Healthcare?

[mikedege]

LMAO....

[abophx]

Nope not a bit^^^^^^

[Sean K.]

Is Health Care a Basic Human Right? The article starts off pretty weak with the snickers analogy....but stick with it. It'll make more sense by the end.

Snickers: A Basic Human Right? By Larken Rose.



Most people don't think in distinct, specific concepts. They "think" (if it can be called that) in vague blobs of mush. They can't follow simple trains of logic, and have a complete lack of what I call "clarity of thought." For example, my wife just showed me an online poll, asking people whether they thought "healthcare" should be considered a "basic human right." What a fine example of meaningless mush.

Most people answered "yes," no doubt feeling very compassionate for having done so. Trouble is, none of those "compassionate" people have any idea what a "human right" is. They haven't bothered to think about it, because merely feeling good is enough for them. Had they thought about it, they might have realized how stupid the question is.

What most people probably interpreted the question to mean is something like this: "Wouldn't it be nice if everyone got the healthcare they needed?" Well, duh, of course it would. But that wasn't the question. The question is whether the thing called "healthcare" is a basic "human right"--whatever that is. The implication is that if someone doesn't get the healthcare they need, someone's "rights" are being violated.

Let's consider the following question: Are Snickers (the candy bar) a basic human right? If so, everyone who lived prior to 1930 (when Snickers came into being) must have had their human rights violated. Poor them. Furthermore, it would also mean that every time someone craves a Snickers, but doesn't get one, his "human rights" are also apparently being violated. (By whom, I'm not really sure; the Snickers-makers, I guess.)

Think that example is silly? Yes, it is, but no more silly than asking if healthcare is a "basic human right." If you hit a deer with your car, out on a country road at night, and careen into a ditch, there's a good chance that you'll be wanting some healthcare. So who, exactly, would be violating your "basic human right" to such healthcare when you don't get any? (Try suing the deer.) And who has an obligation to supply you with the alleged "basic human right" of healthcare, when no one even knows you're in need of any?

Sorry for stating the bleeding obvious, but you can't violate someone's "rights" unless you do something to them. If you torture them, rob them, assault them, or murder them, you may very well be violating their "rights." In other words, a "right" is a purely negative concept: something that should not be forcibly interfered with by anyone else. "Rights" aren't a bunch of goodies that someone has to provide for you; they're the things that no one should stop you from doing yourself. For example:

1) If you have a right to "freedom of religion," it means only that no one should forcibly prevent you from practicing the religion of your choice, or force you to practice a religion you don't want to. It does not mean that anyone has to make you a church, or listen to you pray, or pray with you.

2) If you have a right to "freedom of speech," it means only that no one should forcibly stop you from speaking your mind. It doesn't mean anyone has to give you a stage, a microphone, or an audience.

3) If you have a right to be free from unreasonable searches, or from being forced to testify against yourself, or from being imprisoned without a trial, or from being tortured--and the list could go on for ages--all it means is that no one should use force to stop you from exercising your individual liberty.

So what would it even mean to say that "healthcare" is a "basic human right"? It means nothing, and makes no sense. A "right" cannot be something positive; it cannot be some thing that someone else should be forced to give you, like a house, or a job, or healthcare. To have such a "right" would require that someone else be forced to serve you. Unless you think you have the right to enslave others, you can't possibly have the "right" to any service or any product. You have the right to be left alone, and that's all. All true rights boil down to that.

The trouble is, collectivists like to hijack and mangle the concept of "rights," in order to justify the initiation of violence--the exact opposite of what a "right" really is. For example, when people try to pass off "healthcare" as a "human right," they are advocating the use of state violence (via "taxes") to force some people to serve other people. For example, socialists like Obama are pushing a system in which the government can forcibly rob some people, and/or forcibly conscript doctors and nurses, to give out healthcare to other people. They are advocating nothing less than widespread government violence, under the euphemism of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." (Sound familiar?) And they have the audacity to talk about it in terms of "rights." And the American people are so clueless they actually buy it.

(Apparently the old world slave-masters just needed better PR guys. Had they managed to pass off "affordable cotton clothing" as a "basic human right," they might still have those slave plantations.)

Unfortunately, having been thoroughly indoctrinated for years, most Americans not only believe, but proudly believe, that no one has a right to keep what he himself produces, but that everyone has a "right" to what his neighbor produces. And it's hard to get any more economically idiotic, morally schizophrenic, and logically insane than that.

[tibaal89]

That's correct... a lot of people don't actually think to define what a 'right' is. It's just something that can't be taken from you, which is very different than something granted or given.

Whoever says health care is a right IS a dumbass, there's no doubt about that.

But look at it this way...

Do you have the right to a fire department? Absolutely not. Are freedom loving people rising up against the intrusion of government run fire protection? Hardly.

There are plenty of things that aren't rights but are pretty friggin good ideas... the fire department being one of them.

You could make many of the ridiculous arguments against health care against the fire department... why should you pay because your neighbor isn't smart enough to not have his house burn down?

There are many basic services provided by government that relate to the fundamental well being of citizens... why health isn't among them is beyond me.

[MountainMan]

American Sage - Understanding Rights, Powers, and Privileges

[kokopelli]

There's always potatoes/po-tot-oes and terrorists/freedom fighters.. Some of the arguments using taxes, robbing, conscripting, defending/legislating morality, rights, freedoms, etc.. could well be used in discussion of our military presence/objectives since the revolution. The "few/right/moral/good" have always paid for the "many/wrong/immoral/bad".. or so they say.. Possibly a step back to safer ground would be appropriate and we might simply say..

"Affordable health care should be made available to every US citizen" and work from there??? Ron

[Gunny]

kokopelli previously said:

"Affordable health care should be made available to every US citizen" and work from there??? Ron

I don't think you would find many people who would argue against this. The problem is how do we get there. That's where there are varying differences of opinion.

[kokopelli]

In fact there are a number of people that are opposed to the very idea, if they feel it will cost them a single dime..

But, let's just say that's the premise and go from there... What would we do first.. Create a law that mandates that any US citizen will be treated, wherever they go. They could then be handed off to specialized units for followup care.. Can we agree to that?? Ron

FJ_Marine previously said:

I don't think you would find many people who would argue against this. The problem is how do we get there. That's where there are varying differences of opinion.

[ironranger]

scottyms previously said:

I do think there needs to be a way of leveling the playing field, cost wise.

Get the Dr.'s and hospitals to charge me the same as what the insurance companies pay them for the same services and i'll gladly pay it out of pocket.

But this is the beauty of the free market. Your brother gets a better rate on his insurance premium, because he participates in a massive "group buy" with his co-workers. Insurance administrative fees to manage your individual policy is maybe 50% of cost. For your brother, who's part of a uniform company plan, it's much less, maybe 15%.

That same purchasing power argument works for healthcare providers too. If the price of a surgery is $10,000, who's most likely to get a discount on that surgery? Someone who's buying one of them, or someone who's buying 50,000 per year for all their insured members? Think Costco.

This process is also a by-product for why aspirins cost $5 each on your bill. A while back, there were agreed-upon amounts for each service. During "managed care" days, total healthcare spending was getting to be "too much", and the insurance companies tried to manage cost by refusing to pay the entire hospital bill. Paying only 99% of what was charged, and thumbing their nose at the hospital. And because the insurance company brought a lot of paying customers, the provider had to eat the loss. Big deal. Except 99% became 98%, became 90%, became 50%, became 30% in some instances. Once profit approaches zero, the only way to keep playing that game is to increase the price, so that after the x% withhold, you're still whole at the end of the day.

[ironranger]

Sean K. previously said:

So your answer is to have the GOVERNMENT run it? The same folks that spend ridiculous amounts on toilet seats....the ones that can't run Amtrack, your state MVD, have bankrupt Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security?

Those guys? No, what needs to happen is their needs to be REAL, SUBSTANTIVE reform.....the President and the left are offering their way or the highway.

There are good bills in Congress that could help alleviate the health insurance problems in the country....but they aren't part of the public options.

Buying insurance across state lines, allowing people to co-op to purchase at lower rates, tort reform, etc. are all ways to help the self employed.....and it will result in a much better system than what our government could possibly supply.

Sean

There are many different kinds of government agencies, and not all of them are bumbling. It seems that the DoD needs to send their procurement officers over to CMS for some training. Because Medicare doesn't pay $500 for a toilet seat that costs a company $10 to make. Medicare pays that company $8. Medicaid pays $6. (by design, Medicare and Medicaid pay about 80% and 60% of cost respectively). Their administrative overhead costs per dollar spent are something like 50% less than commerical insurance. Really, the major complaint is that they pay so little that many doctors refuse to care for those patients. Obviously, a public option that paid at Medicare rates (or worse!) would bankrupt those that provide care.

I don't agree that tort reform will work. Two reasons:
(1) Some states, such as Texas, have instituted this. Little impact on cost, because malpractice rates are still high (growth has maybe slowed), but:
(2) medical practice will not change. "Defensive medicine" not only avoids lawsuits, but for doctors that own the MRI they self-refer patients to, it makes them a boatload of money. Tort reform only addresses greedy lawyers, and they're not the ones caring for patients.

Changing laws on insurance competition won't work either. The GOP wants to allow people to buy insurance across state lines. The Dems want to remove the exemption that health insurance companies have to federal antitrust law. Although both push premiums and insurance profits down through price competition, there is also an upward pressure on costs: the fact that the purchasing power of any insurance company is more diluted than before versus the doctors/hospitals. Big insurance companies can usually pay whatever they want (within reason). But doctors can afford to refuse patients from smaller companies that don't pay well. It will be harder to hold the line on cost increases if more companies are serving the same number of beneficiaries.