52 percent of Democrats say this is the most important value that should guide health care reform, compared with only 26 percent of Independents and 12 percent of Republicans.
The contentiousness to this single question is the major reason why I suspect nothing major will get accomplished in the end.
Related posts:
- The cold war of American health care
- Best care in the world?
- "Universal health care provides equal but mediocre care to everyone"
- Health care: Too important to be left to doctors?
- Ignoring the positives of American health care
- How universal health care can hurt military recruitment
- The battle-SCHIP is just the start
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 9 comments }
Begala and Greenberg have lots of graphs and a hopeful outlook regarding national healthcare, but no workable plan. The problem for the would-be implementers is that there is no good way to hide the costs, as they must in order to pass such reform. US taxpayers are not prepared to pay a jaw-dropping tab for a program that poses no benefit to them. “If I have insurance, why should I vote to raise my taxes so the government can do it?”
Before we argue about whether it’s a right, we should decide whether we think it’s a good!
People do have a right to healthcare, at least in New York State: if they present to the ER, they will be seen regardless of ability to pay. However, sloganeering, i.e. “Healthcare is a right!”, does not help the situation.
That being said, something has to be done. There are no perfect solutions, not even good solutions, only “less bad” solutions. A single payer system, in my opinion, is “less bad” than the status quo, and will be cheaper than private insurance, which takes 30 percent off the top, compared to Medicare’s 3-5%.
I think that questions such as “Are you happy with your healthcare?” are flawed and misleading. Most people, thankfully, are healthy and only minimally utilize their healthcare, therefore they are happy with it. Why don’t we ask them if they think it is too expensive? I bet you close to 100% will say yes.
Underpaid family practitioner in upstate New York
I think that health care could probably fall under the category of a “right” but I don’t think it is everyone’s right to have someone else pay for their health care. Do we want a system where we must wait months and months for necessary treatment? I know I don’t. And I do not trust the US government to do any better than the Canadian government.
Healthcare is not and can never be a natural right as these are liberties which others might unjustly interfere with but which do not require that others be enslaved by mandates or taxes to provide them.
Healthcare can be a legislated privilege the provision of which is compelled by the government by threat of violence or seizure or property–which is precisely what EMTALA does.
The difference is that proclaiming a privilege diminishes the rights of others while rights can be exercised without diminishing the rights of others.
Healthcare is most certainly not a right. A right is not something given to you, it is something that innately belongs to you. The government does not grant the right of free speech. We already have the right to free speech and the government should not abrogate that right. Healthcare, or other programs, are not rights, since they require someone else to actively do something for you. That being said, we may feel that collectively healthcare for all is a worthy use of public funds. However, that is a different discussion.
Health care is a public good. What do I mean by this? Simple, it behooves society as a whole to make sure those that have contagious diseases are treated properly so they do not spread disease.
Basic health care is a right, but not in the way most people define it. It is a protection for society. There are things like vaccinations, treatment for certain types of diseases and disabilities that allow society to better function. History teaches us that if these things are allowed to go unchecked by a robust health care system, well, society as a whole can suffer devastating consequences.
I want to pay to make sure that another epidemic does not wreak havoc on our economy – even though lack of a good public health care system has already had devastating effects on our overall economy.
Mixed economies work, and a mixed economy in medicine would work. There are things that anyone who understands the concept of the public good (I know this is anathema to Republicans), knows that there are things that need to be dealt with no matter the financial means of the patient for the good of society. There are other things that belong in a true market economy. It isn’t fair, but the test should be:
Does the public good outweigh the public expense?
In some cases this will be true, and in others it won’t. Rapid proper treatment of highly contagious diseases is a public good that outweighs expense. Treatment of heart disease, not so much. There are economic models that can be used to determine this.
Pax,
MLO
I would like the “right” to purchase health care at a fair price despite the fact that I have an incurable disease.
Every statement I get has a list price and what my insurer paid for it.
The Democrats want to phrase this all as access. They have a legitimate point. I would like to be able to purchase health care at a fair price independently of who I work for and who my insurance company is.
Costs – and what’s appropriate is the unspoken other shoe in this debate. Even Obama mentioned health care costs in his SC acceptance speech. I think that doesn’t make it onto the public platforms as readily because people tune out on it.
But, for access to be universal costs will have to be addressed. Controlling costs will be more than just determining what works, it will also mean determining “who” gets what. I believe the public sees that as an inequality and rejects it. But age and health are common to all. We can not escape them.
That leans me towards McCain for President. A Democratic legislature ready to change pricing and a Republican President ready to do the dirty work of “costs” might be a solution.
I assumed healthcare was a right because all these doctors told me that if I’d give them tort reform I would have plenty of specialists wherever I went. So if I’m entitled to specialists now that they have it, why stop there?
Comments on this entry are closed.