If health care is a right, then how can it be limited? Health care means medical treatment. If it’s a right, can it be limited by, say, denying it to skydivers who make a jump each week? By people who continue to consume fast food and red meat? To smokers? To people engaging in high-risk sexual practices?
Yes, many rights, including free speech (“fire in a crowded theater”) are limited.
But who would decide the limits of any announced government “right” to health care?
ruth said on Friday, October 30, 2009, 16:38
Not in the sense of our inalienable rights, which did not come from government. I think people need to understand this distinction and I fear many don’t. Rights don’t come from government, which is why government cannot take them away.
That said, I know of no place in the US, where a poor person is denied treatment for any life threatening illness or injury. I know of many public hospitals, health clinics, non-profit hospitals and organizations dedicated to providing health care access to all.
I don’t think people are thinking through this government forced insurance scheme being worked on. Currently, an uninsured person with unpaid medical bills cannot lose his home. That might not be the case if a person has to choose between paying for insurance and a mortgage, if the government decides he can afford insurance because he has equity in his home.
Dave W said on Friday, October 30, 2009, 17:53
Yes, but I also think that the government needs to stop pumping hormones in the meat we eat and chemicals and crap in the rest of our food and and take better care of the farmers who grow food instead of taxing them to death so they have to charge the consumer up the wahu for the so called healthy food on the shelf. I think that if we had free or affordable health care many smokers would take the medicine they can’t afford now to quit and that people with sexually transmitted deceases would be able to catch it earlier as to not spread it to others. I think healthier people, both mind and body, can only result into good and there should be no limit in what we should do to help those who need it most. I also don’t think it should not be limited to only medicine, but to also herbal specialists and physiologists.
jeanette n said on Friday, October 30, 2009, 19:02
I believe that access to “basic” health care is a right. And Americans have that now. No ER in the country will turn away someone in need. Free clinics are available for other less acute problems. Hospitals funded by charitable contributions take care of a wide variety of children’s health issues for those who cannot afford to pay. There are programs to get free or low-cost pharmaceuticals.
The problem has become the expectation of just what is basic health care. People who truly are in need have a “right” to expect access to basic help… and they will find it. If a homeless guy came up to you on the street and asked for some money in order to buy a hot meal, there is no expectation that you (or a soup kitchen) are going to give him a 5-course steak dinner, but many people have come to believe that access to health care means getting the equivalent of a gourmet meal. If that same guy is looking for a place to sleep off the street, there is no expectation that he will be put up at the Ritz. We do have a right to expect to have our “basic” needs met when we fall on troubled times, but there is no “right” to unlimited access.
kathy_is said on Friday, October 30, 2009, 23:00
I think any health care should be free if an emergency or cancer or stuff like that and it is a right to have health care..THings like cosmetic surgery shouldn’t be free but allowed..
And if you are paying for your health care then you should be en tilted to any kind of treatment..With NO limitations..That is how I think the world should work.
Anonymous said on Friday, October 30, 2009, 23:01
Eating meat gives you heart disease…should only vegetarians have access to health care?
Playing sports like hockey exposes you to the risk of injury to knees, noses etc…should those who play sport not have access to health care?
Getting pregnant means you risk complications and may need intervention…does being fertile deny you the right to health care?
Hell if we ascribe to your theory the only ones getting insurance will be vegan couch potatoes who are barren!!
Scorched Eartha Policy said on Saturday, October 31, 2009, 0:23
Healthcare is not a right, it’s a choice. Even the poorest of the poor can go to a hospital and receive treatment. Now, be careful though, you get what you pay for. So all the people who want their so-called “free” healthcare, remember that.
Veritas et Aequitas (?) Lost Bet said on Saturday, October 31, 2009, 1:25
I think anybody who works hard for the benifit of their company and the country has a reasonable expectation to affordable healthcare.
Republican deregulation and insurance company cherry picking and exclusions has insured that is impossible.
future said on Saturday, October 31, 2009, 6:01
Most of the Civilised World -http://www.blogcdn.com/www.gadling.com/m…
Bamford1 said on Saturday, October 31, 2009, 9:18
Yes, just like public education and right to free legal counsel.
TRUE American Patriot said on Saturday, October 31, 2009, 12:33
Truth is the government DON’T want people living forever. Look a public education and how many people abuse that.
Another Way to See it said on Saturday, October 31, 2009, 14:52
yes. i believe that it is or should be
Kassie said on Saturday, October 31, 2009, 15:52
I believe it is a right, and just as you say, we still haven’t gotten it.
Jess. said on Saturday, October 31, 2009, 16:22
Our rights change over time.
At one time minors or children had no rights. Now they do have many that courts did not recognize only a generation ago. Women and minorities have more rights too, than a generation ago.
Today, modern medicine has helped us conquer diseases, replace deteriorated body parts, live longer, more healthy lives, and enjoy life into our 80′s, if not longer.
Senior citizens are the fastest growing sector of our economy. Retired people often continue working. Taking part-time jobs, and continuing to be tax payers and cosumers. This helps the economy.
You asked about “how can it be limited?” Well, not based on who can afford it, and who cannot afford it, that’s what we do today.
Do you think people would use medical care more if it were a right? Do rights make us more sick, or cure old problems?
Health care costs everyone too much today, because prices are not regulated, and those with insurance are already paying in their premiums for those who do not have it.
If you become disabled, and confined to a nursing home, you will cost society much more.
Preventative care saves the medical system money. It makes more sense to prevent a disease or cure it, before it becomes so bad, it takes 10 times the money to treat the same patient.
Since taxpayer money is paying for much of the medicare expenses, and treatments for children too, it makes sense then, that taxpayers’ investment needs to be protected, or regulated more, not less.
So, today we believe that “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” should also mean having a right to health care.
We don’t have that today, since even those who DO HAVE INSURANCE, can be cancelled, or lose that insurance, when they lose their job, or get a new job, without the same benefits.
Some people cannot move to better jobs, because they’d lose their health insurance. This limits personal freedom.
Less costly health care for all, would increase freedom in America, free people from worry about losing benefits, but also free up lots of money now being saved for future illnesses..
Our economy will benefit greatly, with the new health care right, and cheaper premiums, when everyone becomes a “player” or payer.
Dave W said on Saturday, October 31, 2009, 21:35
Only ignoramus’s think that.