Re: health care - rights

August 20, 2009

You bring up good points, Connie. Talking about a " right " to health

care is problematic and I cringe whenever someone says that. The

rights we all have at birth as human beings are so-called " negative

rights, " they're not provided by anybody and you having those rights

doesn't require anyone to do anything except just not deprive you of

them.

We can still decide universal health care is worth doing. Without

using the language of rights--that will just set off libertarians and

conservatives--why not just talk about how important it is to get

everybody in the system as a matter of humane values. I am inclined to

think single-payer is a good way to go, but there are other options

that other capitalistic democracies have chosen (see the frontline

special). What they all have in common is the government plays a role

in setting the terms, and insurers are not allowed to exclude anyone

from the system. That's *the* fundamental issue, getting everybody in

the system. I think single-payer could be a very good way to go, as

there can be huge cost savings from no duplication of billing systems

for each company, etc., but it is not the only way that is succeeding

in the world.

In the case of Switzerland, the government establishes what minimum

health care everybody gets, and about 200 insurers compete for

customers. When Switzerland moved to their present system in the

1990s, they already had 95% coverage of their population, and they

still thought that for the equality of their citizens they should

amend the system to require everyone to be in it and no refusing to

cover anybody. The Germans talk a lot about human dignity requiring

that each citizen be covered.

It doesn't have to be a fundamental right enshrined in the

Constitution for health care to be something that we decide as a

people is a priority to us, like education, the judiciary, the police,

a basic welfare safety net, universal postal service, etc. etc. People

sometimes say (as I used to), why would we want the same government

that runs the postal service to run health care? For one thing, I'm

very happy with the Postal Service, and I am a frequent customer.

Likewise I'm happy with DMV. (Now, the local sheriff's office and DA's

office are another matter--they're politicized.)

Also, most countries with universal health care do not have government

ownership of hospitals, clinics, medical equipment makers, or

drugmakers, and don't employ most doctors directly. Instead, they're

either the single insurer (payer) or they are the referee that forces

private insurers to cover everybody. It's interesting that when the

U.S. interviewer asked the policy experts from the 5 countries

profiled whether their system was " socialized medicine, " they were

like, what are you talking about? It's socialized insurance. The

doctors are in private practice; in some cases, Canada for one, a

higher percentage of Canadian doctors is in private practice than in

the U.S. And the most socialized systems out there? Along with Cuba,

the U.S. Veterans Administration system.

As to complaints about cost, there are obviously smarter and less

smart ways to organize any particular enterprise. And the European and

Asian countries profiled in the Frontline report have all made

improvements in their systems as they've gone along. The government

can negotiate cost cuts or holding down the rate of growth. This has

worked elsewhere. It works for the VA.

In addition, why does this need to be a money-making venture? It seems

to me like education, an investment in our citizenry, and the humane

thing to do. I'm not saying therefore costs don't matter; of course

they do. But that is a separate issue from, do we do this or not? The

basic issue, to me, is universal coverage. There are various ways to

do that. But the most basic objective the country needs to agree on is

that nobody can be shut out of the system, and no one should go

bankrupt over medical bills. Once again, this series is full of good

ideas and the truth about what's going on in various countries, not

just rumors or anecdotes. It's not touting any particular solution,

just shedding light on what's out there and how it works:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

cheers,

Jeanmarie

On Aug 20, 2009, at 2:46 PM, cbrown2008 wrote:

> > The fundamental question is one of human rights -

> > do people have the right to healthcare -

>

> Ok I'll bite, I haven't actually asked this of a believer. Ancient,

> how can other people's service be a right of mine?

>

> Other rights, such as freedom of person and freedom of religion, are

> things that I am born with, not to be taken from me.

>

> But I don't see how it is my right to require doctors and nurses to

> treat me.

>

> I can see where I am born with health, such as it may be, and have

> the right to pursue its continuance.

>

> Connie

>

August 21, 2009

Just because the examples that you can think of are so called 'negative rights'

doesn't mean that rights be definition are negative. Unless you believe that

these things are religiously based, these are things that we as human beings

decide to apply to people. there is nothing that is scientifically measurable

that is 'freedom of speech', and some societies don't recognize it. However,

most people here, do recognize it as a right that a good and just society gives

to people.

Just as in the context of our society, where people lose everything, get sick,

or even die, because of lack of healthcare, we can decide as just and

compassionate people that this is a right. And that IS what just and

compassionate people do.

Re: Â health care - rights

Â