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

[Lyndon]

Nope as per the key words NHS and healthcare. Try again. Maybe read words next time. That way you wont make another blunder like the above which is not only amusing but ironic. Heck you just ignored your own study with that remark as Finland has a NHS. Hilarious. Try again son.

.
You don't get it, it doesn't matter which country we are talking about, non smokers cost the system more over their lifetime than smokers do. You only read one of three links I posted, the other two were for USA, I guarantee you that's the same for Canada and UK as well.

 

[Shad]

.
You don't get it, it doesn't matter which country we are talking about, non smokers cost the system more over their lifetime than smokers do.

Wrong again. Non-smokers are a generalization fallacy thus there is no comparison being made that is valid. Try again. Maybe think about it for more than 5 seconds regarding what a non-smoker is compared to a smoker. One is a specific category, the other is not.

Nation matters as different nations have different levels of healthcare and costs. Finland has NHS ergo it can control costs via price controls, and does. So you made a fallacious and incorrect point based on another generalization fallacy. Try again.

Your study also omits data such as economic costs, healthcare plans, healthcare policy, pricing and changes to the system over almost 30 years. Ergo deceptive. More so you own source has this a gem you didn't read as you never bothered reading the study. You used it as an argument from authority like a drone.

"The healthcare costs did not include visits to general practitioners, home nursing, or medication and dental care costs in outpatient care, which have been estimated to be about 20–30% of total healthcare costs in this age group in Finland"

So your own source admits it does not include all healthcare costs. Try again. Maybe try reading what you link. Hilarious

You only read one of three links I posted, the other two were for USA, I guarantee you that's the same for Canada and UK as well.

Your US link had no study to read so is irrelevant.

Your UK link has no study related to smoking just being obesity. You would know that if you bothered to read what you link.

Try again son. Maybe read next time.

 

[Lyndon]

I see it is not possible to have a rational discussion of the issues with you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I would think eating would be more of a "right" than health care. Maybe we should force the farmers to put food on our tables for free.

At the prices the farmer gets compared to what the food companies make, they are practically putting it there for free some days.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

It doesn't matter if the baby came out with a cigarette in its mouth. It doesn't matter if you have, symptoms of obesity, diabetes, a mental illness, chronic hypertension, cancer, drug addiction, a pre-existing medical conditions, etc. The governments is responsible for the welfare of all of the people within its society. If you think that smokers use an inordinate amount of the taxpayer's health funds, then tell the government to curtail the tobacco industry, and the tobacco growers. Not the victims of their product. Maybe you should tell the government to tell the drug industries to stop spending almost 70% of their budget on marketing, advertising, and convincing your doctor to use their drugs? And, to use that savings to cut the overall cost of their drugs to consumer. Maybe the government should start increasing the marginal tax rate of all those that make over $300,000 per year? I for one don't want to see citizens dying in the streets and hospitals, just because they lack adequate health insurance. Maybe the government should cap the maximum payouts and premiums for medical and doctors insurance coverage. By doing all these things, we would not be having this conversation. If need be, we can also increase consumer taxes on goods and services, or the payroll taxes on companies and corporations. Implementing these options would mean financing 100% full healthcare coverage for all, forever.

Isolating groups based on their risk factors and their life style, is cynical, bigoted, insensitive, and irrelevant from the governments perspective. Its job is to maintain life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As we age we all will require medical attention. Some more that others. It would be nice if everyone could live to a ripe old age, and then just drop dead. Unfortunately, this is not what happens. Every human being should be able to walk into any clinic or hospital anywhere in the world, and receive medical attention without paying a cent. It is not a right, it is an obligation.

 

[BSM1]

It doesn't matter if the baby came out with a cigarette in its mouth. It doesn't matter if you have, symptoms of obesity, diabetes, a mental illness, chronic hypertension, cancer, drug addiction, a pre-existing medical conditions, etc. The governments is responsible for the welfare of all of the people within its society. If you think that smokers use an inordinate amount of the taxpayer's health funds, then tell the government to curtail the tobacco industry, and the tobacco growers. Not the victims of their product. Maybe you should tell the government to tell the drug industries to stop spending almost 70% of their budget on marketing, advertising, and convincing your doctor to use their drugs? And, to use that savings to cut the overall cost of their drugs to consumer. Maybe the government should start increasing the marginal tax rate of all those that make over $300,000 per year? I for one don't want to see citizens dying in the streets and hospitals, just because they lack adequate health insurance. Maybe the government should cap the maximum payouts and premiums for medical and doctors insurance coverage. By doing all these things, we would not be having this conversation. If need be, we can also increase consumer taxes on goods and services, or the payroll taxes on companies and corporations. Implementing these options would mean financing 100% full healthcare coverage for all, forever.

Isolating groups based on their risk factors and their life style, is cynical, bigoted, insensitive, and irrelevant from the governments perspective. Its job is to maintain life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As we age we all will require medical attention. Some more that others. It would be nice if everyone could live to a ripe old age, and then just drop dead. Unfortunately, this is not what happens. Every human being should be able to walk into any clinic or hospital anywhere in the world, and receive medical attention without paying a cent. It is not a right, it is an obligation.

Did you really just say the government is responsible for the welfare of all the people? You don't think it's your responsibility to take care of your health by staying away from factors that have been proven harmful to you? For instance, smoking, drinking, stepping in front of moving trains...?

 

[metis]

As one of my sons-in-law says, "None of us will get out of here alive!", and by far the greatest single health-care expense tends to be in our last year or so of life, whether that be 20 or 120.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Did you really just say the government is responsible for the welfare of all the people? You don't think it's your responsibility to take care of your health by staying away from factors that have been proven harmful to you? For instance, smoking, drinking, stepping in front of moving trains...?

I understand your position, but it is not a relevant nor a practical position. You are asking that all humans not to do anything that would be adverse to their continued good health. Can you imagine how long a list that would be? From working in the fields, to working at the computer station in an air conditioned high-rise. Human behavior is not a choice, it is a reflection of our individual genes, our inter-personal, and our socio-cultural relationships. I seriously doubt that you would want the government to dictate and enforce just how we look after ourselves? It is not the government's responsibility to dictate the rules of what constitutes a good healthy living. Maybe if everyone were on the same socio-economic and educational playing field, your implications might be plausible. But we're not. Also, you picked two addictions(alcohol and tobacco). Are these people not merely the victims of two uncaring industries? Why don't we also target the sugar, meat, advertising, and pharmaceutical industries as well?

Yes, the government is responsible for the welfare and health of all the people. It cannot discriminate, or be selective in its basic health-care coverage for all. Anymore than it can refuse welfare to those it thinks are just plain lazy. Federal policy supersedes both state and local policy. And, for good reason. Without it, everyone would not be protected by the civil rights act, women's voting rights, discrimination act, child labour laws, rights to counsel. cruel and unusual punishment laws, a speedy trial, etc.). What is your alternative plan? Shall all those committing actions that are adverse, or potentially adverse to their health, pay more into the system? And, if they can't pay, should they just go into massive debt, or simply die on the streets?

 

[BSM1]

I understand your position, but it is not a relevant nor a practical position. You are asking that all humans not to do anything that would be adverse to their continued good health. Can you imagine how long a list that would be? From working in the fields, to working at the computer station in an air conditioned high-rise. Human behavior is not a choice, it is a reflection of our individual genes, our inter-personal, and our socio-cultural relationships. I seriously doubt that you would want the government to dictate and enforce just how we look after ourselves? It is not the government's responsibility to dictate the rules of what constitutes a good healthy living. Maybe if everyone were on the same socio-economic and educational playing field, your implications might be plausible. But we're not. Also, you picked two addictions(alcohol and tobacco). Are these people not merely the victims of two uncaring industries? Why don't we also target the sugar, meat, advertising, and pharmaceutical industries as well?

Yes, the government is responsible for the welfare and health of all the people. It cannot discriminate, or be selective in its basic health-care coverage for all. Anymore than it can refuse welfare to those it thinks are just plain lazy. Federal policy supersedes both state and local policy. And, for good reason. Without it, everyone would not be protected by the civil rights act, women's voting rights, discrimination act, child labour laws, rights to counsel. cruel and unusual punishment laws, a speedy trial, etc.). What is your alternative plan? Shall all those committing actions that are adverse, or potentially adverse to their health, pay more into the system? And, if they can't pay, should they just go into massive debt, or simply die on the streets?

The problem with about of the US is that they think the government should be responsible for any part of their lives.

 

[tas8831]

 

[Truly Enlightened]

The problem with about of the US is that they think the government should be responsible for any part of their lives.

Not sure I understand. Are you saying that there are many that think that the Government should/should not inter

The problem with about of the US is that they think the government should be responsible for any part of their lives.

Article 1 section 8 of our Constitution gives Congress the power to "Lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises". The Constitution allows Congress to tax in order to provide for the Common Defense and the General Welfare". The General Welfare is interpreted by the Constitution to mean, "the concern of the Government for the Health, Peace, morality, and Safety of its citizens. Even the Preamble of the Constitution cites the promotion of the General Welfare as the primary reason for the creation of the Constitution.

Therefore, providing healthcare for all is of paramount importance to our Constitution. The real problem in the US, is how capitalists lobbyists from corporations, medical and hospital insurance industries, and drug industries, try to disseminate misinformation to the public to increase the profit margin for their bosses. They create non-issues that produce infighting among the majority of citizens, to hide their true purpose. Do you ever hear the rich and wealthy arguing about healthcare insurance? If you want to believe that the victims of the tobacco, drug, and the advertising industries' products, should be treated differently, then that is just not an informed belief.

Fortunately, it is a Constitutional mandate that our government concerns itself with the Health, Peace, Morality, and the safety of its citizens. Since it is mutually more beneficial to have more healthy people in society than to have sick people.

I've explained why healthcare cost are so expensive in the so-called Industrialized countries, and 4-5 times cheaper in all other countries. Only Luxembourg and Switzerland pay their doctors on average more, than doctors in the US(over $1/4 Million). This means some specialist can easily make into the millions. Also, why do 32 out of the 33 developed countries, already have Universal Healthcare for their citizens? There are no excuses, other than greed, that prevents every human on the planet from having access to at least the basics of a totally free healthcare, whenever they need it. No reason at all. It is more than a right, it is an obligation.

 

[BSM1]

Not sure I understand. Are you saying that there are many that think that the Government should/should not inter



Article 1 section 8 of our Constitution gives Congress the power to "Lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises". The Constitution allows Congress to tax in order to provide for the Common Defense and the General Welfare". The General Welfare is interpreted by the Constitution to mean, "the concern of the Government for the Health, Peace, morality, and Safety of its citizens. Even the Preamble of the Constitution cites the promotion of the General Welfare as the primary reason for the creation of the Constitution.

Therefore, providing healthcare for all is of paramount importance to our Constitution. The real problem in the US, is how capitalists lobbyists from corporations, medical and hospital insurance industries, and drug industries, try to disseminate misinformation to the public to increase the profit margin for their bosses. They create non-issues that produce infighting among the majority of citizens, to hide their true purpose. Do you ever hear the rich and wealthy arguing about healthcare insurance? If you want to believe that the victims of the tobacco, drug, and the advertising industries' products, should be treated differently, then that is just not an informed belief.

Fortunately, it is a Constitutional mandate that our government concerns itself with the Health, Peace, Morality, and the safety of its citizens. Since it is mutually more beneficial to have more healthy people in society than to have sick people.

I've explained why healthcare cost are so expensive in the so-called Industrialized countries, and 4-5 times cheaper in all other countries. Only Luxembourg and Switzerland pay their doctors on average more, than doctors in the US(over $1/4 Million). This means some specialist can easily make into the millions. Also, why do 32 out of the 33 developed countries, already have Universal Healthcare for their citizens? There are no excuses, other than greed, that prevents every human on the planet from having access to at least the basics of a totally free healthcare, whenever they need it. No reason at all. It is more than a right, it is an obligation.

Obviously this is entirely your interpretation of the "General Welfare" clause in the Constitution. Can you cite any ruling to back up your ridiculous claim?

 

[Lyndon]

Republicans are lousy at following the constitution!!

 

[BSM1]

Republicans are lousy at following the constitution!!

For instance?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Obviously this is entirely your interpretation of the "General Welfare" clause in the Constitution. Can you cite any ruling to back up your ridiculous claim?

Helvering v. Davis 301 U.S. 619(1937), is was a decision by the Supreme Court, which held that Social Security was constitutionally permissible as an exercise of the federal power to spend for the general welfare. Also that it did not contravene the 10th amendment(State v. Federal powers). Justice Cardozo said,

"Congress may spend money in aid of the 'general welfare' ... There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views ... The line must still be drawn between one welfare and another, between particular and general. Where this shall be placed cannot be known through a formula in advance of the event ... The discretion belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, not an exercise of judgment. This is now familiar law. …". You might also want to look at other rulings by the court, such as,

Steward Machine Shop v. Collector of Internal Revenue 301 U.S. 548(1937
Barnes v. Gorman 536 U.S.181(2002)

Finally, what particular claim did you feel was ridiculous?

 

[BSM1]

Helvering v. Davis 301 U.S. 619(1937), is was a decision by the Supreme Court, which held that Social Security was constitutionally permissible as an exercise of the federal power to spend for the general welfare. Also that it did not contravene the 10th amendment(State v. Federal powers). Justice Cardozo said,

"Congress may spend money in aid of the 'general welfare' ... There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views ... The line must still be drawn between one welfare and another, between particular and general. Where this shall be placed cannot be known through a formula in advance of the event ... The discretion belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, not an exercise of judgment. This is now familiar law. …". You might also want to look at other rulings by the court, such as,

Steward Machine Shop v. Collector of Internal Revenue 301 U.S. 548(1937
Barnes v. Gorman 536 U.S.181(2002)

Finally, what particular claim did you feel was ridiculous?

But that act did not define the "general welfare" by your definition in any stretch of the imagination. It mainly had to do with the taxing for the general welfare.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Obviously this is entirely your interpretation of the "General Welfare" clause in the Constitution. Can you cite any ruling to back up your ridiculous claim?

Since I am not sure of your position. Do you think that our Government should be responsible for the general welfare of its citizens? Do you think that all citizens should have access to free universal healthcare? Do you think that the state government or the federal government should be responsible for aged care, disability care, basic healthcare, and retirement and welfare benefits? Or, do you have no opinion either way?

 

[BSM1]

Since I am not sure of your position. Do you think that our Government should be responsible for the general welfare of its citizens? Do you think that all citizens should have access to free universal healthcare? Do you think that the state government or the federal government should be responsible for aged care, disability care, basic healthcare, and retirement and welfare benefits? Or, do you have no opinion either way?

No. Next question?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

But that act did not define the "general welfare" by your definition in any stretch of the imagination. It mainly had to do with the taxing for the general welfare.

I think you misunderstand. The General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement for the purpose qualifying the power to tax. My definition of the General Welfare Clause, was only a quoted interpretation that I agree with; "The General Welfare is interpreted by the Constitution to mean, "the concern of the Government for the Health, Peace, morality, and Safety of its citizens". I personally would have also included "equality" as well. Maybe you can tell me what your definition of terms like "Public Welfare", or "General Welfare" would be?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

No. Next question?

Why? You must have some social empathy, right?