quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

Justice is just too complicated of a topic with too many aspects to explain how it fits with my paradigm. In your example, in regards of the guy accused of a crime, the issue is not unfairly intruding on his rights, so that's not the same scenario as the one involving health care.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

It really is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

In short, you don't feel we should have rights, at all.

Not at all. I'm just operating under a different paradigm than you are. These are all services that are nice to have and should be available, but to call them "rights"...

...does someone who lives 500 miles from the nearest living person have the right to police protection, road construction, and those other services? And if so, would it be a violation of his rights if he can't get a crew to build a road 500 miles to his doorstep?

Road construction to his door is not a right.

Justice, to use the example you also dislike, is a right. If he's accused of a crime, he has rights laid out legally.

Without justice, law is meaningless, as is a Constitution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

What if, for pennies on the dollar, good access to preventive health care cut incidences of cancer by 90%?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Maybe we should consider it a moral right that trumps a lack of Constitutional right. Sort of like the humane right to food, clothing, and shelter.

Might also throw in the right to safety and the right to get an education.

Under the guise of a right, if someone has the humane right to shelter, food and clothing I'd suppose anyone needing such is free to exercise their right and to crash at your place, eat your food and help themselves to your wardrobe.

But if, instead, you'd point them in the direction of the nearest shelter then it would be apparent that they'd be accessing the privilege the shelter offers in its charity.

Charity is something one does for whatever reason, but it is not owed anyone due to any claim of right they might make. Charity is more akin to a gift, and a gift is not something anyone has a right to. How could it be a gift if you have a right to it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

Do you think/believe that people that can't afford insurance, or get quality "free care" from whatever is available for them these days, should just die?

Many of us know for a FACT, that you often do not get anywhere near the same level of care for many medical conditions without good insurance.

Without GOOD insurance in the United States:
You almost always do NOT, get the same level of care, consideration, CHOICE of physicians, availability to see specialists, in-depth tests, labs, etc. medications, protocols, second opinions, treatment OPTIONS,or even availability of appointments, etc.

Please be honest, I need to hear it.
I do think this is how many people feel, but are too chicken shit to just admit it.

quote:

The critical difference between insurance companies having protocols on end of life care, and the government making the determinations is competition, and choice, Vincent. Most people don't get to sit down at retirement, and decide which government they are going to go with.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Maybe we should consider it a moral right that trumps a lack of Constitutional right. Sort of like the humane right to food, clothing, and shelter.

Might also throw in the right to safety and the right to get an education.

Under the guise of a right, if someone has the humane right to shelter, food and clothing I'd suppose anyone needing such is free to exercise their right and to crash at your place, eat your food and help themselves to your wardrobe.

But if, instead, you'd point them in the direction of the nearest shelter then it would be apparent that they'd be accessing the privilege the shelter offers in its charity.

Charity is something one does for whatever reason, but it is not owed anyone due to any claim of right they might make. Charity is more akin to a gift, and a gift is not something anyone has a right to. How could it be a gift if you have a right to it?

Did I say a Legal rights? I did not. I referred to moral rights and humane rights. The basic foundations upon which community is assembled. Along with those rights come a duty for the community to provide for those in need. The shelter does not offer a privilege; it fulfills a community obligation.

Each individual has a moral and humane right to healthcare; and the community has an obligation to find the best way to provide it.

I notice you left untouched my inclusion of safety and education, which the community does provide. The red herring you drew across the path of this discussion is ludicrous.

quote:

Do you think/believe that people that can't afford insurance, or get quality "free care" from whatever is available for them these days, should just die?

What I think is irrelevant to what is. Let me give you one fact. No matter if one is in the UK, EU, Australia, Canada, etc... Not everyone who needs shall receive. That is a fact due to limited resources, both in materials and costs. This exists whether in the free market or government controlled providing.

The healthcare issue has so many variables, that I might concede that every level of care probably can't be offered to everyone, BUT there are certain levels of care that should be.


Therefore I prefer the free market which has shown itself to be better at pricing and distribution than any governmental body, in any respect. I don't want to get off track but I think it should be noted that governmental intrusions into the market always skew it. Oversight for fraud, corruption etc are not skewing intrusions. Fraud, corruption, etc. are skews.

Government OR corporations/private industry? Most people would rather deal with the government.

Many of us know for a FACT, that you often do not get anywhere near the same level of care for many medical conditions without good insurance.

That is the problem, we are talking about.

Insurance is one of those things that when done right and for the proper purpose is a good thing. Unfortunately, when government gets involved beyond oversight and intrudes in the insurance market there exists a skew. For instance this skew is seen in states where i.e. one is both required to have car insurance and is also denied the ability to shop for the best coverage at the best price (cross state lines, even go foreign); states limiting competition denies the market finding lower prices. Where there is greater competition lower prices will be found.

The medical industry is highly skewed these days due to many and various factors, not the least of which is government.

It's the high cost stuff that's really at stake.
That could be true.

Would you prefer private insurance where you have the choice of insurance, meaning the right to contract for your insurance needs with whatever insurance company you choose, or would you prefer government bureaucrats telling you what insurance you shall receive and what you shall pay?

The insurance industry is broken like everything else is. Government is not the answer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

Most people would rather deal with the government.

What is the answer?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

First, you say the community has an obligation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini
What is the answer?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

You are not seriously suggesting that individuals or their employers choose insurance providers based upon the fine print in their end of life protocols? I have not heard any insurance company advertising more lenient protocols to attract business. The simple fact seems to be that some end of life treatments only prolong the agony and indignity of dying hooked up to tubes and machines in "souless" hospitals. The decision for hospice comes from Medicare protocol, not from private insurors.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini
What is the answer?

quote:

Do you really want government involved in your healthcare?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

No, that's not my paradigm at all. To explain it is a tangent that goes beyond the scope of this thread though and is a distraction.