Is healthcare a right? Anyone is welcome here.

[columbus]

I suppose we could go with @Saint Frankenstein remark about addiction mitigating fault and I appreciate that aspect but still feel that the individual should bear some responsibility.

I think having to undergo chemo etc.is sufficient punishment.
How about we don't also take somebody's house and leave them and their kids homeless to boot?

Call me a Christian if you must. I have survived worse.
Tom

 

[Shad]

This is it. Earth humans have this emotion called 'compassion' and 'forgiveness'.

Moral grandstanding and dehumanization of me. You are letting your hate cloud your judgement.

If a person ate thousands of calories a day and made him or herself obese, realised he or she now has a problem and asks for help, the reason other people help them is because they understand that the obese person is experiencing a problem with food, and may as a result have diabetes or a heart condition, bone or joint problems.

Which is request thus not about government edicts. You are off-topic conflating rejection of a unrestricted national system of healthcare with charity and individual aid. Charity which I provide although not the specific type you are referencing.

Instead of saying 'It's your fault, you did this', a person says, 'You have a problem. We will help you learn to deal with your maladaptive behaviour, whatever is causing your underlying need to eat, and give you treatments you need.'

Which is charity not government edict

From there, the person with the problem, in this case obesity, has been given another chance at life; they may lose the weight, develop better habits and go on to become a gym attendant, professional martial artist, or anything else they couldn't do before.

And if they fail they repay every dime to government. I want results for my dime not maybes or ifs.

Denying them insulin, a gastric bypass, or other help, you condemn them to more problems and eventual death, because they are going to think no-one cares about them anyway, so what's the point? Might as well just eat more and deal with problems the same way they always have.

I deny them no such thing. I want responsibility of payment to be place accordingly.

People make mistakes; they are not logical creatures, nor will they ever be. They require help from other humans to help them better themselves. Other people don't condemn them as lost causes on the back of mistakes. If everyone did that, Earth would be a terrible society indeed.

Help from other people, your words. I am arguing about government edicts. Your authoritarian mindset have conflated government as the people. More so since you include morality this mindset is sliding into totalitarian

And with that, I'll leave you to your views.

Views you never bothered to read before or after your emotional driven rant. Hilarious how you ignored my specific example which argue for limited healthcare while you used examples I never argued against. Try again.

 

[Shad]

I suppose we could go with @Saint Frankenstein remark about addiction mitigating fault and I appreciate that aspect but still feel that the individual should bear some responsibility. Perhaps triage guidelines could sand off the rough edges on this problem?

The person still made a choice to light up thus ignoring multiple warnings on the packaging, warnings as part of the education system for 30 years and a multitude of commercials warning against smoking. Addiction didn't come before the act but as a result of a choice. How far to we go to absolve people of responsibility for their own action? This isn't the 50s of Joe Camel giving cigs to children like its normal.

 

[Rival]

Moral grandstanding and dehumanization of me. You are letting your hate cloud your judgement.

I am not dehumanising you. I am trying to make the point that compassion is vital in healthcare. I do not hate you.

Which is request thus not about government edicts. You are off-topic conflating rejection of a unrestricted national system of healthcare with charity and individual aid. Charity which I provide although not the specific type you are referencing.

Of course medical aid is requested.

Then you should also stop paying for the police service and the fire service, because if someone through negligence or other means starts a fire in his house, your money pays for the aid. You should stop paying road taxes for roads you never drive on, or council tax for public gardens you never use. Institutionalised charity is a good way of making sure people and places are looked after; it provides a safety net that's desperately needed in a society with huge numbers of unemployment, minimum wage earners, and other millions with little in their pockets. I would argue that if you dislike paying money towards the betterment of your society, you don't deserve to live in that society.

Which is charity not government edict

With which there is no problem.

And if they fail they repay every dime to government. I want results for my dime not maybes or ifs.

And if they don't have that money because they are poor, which is why they needed monetary help in the first place?

I deny them no such thing. I want responsibility of payment to be place accordingly.

Me too. I want money to be spent on helping people and my community at large.

Help from other people, your words. I am arguing about government edicts. Your authoritarian mindset have conflated government as the people. More so since you include morality this mindset is sliding into totalitarian

Because allowing people to suffer because they cannot afford treatment can lead to death, which can be categorised as murder. That makes this a moral issue. If you deny someone lifesaving help because they cannot pay you and they perish, that is homicide. I'd rather pay taxes to a health service than have people die daily because they couldn't afford medical aid, which happens every day in the US, and very rarely in the UK and France and other countries.

Views you never bothered to read before or after your emotional driven rant. Hilarious how you ignored my specific example which argue for limited healthcare while you used examples I never argued against. Try again.

I did. I found them wanting and divorced from humanity.

 

[YmirGF]

The person still made a choice to light up thus ignoring multiple warnings on the packaging, warnings as part of the education system for 30 years and a multitude of commercials warning against smoking. Addiction didn't come before the act but as a result of a choice. How far to we go to absolve people of responsibility for their own action? This isn't the 50s of Joe Camel giving cigs to children like its normal.

WoW!

That is where I am coming from. I recognize I am addicted, but I also recognize that I did choose to blithely ignore all warnings. I know people hate to hear it nowadays but actions have costs -- sometimes very real costs. How can a person with an IQ north of 140 smoke for that long?

I'll tell you. I did it because I always dodged the bullet, never had any real problems, coughing, etc... never sick... That was until I began to feel crappy a few weeks back. (So, I had a 30 year problem free run.) I figured I was finally getting grazed by that bullet. It only took a few weeks of being "down" to put it together. I couldn't say I wasn't noticing any effect any more. All of a sudden those warnings looked a bit more menacing. The lalalalalala was suddenly much quieter.

 

[Shad]

I am not dehumanising you. I am trying to make the point that compassion is vital in healthcare. I do not hate you.

Yes you did as per "Earth Humans". You just used a minor type instead of something major. You used it to patronizes as well. The hate is the ability you to dehumanize based on mere rejection of government edicts as your moral code is linked to government while mine is linked socially.

Of course medical aid is requested.

You set in a community and individual context not government.

Then you should also stop paying for the police service and the fire service, because if someone through negligence or other means starts a fire in his house, your money pays for the aid.

Wrong. Fire is a risk to the greater community as fires spread. See; California.

You should stop paying road taxes for roads you never drive on, or council tax for public gardens you never use.

Wrong. Road and other infrastructures are required to keep even the basic civilization running even from a basic transportation and ecomonic standpoint. Civilization would collapse without that. Civilization has existed without healthcare for millennia.

Institutionalized charity is a good way of making sure people and places are looked after; it provides a safety net that's desperately needed in a society with huge numbers of unemployment, minimum wage earners, and other millions with little in their pockets.

If one can opt-in or opt-out sure. If not you are merely using word games as a facade for a tax.

[

I would argue that if you dislike paying money towards the betterment of your society, you don't deserve to live in that society.

Again this reflects your authoritarian mindset in which rejection of government policy means never helping by any other method. As you have zero information about my activities you are merely using empty rhetoric

And if they don't have that money because they are poor, which is why they needed monetary help in the first place?

I am willing to compromise with those that can not pay their way along with recovering of those costs if their situation changes.

Me too. I want money to be spent on helping people and my community at large.

The difference between us is the level of government involvement and how responsible one is for their own situation.

Because allowing people to suffer because they cannot afford treatment can lead to death, which can be categorised as murder.

No it isn't. I am not killing anyone nor am I omnipresent to cover people outside my person. More so rejection of government policy is not rejection of all methods of help. Again you are conflating things due to your mindset.

That makes this a moral issue. If you deny someone lifesaving help because they cannot pay you and they perish, that is homicide.

As I have no such power your point is moot.

I'd rather pay taxes to a health service than have people die daily because they couldn't afford medical aid, which happens every day in the US, and very rarely in the UK and France and other countries.

Again said mindset which you use government to mandate your moral code on to everyone else. When was the last time you went down to your local government revenue office and handed over more money than your taxes required? I betting never. So when you do so I will take your point as some other than more moral grandstanding without action.

I did. I found them wanting and divorced from humanity.

Obviously not or you having reading comprehension problems as I clearly covering responsibility for illness and government not outright denial of help. Hence why most of your responses have little to do with what I was talking about. Try again. Take off the emotional outrage glasses.

 

[Shad]

WoW!

That is where I am coming from. I recognize I am addicted, but I also recognize that I did choose to blithely ignore all warnings. I know people hate to hear it nowadays but actions have costs -- sometimes very real costs.

It's the culture these days. No one is at fault unless government declares it so. I do not tap dance around laying blame as it's not my job to coddle people.

How can a person with an IQ north of 140 smoke for that long?

Better question is how did a 140er start. I assume social pressure as it is typical. I acknowledge addiction is part of product due to the ingredients. I differ on who pays for treatment. If one can afford X cigs a day they can use that money for the medical products used for treatment which cost less than an average smoking habit does. A costly habit's funds are now being used for treatment. Costs are contained.

I'll tell you. I did it because I always dodged the bullet, never had any real problems, coughing, etc... never sick... That was until I began to feel crappy a few weeks back. (So, I had a 30 year problem free run.) I figured I was finally getting grazed by that bullet. It only took a few weeks of being "down" to put it together. I couldn't say I wasn't noticing any effect any more. All of a sudden those warnings looked a bit more menacing. The lalalalalala was suddenly much quieter.

Were you physically active? My uncle worked labour but smoked for years without major issues.

 

[Shad]

I think having to undergo chemo etc.is sufficient punishment.

That is a consequence not a punishment. Smoking causes cancer. A to B to C. The individual just does not like C, treatment, because it is uncomfortable.

 

[Rival]

You set in a community and individual context not government.

The government's job is to look after the community. It is to govern them.

Wrong. Fire is a risk to the greater community as fires spread. See; California.

So can diseases and other health issues, see; AIDS; influenza; measles; food contamination; tuberculosis; Cholera; rabies; STIs; MRSA; Ebola &c. &c. By paying money to go towards vaccinations and other things, one protects oneself and one's neighbours.

Wrong. Road and other infrastructures are required to keep even the basic civilization running even from a basic transportation and ecomonic standpoint. Civilization would collapse without that. Civilization has existed without healthcare for millennia.

Sure, but that doesn't mean it was better. It's better to live with healthcare than without. The Black Death and various plagues destroyed entire villages and towns; it decimated much of Europe. I'd call that a small-scale collapse.

If one can opt-in or opt-out sure. If not you are merely using word games as a facade for a tax.

I believe innate human selfishness would have too many opt-outs. Of course people would opt out of all sorts of taxes if they could.

Again this reflects your authoritarian mindset in which rejection of government policy means never helping by any other method. As you have zero information about my activities you are merely using empty rhetoric

I never said people cannot help in other ways. I would just prefer a society where I do not need to worry about if my insurance will cover for my heart disease that I just so happened to be born with, for instance. I do not care about your activities, I am concerned with your attitude towards healthcare.

I am willing to compromise with those that can not pay their way along with recovering of those costs if their situation changes.

O.K.

The difference between us is the level of government involvement and how responsible one is for their own situation.

Yes, it is.

No it isn't. I am not killing anyone nor am I omnipresent to cover people outside my person. More so rejection of government policy is not rejection of all methods of help. Again you are conflating things due to your mindset.

How else would you suggest people need not worry about dying because they cannot afford treatment? No common individual has the money required for such treatment, which inevitably means they need outside help. I would prefer that to come from taxpayers than insurance, because insurance may not cover it all and it is by its nature a competitive market that is out to make profit. I would not trust such a system with a life.

Again said mindset which you use government to mandate your moral code on to everyone else. When was the last time you went down to your local government revenue office and handed over more money than your taxes required? I betting never. So when you do so I will take your point as some other than more moral grandstanding without action.

Helping people with medical problems is generally a part of everyone's moral code. Incidentally, I give money to Cancer Research and the British Heart Foundation.

Obviously not or you having reading comprehension problems as I clearly covering responsibility for illness and government not outright denial of help. Hence why most of your responses have little to do with what I was talking about. Try again. Take off the emotional outrage glasses.

I am not experiencing any emotional anything, I am debating with you.

 

[YmirGF]

IWere you physically active? My uncle worked labour but smoked for years without major issues.

For the first 50 years of my life I never drove a car, so I walked or cycled. Once I moved to the island, I got much more active, as there is so much to do here.

I moaned to my neighbor last week, "What's with retirement? I'm working harder now than I ever did when I was getting paid!"

 

[Shad]

For the first 50 years of my life I never drove a car, so I walked or cycled. Once I moved to the island, I got much more active, as there is so much to do here.

Makes sense.

I moaned to my neighbor last week, "What's with retirement? I'm working harder now than I ever did when I was getting paid!"

Retirement just means you are working without pay. Beside you have to fill up all the free time with something anyways. Just wait until your property starts looking depressed and renovations start

 

[Salvador]

I'm on Medicaid. I'm poor.

You mean you weren't raised with a silver spoon in your mouth like Trump or me.... ... Anyhow, we don't expect the commoner folk to pay health care for the privileged class, like what would happen if taxpayers pay everybody's health insurance.

 

[Duke_Leto]

How privileged you are. Like I said, better hope life doesn't happen to you like it has to so many millions in America. It's easy to spout that social Darwinist crap from a position of comfort.

You know what's really interesting? I know a few people who aren't really that comfortable, and constantly have financial issues, yet they're against any form of social security: universal healthcare; medicare; even food stamps; even when such programs would objectively improve their lives. My girlfriend for instance -- We're considering applying for SNAP (and her family used to be on them), and her family was dragged from lower-middle class to poverty-level status due to the cost of paying for her father's cancer treatment ~10 years ago, yet she's against any type of social welfare program, says that "the government would just mess it up", and complains every paycheck about social security. Boggles my mind.

And it's not as if they're against these programs on some sort of moral level. My girlfriend, and the rest of her rather conservative family, is fine with actually using SNAP; they just think it shouldn't be there in the first place.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You know what's really interesting? I know a few people who aren't really that comfortable, and constantly have financial issues, yet they're against any form of social security: universal healthcare; medicare; even food stamps; even when such programs would objectively improve their lives. My girlfriend for instance -- We're considering applying for SNAP (and her family used to be on them), and her family was dragged from lower-middle class to poverty-level status due to the cost of paying for her father's cancer treatment ~10 years ago, yet she's against any type of social welfare program, says that "the government would just mess it up", and complains every paycheck about social security. Boggles my mind.

And it's not as if they're against these programs on some sort of moral level. My girlfriend, and the rest of her rather conservative family, is fine with actually using SNAP; they just think it shouldn't be there in the first place.

It's really quite bizarre how poor and working class people buy into their own oppression. I mean no one is proud to be on welfare. I know I'm not. But I'm going to say it shouldn't be there since I would be homeless and totally destitute without it. Most likely, I'd be dead. Some real cognitive dissonance going on there.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Being Canadian, I'm a fan of Universal HealthCare and do see it as a basic human right.

However.... I can't help but wonder. Is it right for this recovering ex-smoker to expect society to take care of him if he developed cancer or other delightful ailments which are the results of their own long term actions? I mean this ONLY in cases where you can draw a cause and effect straight line (ok, a wiggly line will do.)

What's the alternative? To let people die untreated in misery?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

You can't have a civilized society without rights and liberty. Our "fixation" is because it's dangerous to take something so essential for granted.

Ra ra nationalism aside, care to address my actual question?

 

[pearl]

Wouldn't you rather have taxpayer funds go to a strong military rather than to paying health care for well-to-do citizens who could afford to self insure their health care costs?

I'm not for taxpayer funds going to those who can afford to pay their own health insurance, but for those who must go without it unless funded for them. I also think its way beyond time to fix health care for veterans. What they have now is a disgrace.

 

[pearl]

However.... I can't help but wonder. Is it right for this recovering ex-smoker to expect society to take care of him if he developed cancer or other delightful ailments which are the results of their own long term actions?

Where would you draw the line for who is eligible? How about those who are alcoholics, obese (not genetic). etc.

 

[YmirGF]

Where would you draw the line for who is eligible? How about those who are alcoholics, obese (not genetic). etc.

I really have no idea.

 

[Willamena]

I say yes. People need healthcare to live, and as a prolifer, I believe people have the right to live. Some background: I am a moderate, not a liberal. I just happen to believe healthcare is a right.

It is a government's responsibility to care for the welfare of the people. 'Nuff said.