When Vikas says "healthcare isn't a right," I agree with him to the extent that it is not an enumerated or Constitutionally guaranteed right; it's not legally established. To that end, though, the country was founded on rights that had no basis other than widely held beliefs that people were entitled to certain rights simply because Americans agreed that they were supernaturally endowed with them. Even after the country was established, the Articles of Confederation did not require much of anything to uphold one's rights to life, liberty, and property. It did not codify our most basic principles of justice and equality, largely because most people accepted them as so obvious and ethically logical that they did not foresee a need for such an expansive government bureaucracy and rigorous enforcement mechanism to guarantee them. Suffice it to say, however, these were rights that existed simply because the majority concurred that they were necessary by logic.

If most Americans today think that healthcare is a human right and most democracies around the world give it a legal basis, then it's reasonable to say that it IS a human right, since most humans believe that it is, even if some countries haven't legally protected it. Yes, it needs to be enshrined in the Constitution, for the very reason that, nearly 250 years after our founding document was written, it has become a fundamental right necessary for a constitutional republic to survive and thrive as a global power. We are a sicker, slower, and weaker nation without universal access to high-quality healthcare.

With that said, Obamacare and Medicare for All is not the answer.

1 hour ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

When Vikas says "healthcare isn't a right," I agree with him to the extent that it is not an enumerated or Constitutionally guaranteed right; it's not legally established. To that end, though, the country was founded on rights that had no basis other than widely held beliefs that people were entitled to certain rights simply because Americans agreed that they were supernaturally endowed with them. Even after the country was established, the Articles of Confederation did not require much of anything to uphold one's rights to life, liberty, and property. It did not codify our most basic principles of justice and equality, largely because most people accepted them as so obvious and ethically logical that they did not foresee a need for such an expansive government bureaucracy and rigorous enforcement mechanism to guarantee them. Suffice it to say, however, these were rights that existed simply because the majority concurred that they were necessary by logic.

If most Americans today think that healthcare is a human right and most democracies around the world give it a legal basis, then it's reasonable to say that it IS a human right, since most humans believe that it is, even if some countries haven't legally protected it. Yes, it needs to be enshrined in the Constitution, for the very reason that, nearly 250 years after our founding document was written, it has become a fundamental right necessary for a constitutional republic to survive and thrive as a global power. We are a sicker, slower, and weaker nation without universal access to high-quality healthcare.

With that said, Obamacare and Medicare for All is not the answer.

THEN. PASS. AN. AMENDMENT. TO. THE. CONSTITUTION.

There's a mechanism to add health care as a right, if that's what people want. Until then, it is not the function of the Federal government.

2 hours ago, DEagle7 said:

Well obviously I disagree that the system shouldn't address accessibility or cost at all. Access to preventative services and medicine dramatically reduces the cost burden of people with chronic diseases and I can't bring myself to just say "meh, F em".

But regardless when I say accessibility I'm not just talking about cost. I'm in New England, likely one of the most medically saturated areas in the world and it is next impossible to get an appointment/make referrals. Most general medicine offices aren't accepting new patients but the specialists are even worse. My mom had a blood clot in her spleen and was stuck in the hospital for a week. The wait to see a hematologist? 4 months. I had a patient who I was worried was having seizures. Soonest referral was 6 months out. Absolutely zero people here accepting new psychiatric referrals.  And God forbid you're worried your kid has autism because the wait-list for a neuropsychiatric eval is well over a year. And these aren't just people with bad insurance. 

End result? Shittier care. Worse outcomes. Higher ED burden which has higher cost. 

To use your car analogy, we basically have a rental dealership that has 5 Ferraris, 20 Mercedes, and 5000 poorly maintained Ford Pintos. 

No, it's simply a matter of cost and most people can't or won't pay what it costs. 

About 2.5 months ago, I woke up on a Friday and couldn't hear out of my left ear. I called my doctor, and he had me take a nasal spray to see if it cleared up. By Saturday, when the hearing hadn't returned, he realized I needed to see a top ENT specialist immediately and put me on Prednisone right away. The best doctor at Cedars had no availability for 2 months, but he got me in Monday afternoon. Why? Because I pay my primary care physician over 20k per year simply to be on call and give me access to these things. Nothing is impossible -- it's all just a matter of cost. I had SSHL - sudden neural hearing loss -- and the main factor impacting recovery is how quickly it is treated. Luckily, after about 3 weeks of treatment (steroid injections into my ear drum, hyperbaric chamber) I regained 100% of my hearing.

Also, let's remember why it's so hard to see a specialist -- because people are completely divorced from the cost of the care they receive. Much like college, government subsidies create massive demand. But unlike college, specialists can't raise prices as they please, so they either have long wait times and/or refuse to treat Medicare/Medicaid patients. 

3 hours ago, DEagle7 said:

There's no easy answer that's for sure. Nor are there easy ways to apply health care models to the US or vice versa. 

Umm, there is an easy answer. Trump is going to unveil it in two weeks.

Most Americans can't stop wolfing down quarter pounders and coca cola, dont tell me their medical needs are my responsibility and dont pretend you give a ish about peoples health

44 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

Most Americans can't stop wolfing down quarter pounders and coca cola, dont tell me their medical needs are my responsibility and dont pretend you give a ish about peoples health

I care about my health. You soft teeth mf'ers I couldn't care less about.

I would smash my head in the sand and not care about anyone else either, but when my insurance premiums are jumping about 10% a year to pay for rising healthcare costs, which we’re told is to compensate for uninsured, defaulted medical bills… It’s affecting my pocket book even when I don’t get sick or injured.

Americans are not as healthy as they should be, but that doesn't even come close to explaining the disparities in healthcare costs between the US and comparable first world nations. 

Obesity in the UK is high as well. Alcohol consumption per capita is significantly higher in Germany, Ireland, and Spain. Italians still smoke like chimneys. 

None spend nearly as much on healthcare as we do here.

A major problem is and has always been artificially constrained supply of healthcare providers and services. And the relatively market driven system we have means services offered often bias towards the most profitable not necessarily those with the best outcomes. Exacerbating all this is lack of will for tort reform, which drives up costs by incentivizing a more liberal deployment of diagnostic services than is sensible out of fear of litigation if something is missed.

Artificially constrained supply short circuits any possibility that the market might reach a sensible equilibrium. And with demand for healthcare services, especially those around emergency situations, being static, I'm incredibly skeptical that a pure market based approach makes any sense if the goal is maximizing positive outcomes for the most people. 

11 hours ago, MidMoFo said:

I would smash my head in the sand and not care about anyone else either, but when my insurance premiums are jumping about 10% a year to pay for rising healthcare costs, which we’re told is to compensate for uninsured, defaulted medical bills… It’s affecting my pocket book even when I don’t get sick or injured.

Think about those illegal aliens your helping out. Stop being so selfish.

kkz and the gang definitely do not understand the words 

On 9/9/2022 at 12:50 PM, Gannan said:

It can’t be stated enough times, we are witnesses to an economic miracle. The Biden economic miracle keeps on rolling. My 401k is back up!

Mine is still down compared to a year ago but trending back in the right direction!  

On 9/9/2022 at 3:43 PM, Kz! said:

Imagine how retarded you have to be to support dems lmao

 

Your level of **** is way beyond anything measurable.  

12 hours ago, lynched1 said:

Think about those illegal aliens your helping out. Stop being so selfish.

Biden’s new IRS agents are going to find out who’s paying them cash under table. If the illegal cash work dries up, that will change also.

4 hours ago, MidMoFo said:

Biden’s new IRS agents are going to find out who’s paying them cash under table. If the illegal cash work dries up, that will change also.

Biden substancially goes after employers that hire illegals I'll give him credit for it.

Hopefully things won't go from bad to worse.  No one is really talking about this.  If a strike happens, it will be bad.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/12/large-rail-labor-unions-move-closer-to-a-strike.html

Biden delivers again!

He personally called into rail workers negotiations to avert a strike.

4 minutes ago, toolg said:

He personally called into rail workers negotiations to avert a strike

It’s going to cost rail companies. 
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11214999/Biden-says-tentative-deal-reached-avert-devastating-rail-strikes.html

Some people are saying Biden is the best president negotiator ever. 

Pretty damn impressive if he brokers that deal.

Some of the stupid **** our "government" allows to go on.

Starting in 2015, a Chinese real estate development company called China Oceanwide Holdings began buying land on Oahu in the Hawaii Islands just ten miles west of the U.S. Naval Base at Pearl Harbor.

1 hour ago, lynched1 said:

Some of the stupid **** our "government" allows to go on.

Starting in 2015, a Chinese real estate development company called China Oceanwide Holdings began buying land on Oahu in the Hawaii Islands just ten miles west of the U.S. Naval Base at Pearl Harbor.

I was told that if government starts interfering with private industry, we get the communism 

2 hours ago, Gannan said:

I was told that if government starts interfering with private industry, we get the communism 

Rule #1

You don't let foreign countries (particularly adversaries) own property. Especially near your military bases.

Law Will Install Kill Switches In All New Cars (msn.com)

It gets even better: Barr points out that the bill, which has been signed into law by President Biden, states that the kill switch, which is referred to as a safety device, must "passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired.”

But wait, there’s more. This kill switch "safety” system would be open, or in other words there would be a backdoor. That would allow police or other government authorities to access it whenever. Would they need a warrant to do that? Likely not. Even better, hackers could access the backdoor and shut down your vehicle.

 

I, for one, am utterly shocked that the self-admitted scumbag drunk driver is shaking in his boots about laws that might punish drunk drivers.

 

None of the technologies currently in development would notify law enforcement of the data collected inside vehicles or give government agencies remote control of vehicles, according to Jeffrey Michael, a researcher at Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Injury Research and Policy.

 

"I’ve been associated with this technology since the beginning of its development and it has always been viewed as a prevention device rather than an enforcement device,” Michael said. He added that his interpretation of the law was that it has "nothing to do with giving law enforcement access to a kill switch.”

 

Robert Strassburger, president and CEO of the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety, is involved in a public-private partnership with NHTSA to develop an alcohol detection system for vehicles. He said the partnership agreement includes a requirement to build security measures that would prevent third parties from accessing any data collected by the technology.

 

Strassburger said his team is considering systems that could warn an impaired driver, prevent an impaired driver from moving the vehicle, or reduce the speed of the vehicle and get it safely home. He said the term "kill switch” is hyperbole, since none of the options being considered would include the risky move of lurching a fast-moving vehicle to an abrupt stop

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-402773429497