Brick good to see you posting, I am not reading all of that but just wanted to say good to have you back.

Thanks. It was a nice break to get away and not have to read a certain poster.

Thanks. It was a nice break to get away and not have to read a certain poster.

The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.

No. It's not a right. A right indicates that regardless of circumstance, unless in an incredibly extreme set of circumstances, that a person should be granted full and complete access to it. For instance, your right to vote shouldn't be limited to only Presidential elections. Your right to free speech shouldn't only be limited to Tuesdays. I would guess that very few people think that people should be granted full and complete access to health care unless of course you feel that the government should be providing lasik and face lifts to anyone wants them.

Now, I know those examples are extreme, but it is used to illustrate the larger point here. It isn't a discussion of rights. It is a discussion as to what an industrialized society should choose to provide to every citizen. Now, I would argue that every citizen should be provided access to basic medical care. Do I think they have some right to it simply because they were born and/or moved here? No. It's just like I don't think they have a right to a house or a car or a boat. There are societies that take different approaches where citizens are given more, and there are societies where they are given significantly less. It's a fine balancing act, and when you start to call something a "right" you have to ask why people don't have the same rights to houses/cars/televisions/cell phones all of which are arguably more important to daily life than health care.

Now, this doesn't mean that we shouldn't provide healthcare in some form or another, and we do in a fairly poor manner to the very poor. Ironically, one of the largest drains on a hospital/doctor is the lack of payments FROM OUR GOVERNMENT! Our government is seeking to provide more medical care when they struggle to provide medical care now. The other problem is that when you are given something for "free" you take it for granted. You can find plenty of every day stories about how some poor patients treat a trip to the doctor. It goes anywhere from being entitled to even using the emergency room as a babysitter or hotel with room service. I am of the firm belief that every person, even if they have $10 to their name, should pay for every medical visit they have. It changes your perspective on what is important and what is simply not necessary. This is a pretty standard concept in just about any facet of life. If there is some financial cost to doing something, you will prioritize better. This is another reason why it isn't a right. I believe there should be qualifiers for your medical care as instead of it being an action, it is actually a service being rendered. Even if it's something as simple as anyone on Medicaid/Medicare pays $5 per visit.

As to Don Tiny's point about a relative/friend getting sick with no coverage I will say that it is sad but we have to be more realistic here. Many of us with good insurance are going to see either major decreases in our quality of health care or major increases in costs. This money can't come out of thin air. We can try bleeding dry the wallet of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett but you know they are smart enough to keep that money. We need more regulation and more options. Now, if the government wants to get involved in catastrophic care where for a small premium based on income you can be covered if you get cancer or in a car accident I'm all for it. Take it directly out of the welfare check and make it mandatory. Do the same for basic coverage. I actually really like the mandatory coverage of Obamacare. It's about the only really good thing about it.

So, no, not a right. It's something a society that can afford it can decide should be provided. I think our society should but I'm not ready to put it with the right to vote or the right to free speech.

Not talking about the cost of medical treatment for the insurance, but for the portion that the insurance companies set aside to pay lawyers. Its a staggering #$$$.

They dont even go to trial anymore. Its just a $$$ figure placed on everything. Settlement done. Lawyers takes 1/3 + expenses. Poor sap left with a few bucks after they pay their back bills and real expenses. Of course they can borrow from another friend of mine based on the validity of their lawsuit at the easy rate of 28-42%!!!

Aren't doctor's required to provide it by their oath of office.

I'm not sure exactly what you are referencing here but doctors are not under any obligation to provide care. Doctors can fire patients.

Now, the emergency room is different, but that is pushed by US law.

I'm thinking macro. Aren't all doctors bound by the Hippocratic Oath (not legally but morally)? If so, they are recognizing as a group that their training obliges them in some way to humanity.

If the question is "is there a right to health care" (not Health Care), it would seem a doctor would have to answer that "yes" there is some intrinsic right to it.

I'm not a doctor, but I believe the Hippocratic Oath is more about "do no harm" than a guideline to provide care.
The ones I have interacted with seem to take the stance that they want to provide the best care they can regardless of ability to pay, but if too many patients have no ability to pay, or have government insurance that struggles to even cover the cost of materials, they can't provide the best care to anyone.

It just still amazes me how no one seems to bring up that government healthcare is one of the major problems with our current health care system when talking about whether expanding the government healthcare system can improve our current health system.

Aren't doctor's required to provide it by their oath of office. If they have an obligation, doesn't that imply a corresponding right?

The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.

Is it a wrong?

Besides Brick & Pitt Mike, who are the other 6 heartless bastages to vote no?

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

Heartless?

Ok, if healthcare is a right... shouldn't food be a right? Please, indulge me in this it is going somewhere.

The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.

I would hope so.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

So if someone has no food, it's the government responsibility to give him food, right?

I'm cool with that.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

Something that's won't make them unhealthy fucks that in turn drain $ from healthcare at least. It's stupid you can get 2 double cheeseburgers, a fry, and large Coke at McD's for the same price as a salad.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

Are you cool with feeding them caviar and spareribs and boneless ribeyes or should they be getting more basic type foods?

The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.

Since the beginning of civilization the best ones took care of the poor, the widows and the orphans.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

Whatever we can afford from half our defense budget works for me. Give a man a doobie and he can smoke for a day. Teach a man to grow weed and he can smoke for life.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

I don't think every question necessarily presumes a either/or scenario between having access to certain services or materials through the government, or being left alone to earn the means to acquire said goods or services. There's a ton that could probably be done at the more local level of communities and such, which would require a ton of grassroots effort and collaboration. Of course there's already plenty of work being done at local levels across states in terms of food, housing, and medical care for those most in need, but it's still not enough (and I don't know if there ever can be "enough.") There's also the issue of freeloading and what have you, but I just wanted to point out that this discussion doesn't always have to revolve around the government/individual dichotomy.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.