all from the Willie Horton mindset Conservatives.