Remember the republican stance on the Teri Schaivo situation? They were fighting to keep her alive... make sure she had the right to keep her life going...
((I was AGAINST ending her life (even though i am Liberal))
but... my question is...
What if she hadn't had insurance... would you have been so eager to keep her alive? Would you have fought and argued to keep her alive if she wasn't covered under her insurance?
Is human life and health a right ONLY if you already have insurance??? or do we all ALWAYS have the right?
2007-12-21 03:35:49 · 10 answers · asked by sam f 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
EDIT:
Pythagoras... oh wow...your sense of empathy brings me to tears.
i SHOULD be ashamed of myself...
2007-12-21 03:44:57 · update #1
Well, I had no idea about her financial situation, so it had nothing to do with the way I felt. I personally thought that keeping her alive was cruel, and obviously in violation of whatever natural forces were supposed to be at work. I wouldn't have cared if she had a Christian Coalition fund of a zillion dollars to keep her alive until doomsday, the very act of keeping the machine (her body) going after the control room was shut down was immoral. But, to get to the meat of your question, I do not think that health care is a right EVER. I think it is a service, performed by highly trained individuals, in return for compensation. I think if you define it as a right then that gives you the justification to FORCE others to labor for what YOU define as just compensation without allowing the free market any influence at all. And that is immoral and unethical. I think you have a right to equal access to health care, in the sense that hospitals should not be able to refuse you entry to the building because you're black, asian, homosexual, etc. But if you can't afford it then you have no right to it, in the same way that a bum without a job or credit history has no right to the home I paid a quarter of a million dollars for. I have written multiple answers on the way I would like to change the health care system in America, I'll include a link so you don't automatically think I'm just callous and cold. But if Teri Schiavo hadn't had insurance, and the hospital couldn't afford to keep taking care of her, and her family had no more funds or weren't willing to get them, then yes, the plug should have been pulled. Speaking in a purely economic sense, there was no return on their money outside of possibly good PR. They might have kept her going simply because pulling the plug would have resorted in a firestorm of negative publicity. But they would have been under no obligation to keep her going.
2007-12-21 03:55:19 · answer #1 · answered by Bigsky_52 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Since you are so concerned about rights, I was wondering where in the U.S. Constitution, we the people were granted the right of health care? I know, it right after the part that says there is a seperation between church state. That means it does not exist.
If you are so anxious for Universal Health Care, travel the England and Ireland and ask the people there about what they think. In Ireland, when asked, many say that the only way to get good health care is to pay out of pocket for a private doctor. And that was a cab driver and baggage handler who I asked, not a CEO.
I have a large part of my family in England, where I have watched them push older folks to the back of the line because they do not need a surgery as much as a younger person. They did this to my aunt's father. He went in, they told him he needed open heart surgery, they said come back in six months. Six months later, he was deemed to old for the procedure and sent home with number for hospice.
Is this what you want?
2007-12-21 11:48:48 · answer #2 · answered by firemarshallbr 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
An interesting question. I suspect that it would have made no difference as others would have funded her care.
I live in the UK and work in the NHS (our universal health care system). It has problems, but not as many as the US healthcare system has. Despite spending much more per head of population than other developed countries, the US has worse health outcomes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care#Economics Life expectancy and infant mortality figures in the US are higher than in other developed countries, despite more money being spent (and wasted) in the USA.
In the UK there are waiting lists for routine problems. Problems that can not wait are treated as emergencies. Also, in the UK, people can also have private health care.
I can understand Americans being proud of living in the richest and most powerful country in the world. What I can not understand is why Amercians settle for an expensive healthcare system where babies die that would have a better chance of life if born in another developed country.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2167865,00.html
And for the record, in the UK, people get treated accorded to need. The elderly do get operated on and get all sorts of treatment based on clinical factors, not financial ones. Take it from someone who knows as I am involved in the care that the elderly get here. Care they are not charged for.
2007-12-24 01:04:12 · answer #3 · answered by The Patriot 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think I understand the question.
I am opposed to universal healthcare and was opposed to forcing the man to keep his wife on a machine that blew her lungs up at regular intervals even though her brain had turned to mush years ago.
Whether or not she had insurance doesn't matter, she should have been allowed to be pronounced dead when she died so her husband could grieve properly and go on with his life.
Insurance didn't keep her alive, the government ordered it
You seem to be equating those opposed to universal healthcare and those who wished her to remain a piece of dead meat that seemed to breath. I don't think that was the case.
2007-12-21 11:48:20 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Teri Schaivo case was a situation the Republicans used to prove to us that they are pro-life. I wonder how they can consider this war to be pro-life. If they had given as much thought to the war as to the Teri Schaivo case, perhaps we wouldn't be in this mess that has no end in sight.
2007-12-21 11:43:29 · answer #5 · answered by katydid 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The Teri Schavio case was tragic, and anyone who tried to make political points on either side should be ashamed.
2007-12-21 11:42:02 · answer #6 · answered by Pythagoras 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Here's a corollary to your question - Are Americans really aware that retired people in England are put at the back of the line for life-saving medical procedures and transplants, because, after all, they have already served out their useful lives? Are we prepared for that kind of medical care?
2007-12-21 11:42:28 · answer #7 · answered by The Oracle of Omigod 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I am against Universal health care and i was FOR her plug getting pulled in accordance with her Husband's wishes and Florida law.
so ;-)
If her Husband believed her wishes was to die and if a court ruled that he was acting according to her wishes of course not
2007-12-21 11:41:35 · answer #8 · answered by Larry B 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would have felt the same.
Frankly I never heard she had insurance or if she didnt so that had no effect on my stance.
Health care is the responsibility of the individual not the government.
2007-12-21 11:39:10 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Insurance wasn't the issue, it was never even considered.
2007-12-21 11:40:59 · answer #10 · answered by The Scorpion 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋