A quick poll take two

[Antitrust32]

everyone in america should be entitled to pay for their health insurance / care.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

everyone in america should be entitled to pay for their health insurance / care.

So if you can't afford insurance, and you can't afford the non-insured rates, do you think it's a general basic human right, in America, to get health care, or not?

Really, that's not the final question we should back into, that's the beginning question: is everyone in America entitled to health care, or only those of a certain income level?

That goes to basic beliefs we hold as a society of Americans, as citizens of a great nation. Then work from there.

If the answer is "only those of a certain income level are entitled to health care", then we should determine what income level that is.

Because right now, there are people with very good incomes can't afford insurance or doctors care if they have pre-existing conditions; and people below rather significant income levels can't afford insurance or health care. So right now, even an income cut minimum amount for getting health care doesn't exist.

[Antitrust32]

tough question. i guess honestly i'd say no. its not a basic human right.

but people should have the opportunity to purchase insurance, whether they get it through a job or not. There should be basic, fairly inexpensive plans that would cover emergencies.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

tough question. i guess honestly i'd say no. its not a basic human right.

but people should have the opportunity to purchase insurance, whether they get it through a job or not. There should be basic, fairly inexpensive plans that would cover emergencies.

You are right, very tough questions.

If we go with "health care is not a basic human right", should we force private insurance companies to provide low cost plans to try and insure more people? Or provide free clinics (who would pay for it?) I don't see the point, if health care isn't a basic human right. What about sick people (diabetes, heart disease) - should all their non-emergent, routine care be forsaken?

Right now, that's what we have. Those that have, have health care, and those that do not, are screwed, and the rest of us are paying for their emergency-only care.

I take the view that health care, in a first world, wealthy nation like America, is a desire, indeed a right, for every citizen.

It's part of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" to not die when you can be readily saved, to be not be sick when a ready cure exists.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

You are right, very tough questions.

If we go with "health care is not a basic human right", should we force private insurance companies to provide low cost plans to try and insure more people? Or provide free clinics (who would pay for it?) What about sick people (diabetes, heart disease) - should all their non-emergent, routine care be forsaken?

they should go to the doctor and pay for a visit.

doctors can choose to provide pro bono work. People can provide money towards charities to help poor people with their health care.

but #1, lawyers need to get out of the heath care business so it can become much more affordable.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

they should go to the doctor and pay for a visit.

doctors can choose to provide pro bono work. People can provide money towards charities to help poor people with their health care.

That's what we have now. With our American system, we have 60 million uninsured, that the rest of us are paying for when they go to the ER. They can't afford to pay for a visit, or buy insurance.

What happens to those that make less than about $40,000 a year, who cannot afford routine doctor visits, the cost of meds without a copay, etc? No health care for them?

but #1, lawyers need to get out of the heath care business so it can become much more affordable.

I don't think Americans should be limited in seeking redress for unhappy outcomes in medical care. Some are justified, some are not.

These are tough questions.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

I don't think Americans should be limited in seeking redress for unhappy outcomes in medical care. Some are justified, some are not.

.

you want to have your cake and eat it too.

if you want cheaper health care in this country #1 thing is to get rid of the lawyers.

[Antitrust32]

the people from back in the day when the constitution was written were lucky if they made it to 40.

If we wanted free, socialized medicine in this country everyone would have to be taxed at 50% or even higher. We'd have to wipe out capitalism and replace it with socialism. I'd rather be ruled by the individual than ruled by the state.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

the people from back in the day when the constitution was written were lucky if they made it to 40.

If we wanted free, socialized medicine in this country everyone would have to be taxed at 50% or even higher. We'd have to wipe out capitalism and replace it with socialism. I'd rather be ruled by the individual than ruled by the state.

Nobody said it would be "free"

A single-payer system isn't, in my view, "socialized medicine", as a national health care system could be. Those two things are quite different. I am in favor of the former, not the latter.

That does not require "socialism", as we provide that, as a democratic republic, right now with Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIPS. So no "socialism" necessary.

And even completely free health care wouldn't require taxes at 50% of income or higher. It doesn't in any socialized national medicine system that I am aware of now (if you know of one, bring it up)

BTW, the definition of socialism, a term commonly misused, is: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole; a procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

Even nationalized health care isn't "socialism".