Should healthcare be a right or a privilege?

For those who think health care should be free, provided by the government, let me fill you in on some information I recently learned.

My son has to see a neurosurgeon. While visiting his office at St. Louis Children's Hospital, I saw stories on the walls about SDR. It showed pictures and news stories about children in the UK and elsewhere who needed a specialized surgery to correct nerve issues in their spinal cord. There was a story about a little girl who could only walk on her tippy-toes. Her family pleaded with the NIH to have the SDR procedure done in order for their daughter to have a normal functioning life. NIH said the procedure was not necessary and would not cover it. The family learned about Dr. T.S. Park at St. Louis Children's Hospital. They came to St. Louis and Dr. Park performed the surgery on the girl. Basically, the doctor has to open up the spinal cord, isolate the problematic nerve, and destroy it. This allows the child to have normal or near-normal function of the affected body part.

The NIH, a government-ran health care bureaucracy said it wasn't necessary and wouldn't pay for it. The family spent $28,000 to come to St. Louis to have the surgery performed.

Now, how many other cases are there where medical treatment is denied by NIH and other government-ran health care bureaucracies? Is this what you want here in America? Not a doctor deciding necessary treatment for patients, but some unelected chair warmer? No, thanks.

if all life is sacred, then every life must be preserved at all, and equal, cost. healthcare is both a right and a human entitlement.

reply to post by LDragonFire


If health care is a right then social security must be a right as well, otherwise some elderly would starve while others did not. (Odd how, not so long ago, the debate to privatize social security was in full swing ... ) Moreover, if it is a right then it is an peculiar right because the legislation penalizes/taxes (and I think lack of consensus on this point only accentuates its fallacies) an individual for not paying premiums (is it anything but insurance, much like social security?) for a projected visit to the hospital that the same individual may not seek. Add to that the argument that health care provides for a healthy & productive society (heck, Kathleen Sebelius consecrated universal heathcare a national security interest), & we can immediately recognize that universal healthcare can provide not only healthy & productive citizens, but healthy & unproductive citizens as well. So if the argument is to live up to its standard (i.e. that a healthy society is a productive society), then it stands to reason the productivity of citizens will have to be monitored, otherwise we cannot be certain universal heath care provides for both a healthy & productive society. Call that phase II of the Affordable Heathcare Act.

I tend to equate privelege with property rights--as a subset of rights. Granted, some material cannot be owned. For instance it makes no sense for me to lay claim to air, demanding that all people pay me for breathing air. But I don't think I will be misunderstood when I write that my property is both my right & my privelege, or that I confer privelege to someone else when I allow them to use my property. The same could be said of a service as well, when someone uses special knowledge or capability to provide a service for another. Under these circumstances two parties accede to a voluntarity transaction, and I think privelege is a subset of voluntary transactions.

My final thought: Healthcare is, primarily, an economically motivated service. Voluntary transactions are--or should be--a right. Non voluntary transactions are, generally, not a right. The exception being when the state mandates specific action at the penalty (call it the final recourse) of violence.

Healthcare is a privilege.

If it was a right, someone else would be forced to subsidize your "right".

Yes, healthcare should be a right, and I mean a positive right, one people are entitled to, assuming it is economically possible, of course. Which it is in wealthier parts of the world.

It is the justification for the existence of governments that they ensure basic needs of citizens are met. And these basic needs include protection of life, liberty, property, security, justice, primary education AND healthcare.

I went to see a friend of mine a few days ago and was shown some sores on her legs. Being an ex-EMT it was easy to spot this as possible MRSA, yet before I got there thaere were visits from 4 heathcare workers who she begged to take her to the hospital but all refused. This was so easy to see, Why I ask? She is blind and already can`t walk, is her life not important or something to them. Well finall she was transported to the hospital where just as I thought it was MRSA, but when I called the healthcare people I found out that none of the caregivers had said anything to anyone and continued to see other patients. We live in rural Tennessee, but this is just not acceptable in this day and age.
Now to add insult to injury I just found out that Direct TV has just stolen $751.81 from this same lady, who lives on only SSI. She canceled all money being taken off her card but still they used it to take her money away from her. They will not let her go home until her home is cleaned with CDC10 and the receiver Direct TV wants back is in the home. They do not care if the receiver is infected with MRSA or not, so I guess this means they don`t care if their people get sick or not as well.
I just thought everyone would like to know just how we are being treated out here in the real world. Have a good day.

Originally posted by rtyfx
This has got to be one of the dumbest questions ever asked on this web site.

Health care should be a right. Period.

It isn't dumb; you're just fixated on your position. OK, so I'm in the medical field (let's pretend). i'm a doctor, so because health care is a right you can force me to provide for your health? What if I don't want to? Doesn't that make me a slave? You have the "right' to free speech. You have the "right" to keep and bear arms. You have the "right" to refrain from self-incrimination. None of these "rights" infringes on anyone else. They don't compel anyone else to DO anything. But when you claim health care is a "right," you are demanding someone else work on your behalf.

In a recent poll it was found that 83% of doctors had considered quitting because of Obamacare. One of the reasons is that the government is putting the screws on Medicare payments and reducing the rates. So what are you going to do now? Force doctors to practice medicine? How about if the doctors say, "Screw you; I don't need the grief." You can have a piece of paper from the government that says, "You're insured," but that doesn't translate to medical care if there is no one to give it. Even if no one actually quits there will be a shortage of 90,000 doctors by 2020.

What does this mean? It means you have the "right" to wait in line, for months, unless you die first and give your slot in line to someone else. So much for your "rights."

reply to post by schuyler


Yep. Healthcare is a right for everyone, if you have the training and refuse to use it, it's the right of the people to force you to. Don't like that? Either don't go into the medical field or leave the country.

Healthcare isnt free. If Europe or America as a country is not willing to accept to see people die within their borders not because there is no cure, but because people can not afford the available treatment it needs to be all payed for somehow.

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by schuyler

As Rand Paul says,
I’m a physician in your community and you say you have a right to health care, You have a right to beat down my door with the police, escort me away and force me to take care of you? That’s ultimately what the right to free health care would be.

Wow, Rand Paul is a very stupid man.

Look at the top rated countries in the world, most have Universal Healthcare, and no door beating down occurs.

When a citizen consults with his Dr. and the decision is ...his house, or his life.

That is a Faulted System.

You forgot the hippocratic oath. A doctor wont have the police beat down the door, but as long as doctors are required to take the hippocratic oath they have more of a responsibility towards society than say a plumber. Do not like it? Do not become a doctor. I hear there are more affluent career paths anyway such as corporate raider.

In my opinion, there is no universal set of rules for what a society should offer to it's members.

But there does have to be some sort of benefit to membership, in order to attract and keep it's members, and make for a cohesive and healthy group.

In nature, adhering to a group assures you better survival, as the members help each other and protect each other, and cooperate in food collection and distribution.

In some societies, the people have agreed to help each other survive through cooperation in basic healthcare. Some run it better than others (there are a lot more than Canada and England, though they are the ones usually brought up as examples by those who are against it- there are positive examples too!).

It is just a matter of asking yourself what you would like your country to offer you in return for
the sacrifice of your childrens lives, and your taxes, and your cooperation in it's construction.

If the majority chooses things you yourself do not value or want, then get up and go to one that does!