Inspired by other insurance threads

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
40,485
9,977
136
Topic Title: Inspired by other insurance threads
Topic Summary: Is health insurance a "right"?

Health insurance is not a right. Health care is a right. It's the insurance industry that has taken the health care industry hostage, and therefore all of us.
 

Xellos2099

Platinum Member
Mar 8, 2005
2,277
13
81
And in Canada they paid a hell lot higher tax than we do in the state, that is why they could afford health care. I work in an accounting firm it disguise me every year during the tax season where many people don't even need to pay income tax and they get money in return because of those EIC and child tax credit.

The right to live? It was originally mean for the right to exist and people can't take it away from it. People can survive without free Health Care, I am 27 and I don't have health insurance and I don't complain about it is not fair. By your definition of the right to live, if you lost your job, and you got no money for food, the government is suppose to provide food for you and your family just because the right to live?
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Originally posted by: Xellos2099
And in Canada they paid a hell lot higher tax than we do in the state, that is why they could afford health care. I work in an accounting firm it disguise me every year during the tax season where many people don't even need to pay income tax and they get money in return because of those EIC and child tax credit.

The right to live? It was originally mean for the right to exist and people can't take it away from it. People can survive without free Health Care, I am 27 and I don't have health insurance and I don't complain about it is not fair. By your definition of the right to live, if you lost your job, and you got no money for food, the government is suppose to provide food for you and your family just because the right to live?

Yes, which is why food stamps, temporary welfare payments, meals on wheels, and many other agencies were created.

At 27 you can do without health insurance, probably. By the time you are 47, what are you going to do if you have prostate cancer or breast cancer and have no insurance or health care available?

-Robert
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,551
6,706
126
Originally posted by: chess9
Originally posted by: Xellos2099
And in Canada they paid a hell lot higher tax than we do in the state, that is why they could afford health care. I work in an accounting firm it disguise me every year during the tax season where many people don't even need to pay income tax and they get money in return because of those EIC and child tax credit.

The right to live? It was originally mean for the right to exist and people can't take it away from it. People can survive without free Health Care, I am 27 and I don't have health insurance and I don't complain about it is not fair. By your definition of the right to live, if you lost your job, and you got no money for food, the government is suppose to provide food for you and your family just because the right to live?

Yes, which is why food stamps, temporary welfare payments, meals on wheels, and many other agencies were created.

At 27 you can do without health insurance, probably. By the time you are 47, what are you going to do if you have prostate cancer or breast cancer and have no insurance or health care available?

-Robert

He will probably be working to get my treaty pasted.
 

BurnItDwn

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
26,337
1,847
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1
For those who think health insurance is a right, what do you think about government sponsored food deliveries? Afterall, there are alot of hungry kids in this country, why not set legislation if under a certain income, you get say $100/week for food? (Arbitrary number) Just go to any store, present your food card, and get $100 bucks in food? Water? No water you die. Air? I need an oxigenated air system in my house-thanks Uncle Sam.

I don't think health insurance is a "right" per say, but that's not what I'm posting about. I'm posting about this food program you mentioned.

Haven't you heard of food stamps? The government gives poor people an EBT card and then they can go to pretty much any store and do an EBT food transaction for food. It's essentially the $100/week food that you're talking about ... It already exists, and it has existed for years (though it used to be physical "stamps" rather than an electronic transaction. )

Since this has existed for a LONG time, are you suggesting that health care should be the same way?
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: ElFenix
medical care is a scarce good and must be rationed in some form or another.

Health care is scarce by design.

health care would involve people actually quitting smoking, eating right, and exercising. people don't want that. they want a pill that cures all. and the doctors have done a damn fine job over the past century convincing people that they are the way to health. but all doctors can do is practice medicine.

anyway, medical care is scare because there are only so many doctors to go around, there are only so many nurses to go around, and there are only so many other resources that may be converted into medical care. medical care is scarce just like all other goods. economics 101. the resources available to man are finite and must be rationed.


Originally posted by: chess9

Why is why that 7-2 vote would have been different if a Dem had been elected Prez.

-Robert
even if gore had been elected you can't assume he'd have had the opportunity to appoint a new justice to the supreme court by the time that case was decided. between the appointment of breyer and the death of rehnquist later that year, the court was the same for 11 straight years.

Bush has appointed two Supreme Court Justices, and they were on the 7 side. So, the result might have been the same (but 5-4), assuming the swing voters weren't pursuaded by the new justices. Point well taken.

Winnar:

That case was a difficult one to decide however because the police did respond and did provide a professional judgement about whether the lady and her children were in danger. They were wrong. I might have taken the side of the majority in this case for that reason. However, I would have had a concurring opinion finding a constutional right to police protection once a restraining order has been issued as in this case. A threshhold of need must be established in my view before the duty arises, and a restraining order issued by a judge meets that threshhold of need.

However, it would come as a great surprise to most Americans that when they call the police, the police don't have a duty to come. That's a very cruel result, IMHO.

The other part of this case that contributed to the result is the damages aspect. The large verdict for the plaintiff certainly made it hard for some jurists to support her point of view. I think the damages issue is irrelevant to the basic constitutional issue.

Since when did you start reading minds? I did read your pro-firearms right wing Fox political screed. And, one modestly relevant case from the 19th century is hardly binding precedent as two Justices concluded. The 7th Circuit case has no precedential value.

-Robert
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: chess9
Originally posted by: Xellos2099
And in Canada they paid a hell lot higher tax than we do in the state, that is why they could afford health care. I work in an accounting firm it disguise me every year during the tax season where many people don't even need to pay income tax and they get money in return because of those EIC and child tax credit.

The right to live? It was originally mean for the right to exist and people can't take it away from it. People can survive without free Health Care, I am 27 and I don't have health insurance and I don't complain about it is not fair. By your definition of the right to live, if you lost your job, and you got no money for food, the government is suppose to provide food for you and your family just because the right to live?

Yes, which is why food stamps, temporary welfare payments, meals on wheels, and many other agencies were created.

At 27 you can do without health insurance, probably. By the time you are 47, what are you going to do if you have prostate cancer or breast cancer and have no insurance or health care available?

-Robert

He will probably be working to get my treaty pasted.

I agree with your treaty. It should be a universal right declared unanimously by all nations. Americans are so focused on the almighty dollar they refuse to see the humanitarian importance of this issue. I blame Benjamin Franklin and his followers, like Carnegie, Mellon, Peale.

-Robert

 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: chess9
Bush has appointed two Supreme Court Justices, and they were on the 7 side. So, the result might have been the same (but 5-4), assuming the swing voters weren't pursuaded by the new justices. Point well taken.

Winnar:

That case was a difficult one to decide however because the police did respond and did provide a professional judgement about whether the lady and her children were in danger. They were wrong. I might have taken the side of the majority in this case for that reason. However, I would have had a concurring opinion finding a constutional right to police protection once a restraining order has been issued as in this case. A threshhold of need must be established in my view before the duty arises, and a restraining order issued by a judge meets that threshhold of need.

However, it would come as a great surprise to most Americans that when they call the police, the police don't have a duty to come. That's a very cruel result, IMHO.

The other part of this case that contributed to the result is the damages aspect. The large verdict for the plaintiff certainly made it hard for some jurists to support her point of view. I think the damages issue is irrelevant to the basic constitutional issue.

Since when did you start reading minds? I did read your pro-firearms right wing Fox political screed. And, one modestly relevant case from the 19th century is hardly binding precedent as two Justices concluded. The 7th Circuit case has no precedential value.

-Robert

Errr,

1. The case was handed down before Bush got any appointments to the Supreme Court.
2. The 1856 case is hardly the only precedent. There are many over the years; here's the more recent one:

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1988/1988_87_154/

Didn't Democrats cry about precedent all the time during the Alito hearings?


Back to my original point, there has never been a duty of the government to protect you from anything. The reasoning is obvious; the government isn't going to let people sue itself.

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,551
6,706
126
Originally posted by: chess9
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: chess9
Originally posted by: Xellos2099
And in Canada they paid a hell lot higher tax than we do in the state, that is why they could afford health care. I work in an accounting firm it disguise me every year during the tax season where many people don't even need to pay income tax and they get money in return because of those EIC and child tax credit.

The right to live? It was originally mean for the right to exist and people can't take it away from it. People can survive without free Health Care, I am 27 and I don't have health insurance and I don't complain about it is not fair. By your definition of the right to live, if you lost your job, and you got no money for food, the government is suppose to provide food for you and your family just because the right to live?

Yes, which is why food stamps, temporary welfare payments, meals on wheels, and many other agencies were created.

At 27 you can do without health insurance, probably. By the time you are 47, what are you going to do if you have prostate cancer or breast cancer and have no insurance or health care available?

-Robert

He will probably be working to get my treaty pasted.

I agree with your treaty. It should be a universal right declared unanimously by all nations. Americans are so focused on the almighty dollar they refuse to see the humanitarian importance of this issue. I blame Benjamin Franklin and his followers, like Carnegie, Mellon, Peale.

-Robert

They have all been told they are worthless. Hating themselves, how much humanitarianism do you expect they're going to have left over for others. They don't even know their fucking rights. But I think I can accommodate you with that treaty thing:
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,551
6,706
126
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (10 December 1948 at Palais de Chaillot, Paris). The Guinness Book of Records describes the UDHR as the "Most Translated Document"[1] in the world. The Declaration arose directly from the experience of the Second World War and represents the first global expression of rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled. It consists of 30 articles which have been elaborated in subsequent international treaties, regional human rights instruments, national constitutions and laws. The International Bill of Human Rights consists of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its two Optional Protocols. In 1966 the General Assembly adopted the two detailed Covenants, which complete the International Bill of Human Rights; and in 1976, after the Covenants had been ratified by a sufficient number of individual nations, the Bill took on the force of international law.[2]


Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Preamble
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, therefore,

The General Assembly,

Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11
Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13
Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.
Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Article 14
Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 15
Everyone has the right to a nationality.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Article 16
Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Article 17
Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Article 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20
Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Article 21
Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
Everyone has the right to equal access to public service in his country.
The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Article 22
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23
Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 24
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25
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.
Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26
Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Article 27
Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
Article 28
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29
Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.


 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: chess9
Bush has appointed two Supreme Court Justices, and they were on the 7 side. So, the result might have been the same (but 5-4), assuming the swing voters weren't pursuaded by the new justices. Point well taken.

Winnar:

That case was a difficult one to decide however because the police did respond and did provide a professional judgement about whether the lady and her children were in danger. They were wrong. I might have taken the side of the majority in this case for that reason. However, I would have had a concurring opinion finding a constutional right to police protection once a restraining order has been issued as in this case. A threshhold of need must be established in my view before the duty arises, and a restraining order issued by a judge meets that threshhold of need.

However, it would come as a great surprise to most Americans that when they call the police, the police don't have a duty to come. That's a very cruel result, IMHO.

The other part of this case that contributed to the result is the damages aspect. The large verdict for the plaintiff certainly made it hard for some jurists to support her point of view. I think the damages issue is irrelevant to the basic constitutional issue.

Since when did you start reading minds? I did read your pro-firearms right wing Fox political screed. And, one modestly relevant case from the 19th century is hardly binding precedent as two Justices concluded. The 7th Circuit case has no precedential value.

-Robert

Errr,

1. The case was handed down before Bush got any appointments to the Supreme Court.
2. The 1856 case is hardly the only precedent. There are many over the years; here's the more recent one:

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1988/1988_87_154/

Didn't Democrats cry about precedent all the time during the Alito hearings?


Back to my original point, there has never been a duty of the government to protect you from anything. The reasoning is obvious; the government isn't going to let people sue itself.

Good point about the appointments. I should have given more thought to my response to this. :) I summarily reverse my decision. :)

That lastest case was 6-3. The duty to protect, or lack, seems to be contingent upon whether the court is packed with right wing ideologues, as it is now. I'm not sure how I'd rule on that one. The social services agencies are overwhelmed by case loads. Seems a stretch to allow them to be sued....Context is everything.

I agree that government should not be required to protect us from random acts of violence, but to conclude they have no duty to protect is not something I could agree with.

All of this is a far cry from the question of health insurance for a nation. The government is required to provide health care for prisoners. Why should a free man who is a good citizen be entitled to less?

-Robert

 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Moonie:

You got me! It must be my day. :)

I haven't read that in a very long time.

-Robert
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,551
6,706
126
Originally posted by: chess9
Moonie:

You got me! It must be my day. :)

I haven't read that in a very long time.

-Robert

I didn't get you. YOU are already human.
 

OFFascist

Senior member
Jun 10, 2002
985
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: ElFenix
medical care is a scarce good and must be rationed in some form or another.

Health care is scarce by design.

Scare by the fact that its not a job everyone can do, nor is it a job that everyone wants to do.

What are you going to do to change that? Force people to work in the health care field?
 

OFFascist

Senior member
Jun 10, 2002
985
0
0
Originally posted by: Eeezee
Right to life = Right to healthcare

Right to life is right in the Declaration, so the founding fathers suggest that we have a right to life. Not 'a right to life when one has the healthcare that covers the procedure necessary to maintain that life, or the money to pay for said procedure"

I think you are taking that to an extreme. You have the right to life in the sense that it would be a crime for someone to deprive you of your life. You do not have the right to have others keep you alive though.

If I were to go by your logic then you could say that we all have the right to immortality since it would be wrong for us to die because we have a right to life. :roll:

 

OFFascist

Senior member
Jun 10, 2002
985
0
0
Originally posted by: Perknose
I'm not interested in playing the semantic game of whether health care is a "right" or not, but it certainly is a utilitarian good. A healthy populace benefits us all, and costs less in the long run, too.

A healthy populace is like an educated poplulace is like a well informed populace . . . everybody benefits.

Well if you want to be utilitarian about it then I could argue there are too many people in the world and better health care just makes the world more overpopulated. I think abortion is probably morally wrong but its a good thing in general because less people = less competition for resources.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
Originally posted by: Eeezee
Right to life = Right to healthcare

Right to life is right in the Declaration, so the founding fathers suggest that we have a right to life. Not 'a right to life when one has the healthcare that covers the procedure necessary to maintain that life, or the money to pay for said procedure"

Do you honestly believe that the founding fathers meant there to be a huge federal agency that is in control of the citizens health care?

For the sake of argument, lets go with it for a moment. What about horrendously expensive treatments that have a low percentage of success? If it is the only procedure that could maintain your life should it be deemed "necessary" and .gov should foot the bill?

Have any of you actually taken a look at what current entitlement programs are costing us? How much they will be costing us in a decade? Our current budget versus revenue? Our current national debt and the rate that its going up?

I think they are plenty of common sense things we can do to help people without insurance get better care and save (or at least break even) a bit of money but we simply can't afford to vastly expand our entitlement programs. Period. It doesn't matter how much you raise taxes or cut spending in other programs we still won't be able to afford it. Hell, we can't afford what we have promised already.