Is Universal Healthcare a Basic Human Right?

  • Thread starter vectorcube
  • Start date
In summary: I just don't buy the finite resource reasoning. Countries in western europe is able to do it. So can we.So you are saying that universal healthcare is not feasible in countries like the US because of the money we spend on health care?
  • #1
vectorcube
317
0
I am not sure why anyone would oppose universal healthcare. They have it in Europe, and the more advanced countries in Asia. There are a lot of people who are uninsured in the US. It is quite painful to me to see anyone would leave to his/her own disease if they have no money to pay their health insurence. I open mind to hear arguments from the opposing side.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Because there are people out there who believe in more than the sound bite catch phrase (1) "universal healthcare". We don't have the money to pay for it (2). Not everyone deserves healthcare (3).
 
Last edited:
  • #3
Cyrus said:
(2). Not everyone deserves healthcare (3).

Interesting that you were the one to say that...
 
  • #4
Pengwuino said:
Interesting that you were the one to say that...

Don't worry, you made the list of people not to get healthcare.
 
  • #5
vectorcube said:
It is quite painful to me to see anyone would leave to his/her own disease

Then you'll probably need to get doped up on morphine if you took the time to research and realize this happens even in nations with "universal healthcare". Do you realize per capita, the US spends the most on health care in the world? The US health care system needs major fixes, but spouting some, as cyrus puts it, sound bite that politicians use to garner votes is irresponsible and childish.
 
  • #6
I suggest a global piggy bank for health care. I'd put in 5 cents. Anyone else?
 
  • #8
maverick_starstrider said:
I suggest a global piggy bank for health care. I'd put in 5 cents. Anyone else?

I'll pass.
 
  • #9
Cyrus said:
Because there are people out there who believe in more than the sound bite catch phrase (1) "universal healthcare". We don't have the money to pay for it (2). Not everyone deserves healthcare (3).


You see. Here is where i disagree. I think everyone deserve healthcare. I don` t agree you could partition people into two camps( when it comes to saving lifes).
 
  • #10
Pengwuino said:
Then you'll probably need to get doped up on morphine if you took the time to research and realize this happens even in nations with "universal healthcare". Do you realize per capita, the US spends the most on health care in the world? The US health care system needs major fixes, but spouting some, as cyrus puts it, sound bite that politicians use to garner votes is irresponsible and childish.


So you are saying there are countries with universal healthcare, but are not insuring everyone in their country? which countries?

I do hope the politician would fix the problem. I am not sure why it is irresponsible if it is a real problem that need to be fixed. What is the argument againist healthcare?
 
Last edited:
  • #11
maverick_starstrider said:
I suggest a global piggy bank for health care. I'd put in 5 cents. Anyone else?


It is better than none.
 
  • #12
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
Cyrus said:
Not everyone deserves healthcare

What do you mean by "deserves"? Why wouldn't you think that everyone should be entitled to healthcare?
 
  • #14
cristo said:
Why wouldn't you think that everyone should be entitled to healthcare?

Well, it's Cyrus being Cyrus.

The problem is "entitled to healthcare" is not a black and white concept. What level of healthcare are people entitled to? Minimal care? Basic care? Where do you draw the line for the entitlement? How do you deal with finite resources?
 
  • #15
Vanadium 50 said:
Well, it's Cyrus being Cyrus.

The problem is "entitled to healthcare" is not a black and white concept. What level of healthcare are people entitled to? Minimal care? Basic care? Where do you
draw the line for the entitlement? How do you deal with finite resources?

I just don` t buy the finite resource reasoning. Countries in western europe is able to do it. So can we. I don` t like how you partition people to those that receive minimal, or most expensive healhcare, because you can`t compare the worth of a life. When it comes the basic necessities of life, and well being, everyone should have the best healthcare.
 
  • #16
Vanadium 50 said:
What level of healthcare are people entitled to?

You should be entitled to all the healthcare you need. Bluntly put, if something is wrong with me, and there is a way to fix it, then I should be entitled to it.

Where do you draw the line for the entitlement?

Draw the line for who is entitled, or draw the line for what they are entitled to?

vectorcude said:
When it comes the basic necessities of life, and well being, everyone should have the best healthcare.

Now that's just living in a dream world; plus you don't define "best". I live in western europe (UK). You shouldn't be under the impression that nationalised healthcare treats 100% of the population. Sure, you could have pretty much any procedure done on the NHS, but the waiting time is pretty long. Thus, the "best" healthcare is still correlated with wealth (obviously), but there aren't people who miss out on healthcare because they can't afford it.
 
  • #17
vectorcube said:
I just don` t buy the finite resource reasoning. Countries in western europe is able to do it. So can we.
Unfortunately, our (UK) healthcare system doesn't work particularly well. The UK is meant to have free healthcare, yet we have to pay for some services and all of our prescriptions. There have also been cases where patients have paid for treatments not available on the NHS (National Health Service), and then been refused standard treatments on the NHS with the reasoning that if they can afford to pay for one treatment, they should pay for all their treatments.

Another downside to the NHS is that we pay for the NHS through our income tax, which means that if you opt for health insurance you still have to pay tax towards the NHS.
 
  • #18
cristo said:
You should be entitled to all the healthcare you need. Bluntly put, if something is wrong with me, and there is a way to fix it, then I should be entitled to it.

Suppose you (and 100 other people) need a new liver, and there are 10 available. Who gets them?
 
  • #19
vectorcube said:
Why this two links? How is this related to heathcare?
?
They are thousands year old oaths taken by doctors.
Oath of Asaph said:
Do not harden your heart [and turn it away] from pitying the poor and healing the needy

The Hippocratic Oath said:
I will treat without exception all who seek my ministrations, so long as the treatment of others is not compromised thereby, and I will seek the counsel of particularly skilled physicians where indicated for the benefit of my patient.
 
  • #20
Vanadium 50 said:
Suppose you (and 100 other people) need a new liver, and there are 10 available. Who gets them?

Well there would be some sort of priority list taking into account things like risk of death without a new liver, likelihood of patient to care for new liver, amount of time waiting, etc..
 
  • #21
I think universal healthcare is very important. At least the basics. This can really help out a society and make it a better place to live. I know plenty of people with different issues who can't afford to do anything about it. It's just wrong and whatever.

Those rich people who whine about it should think for a second, about all the money they actually have. Many have more than they will ever be able to spend, so why not give some of it back?
Maybe there's a severe 'screw them all' attitude i don't know..
 
  • #22
cristo said:
Well there would be some sort of priority list taking into account things like risk of death without a new liver, likelihood of patient to care for new liver, amount of time waiting, etc..

Fair enough...but we've moved away from "all are entitled to everything". There are some things, like livers, where we simply don't have enough for everyone.

My point is that "everyone should have free access to everything" is not a reasonable plan. There are, even today and in the US, resource limitations that make this impossible. If you need, e.g. proton therapy, there are more patients than timeslots to treat them.
 
  • #23
octelcogopod said:
Those rich people who whine about it should think for a second, about all the money they actually have. Many have more than they will ever be able to spend, so why not give some of it back?

But how rich is rich?

In the election, the Obama campaign was asked by the Tribune whether a 20-year veteran of the Chicago police department married to a 20-year veteran of the Chicago public school system were considered "rich" (and thus subject to the additional taxes). The campaign declined to answer.

There are about 2.5 million millionaires in the US. The vast majority of them are people who have worked all their lives and are about to retire. The vast majority of them also have just barely one million dollars in net assets. BLS has nice statistics on this.

Let's assume the cost of universal health care is $600B over 10 years. If we have the millionaires pay it, it's $240,000 per person - or $480,000 per couple. Everyone will have to decide if this is fair or not for themselves; this is just how the numbers work out.
 
  • #24
Vanadium 50 said:
My point is that "everyone should have free access to everything" is not a reasonable plan.

Well of course, but then any plan summarised in a couple of words isn't reasonable :wink: To describe it another way, universal healthcare is a system in which money does not have any effect on whether or not you get a certain treatment. That is, all else being equal, someone with more money should not get a liver over a poorer person. That's what I mean by universal healthcare.. of course others' definitions will differ.
 
  • #25
cristo said:
To describe it another way, universal healthcare is a system in which money does not have any effect on whether or not you get a certain treatment.

And if you want absolutely no effect, that means that it is forbidden for someone to pay for a treatment that is not available for free. I don't think anyone has established such a system. (Nor could they - if you're rich enough, you could fly somewhere else and have it done there)
 
  • #26
vectorcube said:
I am not sure why anyone would oppose universal healthcare. They have it in Europe, and the more advanced countries in Asia. There are a lot of people who are uninsured in the US. It is quite painful to me to see anyone would leave to his/her own disease if they have no money to pay their health insurence. I open mind to hear arguments from the opposing side.

Everyone deserves a million dollars, too. Therefore the government should borrow and print more money for all of us, should it not? Also, if you believe the govt should force taxpayers to pay for other's benefits, may i ask how much of those others benefits you have already donated, considering you believe the govt should force us to pay, anyway? if you've not donated any substantial amount, then i find it hard to believe you really think everyone should be forced to donate. Or is what you really meant that others should be forced to donate more than should you?
 
  • #27
There is already a thread on the healthcare issue in P&WA.
 

1. What is Universal Healthcare?

Universal healthcare, also known as single-payer healthcare or government-run healthcare, is a system in which all citizens of a country have access to healthcare services without having to pay out-of-pocket fees.

2. Is Universal Healthcare considered a basic human right?

There is ongoing debate about whether or not universal healthcare should be considered a basic human right. Some argue that access to healthcare is essential for a person's well-being and therefore should be a basic human right, while others believe it is the responsibility of individuals to pay for their own healthcare.

3. How does Universal Healthcare impact a country's economy?

The impact of universal healthcare on a country's economy varies depending on the specific system in place. In some cases, it can lead to lower healthcare costs and improved overall health outcomes, which can positively impact the economy. However, it can also place a strain on government budgets and potentially lead to higher taxes.

4. What are the potential drawbacks of Universal Healthcare?

Some potential drawbacks of universal healthcare include longer wait times for medical procedures, limited choices in healthcare providers, and potential rationing of services. Additionally, the cost of implementing and maintaining a universal healthcare system can be a significant burden on a country's economy.

5. Which countries have implemented Universal Healthcare?

Several countries have implemented universal healthcare systems, including Canada, the United Kingdom, France, and Australia. Each country has its own unique system in place, with varying levels of coverage and funding methods.

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
951
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
37
Views
8K
  • STEM Career Guidance
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • STEM Career Guidance
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Back
Top