Is health care a basic human right or a lottery for those with money?

Answer 1

Many opponents of universal healthcare cite several fallacies for being opposed to universal coverage. Here are a few:

Fallacy 1. Universal Coverage will stifle medical research:
Truth: "The great breakthroughs in the history of medicine, from the development of the polio vaccine to the identification of cancer-killing agents, did not take place because a for-profit company saw an opportunity and invested heavily in research.They happened because of scientists toiling in academic settings." And later, "...while the United States may be the world leader in this sort of research, that's probably not--as critics of universal coverage frequently claim--because of our private insurance system. If anything, it's because of the federal government."
http://tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=51faeaa7-5021-40d0-95d
3-0f260b25edd4

Fallacy 2: It will cost too much.
Truth: "OC&PA: Do other countries spend more tax dollars on health care?

GA: Surprisingly, the U.S. ranks third in relation to other industrialized countries when it comes to spending federal dollars on health care, even though our federal spending only covers 25 percent of the population. Other countries manage to cover a much larger percentage of their populations with their tax dollars. The reason is that they pay much lower prices." http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/articles/2005/anderson_prices.html

Fallacy 3: Hospitals and free clincs can care for the uninsured.
Truth: In a report by the Kentucky Long-Term Policy Research Center in Foresight, it states " Use of emergency hospital facilities for routine primary care...represents one of the most inefficient and costly uses of our health care resources." The article also elaborates on free clinics. (pg. 4, under the heading Uncompensated Care and Out of Pocket Costs)
http://www.kltprc.net/foresight/no48.pdf

Fallacy 4. Medical care is not a basic human right.
Truth: The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights includes the following:
Article 25
1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm

I could go on, but will stop here in service to length.

Answer 2

In the USA it is not a human right, and also is not a lottery for those with money. It is however, a lottery for those with insurance, as the company will not pay out all the time. Likewise, as mentioned already, living in a crime free area is not a human right, nor is food, nor water. They are however rights that society should provide. Like healthcare.

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

Answer 3

When corporations such as walmart, who recieved 2.5 billion in government subsidies, does not provide almost 1 million employees with health coverage, health care is simply not for the poor.

Cons will say that they should not have to pay for universal health care, yet at the same time, they never mention the ridiculous subsidies that are given to large corporations.

How about this, provide universal health care, and cut out the middleman. Obviously, corporations such as Walmart are not going to provide what they do not have to. Further, they worsen the problem by keeping employees at 39 work hours per week; the maximum time a person can work without a health care plan; because they are not officially "full time".

I worked in a large retail corporation, and this is the stats quo. 39 hour work weeks, you can't afford health coverage, yet the retail corporation will receive a saddening amount of government subsidies at the local and federal level.

Answer 4

In medieval times when doctors were first used by white man, treating illness and disease was free but if you had riches and possessions or a service to trade you were expected to pay something. It was mostly based on ability to pay and your word. It all worked out because the people that lived in the towns depended on each other for different services. So if the doctor treated your influenza you would shoe his horses. The American Indians also went by this barter and trade system but in the event someone couldn't pay to see the medicine man it was free because the indians viewed it as good totems or karma. Back then people had honor though and greed took over the white man and many medicines and medical research was lost forever to the people and went into the hands of the men who wanted the power, wealth and control medicine could bring. Personally I think it should go back to the barter and trade system and based on your ability to pay. The people that squall about not giving free healthcare must be rich enough to pay something so they should and shut up about it. The doctors need to be less greedy and not set out to be millionaires. Greed is ruining who we are as a people.

The first place they need to start is with the educators who want to charge 100,000 for a doctors education so that the doctor doesn't have to pay back 500,000 for student loans. Then they need to go after the drug companies who want to charge hospitals $25 bucks for an aspirin. End this corporate greed once and for all.

Answer 5

Considering the fact that Health care need to be paid in a way or another, its a biaised debate to seek validation of the best way to pay for it... Basic health care should be provided to everybody, while the ones that seeks greater comfort and amenities could spend more to get them... Otherwise it doesn't make sense to talk about who is paying for this, as in the end, we MUST pay for it whether we like it or not! Its just the way it is done that divides peoples...

If you ask me, our society should work together to increase our general health, but profits driven interests are keeping our social fabric and cohesion vulnerable and weak!

Answer 6

Will if it were a basic human right it would not depend on another person spending considerable amounts of money and time to become a doctor.

It can not be a lottery for those with money because if they have money they purchase health care not just buy a ticket and hope to win.

Now socialized health care would be a lottery because it would be rationed.

Answer 7

Saying "There's no right to basic health care because it isn't in the constitution" is kind of like saying "I can talk on my phone in the theater during the movie all I want unless there's a law against it." If nothing else, enlightened self-interest should lead us to support universal access to BASIC health care as a public health measure, like ensuring basic sanitation and safe drinking water. Health mainenance and disease prevention are much more cost effective than ignoring a problem until it's an emergency situation. Notice I never said 'free kidney transplants for everyone' -- I said BASIC health care.

Answer 8

Basic health-care is available for all and lotteries are for fleecing the poor for funding the education of the rich.

I thought an absurd question deserves an absurd answer.

I wonder if the doctors who charge high fees for their service would be willing to take a pay cut to ensure this so called right? Are insurance companies willing to basically break-even in revenue so as to reduce the cost even more? Is there any incentive for pharmaceutical manufactures to make as little revenue as possible so they can give this right?

Asking millions of average paid American workers to fund the health services will push us further towards socialized housing, food and transportation.

That's not what I call freedom. And it's the end of basic rights.

Answer 9

the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... i guess health care can fit into the "life" aspect. anybody who says that it is not our responsibility to pay for the health care of someone who doesn't have it, should consider the fact that they also are mortal and may need assistance someday. yes if you have universal health care paid by taxpayers, you will have abuse of the system. it may even be inefficient and overcrowding among other things could occur. i think the US needs a system that is a combination of the current one (privatized) and the one western european countries have. imagine you find yourself unemployed (laid off) and cannot find a full time job with benefits. then you get sick or get into a car accident and find yourself in a whole lot of debt. a lot of people think this will never happen to them, but things can turn around in a minute. i guess just be grateful we have medicaid.
but try to put yourself into the shoes of ones less fortunate than you, and there are plenty of people in this country who struggle every day and it is not b/c they are lazy or stupid, they were just unfortunate enough to get cancer etc.

Answer 10

The freedom to earn a living to pay for health care is a basic human right.