U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-18-2013, 08:38 AM
 
5,799 posts, read 4,837,810 times
Reputation: 17504

Advertisements

(Mods - don't know if this should be in the health forum or not - I thought it might be a larger moral issue worth all of us discussing)

As a healthy person with money, it's clear now that I'm one of the people who will be balancing the new health care system on my back. And really if you think about it, the insurance system has always been based on the premise that healthy people will pay more in premiums than they get in services while unhealthy people will get more in services than they pay in premiums.

So, I keep thinking about what degree of health care I'm really willing to pay for other people to have.

What degree of health care is a RIGHT for EVERYONE (and thus those who can't afford the care should have it paid for by others in their society.)

I'm thinking that these are the health care services I think are a RIGHT for citizens in prosperous countries:

* Dental care.

* Vision care to maintain 20/20 in people under 70.

* Immunizations for people under 18.

* Setting broken bones.

* Diagnostic services

* Antibiotics (as long as they're really needed and not improperly prescribed.)

* All care for people injured in defense of our country.

Beyond that, I'm not sure.

Is it really someone's RIGHT to: cancer treatments, pain medications, any kind of care for people over 70, and etc.?

I can see many of you arguing that if those illnesses/problem's AREN'T treated it costs our society more money in the long run, but . . . does that make health care for those problems a RIGHT?

What degree of health care do YOU think should be a RIGHT for EVERYONE to have?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-18-2013, 08:56 AM
 
32,852 posts, read 22,792,682 times
Reputation: 29893
I would add treatment of infectious diseases (in general) as antibiotics wouldn't cover all of those; this is a public health issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2013, 09:14 AM
 
Location: Florida
4,103 posts, read 4,027,267 times
Reputation: 9986
Throughout most of human existence we were at the mercy of whatever ills nature threw at us. If you got typhoid you died. If you got cancer you died. If you had a heart attack you died. Medical research/care is a VERY new thing in the human timeline. Doctors initially worked independently and billed you for their services. They removed bullets, splinted broken bones and gave what little medicine they had at the time. As medical care became more sophisticated it also became more expensive. There is a direct relationship between the quality of care and how much it costs. One thing that remained consistent was the fact that people expected the absolute highest and most sophisticated quality of care when they went to hospitals/doctors offices. The demand for the newest GE MRI machine and the newest drugs meant that costs rose higher and higher to the point that we needed Insurance companies to cover the costs by subsidizing costs over a group of people. Eventually the costs of health insurance also grew to a level that became unaffordable for many, so as a cure all we inacted Obamacare to force everyone to participate in the system. Now the healthy youth will also subsidize the system. However the reasons behind why healthcare is so expensive have not been addressed. Do people actually need the TOP, most EXPENSIVE technology when visiting a doctor? Do they need a 10 Million dollar MRI machine to examine that broken leg? Why did the older 1 million dollar machine not suffice in this case? It also comes down to the fact that hospitals are in constant fear of malpractice suits, so they buy the most up to date technology as a hedge against lawsuits.

Yes people need all of the above mentioned services, but they do not need the most expensive technology in existence to do it for most hospital visits. Sure they need top of the line technology for Heart Bi-pass surgery, but for a fever? For a broken leg? No.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2013, 09:28 AM
 
577 posts, read 356,209 times
Reputation: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by 601halfdozen0theother View Post
(Mods - don't know if this should be in the health forum or not - I thought it might be a larger moral issue worth all of us discussing)

As a healthy person with money, it's clear now that I'm one of the people who will be balancing the new health care system on my back. And really if you think about it, the insurance system has always been based on the premise that healthy people will pay more in premiums than they get in services while unhealthy people will get more in services than they pay in premiums.

So, I keep thinking about what degree of health care I'm really willing to pay for other people to have.

What degree of health care is a RIGHT for EVERYONE (and thus those who can't afford the care should have it paid for by others in their society.)

I'm thinking that these are the health care services I think are a RIGHT for citizens in prosperous countries:

* Dental care.

* Vision care to maintain 20/20 in people under 70.

* Immunizations for people under 18.

* Setting broken bones.

* Diagnostic services

* Antibiotics (as long as they're really needed and not improperly prescribed.)

* All care for people injured in defense of our country.

Beyond that, I'm not sure.

Is it really someone's RIGHT to: cancer treatments, pain medications, any kind of care for people over 70, and etc.?

I can see many of you arguing that if those illnesses/problem's AREN'T treated it costs our society more money in the long run, but . . . does that make health care for those problems a RIGHT?

What degree of health care do YOU think should be a RIGHT for EVERYONE to have?
What about treatments for a condition that is manageable allowing hte individual to live a meaningful life, have kids etc. Juvenile Diabetes, for example?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2013, 10:06 AM
 
5,799 posts, read 4,837,810 times
Reputation: 17504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proud2beAMom View Post
What about treatments for a condition that is manageable allowing hte individual to live a meaningful life, have kids etc. Juvenile Diabetes, for example?
I personally think that any treatment that must be continuous - a treatment that prolongs a life rather than solves a specific problem - is not a right.

How would we all ever agree on a definition of a "meaningful life"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2013, 10:17 AM
 
Location: Middleburg Heights
49 posts, read 82,075 times
Reputation: 93
Just because you have money and are healthy doesn't mean "your balancing the healthcare" for anybody. All of us that carry benefits have always carried the ones who don't carry them by the means of higher costs/premiums. This is nothing new. Actually here in Cleveland the Cleveland Clinic offers discounts on benefits if you can prove that your a non smoker and if you can prove that you exercise and work out regularly. If your overweight, smoke, and don't exercise you will pay more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2013, 01:40 PM
 
577 posts, read 356,209 times
Reputation: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by 601halfdozen0theother View Post
I personally think that any treatment that must be continuous - a treatment that prolongs a life rather than solves a specific problem - is not a right.

How would we all ever agree on a definition of a "meaningful life"?

What?

Well, considering that if I didn't get the medications.. I'd be dead ..

As for meaningful life, thanks to medication I lead a good one.. I have child and family. I'm not incapacitated in anyway and can work and be active.. but that's because I have medication to help control my diabetes and I go to the Dr. Regularly for check ups.

Who are YOU to say that my life is worth nothing? What gives you the right to decide that I don't have the right to live. Because by denying me access to affordable care, that is in essence what you are doing
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2013, 02:29 PM
 
31,385 posts, read 31,107,711 times
Reputation: 14878
For me the issue isn't about individual rights but what it says about a society that places a monetary value on who lives and who dies or who is simply capable of maintaing some degree of health. If the most primitive societies took care of its members as well as it could despite the limitations of their medical knowledge and skill, it raises troubling questions as to what we actually mean when we define ourselves as a modern and advanced civilization if we can not do the same for the members of our society.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2013, 02:43 PM
 
5,799 posts, read 4,837,810 times
Reputation: 17504
Well, this has been interesting.

I had expected that this thread would involve people actually thinking about the treatments that people absolutely have a RIGHT to have. That's an interesting moral question.

But it seems that most of you believe that everyone has a RIGHT to ALL health care treatments for every possible health condition.

That seems naive to me, and even immoral. There's a difference between a RIGHT to something and a need for something or a desire for something.

Do I have a RIGHT to have cosmetic plastic surgery? Does someone who is 90 have a RIGHT to a liver transplant?

There does have to be some definition at some point about the things we have a RIGHT to v the things we would all like to have to feel good and live forever.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2013, 03:11 PM
 
31,385 posts, read 31,107,711 times
Reputation: 14878
Quote:
Originally Posted by 601halfdozen0theother View Post
But it seems that most of you believe that everyone has a RIGHT to ALL health care treatments for every possible health condition.
If you are referring to my post your assumption couldn't be more off the mark. We spend exorbitant amounts of money caring for patients in the last six months of life. As a nation we have an irrational fear of death that leads us to chase whatever treatment or therapy for diseases and conditions that are long past efficacious relief, on the chance that some fraction of a percentage of patients will put off death for days, weeks, or months. This by no means that I am an advocate of some age based criteria because this can be applied across any age group so no, I don't think that every individual has a "right" to any and every treatment that is not determined to be efficacious based upon the medical condition of the patient.

As for you question... unless those of us here are practicing physicians or medical researchers I think establishing what degree of health care a person is entitled to is a fools errand. Should 93 year old Lyle Ruterbories or 92 year old Betty Reid Soskin have a right to hip replacement surgery, damn right the two Rangers for the U.S. Park Service do, does a 93 year old stroke victim whose inability to ambulate could lead to increase susceptibility to pulmonary complications need one, despite being a paramedic in the military, I don't feel in the least bit competent to answer that question and I doubt that anyone here is as well.

So you might get folks more arrogant than myself (hard to imagine but it is possible) who will give you definitive answers about who has a right to what, I think that the broader question of who we are as a society is a far more important, accessible conversation that is far more conducive to constructive conversation that the anecdotal gossip that is sure to follow .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top