Current Events > so why don't you believe that healthcare is a right

(+) Yeah! (+)

just curious about the logic behind wanting to let poor people suffer and die
---

one argument is that one does not have the right to the service of someone else (which is what the case would be)

healthcare is a right and so is my ability to make your broke ass work for it!!!

1 like = 1 prayer
---

posting on Gamefaqs is a right
---

Fam_Fam posted...

one argument is that one does not have the right to the service of someone else (which is what the case would be)

---

Fam_Fam posted...

one argument is that one does not have the right to the service of someone else (which is what the case would be)

I've heard this before, but assuming we aren't like forcing healthcare workers into slavery ... that doesn't hold up well.
---

halomonkey1_3_5 posted...

healthcare is a right and so is my ability to make your broke ass work for it!!!

1 like = 1 prayer

i can't find the like button!!!!!!! help me devin morgan!!!!
---

joestarrr posted...

Fam_Fam posted...

one argument is that one does not have the right to the service of someone else (which is what the case would be)

I've heard this before, but assuming we aren't like forcing healthcare workers into slavery ... that doesn't hold up well.

well then they have the right to charge what they want, no? you can't force them to work for less against their wills, right?

Doctors and nurses should work for free
---

Fam_Fam posted...

joestarrr posted...

Fam_Fam posted...

one argument is that one does not have the right to the service of someone else (which is what the case would be)

I've heard this before, but assuming we aren't like forcing healthcare workers into slavery ... that doesn't hold up well.

well then they have the right to charge what they want, no? you can't force them to work for less against their wills, right?

i mean when you're hired anywhere you can't just arbitrarily pick your salary lol
---

joestarrr posted...

Fam_Fam posted...

one argument is that one does not have the right to the service of someone else (which is what the case would be)

I've heard this before, but assuming we aren't like forcing healthcare workers into slavery ... that doesn't hold up well.

So, you're saying people still are required to pay for their healthcare?
---

"No society can legitimately call itself civilized if a sick person is denied medical aid because of lack of means. Aneurin Bevan, founder of the NHS in the UK.

darkjedilink posted...

joestarrr posted...

Fam_Fam posted...

one argument is that one does not have the right to the service of someone else (which is what the case would be)

I've heard this before, but assuming we aren't like forcing healthcare workers into slavery ... that doesn't hold up well.

So, you're saying people still are required to pay for their healthcare?

No, the government should.
---

Fam_Fam posted...

joestarrr posted...

Fam_Fam posted...

one argument is that one does not have the right to the service of someone else (which is what the case would be)

I've heard this before, but assuming we aren't like forcing healthcare workers into slavery ... that doesn't hold up well.

well then they have the right to charge what they want, no? you can't force them to work for less against their wills, right?

Think of this. You have the right to an attorney, if you can not afford one, one will be provided for you.

Is that attorney working against their will?

It should be. There have been Hepatitis A outbreaks in major cities because of homeless populations
---

joestarrr posted...

darkjedilink posted...

joestarrr posted...

Fam_Fam posted...

one argument is that one does not have the right to the service of someone else (which is what the case would be)

I've heard this before, but assuming we aren't like forcing healthcare workers into slavery ... that doesn't hold up well.

So, you're saying people still are required to pay for their healthcare?

No, the government should.

So, you have the right to steal my money for your healthcare?
---

The question about whether or not healthcare should be a right isn't even the right question to ask.

Consider this example: Most people don't think about whether or not having a smartphone should be a right. Most people can just go and buy one because the costs are so low for what you can buy.

So the real question we should ask is "how can we reduce the cost of healthcare." And there are a few strategies there:

1) Encourage automation in healthcare, from the manufacturing of medicine to the administration of care to diagnoses.

2) Encourage a healthier population. 30% of our yearly medical costs are going towards treating obesity and smoking related illnesses. Illnesses that shouldn't even exist. If we eliminated these things, our spending would be 30% leaner (probably even more) which would enable us to streamline the entire healthcare system.

3) Introduce competition into the healthcare marketplace. Price setting and price capping don't work in the long run because of the inefficiencies they introduce. The most effective solution for high prices is to encourage competition and innovation, and the government is uniquely positioned to do that in the same way that it rewarded SpaceX with massive grants.
---

darkjedilink posted...

joestarrr posted...

darkjedilink posted...

joestarrr posted...

Fam_Fam posted...

one argument is that one does not have the right to the service of someone else (which is what the case would be)

I've heard this before, but assuming we aren't like forcing healthcare workers into slavery ... that doesn't hold up well.

So, you're saying people still are required to pay for their healthcare?

No, the government should.

So, you have the right to steal my money for your healthcare?

Roads? Legal representation? Emergency services?

Do you consider all that stealing too?

darkjedilink posted...

joestarrr posted...

darkjedilink posted...

joestarrr posted...

Fam_Fam posted...

one argument is that one does not have the right to the service of someone else (which is what the case would be)

I've heard this before, but assuming we aren't like forcing healthcare workers into slavery ... that doesn't hold up well.

So, you're saying people still are required to pay for their healthcare?

No, the government should.

So, you have the right to steal my money for your healthcare?

you pay taxes towards other shit, no?
why does the idea of your taxes going to healthcare upset you so much
---

joestarrr posted...

why does the idea of your taxes going to healthcare upset you so much

Like I mentioned in my first post, 30% of our yearly medical expenditures are to treat unnecessary illnesses caused by obesity and smoking. To try to tax our way into paying for all of that and then some would represent higher taxation rates, and to people who are career-oriented and focused on building wealth those higher taxes could represent subsidizing the bad behaviors of people who don't care about being career-oriented or focused.
---

BWLurker posted...

darkjedilink posted...

joestarrr posted...

darkjedilink posted...

joestarrr posted...

Fam_Fam posted...

one argument is that one does not have the right to the service of someone else (which is what the case would be)

I've heard this before, but assuming we aren't like forcing healthcare workers into slavery ... that doesn't hold up well.

So, you're saying people still are required to pay for their healthcare?

No, the government should.

So, you have the right to steal my money for your healthcare?

Roads? Legal representation? Emergency services?

Do you consider all that stealing too?

Taxation is theft.

Roads were provided for long before we taxed the fuck out of everything. Same with legal representation and emergency services. Hell, almost two-thirds of government spending is entitlement programs, anyway.
---

Because the vast majority of healthcare costs and illness is a result of lifestyle decisions.

I run 3 miles every weekday morning. I lift weights for 5 hours over the weekend. I eat tons of vegetables that are gross. I drink tea over coffee even though I love coffee. I drink red wine over whiskey even though I love whiskey and stop after 2-3 glasses. I dont smoke even though i love tobacco. I sleep 8 hours even though I want to play video games to 2 am. I spend extra on grass fed dairy and pastured eggs. I dont touch soda or sugary anything. I make most of my meals at home to make sure the ingredients are fresh and natural.

I do all of this to take care of myself and stay healthy and it takes a lot of effort. How in the world is it fair to tax me to pay for the healthcare costs of a lardass with diabetes who barely leaves the couch lives on dominoes pizza and could never say no to "do you want to supersize that?".

It's not.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

joestarrr posted...

why does the idea of your taxes going to healthcare upset you so much

Like I mentioned in my first post, 30% of our yearly medical expenditures are to treat unnecessary illnesses caused by obesity and smoking. To try to tax our way into paying for all of that and then some would represent higher taxation rates, and to people who are career-oriented and focused on building wealth those higher taxes could represent subsidizing the bad behaviors of people who don't care about being career-oriented or focused.

To be fair, I do agree that we should aim for a healthier population and reduce preventable illnesses, which increased access to healthcare could assist in.
---

First off let me begin by saying that I want everyone to have access to healthcare and I think the current healthcare system is critically flawed and far too expensive.

BUT, it isn't a right. That's because rights are supposed to be permanent "inalienable" things. A right to free speech means I have it forever. A right to assembly means I have it forever. A right to a jury of peers means I have that forever. The problem with healthcare as a right is that health has a unique personal responsibility angle to it. If I decide to do nothing but eat garbage, never exercise, balloon out to 300lbs.. that can negatively impact access and cost to healthcare of others... directly negatively impacting their "right" to healthcare through increases in taxes, fees, wait times, etc. If healthcare is a right, that means I hold no responsibility for those actions, because no matter what I do you can't take my right away.

There are things that people deserve access to, but aren't rights, simply because we need to reserve the ability to revoke something from someone abusing it. Healthcare is one such thing. The moment we make it a right, we acknowledge that personal responsibility no longer applies to it, and no matter what someone does we have to give them full access to it, forever.
---

joestarrr posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

joestarrr posted...

why does the idea of your taxes going to healthcare upset you so much

Like I mentioned in my first post, 30% of our yearly medical expenditures are to treat unnecessary illnesses caused by obesity and smoking. To try to tax our way into paying for all of that and then some would represent higher taxation rates, and to people who are career-oriented and focused on building wealth those higher taxes could represent subsidizing the bad behaviors of people who don't care about being career-oriented or focused.

To be fair, I do agree that we should aim for a healthier population and reduce preventable illnesses, which increased access to healthcare could assist in.

No, it won't. It actually works the opposite.
---

joestarrr posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

joestarrr posted...

why does the idea of your taxes going to healthcare upset you so much

Like I mentioned in my first post, 30% of our yearly medical expenditures are to treat unnecessary illnesses caused by obesity and smoking. To try to tax our way into paying for all of that and then some would represent higher taxation rates, and to people who are career-oriented and focused on building wealth those higher taxes could represent subsidizing the bad behaviors of people who don't care about being career-oriented or focused.

To be fair, I do agree that we should aim for a healthier population and reduce preventable illnesses, which increased access to healthcare could assist in.

There needs to be a culture change before there is a taxation change. We see from other government spending that when we subsidize bad behavior, like single motherhood, you don't encourage better behavior. You simply send the message that it is okay to continue with the bad behavior since you'll be taken care of by the state.

People aren't going to stop smoking and start exercising just because the government pledges to treat any issues that come out of those bad behaviors. Interestingly enough, health insurance companies provide plans like weight loss and smoking cessation free of charge for most good plans. This is because it's cheaper for the health insurance company to make its population healthier than to spend premium profits on treating obesity and smoking related illnesses.

The government has no such profit incentive to streamline its operation.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

joestarrr posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

joestarrr posted...

why does the idea of your taxes going to healthcare upset you so much

Like I mentioned in my first post, 30% of our yearly medical expenditures are to treat unnecessary illnesses caused by obesity and smoking. To try to tax our way into paying for all of that and then some would represent higher taxation rates, and to people who are career-oriented and focused on building wealth those higher taxes could represent subsidizing the bad behaviors of people who don't care about being career-oriented or focused.

To be fair, I do agree that we should aim for a healthier population and reduce preventable illnesses, which increased access to healthcare could assist in.

There needs to be a culture change before there is a taxation change. We see from other government spending that when we subsidize bad behavior, like single motherhood, you don't encourage better behavior. You simply send the message that it is okay to continue with the bad behavior since you'll be taken care of by the state.

People aren't going to stop smoking and start exercising just because the government pledges to treat any issues that come out of those bad behaviors.

Then add fees to smokers and obese people among other poor health maintenance.
I agree a culture change is crucial, which is also true for issues like gun control tbh
---

people have the right to deny health care like they have the right to deny vaccines for their children
---

joestarrr posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

joestarrr posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

joestarrr posted...

why does the idea of your taxes going to healthcare upset you so much

Like I mentioned in my first post, 30% of our yearly medical expenditures are to treat unnecessary illnesses caused by obesity and smoking. To try to tax our way into paying for all of that and then some would represent higher taxation rates, and to people who are career-oriented and focused on building wealth those higher taxes could represent subsidizing the bad behaviors of people who don't care about being career-oriented or focused.

To be fair, I do agree that we should aim for a healthier population and reduce preventable illnesses, which increased access to healthcare could assist in.

There needs to be a culture change before there is a taxation change. We see from other government spending that when we subsidize bad behavior, like single motherhood, you don't encourage better behavior. You simply send the message that it is okay to continue with the bad behavior since you'll be taken care of by the state.

People aren't going to stop smoking and start exercising just because the government pledges to treat any issues that come out of those bad behaviors.

Then add fees to smokers and obese people among other poor health maintenance.
I agree a culture change is crucial, which is also true for issues like gun control tbh

I'm not particularly fond of the idea of the government being in a position to fine people based on how they live their lives, though. That's a really awful precedent to set. It also assumes that it'd be effective in getting people to change their habits, which is hard to predict. The free market is better equipped to make that culture change happen.
---

MedzXVIII posted...

people have the right to deny health care like they have the right to deny vaccines for their children

nobody has a right to deny vaccination, whether it's for themselves or their child. it should absolutely be compulsory

FLUFFYGERM posted...

The free market is better equipped to make that culture change happen.

A lot of people will be fucked in transition though. Even if a lot of health issues are lifestyle related, a whole bunch aren't.

smoliske posted...

MedzXVIII posted...

people have the right to deny health care like they have the right to deny vaccines for their children

nobody has a right to deny vaccination, whether it's for themselves or their child. it should absolutely be compulsory

Parents who do not vaccinate their children are breaking the law?
---

MedzXVIII posted...

smoliske posted...

MedzXVIII posted...

people have the right to deny health care like they have the right to deny vaccines for their children

nobody has a right to deny vaccination, whether it's for themselves or their child. it should absolutely be compulsory

Parents who do not vaccinate their children are breaking the law?

if not, they should be. people who are not vaccinated should not be allowed to walk free

BWLurker posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

The free market is better equipped to make that culture change happen.

A lot of people will be fucked in transition though. Even if a lot of health issues are lifestyle related, a whole bunch aren't.

30% of the current yearly healthcare expenditures in the US are a direct result of lifestyle choices. If you eliminated that, eliminated the tens of billions in yearly medicare fraud, encouraged automation/efficiency in the industry, introduced more competition, and leveraged the free market to get people to live healthier lives...you'd suddenly reduce the costs of the system so much that spending for the rest of the sick is suddenly trivial compared with the total yearly tax revenue of the US.
---

smoliske posted...

if not, they should be. people who are not vaccinated should not be allowed to walk free

There's certainly no way this could go wrong. Nope. Might as well empower the Trump administration to forcibly inoculate us with whatever they deem is best! And give them a monopoly on violence while we're at it.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

BWLurker posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

The free market is better equipped to make that culture change happen.

A lot of people will be fucked in transition though. Even if a lot of health issues are lifestyle related, a whole bunch aren't.

30% of the current yearly healthcare expenditures in the US are a direct result of lifestyle choices. If you eliminated that, eliminated the tens of billions in yearly medicare fraud, encouraged automation/efficiency in the industry, introduced more competition, and leveraged the free market to get people to live healthier lives...you'd suddenly reduce the costs of the system so much that spending for the rest of the sick is suddenly trivial compared with the total yearly tax revenue of the US.

How do you go about doing this without fucking innocent people over in transition?

BWLurker posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

BWLurker posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

The free market is better equipped to make that culture change happen.

A lot of people will be fucked in transition though. Even if a lot of health issues are lifestyle related, a whole bunch aren't.

30% of the current yearly healthcare expenditures in the US are a direct result of lifestyle choices. If you eliminated that, eliminated the tens of billions in yearly medicare fraud, encouraged automation/efficiency in the industry, introduced more competition, and leveraged the free market to get people to live healthier lives...you'd suddenly reduce the costs of the system so much that spending for the rest of the sick is suddenly trivial compared with the total yearly tax revenue of the US.

How do you go about doing this without fucking innocent people over in transition?

How would it fuck over innocent people?
---

Godnorgosh posted...

Fam_Fam posted...

one argument is that one does not have the right to the service of someone else (which is what the case would be)

Clean drinking water requires constant maintenance and oversight from other people. Do we not have a right to that?

Really? What constant maintenance and oversight does my well have?
---

I don't think anyone wants poor people to suffer and die. This is just another lie from the left, trying to demonize the right. You people are still falling for this shit?
---

darkjedilink posted...

Godnorgosh posted...

Fam_Fam posted...

one argument is that one does not have the right to the service of someone else (which is what the case would be)

Clean drinking water requires constant maintenance and oversight from other people. Do we not have a right to that?

Really? What constant maintenance and oversight does my well have?

Don't be disingenuous. Most Americans rely on the public water system, which is funded IIRC with some tax revenue in addition to the monthly water bill.
---

Vindris_SNH posted...

I don't think anyone wants poor people to suffer and die. This is just another lie from the left, trying to demonize the right. You people are still falling for this shit?

And this is the biggest problem with @joestarr 's thinking. It's reductive and inflammatory, without any attempt at goodwill or benefit of the doubt. Healthcare is a complex topic, especially when you are talking about a country with hundreds of millions of people, a unique obesity epidemic, tens of millions of people who are not citizens, etc.
---

Returning_CEmen posted...

It should be. There have been Hepatitis A outbreaks in major cities because of homeless populations

This.

Whether or not healthcare is a right depends on the role and requirements of the state. States exist for the sake of ensuring security, advanced states exist for ensuring security and civility or some other such notion of a good society (usually the ability to pursue one's own ends within society).

Even if you deny the civility requirement for a state, security of a territorial boundary can be impacted on an epidemiological scale: so at the very least governments have a requirement to prevent massive disease outbreaks.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

BWLurker posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

BWLurker posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

The free market is better equipped to make that culture change happen.

A lot of people will be fucked in transition though. Even if a lot of health issues are lifestyle related, a whole bunch aren't.

30% of the current yearly healthcare expenditures in the US are a direct result of lifestyle choices. If you eliminated that, eliminated the tens of billions in yearly medicare fraud, encouraged automation/efficiency in the industry, introduced more competition, and leveraged the free market to get people to live healthier lives...you'd suddenly reduce the costs of the system so much that spending for the rest of the sick is suddenly trivial compared with the total yearly tax revenue of the US.

How do you go about doing this without fucking innocent people over in transition?

How would it fuck over innocent people?

You can't just eliminate that 30%. It's not cut and dry. Who decides what's a lifestyle effect and what was unpreventable? How do you eliminate those billions in fraud, who's going to pay for the ridiculous amount of investigations to make sure that there actually is fraud in each case? With a completely free market, why would insurance companies willingly keep cancer patients and other chronic diseases?

FLUFFYGERM posted...

smoliske posted...

if not, they should be. people who are not vaccinated should not be allowed to walk free

There's certainly no way this could go wrong. Nope. Might as well empower the Trump administration to forcibly inoculate us with whatever they deem is best! And give them a monopoly on violence while we're at it.

There's certainly no way the status quo could go wrong. Nope. Might as well let any unvaccinated yoohoo walk around with their inhibited immune systems spreading disease to others. You're basically giving them a monopoly on violence at that.

smoliske posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

smoliske posted...

if not, they should be. people who are not vaccinated should not be allowed to walk free

There's certainly no way this could go wrong. Nope. Might as well empower the Trump administration to forcibly inoculate us with whatever they deem is best! And give them a monopoly on violence while we're at it.

There's certainly no way the status quo could go wrong. Nope. Might as well let any unvaccinated yoohoo walk around with their inhibited immune systems spreading disease to others. You're basically giving them a monopoly on violence at that.

Not giving the Trump administration the absolute power to forcibly inoculate us, on pain of death or imprisonment, with whatever they deem is best doesn't mean that our only other option is to let hordes of unvaccinated people roam the streets and spread disease.
---

A free market in health care would result in lower prices, so it would be easier to help poor people through voluntary means rather than via government coercion.

I believe in negative rights, not positive rights. Negative rights include the right to not be attacked, robbed, censored, etc. Positive rights are rights to goods and services, and cannot coexist with negative rights. If a poor person has a "positive right" to goods and services, then the "negative rights" of others must be violated through wealth redistribution. I think it's much more moral to help people voluntarily than by stealing.
---

Omega Hunter posted...

Because the vast majority of healthcare costs and illness is a result of lifestyle decisions.

I run 3 miles every weekday morning. I lift weights for 5 hours over the weekend. I eat tons of vegetables that are gross. I drink tea over coffee even though I love coffee. I drink red wine over whiskey even though I love whiskey and stop after 2-3 glasses. I dont smoke even though i love tobacco. I sleep 8 hours even though I want to play video games to 2 am. I spend extra on grass fed dairy and pastured eggs. I dont touch soda or sugary anything. I make most of my meals at home to make sure the ingredients are fresh and natural.

I do all of this to take care of myself and stay healthy and it takes a lot of effort. How in the world is it fair to tax me to pay for the healthcare costs of a lardass with diabetes who barely leaves the couch lives on dominoes pizza and could never say no to "do you want to supersize that?".

It's not.

This

joestarrr posted...

i mean when you're hired anywhere you can't just arbitrarily pick your salary lol

You uh...literally do. It's the final step of being hired.
---

BWLurker posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

BWLurker posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

BWLurker posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

The free market is better equipped to make that culture change happen.

A lot of people will be fucked in transition though. Even if a lot of health issues are lifestyle related, a whole bunch aren't.

30% of the current yearly healthcare expenditures in the US are a direct result of lifestyle choices. If you eliminated that, eliminated the tens of billions in yearly medicare fraud, encouraged automation/efficiency in the industry, introduced more competition, and leveraged the free market to get people to live healthier lives...you'd suddenly reduce the costs of the system so much that spending for the rest of the sick is suddenly trivial compared with the total yearly tax revenue of the US.

How do you go about doing this without fucking innocent people over in transition?

How would it fuck over innocent people?

You can't just eliminate that 30%. It's not cut and dry. Who decides what's a lifestyle effect and what was unpreventable? How do you eliminate those billions in fraud, who's going to pay for the ridiculous amount of investigations to make sure that there actually is fraud in each case? With a completely free market, why would insurance companies willingly keep cancer patients and other chronic diseases?

Someone has to make the decision regardless, for ANY government program. Even universal healthcare is going to require someone to decide what is "necessary" treatment and what is "optional" or "cosmetic" treatment. There's no easy answer in any solution, because not everyone can have everything, so someone inevitably has to decide who gets and who doesn't. This is true of ANY social program.
---