Should healthcare be a right or a service?

  • It should be a right, obviously.
    Vote A
  • It should be a service, obviously.
    Vote B
  • The two aren’t mutually exclusive.
    Vote C
  • Other
    Vote D
Select age and gender to cast your vote:
I'm a GirlI'm a Guy

1|1
37100

Most Helpful Girls

  • Its hard to say. For the most part I look at things like the crazy price for an epi pen or insulin and im gobsmacked that these people pay so much just to assure that they can stay alive, and thats not right.

    But on the other hand i dont wanna pay for some old geezers Viagra and i know other people dont want to pay for my birth control. Or maybe someone doesn't want to pay for narcan for people who OD.

    But when i look at the overall picture, I'm fine with my tax money buying a boner if it means someone else can be assured chemo, dialysis, insulin or whatever.

    1|1
    0|0
    • " the crazy price"
      That is a result of government regulations that restrict competition. Prices for many medications could drop by half, even 90% in some cases, overnight with a vote of congress and the stroke of a pen.

    • Show All
    • You conclude "thats not right." But the REASON why those things cost so much is because of government regulation. The high prices are not the result of a free market, but a government controlled one, a government that specifically increases the costs to consumers for the benefit of favored cronies.

      Those people who want nationalized healthcare are asking for MORE regulation, which is what drives up the prices in the first place.

    • @WalterRadio I redirect you back to my original post

  • It should be a right , yes. If everyone who uses it pays a little bit in each month to cover each other then it works as an insurance policy to enable the poorest and most needy to have access to all medical treatment required. It reduces any health inequality, and in a world where that can be provided why should we say no just because of money and greed? It’s ridiculous! It’s not black and white, no. But ultimately when it comes down to it, regardless of all other complex issues involved, it CAN work, and there’s no reason it shouldn’t. Tax based healthcare systems are proved to work best in so many ways.

    5|7
    0|1
    • there's one issue, when government invests in such things the prices tend to stay high because there's going to be no competition, when it does become competitive prices of such services lower quite a significant amount.

    • Show All
    • You’ve told me nothing I’m not aware of so far and I feel you’re misusing the point. I’m extremely busy at the moment but if you want to continue the debate you’ll have to wait to let me get back to you on it.

    • *missing

Most Helpful Guys

  • I sees it as a right and is a big supporter of universal healthcare. There would always be people who are either born disabled or sick - and people who becomes either sick or disabled later on; both children and adults. People don't choose to get cancer, paralyzed or any other forms of medical conditions. Sometimes people can't work because of their health and therefor their income would be much lower than what it would be if they could work. Some would never be able to work anymore because their conditions are permanent.

    So if the healthcare system isn't universal, not everyone can afford a properly and good healthcare. People would either go bankrupt or both bankrupt and die. The gap between rich and poor would get a lot bigger. They can't be depended on charity only because if there are no government in the picture, there wouldn't be enough to help everyone. It's too few people who does charity to it being effective enough on a big enough scale. When the government are controlling the taxes and distributes it - it would reach more people because it has more power. Private persons or commoners don't have the same opportunity to do so.

    A good healthcare for everyone would bettering people's well-being and therefor it should be a right. If it's possible to reduce someone's suffering, then we should try to do something.

    The next injured or sick person could be me, you, your parents, your siblings, your children or your dear neighbor. It can affect us all, so working together as a community isn't a dumb idea in my opinion.

    1|3
    0|0
    • I think we should have healthcare for all, but it should NEVER be called a right. Calling something a right means you have to make it someone's responseablty to follow and insure that right. This would effectively enslave doctors, and if people stop becoming doctors by their own will you must force people to become a doctor to fulfill that right. A right has very real, legal obligations that we can't willy nilly be determinibg everything as. Think of it like this, rights are used to allow freedom, if you are dropped into the woods and are told that you have the freedom of speech, well you can yell and fulfill it. But if you say you have the right to a house, and look around, a house will not.

    • Show All
    • The legally binding meaning of the word "right" is not the same in America as it is in Norway. In America the best term to match Norways word is "goverment assisted privilege" as odd as that may sound. And i would support having a government assisted privilege of healthcare. Using the word right in America is mainly different due to our constitution and it's orgins.

    • @TacoFamine, I've experienced confusion and misunderstanding earlier on GAG because of in my country we're using the language different about things than Americans do.

  • This issue is uber complex, so many moving parts that not many people have knowledge on. I think what I’ve seen is that many people instinctively or inherently feel healthcare should be a right, yet there’s surely much more going on that furthers this topic more into ambiguity than simply an issue of black and white. If I had to talk on this issue, I’m leaning more towards health care being a right than just a service. Again, I have no knowledge on this matter so, I’m just going on pure feeling or instinct. There’s a lot of questions to be asked like what quality of healthcare? What is included in the umbrella term “healthcare?”, and much much more

    1|1
    0|0

Recommended Questions

Have an opinion?

What Girls Said 35

  • For one if it wasn't for profit or money to be made no one would want to be a doctor and hospitals would be shit since they are in it for profit too. Any really good doctor will be in private practice or work for big hospitals. The lower grade doctors will work for HMO's. So I don't see how universal health care will work.

    1|0
    0|0
    • They still get paid well even under a universal health care system, granted not as much under a private system.

    • @bloodmountain1990 And who is it who is going to pay them? For profit doctors can negotiate wages based on experience and talents. Universal doctors would get like a minimum wage type of deal.

    • 👏👏👏👏 some gets it.. just ignore him he's under everyone post saying the same thing. We've all ignored him

  • my grand father said many times and I agree with him, the only rights you have is the square foot you stand on, and a right to you pay, all the rest are privileges you only get what you pay or put into it, I'm from the UK, but we have to pay for the NHS, by paying into it,

    0|1
    1|1
  • It should be an affordable service but a person's life shouldn't be put at risk of dying if they can't afford it. I think it would help if big pharma wasn't charging us and insurance companies an arm and a leg for prescriptions. I don't think it should cost $1000 just for an ambulance to get you too the hospital. But of course people deserve to get paid for their service. Just don't price gouge people.

    1|1
    0|0
    • People who work for healthcare in a universal system still get paid, just through taxes.

    • Exactly that's just insane

    • At current prices that will charge everybody that, and it's so much that even if you make the entire upper class pay everything they make, you will still be butt fucking the middle class. You have to reduce the price first, and find a way where under governmental control it dosnt become inefficient and start price gouging the tax syestem. This time the government will help them do so as it's easy to croupt.

  • Firstly, they're not mutually exclusive.
    Secondly, universal health care doesn't even have to be state run as long as it's non profit. That's how it works in my home country and from the the health care systems I've experienced it's def the best one

    0|1
    0|0
  • I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. The US system is broken either way. I learned recently my mom is taking her medicine every other day because sometimes it's too expensive...

    0|3
    0|0
    • And yet she could get the same med in another country for a fraction of the cost.

    • Show All
    • You might like to watch Fahrenheit 11/9.

      theintercept.com/.../

    • Thanks. I will.

  • A right and a service.

    It would be different if it was:
    Right = needing emergency surgery

    Service = breast implants

    1|3
    0|0
    • Breast implants are cosmetic and are included even in our current third party insurance system. It is not considered healthcare.

    • Are not* included in our current system.

  • All able bodied working adults should have a source of income via a job, etc...
    after the contributions made to society I think healthcare is automatic..
    They take taxes out of my check and do whatever with it. I think people should be able to see a doctor.

    0|2
    0|0
  • The right to live, "healthcare" as courtesy of the government provided that we gave them the power to "protect" the race of humanity it's both A RIGHT and a SERVICE

    0|1
    0|0
  • 100% a right. There's no point in having any other rights, if you don't have a right to be healthy.

    3|3
    0|2
    • Being healthy is not the same thing as health care

    • Show All
    • @jpmoore89 Cool story, but none of what you just said changes anything about my position. Health care should be equally affordable for everyone. Anything else is barbaric.

    • But I'm ending this discussion now actually, because I have zero interest in hearing the same old libertarian (a. k. a. neo-liberal) talking points for the billonth time. I couldn't care less about what people think who value the "freedom" of corporations more than the health of citizens. We're not gonna convert each other, so might as well stop right here. Thanks for your input, you empathy-less clowns.

  • A service. No one deserves to die because they can't afford treatment that would save their life. I work in healthcare and I would do this job for free.

    1|2
    2|1
    • Doesn't that mean it should be a right?

    • Show All
    • @Burgerboy21 sorry about that. If you go in your settings, you can adjust this so that you dont receive the notification on someone else commenting on a comment you commented on.

    • @1truekhqleesi the reason I don't want to do that is because I may then miss replies that are relevant to me. But thanks though.

  • Here in Chile all workers get a % deducted from their paycheck that's meant to pay for healthcare. You can choose public system or private system, where you pay a higher %.
    Jobless and homeless people still have a right for healthcare in case they have a serious health issue.

    0|1
    0|0
    • Thats health insurance. Healthcare is labor provided y someone else that aids in your well being. Your statement more accurately stated would be "Here in Chile, we can kidnap a doctor at gun point and force them to cure us."

    • @demonics That's stupid. Doctors get paid by the state's money when they treat their patients.

  • Nothing is ever "Free" in this World. With Healthcare, We have to Pay those Who Care for us. xx

    0|2
    0|0
    • It does not have to be free but a social healthcare system does not get as expensive. We, here do not get 50k$ bills for s broken leg and such...

  • Sometimes I am it should be a service. like smokers they know what will happen to it anyway and waste the Dr and rest of the waiting rooms time. Not to mention supplies. Also those not protecting themselves during sex. Others could've been helped.

    0|0
    0|0
    • That’s a very small percentage of the people with health issues though. It isn’t always because someone smokes cigarettes, ate unhealthy food, or lifestyle decisions.

  • Nothing is free in this world.. so I'm not sure where this is going. health professionals need to get paid for their hard work

    0|3
    0|0
    • Of course they will be paid for their work, same as soldiers, road builders, water treatment engineers, and everybody who works directly or indirectly for the government are.

    • People who work in a universal healthcare system get paid via taxes.

  • A is the best answer

    Everyone has or should have the right to high class healthcare

    2|2
    0|2
  • A right! Some countries deduct a healthcare "TAX" which is awesome, all procedures are covered.

    0|1
    0|1
  • It should be a right BUT the two aren't mutually exclusive.

    0|1
    0|0
  • No, why pay more taxes on something I don't use often.

    0|2
    2|1
    • You will when you get old.

    • Show All
    • Love the down votes by the way just proves people will throw money at anything

    • What about when you need it or a family member does. You probably don’t use the police or fire department often but should something happen, would you rather pay out of pocket?

  • I voted A

    So a right

    No one should die because they lack health care

    0|1
    0|0
    • The question isn't whether it's a right or a privilege. The question is who's going to pay for it. We have lots of rights, but is one of them having the right to force other people to pay for them? Your rights stop at my wallet.

    • Show All
    • @goaded

      No, I don't want to pay for your healthcare. I want to use whatever resources I have to get better healthcare for myself and my family.

    • You are not "entitled" to my property under any circumstances. You are able to take my property for some things because the government forces me to give it to you. But you are *never* "entitled" to it.

  • A right for Disabled or Minors.
    A Service for able people.
    So Both

    0|1
    0|1
  • More from Girls
    15

What Guys Said 98

  • When you and your employer pay your premium for insurance, you're paying much more than your healthcare will cost. The extra money pays for billions of dollars that the insurance industry will spend each year on advertising, it pays for the exorbitant profits of for-profit drug research companies, and it pays for the salaries of sales reps, for office buildings and company cars and executive salaries and the salaries of almost 3 million people in this country employed in the insurance industry.

    It doesn't have to be that way. A handful of hospital officials could be verifying claims at each hospital, we could be spending 0 dollars on ads and profits, and instead putting all that money towards research and actual medicine.

    People say that the government is inefficient, but the entire department of education is only about 3,000 people. Imagine if schools were all private, and all of a sudden we needed recruitment reps, advertising, and executives in fancy skyscrapers wasting your education dollars on 3.6 million jobs we could be creating where we actually need them.

    Basically, no one should have to work in the insurance industry. We shouldn't have an insurance industry. That's what governments are for.

    0|1
    0|0
  • Making health care a right effectively means making slaves of medical personnel. Hell, even food isn't a right - why should it be a right to be provided with lots of expensive care, medications, and treatments just because you were born? Where does that thinking end?

    Healthcare is a service, provided by people who spend many years of their lives learning how to provide it, and expect and deserve to be compensated for their efforts just like everyone else.

    We have charities to help people in need (I give to St. Jude's) and so anyone can help those less fortunate without trying to use the government to force people to pay by gunpoint.

    I also believe in personal responsibility. If you choose not to pay for health care insurance, that's a choice - and one that could kill you - but I believe that you have the right to make that choice, and that hospitals have the right to refuse care if you can't pay for it. Likewise, insurance companies should be able to charge more for people who engage in risky behavior. Having freedom of choice does not mean that you have freedom from consequences! Freedom and personal responsibility goes hand in hand.

    0|0
    0|0
    • Not slaves. Can quit, paid well. Next!

    • Show All
    • How many of those people drove nice cars, bought lots of clothes, or otherwise made health care a low priority? People have that right, but they should expect to suffer the consequences of their decisions - just as a smoker has to accept lung cancer or COPD.

      It's not the taxpayers' job to save people from their own poor decisions and behaviors.

    • I don't know, why don't you find some figures, like I did.

      I think I read 40% of uninsured are voluntarily uninsured (i. e. people earning over 250% of the poverty line). So, at most, it would be 40% of those totals, but probably significantly less because they'll be the people who think they're young and fit and have nothing to worry about.

  • This misstates the issue. It is not that it is a right or a service. It is both. Just because something is a right does not mean it is free. (Which is what I assume you mean by the distinction between "right" and "service."

    Indeed, imagine free speech without laws dealing with libel and slander. For that matter, imagine free speech unless someone provides you the format to speak. (You'd be howling into empty air.)

    Implicit in any right is the obligation of someone else to accommodate that right. In that it is an imposition and in that, then, it does not imply that ANY means of accommodation is thereby justified by the fact that the right exists.

    The store owner has a right to run his business as he sees fit. He does not have the right to insist on segregated lunch counters or to engage in price gouging and so on.

    The issue with health care is mistakenly characterized as you have done it in terms of rights. It is not. This is not about moral absolutes but rather it is really cost/benefit analysis and trade-off.

    In most "socialized medical systems" the costs are hidden and paid through taxes, rationing and waiting lists. Also you tend to get bureaucrats making life and death decisions - see also the Charlie Gard case in Britain. (You also tend to lose many of the technological innovations that come in a more free market system.) In an American context, historically, that has not gone down very well.

    My point here is not to suggest that one approach is necessarily better than the other. In fact, a case can be made for either "right" or "service" as you have wrongly described it. However, that case either way must be made in the context of both economic efficiency and other societal values.

    Calling something a right does not end the discussion nor even necessarily admit of a resolution to the question. In fact, as Burke said, "Men have no right to that which is not reasonable," and Americans have a habit of believing that because they have some rights they then have a right to everything.

    The moral calculation is more complex. Rights vs. obligations. Short term gain and long term efficiency. Justice vs convenience.

    So I voted, "The two aren’t mutually exclusive." Rather they are paradoxically both complimentary and in tension at the same time. To separate the two is to divide that which, of its very nature, is indivisible.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I've looked through the comments section first because I'm always curious to see whether I'll be surprised...

    But alas... *sigh* .. where is the love gone? Are we this cold?

    If me and a lucky lady decide to tie the knot, we create a family, in a family, we depend on each other, well healthy families do. To do more for the family than you may ordinarily do for yourself.
    In the old days, this was enough to people that true meaning to your life...

    and then there are friends.. and friends tend to gather... in the gathering we decide to emotionally invest in one another... soon, our houses grow closer... now we have a community... we connect through mutual friends and decide to do for one another, specialising in useful traits like sowing and carpentry.. You were being of service to the communal family, this grew into towns and nations.

    Do we not benefit for servicing the national family?
    Of course we do.
    It is important to me that you are healthy because i may meet you in this life and I'd hate our interaction to be sour grapes because you made me sick..
    Do i benefit from you having a great education?
    Suddenly, there we are in a in a communal location and we realise that we have mutual family and friends and we don't know yet, that both of us have the missing pieces of a beautiful idea! This meeting was designed by the cosmos to happen so that we could change the world with our idea...
    ... But what if you're not well educated? Or I'm not well educated, somewhere along the line that idea slows down and before we know it, we need more people to fill up the pieces when really it was a 2 man job, but now we've saddled others with added attention that wasn't needed...

    What would that do for our potential?

    Yeeesss, of course the basics should be free.
    In some way shape or form, we are family however distant.

    Kind regards,
    DoctorSex

    0|1
    0|0
  • Making it a "right" in a place like the US, via the federal government, is a great way to make it expensive as I see it, and unaffordable to many. It's already a "right" for the most part, and I see it as a big part of the reason why it's so unaffordable in the US.

    0|1
    1|0
    • Any time you make something a "right" you subsidize it for all citizens. And if you subsidize something, and especially in a region as large and diverse in geography and populace as the US, you decrease its efficiency, innovation, affordability, and supply... because the suppliers get paid whether or not they are efficient or innovative in providing their service. They have no economic incentive to innovate and improve efficiency, and so prices skyrocket, and the service becomes unavailable to many.

    • Show All
    • "Free" and "affordable" are oxymorons as I see it... about the most effective way to make something ridiculously expensive in many cases is to make it "free".

    • I emphasize the geography and diversity of the populace of the US because in that case, I think economic incentive might be the only behavioral incentive that's really reliable. There might be a way in smaller and more homogeneous countries where everyone conforms to the social ideas and customs to introduce "value incentives", shared among the populace, that improves innovation and efficiency absent economic incentives... much like we might be able to hire an intern who works tirelessly day and night working for us based on some more abstract notion of "values" or "honor" or the "collective good" or some shit like that. But with such a diversity of thoughts, you usually need to offer economic incentives to people for them to be innovative and efficient.

  • This is a difficult question. It may not be a problem when resources are plentiful, but as healthcare gets more expensive and the demand grows, it becomes harder and harder for everyone to have it. Also, 90% of costs are in a patients LAST YEAR of life. The problem is that we don’t know exactly when that last year is going to be. Healthcare costs are significantly higher for patients who have made poor choices with their diet and exercise. So do you want pay for all that? Even in countries with “universal coverage”, the elderly and people with self-made health problems are effectively given “less care”. What’s the answer? I know one answer. Sugar should be taxed. Corn syrup subsidies should be eliminated in favor of fruit and vegetable subsidies. Food which is raised high in fat, like cows which live their lives in a feed lot with no exercise, or chickens which are kept in a house with no light and no exercise should be taxed as well. Use that money to pay for care for those who make bad choices for that food. When your food grows up healthy, you eat healthy. When it grows up fat and you eat it, you get fat. You literally ARE what you eat!!! Countries like Cuba and Russian which claim to have universal healthcare let old people, and drug addicts, and criminals who have been injured due. They do not follow the Hippocratic oath. So don’t pretend that the US is horrible with our system. Yes, it is corrupt, but I think it’s less corrupt than many other so called “universal care” countries.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I don't think it's a natural right, I don't think it makes sense to say we have a claim to other people's labor.

    Now if you are part of a program that conveys health care rights to you, then you have the right to that health care.

    I also think for a few reasons it makes economic (and moral, but more economic) sense to have a pretty good single payer healthcare system in developed nations, and under such a system, people have the 'right' to healthcare by virtue of their residency.

    The idea that your health shouldn't be linked to money is of course a fantasy. It's -possible- to develop experimental medical procedures for one person. It's possible to develop custom drugs for one person based on their DNA. Those things are in their infancy, but if you're a sick billionaire, you can go try it, and nobody else can, whether they have health insurance or government care, or whatever. There's no 'system' where any country can spend 200% of its GDP on healthcare (obviously). It's constrained.

    0|0
    0|0
    • The Miranda warning includes: "You have the right to an Attorney... If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you".

    • Show All
    • So, like healthcare would be, if it were a right? (The question doesn't specify "natural".)

    • well we have public healthcare so I have certain things I have the right to claim under the terms of that service. But if that system didn’t exist I wouldn’t have such a right. Basically I’ve been extended a form of health insurance and under the terms of the plan have certain rights. But outside of that, or if that plan didn’t exist, or when I leave the jurisdiction, I don’t have any right.

  • You want a right to health care? Nothing is stopping you from taking care of yourself now. You have a right to eat healthy and not all the fast food, GMO, and non nutritious garbage. You can choose!

    As for a right to free doctors, meds, and services, how is it that so many people can feel entitled to the tax money of others and/or the professional trade of someone else? You don't have the right to shit! You can pay for it but you don't have a "right" to it. Nothing is free!

    0|0
    0|0
  • When the state of your health depends on the state of your bank balance, it's wrong. Health should never be commodified so some corporation can profit.
    Tax funded public health services, as we have in Europe work for everyone's benefit. Not just the rich.

    1|1
    0|0
  • Since WHEN did a right require coercing others to pay for it?

    Now one can argue that it is a "public good" privilege that should be provided to all for the good of the nation, so some coercion of others is necessary (and then we would have an argument about what the extent of that coercion should be).

    However, anyone who parrots the slogan that "(some public good) is a right, not a privilege!" is a fool, a totalitarian goon, or both.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Good question! I think there should be a basic form of care for everyone. With optional paid premium plans. Many treatable maladies cost our healthcare system more in the long run left untreated in early stages.

    0|1
    0|0
  • Over here in the UK we have the option of both. You can use the public healthcare which is good but as you could image, it is overworked and understaffed meaning that if you can afford it you would get much better service via private. Don't get me wrong it's not cheap and I can't afford it but it's still a good system. Best of both worlds I guess.

    0|1
    0|0
  • Good health including dental health should be a right... what kinda bullshit is this
    So it’s right to shoot people and it’s a right to use derogatory language because it’s the freedom of speech but it’s not a right to live healthy wow

    Goodness gracious

    0|0
    0|0
  • It cannot be a fundamental human right, because in order to exercise such a right, the right to labor and property would have to be violated.

    No form of welfare, even if the wealthy also partake, is a fundamental human right. Welfare, including government paid for healthcare, is immoral. It should be thrown onto the trash heap of history next to slavery.

    0|0
    1|1
    • Is the right to labor and property absolute, then? Wouldn't that imply all taxes are violating that right?

  • It should be a right that comes from your tax dollars. However, individuals should also have an obligation to take care of themselves as best they can. As a society, we should assist those with low income or limited access to healthy foods in getting them, just as we should when it comes to education and literacy. THAT'S where our tax dollars should be spent, and on infrastructure. But no... the moron wants to build a wall. Brilliant.

    0|0
    0|0
  • It should be a right in the same way the police force and fire department are. The fact that healthcare is only good for those who can afford it is absurd.

    It is not frivolous spending like buying a car, house or vacation is.

    0|2
    0|0
  • It's not even a question at this point in civilization. It's a right. You can disagree all you want, but 1: you'd be wrong and 2: you'd be a massive cunt who I hope gets sick and injured and then has to beg for medical assistance.

    0|1
    0|2
  • In my country we have them both, public and private, the economic crisis battered it heavily, and lack of funding is commonplace. But anyone can have it for a very small fee, while you can bypass waiting lists or see a specialist if you have the money

    0|0
    0|0
  • Both. Have a new tax set up that's proportional to one's income and have some sort of minimum standard of healthcare that everyone has access to. Then if people want to and have the money, they can pay for better quality treatment or they have the option of taking the standard treatment.

    0|1
    0|0
    • To be more specific: have enough money from the taxes to cover everyone's expenses in case of emergencies, to cover annual checkups, to cover vaccines for everyone who wants one, and to cover medicine for common health issues like the flu, a cold, etc. Everything else will be left to companies to provide.

  • It hard to say, healthcare has a cost and that cost has to be met however, the was that cost is met. I believe it should be a right but I don't believe the hard working people should meet that cost for the people who choose to not work and simply utilize state programs for their sole income... the cost has to be met and it would come from higher taxes for American people

    0|0
    0|0
  • More from Guys
    78

Recommended myTakes

Loading...