Healthcare: Right or Privilege?

[Enadail]

In a study in 2010, 11% of all households in the US are "working poverty". That means that at least one person in that household is employed (usually with multiple jobs) and the household still only earns 50% of the median American wage.

The majority of the American poor are working at least one job to try and feed their families.

I'll ignore the baseless dismissive posters and talk to you since you have the decency to stick to debate. Thankyou for that.

The study you state the findings of (but don't reference) is in regards to households, not individuals. That someone has burdened themselves with those unwilling or unable to help them doesn't change what i've said.

Perhaps you could reference the study in either case (as it would be interesting enough).

You can continue to ignore me, doesn't mean I'll stop responding. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and stop being dismissive where possible. Its hard, because I actually do believe you're living in a fantasy world.

Working hard does not guarantee success, nor does it improve your position. People don't become poor because they're not working hard enough, nor do the rich get there because they're necessarily hard workers. If you truly believe that hard work can solve all fiscal woes, there actually isn't a point in our talking, nor do I think you'll find many conversations here, as that is a utopian, idealistic fantasy that doesn't apply to the real world.

[Souseiseki]

I'm inclined to disagree. A sex change operation isn't as essential as most other treatments, and you'd just be draining money from the government if that were covered by public healthcare. A sex change is a very drastic change, and if it were covered by the state people might be more inclined to 'do it on a whim' rather than really consider doing it because they're paying for it themselves.

Be a little realistic here. Healthcare is a very expensive investment, throwing money away to sex change operations is a shitty idea when there are people who need liver transplants to live.

WPATH standards of care posted:
“Sex reassignment is not “experimental”, “investigative”, “elective”, “cosmetic”, or optional in any meaningful sense. It constitutes very
effective and appropriate treatment for transsexualism or profound GID.”

nah, it is in many cases an essential and literally live saving procedure. even here where it is sort of covered by the state, it takes two years of hell to actually get anywhere near getting and no one does it on a whim because the idea that anyone would do it on a whim is kinda, well, dumb.

i mean, you can deny people access to an effective and in some cases absolutely necessary procedure and thereby cause huge mental distress (in some cases, to the point of suicide) because you're "inclined" to disagree but it's kinda a shitty thing to do

[Frazers]

I'll ignore the baseless dismissive posters and talk to you since you have the decency to stick to debate. Thankyou for that.

The study you state the findings of (but don't reference) is in regards to households, not individuals. That someone has burdened themselves with those unwilling or unable to help them doesn't change what i've said.

Perhaps you could reference the study in either case (as it would be interesting enough).

You can continue to ignore me, doesn't mean I'll stop responding. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and stop being dismissive where possible. Its hard, because I actually do believe you're living in a fantasy world.

Working hard does not guarantee success, nor does it improve your position. People don't become poor because they're not working hard enough, nor do the rich get there because they're necessarily hard workers. If you truly believe that hard work can solve all fiscal woes, there actually isn't a point in our talking, nor do I think you'll find many conversations here, as that is a utopian, idealistic fantasy that doesn't apply to the real world.

Claiming to give up your dismissive ways and following it up with a dismissive comment isn't a particularly convincing move.

No dice.

[Enadail]

You can continue to ignore me, doesn't mean I'll stop responding. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and stop being dismissive where possible. Its hard, because I actually do believe you're living in a fantasy world.

Working hard does not guarantee success, nor does it improve your position. People don't become poor because they're not working hard enough, nor do the rich get there because they're necessarily hard workers. If you truly believe that hard work can solve all fiscal woes, there actually isn't a point in our talking, nor do I think you'll find many conversations here, as that is a utopian, idealistic fantasy that doesn't apply to the real world.

Claiming to give up your dismissive ways and following it up with a dismissive comment isn't a particularly convincing move.

No dice.

I'm not sure how I can respond to you without being dismissive. The situation you present, that people can get out of hard times by working hard, doesn't mesh with reality. Apparently you're taking that as dismissive instead of somehow backing up your claim and proving me wrong. So either you have nothing to suggest you're right, or you just don't want to chat.

[Oneracon]

In a study in 2010, 11% of all households in the US are "working poverty". That means that at least one person in that household is employed (usually with multiple jobs) and the household still only earns 50% of the median American wage.

The majority of the American poor are working at least one job to try and feed their families.

I'll ignore the baseless dismissive posters and talk to you since you have the decency to stick to debate. Thankyou for that.

The study you state the findings of (but don't reference) is in regards to households, not individuals. That someone has burdened themselves with those unwilling or unable to help them doesn't change what i've said.

Perhaps you could reference the study in either case (as it would be interesting enough).

Brady et al. "More than just nickels and dimes: a cross-national analysis of working poverty in affluent democracies". Published in the journal Social Problems (Society for the Study of Social Problems, University of California Press) Issue 57.

http://www.soc.duke.edu/~brady/web/Bradyetal2010.pdf

And incidentally, the study refers to households because that's the smallest unit that researchers can still have meaningful national data on (through a census). Any specific "household" may only have one person in it.

[Wisconsin9]

You know, for everybody who says that botox shouldn't count, I'd just like to mention that it can be used to help treat essential tremor.

Now, in cases where you just want to smile for a couple weeks? Hell no.

[Jessjohnesik]

Obviously a right.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Is healthcare a right or a privilege?

I think healthcare is a privilege. Why should anyone be entitled to the hard work of doctors and nurses? If you can not pay for something, the responsibility does not then fall on the government to pay for it. Unless it is provided by a private charitable organization, healthcare should absolutely not be free or paid for by the government.

Nope, seems to be a guaranteed human right to me, as enshrined in Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948

[Oneracon]

You know, for everybody who says that botox shouldn't count, I'd just like to mention that it can be used to help treat essential tremor.

Now, in cases where you just want to smile for a couple weeks? Hell no.

A fair point. I suppose that a lot of widely considered "cosmetic" procedures (SRS, botox, laprascopic band, etc.) can be medically necessary.

I suppose a better criteria would be what is prescribed by a doctor or medical professional as the best course of treatment.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

You know, for everybody who says that botox shouldn't count, I'd just like to mention that it can be used to help treat essential tremor.

Now, in cases where you just want to smile for a couple weeks? Hell no.

A fair point. I suppose that a lot of widely considered "cosmetic" or "elective" procedures (SRS, botox, laprascopic band, etc.) can be medically necessary.

I suppose a better criteria would be what is prescribed by a doctor or medical professional as the best course of treatment.

Well, there are cosmetic fixes and cosmetic surgeries.
Fixing bad tooth alignment, for example, is a fix. A veneer, in most instances, would be a surgery.
Liposuction is a surgery. Emergency weight loss treatment if you're in that weight category where you're literally at death risk, then it's a fix.

[SaintB]

In a study in 2010, 11% of all households in the US are "working poverty". That means that at least one person in that household is employed (usually with multiple jobs) and the household still only earns 50% of the median American wage.

The majority of the American poor are working at least one job to try and feed their families.

I'll ignore the baseless dismissive posters and talk to you since you have the decency to stick to debate. Thankyou for that.

The study you state the findings of (but don't reference) is in regards to households, not individuals. That someone has burdened themselves with those unwilling or unable to help them doesn't change what i've said.

Perhaps you could reference the study in either case (as it would be interesting enough).

You dismiss everyone as unemployed or under employed as lazy. Yet you get angry and ignore people who dismiss you?

Hello Mr. Pot, let me introduce you to my friend Mr. Kettle (I don't want to alarm you or anything but he's Black)

[SaintB]

You know, for everybody who says that botox shouldn't count, I'd just like to mention that it can be used to help treat essential tremor.

Now, in cases where you just want to smile for a couple weeks? Hell no.

That's why I try to make a distinction between necessary and elective procedures.

[Fionnuala_Saoirse]

You know, for everybody who says that botox shouldn't count, I'd just like to mention that it can be used to help treat essential tremor.

Now, in cases where you just want to smile for a couple weeks? Hell no.

A fair point. I suppose that a lot of widely considered "cosmetic" or "elective" procedures (SRS, botox, laprascopic band, etc.) can be medically necessary.

I suppose a better criteria would be what is prescribed by a doctor or medical professional as the best course of treatment.

Quick check, because you're using it in a very strange context. Do you actually understand what 'elective surgery' means?

[Esternial]

I'm inclined to disagree. A sex change operation isn't as essential as most other treatments, and you'd just be draining money from the government if that were covered by public healthcare. A sex change is a very drastic change, and if it were covered by the state people might be more inclined to 'do it on a whim' rather than really consider doing it because they're paying for it themselves.

Be a little realistic here. Healthcare is a very expensive investment, throwing money away to sex change operations is a shitty idea when there are people who need liver transplants to live.

WPATH standards of care posted:
“Sex reassignment is not “experimental”, “investigative”, “elective”, “cosmetic”, or optional in any meaningful sense. It constitutes very
effective and appropriate treatment for transsexualism or profound GID.”

nah, it is in many cases an essential and literally live saving procedure. even here where it is sort of covered by the state, it takes two years of hell to actually get anywhere near getting and no one does it on a whim because the idea that anyone would do it on a whim is kinda, well, dumb.

i mean, you can deny people access to an effective and in some cases absolutely necessary procedure and thereby cause huge mental distress (in some cases, to the point of suicide) because you're "inclined" to disagree bu it's kinda a shitty thing to do

You're a bit too late, someone else already explained it to me, but thanks for the effort.

[Esternial]

I'm inclined to disagree. A sex change operation isn't as essential as most other treatments, and you'd just be draining money from the government if that were covered by public healthcare. A sex change is a very drastic change, and if it were covered by the state people might be more inclined to 'do it on a whim' rather than really consider doing it because they're paying for it themselves.

Be a little realistic here. Healthcare is a very expensive investment, throwing money away to sex change operations is a shitty idea when there are people who need liver transplants to live.

WPATH standards of care posted:
“Sex reassignment is not “experimental”, “investigative”, “elective”, “cosmetic”, or optional in any meaningful sense. It constitutes very
effective and appropriate treatment for transsexualism or profound GID.”

nah, it is in many cases an essential and literally live saving procedure. even here where it is sort of covered by the state, it takes two years of hell to actually get anywhere near getting and no one does it on a whim because the idea that anyone would do it on a whim is kinda, well, dumb.

i mean, you can deny people access to an effective and in some cases absolutely necessary procedure and thereby cause huge mental distress (in some cases, to the point of suicide) because you're "inclined" to disagree bu it's kinda a shitty thing to do

You're a bit too late, someone else already explained it to me, but thanks for the effort.

[4years]

Is healthcare a right or a privilege?

I think healthcare is a privilege. Why should anyone be entitled to the hard work of doctors and nurses? If you can not pay for something, the responsibility does not then fall on the government to pay for it. Unless it is provided by a private charitable organization, healthcare should absolutely not be free or paid for by the government.

Read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights lately?
Of course healthcare is a right and should be provided free by the government.

[Kalarin]

Healthcare is a right, however I highly doubt it will ever be free since we will always be paying tax of some kind and no doubt whether the state or some other body provides it there will be costs involved.

[Enadail]

Healthcare is a right, however I highly doubt it will ever be free since we will always be paying tax of some kind and no doubt whether the state or some other body provides it there will be costs involved.

I don't think anyone has ever suggested it be free. Until we become a moneyless society, that's impossible.

[Oneracon]

A fair point. I suppose that a lot of widely considered "cosmetic" or "elective" procedures (SRS, botox, laprascopic band, etc.) can be medically necessary.

I suppose a better criteria would be what is prescribed by a doctor or medical professional as the best course of treatment.

Quick check, because you're using it in a very strange context. Do you actually understand what 'elective surgery' means?

You know what, upon closer reading of the definition it seems I don't.

Thanks for pointing that out.

[Tumtumania]

EVERY PERSON HAS A RIGHT TO HEALTH CARE

[Fintanland]

It's a privilege. Claiming that it is a right basically violates other people's right to economic self-determination and their property rights. Until you can come up with a magic healthcare machine that dispenses health without using any money, healthcare is a privilege that everyone are not entitled to.

You could say that about any service provided by the government. Of course, knowing you, you do want to get rid of all the services. Until you suddenly need them.

As a final comment on last night's...ahem...enlightening ( ) conversation, I must comment that I never thought that someone would take that line in my sig about "every man for himself" being the core tenet of Buddhism seriously. It was a joke in a film!

[Freiheit Reich]

Privledge, agree with OP.

People will abuse things that are free. Look at public housing projects. You see vandalism and grafitti everywhere there. Instead of people living there being grateful, they often whine about how society is keeping them down (while having babies out of wedlock, smoking, drinking booze, and buying expensive sneakers like Adidas and Nike).

Healthcare costs are too high because of insurance and regulations. I think people should be able to be doctors with a 4 year degree and OJT. This will cause doctor's wages to drop. Lower nursing requirements as well, 1 year and OJT. Import more drugs from overseas (and medical personnel as well).

End Medicare and other govt. insurance programs.

Lowering costs will help many people out.

[Girbona]

EVERY PERSON HAS A RIGHT TO HEALTH CARE

^this, health care should simply be government funded

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Privledge, agree with OP.

People will abuse things that are free. Look at public housing projects. You see vandalism and grafitti everywhere there. Instead of people living there being grateful, they often whine about how society is keeping them down (while having babies out of wedlock, smoking, drinking booze, and buying expensive sneakers like Adidas and Nike).

Healthcare costs are too high because of insurance and regulations. I think people should be able to be doctors with a 4 year degree and OJT. This will cause doctor's wages to drop. Lower nursing requirements as well, 1 year and OJT. Import more drugs from overseas (and medical personnel as well).

End Medicare and other govt. insurance programs.

Lowering costs will help many people out.

This ignores the fact that you are outright disagreeing with the international court of human rights on the issue.

[West Florida]

I understand I'm coming in late to this conversation.

Perhaps it would help to define what a right is?

I define a right as a guarantee to action, not a tangible thing or service provided.

Rights belong to individual humans. This is due to the metaphysical nature of the human condition.

So therefore there's no right to Healthcare because that would make doctors and nurses slaves to the sick.

Society should strive to be based on voluntary transactions.