I delight to inform you that you do not have a right to healthcare

themanontherun wrote:

If a man is alone in the woods, and is mauled by a bear, and dies because he doesn't have access to medical attention, has his right to life been violated?

Yes. The government should establish taxpayer-funded outposts in every 1 square-mile area of the country to prevent such tragedies. We should also do this over the whole ocean, where people often drown.

Of course, since Africans have the same right to health care as everyone else (they are human, after all), we should also establish as many outposts as necessary in Africa such that zero people die.

Mtn Dew, and many others (hard to keep track of which libertarian is going off on fact-deficient rants), here are some realitites of the health care system you need to know. I've posted similar stuff before, but frankly it gets old trying to use real facts to keep refuting the same old cliched empty arguments, so I'll not be on this thread again.

You seem to think that 40 million (or whatever number you like, but it is in the 7 digits) uninsured implies that those 40 million don't access the health care system at all, and so if they did, we would need this army of new personal and supplies. That's just completely wrong.

Uninsured come to office visits and pay cash if they have to, or go to an urgent care. Usually putting off minor stuff but going if they have to. Or they go to sliding scale clinics staffed by medical students supervised by doctors volunteering their time (I occasionally work in one of those).

Of course, the ultimate safety net is the ER. When they show up with non-life-threatening symtoms, they have to choose whether to pay (or agree to pay, and then not pay when the bill comes) or leave. This would be the diabetic coming in with high blood sugar (but still functional), or the hypertensive coming in with a blood pressure of 185/100 having run out of meds. Both of those are not immediately life-threatening, so they are sent home (or asked to pay if they want to be seen).

If the diabetic stays hyperglycemic (which they will do in the abscence of some generic insulin or an oral drug), and goes into a coma, someone calls 911, he is brought to the ER. Now, he is in eminent danger of dying, and by law he must be treated. You probably think that is wrong, but it is the law of the land. So, he gets admitted to the ICU, put on a ventilator, gets lab draws every hour, is given IV fluids, insulin, etc, and he racks up a 10,000 dollar bill for every day in the ICU.

A similar scenario plays out with untreated hypertension- eventually a stroke or heart attach happens, has to be treated by law, and the costs run up by the 10,000 dollars per day. We all pay for this- by higher premiums, higher taxes, etc.

So, it is not that the uninsured do not get care- they access the system here and there, and have an enormously high rate of accessing the system for expensive, catastrophic care. So we have the nurses, doctors, and supplies to deal with them. Those of use who see these patients on a daily basis can't help but think paying a small amount up front for chronic management of diseases is far preferable to paying enormous sums when things get catastrophic. It's also far easier to manage high blood pressure than it is to manage the hemorrhagic stroke that happens from untreated high blood pressure.

Now, my solution would be to get a basic level of care for all, to minimize the amount of catastrophic care that occurs downstream (some strokes, diabetic comas, and other things will still happen). We already pay for the catastrophic care, I'd rather pay for the easy cheap stuff that prevents the bad expensive stuff.

Or, we could take the libertarian view and repeal all laws mandating medical care in the face of life-threatening illness, and let people die on the streets in front of the ER. I guess someone will have to pay to haul the bodies away, but eventually this will eliminate a lot of sick people, and leave a more perfect super-race of americans to carry on. That approach has worked well in the past.

Sorry for various typos that are in there- not the greatest typist and it gets worse when annoyed

BAH wrote:

Do all of you people understand how insurance works? It's just a pool of money from a lot of people to cover unlikely costs of a few. If there is a group of people who is upset that they can't find coverage, why don't the get together, pool their money, and bam!, they've got insurance?

Your solution is that if you CAN'T get health insurance then they should GET health insurance?

Brilliant!

You just made a terrific argument that A) no one should be forced to provide someone a service or B) we should take steps to make health insurance affordable so that everyone can insure themselves.

I would go with B.

The only people who want socialized medicine

are those who are happy to stick their neighbors with the bill for what they themselves owe.

Here we go again wrote:

Clearly you believe that the state should help the child.

How much of the money that you spend on things you don't need (like internet access to post on LRC) could you have donated to save children with cancer? Or, to get much more bang for your buck, to children in countries who die because they don't have food or water?

People love to talk about "saving the children," while they clearly don't give that exact thing any priority greater that however much of their taxes the government takes and may or may not spend on such things.

If saving that children is so important to you, quit your job and volunteer in africa. Or donate all your disposable income to children's cancer charities. Until then, f*** off.

Why should I have to do all that? That seems pretty inefficient, to expect people to run donation campaigns and quit their jobs and go to Africa. It would be easily within the reach of the government to provide health care for any uninsured child-in fact, many states already do so. Nobody has to donate all of their money if we all donate some through taxes.

Do you disagree with this? After all, we wouldn't want to take away any of your precious money.

talk about greed wrote:

The only people who want socialized medicine

are those who are happy to stick their neighbors with the bill for what they themselves owe.

Uh huh. What about people who ARE insured, but don't like the idea of having people dying in OUR country on account of the fact that a multi-million (billion?) dollar insurance company doesn't want to insure them because they are a higher risk than someone else?

On second thoughts... don't think about that. It may over-complicate things for you.

BAH wrote:

Do all of you people understand how insurance works? It's just a pool of money from a lot of people to cover unlikely costs of a few. If there is a group of people who is upset that they can't find coverage, why don't the get together, pool their money, and bam!, they've got insurance?

And that money comes from where? I think it's you that understands neither insurance nor poverty.

Superiority Complex wrote:

Uh huh. What about people who ARE insured, but don't like the idea of having people dying in OUR country on account of the fact that a multi-million (billion?) dollar insurance company doesn't want to insure them because they are a higher risk than someone else?

On second thoughts... don't think about that. It may over-complicate things for you.

If you want anyone other than yourself (which includes an insurance policy that you freely pay for) to pay for your medical expenses, you are trying to stick others with the burden of your care and you are a thief and a parasite.

Superiority Complex wrote:

Your solution is that if you CAN'T get health insurance then they should GET health insurance?

Brilliant!

Is the problem that people can't get insurance with the big companies, or that they can't afford medical care at all?

These are very different problems, but I've seen a whole lot of talk about existing conditions, price gouging, etc. My solution deals with all of those.

Providing insurance to those who can't afford it is welfare. That's also wrong, but for different reasons (it forces people to pay the costs of others when they have no obligation to do so).

talk about greed wrote:

If you want anyone other than yourself (which includes an insurance policy that you freely pay for) to pay for your medical expenses, you are trying to stick others with the burden of your care and you are a thief and a parasite.

I guess it was the part about "people who ARE insured" that was too complicated for you?

Come on son, get back to class. Your not going to find an employer to pay for YOUR health insurance at this rate.

talk about greed wrote:

If you want anyone other than yourself (which includes an insurance policy that you freely pay for) to pay for your medical expenses, you are trying to stick others with the burden of your care and you are a thief and a parasite.

On another note... do you think a 5 year old child with leukemia (with parents who couldn't afford health insurance) would be a thief and a parasite for wanting someone else to care for him?

BAH! wrote:

Is the problem that people can't get insurance with the big companies, or that they can't afford medical care at all?

These are very different problems, but I've seen a whole lot of talk about existing conditions, price gouging, etc. My solution deals with all of those.

Providing insurance to those who can't afford it is welfare. That's also wrong, but for different reasons (it forces people to pay the costs of others when they have no obligation to do so).

Ok... so 1,000 people with leukemia, TB, HIV, and a lovely assortment of rare blood disorders get together with BAH to purchase health insurance. Who is going to insure them? Incidentally, isn't that precisely what a public option would do? It would pool together those people who couldn't otherwise get insurance...

Superiority Complex wrote:

Uh huh. What about people who ARE insured, but don't like the idea of having people dying in OUR country on account of the fact that a multi-million (billion?) dollar insurance company doesn't want to insure them because they are a higher risk than someone else?

The people who can't get insurance from said company can, as I suggested earlier, work together to get insurance (an idea you promptly dismissed).

Additionally or alternatively, those who are insured but don't like said idea are free, even incentivized, to use their money, time, labor, etc to help those who aren't. It's called charity. If so many people who claim they cared truly did, there would be no uninsured. The reality is, those people don't want to help the insured, they want to force other people to help the uninsured. That's where the problem lies.

You don't like the aforementioned situation? Start a charity to help, or donate to one that does, or start a nonprofit hospital... the options are basically endless. Don't spend your time trying to force other people to help you.

If I think we should give money to the survivors of XXX natural disaster, can I also force you to donate money?

BAH wrote:

Superiority Complex wrote:

If someone cannot afford the premiums or is excluded from coverage because they are sick then they are being denied a fundamental right.

Can you please show me where it is stated that we have a fundamental right to insurance coverage?

You seem to have missed this. Care to take a crack at it?

Sayer of so, even if you are saying that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" refer only to the right to obtain these things, not the actual entitlement to them, then insurance companies obstruct that right. They bar certain people from certain services even if those services are crucial to the maintenance of life.

So even if the government is not directly providing health care, insurance companies are constitutionally wrong for the reason that they can pick and choose who keeps their right to life.

I choose government provided care over no insurance, but that's just me.

Man, how bad is your reading comprehension. The first time I wrote that I CLEARLY stated it was an example of CIRCULAR reasoning i.e. NOT a valid argument. I THEN explained that to you directly... and you are NOW asking me to explain it a 3rd time?? Read the post in context or don't read it at all. As far as your idea of getting a bunch of sick people together, do you really believe that would work? You think Blue Cross would jump at the chance to snap up 20,000,000 people with terminal conditions at ANY price premium? You're not thinking straight. As far as me paying for EVERYONE who cannot afford health insurance... well... that may not be the most realistic solution. I'd say that everyone getting off their ass and paying a small percentage would be more sensible. I mean should anyone that supports the war in Iraq be forced to go and fight it alone? Or do they just put forth reasonable arguments of why taxes should or should not be spent there. From the way you are arguing you REALLY should be worried about who is going to be paying for your health insurance when you get out of school.

clever, never wrote:

Sayer of so, even if you are saying that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" refer only to the right to obtain these things, not the actual entitlement to them, then insurance companies obstruct that right. They bar certain people from certain services even if those services are crucial to the maintenance of life.

So even if the government is not directly providing health care, insurance companies are constitutionally wrong for the reason that they can pick and choose who keeps their right to life.

I choose government provided care over no insurance, but that's just me.

If a gun manufacturer won't sell me a weapon (for whatever reason), are they impinging on my right to bear arms?

If a newspaper refuses to publish my article, are they constitutionally wrong for "picking and choosing who keeps their right to free speech"?

The right is TO LIFE, not TO HAVING HEALTH CARE PROVIDED.

Show me the case that says that every store in America needs to sell guns in order to uphold the 2nd amendment.