the right to health

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-14-2010
the right to health
260
Thu, 08-19-2010 - 12:36pm
Question. Why do you think health care is a right? If you do, then doesn't that right extend to people in utero and to the 85 year olds? Or just to those who contribute to society?

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-25-2006
Sun, 08-22-2010 - 8:49pm

<>

In the cons' minds they CHOOSE to live like that. In the cons' minds EVERYONE has equal opportunity. Why? Because this is the great U.S. of A.; and because Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh say so. No need to think any further than that!

That is the #1 difference between Dems and Republicans and that is why I will NEVER vote for ANY Republican.

-----------------------------------------------
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/october/meet_the_new_health_.php

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQTBYQlQ7yM

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-19-2010
Sun, 08-22-2010 - 9:28pm

> And it's nothing like the arguments for private gun ownership.<

>>> Really? Oh dear, the old man in Texas lauded for shooting and killing the two men who broke into his neighbor's house (while said neighbors were on vacation) was protecting more than his neighbors' material wealth? Hardly.

Sure he was. First, besides the fact that people's homes carry much more than material wealth, the man's neighbors don't live on an isolated island. Criminals that are allowed to prey on one potentially makes all the neighbors victims. And who is to say that the criminals knew the home was empty...or would have stopped at robbing just one home? Unlike the woman getting an abortion, the Texas man's actions were in most respects, acts of self-defense.

>And I'm sure you're equally aware that the doctors who perform those abortions are all about churning out those abortions like a conveyor belt gizmo in some Chinese factory.<

>>> The abortion providers I personally know are not intent on "churning them out" but rather are concerned with a woman's whole health, not just whether or not she can be a puppy mill for the next generation.

You personally know a lot of abortion providers? That seems odd...are you in the trade yourself?

>One's religious beliefs aside, is abstinence the only other method available?<

>>> Condoms are not that effective to be anywhere near as reliable as the pill, etc.,

Condoms are 94-97% effective...as compared to the pill which is 92-99% effective. However...

"Of course, exactly how effective the Pill will be for you depends on whether you take your birth control pills every day--just missing 1 pill significantly raises your chance of getting pregnant. On average, about 5 out of 100 couples will get pregnant in a year while using the Pill."
http://womenshealth.about.com/od/thepill/f/pilleffectivene.htm

>>> and the only other methods are only useful if one NEVER intends to have children (or never again.) Some young couples benefit from being able to postpone having children until they are more financially stable. And some might find that spacing their children out provides for financial stability.

Sounds like people making responsible choices. Odd then, that these same people would consider killing their children to be a "responsible choice" because they got pregnant an an inconvenient time.

>>> Despite your moral problems with it, the most effective forms of birth control, short of abstinence and sterilization, have contributed to the increase in standard of living for American families in the last 50 years or so.

An interesting new argument from the left..."abortion...it's good for your lifestyle and good for the economy." I can hardly wait to see the billboards.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-19-2010
Sun, 08-22-2010 - 9:47pm

>BTW, when someone is in need of the best medical care in the world, they aren't rushing off to Switzerland or France, are they?<

>>> And Americans are going elsewhere too. We're advising people go to Singapore and other countries for AFFORDABLE quality surgeries. And when it comes to some procedures, people are even going to Europe.

Typically for elective surgeries that aren't covered by insurance in the US.

>Forced no...but socially inferred. And retirement from a "career" doesn't mean one retires from life. But to the point...those seniors who choose to continue with their careers don't require you to insure them, now do they?<

>>> Employer covered health care is part of the mandatory care, but I know that what many employers do for those on Medicare is provide supplemental insurance.

Mandated employer-provided health insurance is part of Obama's socialized healthcrap bill, not part of the American system that has worked for the past 50+ years. And why should employers provide redundant health insurance to those who are already covered elsewhere? That's bad business.

>You are only required to have insurance if you want to drive a vehicle, and that insurance is to cover any damage YOU may inflict on others if YOU cause an accident...not to provide free or subsidized insurance to others.<

>>> It is to protect others from the costs associated with not having insurance. Just like the added costs to society when individuals don't get proper health care. Like not taking medications because they cannot afford them. Individuals having to choose between buying food and going to the dentist.

Nope...it's to protect others from the infliction of damage that YOU may cause but may not have the personal wealth to compensate the injured party for.

>>> Perhaps you've never gone without insurance. Perhaps you've always made enough money to care for your family's health care needs. But not everyone does. There are those whose major income is barely enough to cover basic expenses (shelter, food, clothes). These are the people who clean your offices, pump your gas, build your homes, mow your lawns, cook food and wait tables at the restaurants you dine at. These are people who haven't had the same opportunities that you and I have had. Yeah, there are those who wasted their chances, but there are so many others who just haven't had them at all.

And for those poor folks we, a compassionate society, provide them with healthcare at our hospitals and free clinics.

>>> I know I'm lucky. I live in an area that gets hit much more lightly by recession than elsewhere. Jobs like mine are not rare here, and were I to become unemployed it would not be for long. But there are areas that don't have plentiful jobs, and even moving to another area won't help everyone. Do you propose they should just be happy they can see others getting medical care they can one day aspire to buy?

If they've got a healthcare issue, then they should be proactive and seek assistance at the aforementioned hospitals and free clinics. If their situation is more dire, then they should seek assistance through the hospital's charitable programs or similar programs provided by various charities and religious organizations. BTW, the issue at hand is one of health INSURANCE...not CARE. Anyone is free to go to any medical facility and personally pay for the care they receive without ever having insurance.

>>> Should health care be viewed as a "pursuit of happiness" issue?

Sure...let everyone pursue as much healthcare as they feel is required to bring them "happiness"...but your right to pursue "happiness" stops when it infringes on others to provide it.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-19-2010
Sun, 08-22-2010 - 9:49pm

>>> Perhaps we should clarify this. The Bill of Rights is not an enumeration of human rights. And it wasn't included in the original document. It was added on 4 years later. And they introduced the Bill of Rights to get the states to ratify the Constitution.

Really? I had no idea. I thought it was just one big piece of paper. Silly me.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sun, 08-22-2010 - 9:51pm

> And who is to say that the criminals knew the home was empty...or would have stopped at robbing just one home?

>the Texas man's actions were in most respects, acts of self-defense.< Having been physically assaulted once and robbed on another occasion, I assure you that they are not the same crime, nor should they be perceived as such. It is NOT self defense to kill a man who is not directly threatening you, and it is not defense of others when others are not present.

>You personally know a lot of abortion providers? That seems odd...are you in the trade yourself?< Nope, just know quite a few gynecologists socially.

>Condoms are 94-97% effective...as compared to the pill which is 92-99% effective. However...< Condoms are also subject to the exact same problems you mentioned, in that if the user hasn't been conscientious with storage, the age of the product, etc., the effective rate is diminished. The most effective way to prevent pregnancy (aside from of course sterilization and abstinence) is to combine condom usage with hormonal birth control usage.

>Sounds like people making responsible choices. Odd then, that these same people would consider killing their children to be a "responsible choice" because they got pregnant an an inconvenient time.< They space the children out using the effective forms of birth control. Your argument is to deny them that because you perceive their method as "baby killing" even when it isn't an abortion.

>An interesting new argument from the left..."abortion...it's good for your lifestyle and good for the economy." I can hardly wait to see the billboards.< Your definition of abortion would include the hormonal forms of birth control, which are the most effective at helping families control their size.

Sandy
Sandy
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sun, 08-22-2010 - 10:16pm

>Typically for elective surgeries that aren't covered by insurance in the US.< Singapore is becoming known as a great destination for inexpensive and quality heart and brain surgery. India is becoming known for reproductive services. Blue Shield in California and Blue Cross/Blue Shield of South Carolina provide coverage for patients to seek care in other countries where that care is available at a lower cost.

If you'd like, I'll provide sources for those.

>And for those poor folks we, a compassionate society, provide them with healthcare at our hospitals and free clinics.< Free clinics which are not available in every community, heck not even in every county in this country. And those free clinics don't generally care for everything.

Yes, they get free care at hospitals, which is why an emergency room visit is so expensive.

>If their situation is more dire, then they should seek assistance through the hospital's charitable programs or similar programs provided by various charities and religious organizations. BTW, the issue at hand is one of health INSURANCE...not CARE. Anyone is free to go to any medical facility and personally pay for the care they receive without ever having insurance.< Only if you have the money for it. In 1989 an emergency room visit cost me $850 out of pocket when I had no insurance. Thankfully I only needed to receive that emergency care and not any followup, but it was still over 10 months of paying what I could monthly, and getting nasty phone calls from the hospital while I was at work demanding payment in full. Yep, good times those.

And that was during a recession, so I was lucky to have a job at all, even though I had a degree, even though I had work experience, even though I had good references.

>Sure...let everyone pursue as much healthcare as they feel is required to bring them "happiness"...but your right to pursue "happiness" stops when it infringes on others to provide it.< And that is where we disagree. I don't see healthcare as a "pursuit of happiness". I see it necessary for life. Do you really want the nation's children going to school with kids whose families can't afford to give them a full course of antibiotics for, say, MURSA, and therefore perhaps contract something even MORE resistent?

Sandy
Sandy
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-19-2010
Mon, 08-23-2010 - 1:13am

> And who is to say that the criminals knew the home was empty...or would have stopped at robbing just one home?<

>>> They probably scoped it out, as do the many burglars who hit homes while the occupants are off to work. That's why homes with dogs are less likely to be hit.

Probably? Ok...I say probably not. Check. And the reason why homes with dogs are less likely to be hit is because the dogs make noise and scare the criminal away, not necessarily because the criminal has done scads of research and bypassed the home with the dog entirely.

>the Texas man's actions were in most respects, acts of self-defense.<

>>> Having been physically assaulted once and robbed on another occasion, I assure you that they are not the same crime, nor should they be perceived as such. It is NOT self defense to kill a man who is not directly threatening you, and it is not defense of others when others are not present.

Sorry, but anyone committing a robbery is a threat to their victim. The act itself is sufficient justification to take action to defend yourself against a PERCEIVED threat to your life. And with regard to the Texas man, he reported that the criminals went after him in his own yard, and so defended himself with extreme prejudice...boo hoo...crime doesn't pay.

>You personally know a lot of abortion providers? That seems odd...are you in the trade yourself?<

>>> Nope, just know quite a few gynecologists socially.

And several of these gynecologists perform abortions?...and then discuss their patients with you?

>Condoms are 94-97% effective...as compared to the pill which is 92-99% effective. However...<

>>> Condoms are also subject to the exact same problems you mentioned, in that if the user hasn't been conscientious with storage, the age of the product, etc., the effective rate is diminished.

Only if you're talking about an 18 year old who's kept an unused condom in his wallet for the past few years praying for the day he gets lucky. Most guys tend to buy condoms...and then use them. The only problem occurs when they accidentally break...which accounts for the less than 100% effectiveness.

>>> The most effective way to prevent pregnancy (aside from of course sterilization and abstinence) is to combine condom usage with hormonal birth control usage.

And when that fails, just kill the baby. 100% effective...but since killing the baby is the issue, then folks should just accept that s*@! happens and accept responsibility for their actions.

>Sounds like people making responsible choices. Odd then, that these same people would consider killing their children to be a "responsible choice" because they got pregnant an an inconvenient time.<

>>> They space the children out using the effective forms of birth control. Your argument is to deny them that because you perceive their method as "baby killing" even when it isn't an abortion.

They have other options to prevent pregnancy that don't involve extinguishing human life.

>An interesting new argument from the left..."abortion...it's good for your lifestyle and good for the economy." I can hardly wait to see the billboards.<

>>> Your definition of abortion would include the hormonal forms of birth control, which are the most effective at helping families control their size.

If controlling the size of families is the objective, then why stop at killing the unborn? Oh, right...there's that hypocrisy thing. As I said before, there are several other methods of preventing pregnancy that don't require one to kill.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-19-2010
Mon, 08-23-2010 - 1:40am

>Typically for elective surgeries that aren't covered by insurance in the US.<

>>> Singapore is becoming known as a great destination for inexpensive and quality heart and brain surgery. India is becoming known for reproductive services. Blue Shield in California and Blue Cross/Blue Shield of South Carolina provide coverage for patients to seek care in other countries where that care is available at a lower cost.

Yeah, I'm not seeing a flood of Americans rushing to Singapore for discount brain surgery.

>>> If you'd like, I'll provide sources for those.

Sure...I'd love to see the links showing the rush of Americans traveling abroad for superior medical treatment.

>And for those poor folks we, a compassionate society, provide them with healthcare at our hospitals and free clinics.<

>>> Free clinics which are not available in every community, heck not even in every county in this country. And those free clinics don't generally care for everything.

What?!!! You mean that we don't provide free clinics on every block, door-to-door shuttle service and a free lunch? How selfish of us! And yeah, those free clinics do generally provide the same care most other clinics do...and if there's something they can't provide, the doctor there refers patients to a facility where they can get the proper care.

>>> Yes, they get free care at hospitals, which is why an emergency room visit is so expensive.

Not for the "poor" people...or the folks with insurance.

>If their situation is more dire, then they should seek assistance through the hospital's charitable programs or similar programs provided by various charities and religious organizations. BTW, the issue at hand is one of health INSURANCE...not CARE. Anyone is free to go to any medical facility and personally pay for the care they receive without ever having insurance.<

>>> Only if you have the money for it. In 1989 an emergency room visit cost me $850 out of pocket when I had no insurance. Thankfully I only needed to receive that emergency care and not any followup, but it was still over 10 months of paying what I could monthly, and getting nasty phone calls from the hospital while I was at work demanding payment in full. Yep, good times those. And that was during a recession, so I was lucky to have a job at all, even though I had a degree, even though I had work experience, even though I had good references.

Add up the cost of insurance for all of the years you or your employer provided it but didn't use it and compare the costs. Unless it was something catastrophic, you probably came out ahead.

>Sure...let everyone pursue as much healthcare as they feel is required to bring them "happiness"...but your right to pursue "happiness" stops when it infringes on others to provide it.<

>>> And that is where we disagree. I don't see healthcare as a "pursuit of happiness". I see it necessary for life.

So is food and housing...but I don't see you saying that other people should be providing it to you.

>>> Do you really want the nation's children going to school with kids whose families can't afford to give them a full course of antibiotics for, say, MURSA, and therefore perhaps contract something even MORE resistent?

So now a fear of the plague is the excuse for infringing on people's rights and forcing them to buy insurance so you can give it free to others? Really?

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2001
Mon, 08-23-2010 - 11:22am

Your employer is undoubtedly preparing for the increased health care costs imposed by Obamacare. . .that is unless you are in a union, are a member of Congress or work there, are a member of the Obama administration -- then, Obama excluded you along with himself and his own family!


There is no free lunch. . .exactly who did anyone believe was going to pay for Obamacare:

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2001
Mon, 08-23-2010 - 11:29am

I agree, the right to pursue happiness is all that is guaranteed. . .a far different right than those who insist that others must provide them with whatever they think they need to be happy.

Pages