When Did Having Healthcare become a Right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
How do you feel about public schools, OP?
I’m guessing you are also like:
Why should I pay to educate someone else’s child?
Why should I pay for roads I don’t drive on?
Why should I pay for fire stations that will likely never benefit me?
Stop enslaving me to pay for schools, roads, and emergency services I don’t use, waah waah waah

I’m guessing if a poor person breaks their arm, you want them to die of sepsis? Too bad for them, huh.


No, I accept that the democratic process and policies of our lawmakers have led to public schools. I would vote for public schools any day and support paying for them. I understand that roads are fundamental to the economy and support them. Fire stations - the same. I would even support a bond measure to raise money (weirdly some municipalities rely on volunteers to put out fires, yet provide free housing to illegal immigrants). I am not opposed to some level of healthcare, but what is provided on medicaid is far above what I would support. Neighborhood clinics for preventive health and life, limb, and eyesight emergent care seems appropriate - and some program for children who need care and treatment for illnesses. Definitely not some insurance scheme that enriches for-profit health systems.

Okay. So the title of your thread is misleading. You obviously believe in some healthcare as a right. So what level of care do you consider "above what you would support"? Do you believe that Medicare is an "insurance scheme"? Please cite the for-profit health systems that are being enriched by Medicare and how that enrichment is taking place. Sounds like you may be worried about fraud (which definitely needs to be prosecuted).

I should have distinguished between medicare and medicaid - medicare, since beneficiaries pay for it, is very different than medicaid going to able-bodied adults and immigrants. It is not a right, but a program. It could be cut, and there would be electoral consequences. The US taxpayer should not be providing government backed health insurance to immigrants either legal or illegal. Visas should be revoked if a visa holder applies for government paid-for insurance. Illegal immigrants should receive no insurance like benefits. They do not receive medicaid, but states that provide illegals their version of medicaid get to offset the money they spend to do this with federal matching.

It is being cut, and there are no consequences.

There are no benefits of this kind going to illegal immigrants.

For legal immigrants, if they have naturalized and are working and paying into Social Security and have achieved their minimim quarters, then why wouldn't they be able to receive benefits from the system?

Wow talk about a false argument. Undocumented immigrants can not use Medicaid or Medicare. They just can’t. So you have no argument.

Let’s argue about what type of cheese the moon is made of. This would be a much more honest and productive use of time.

You and I are agreeing...see the bolded. I think you meant to reply to the PP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since healthcare must be performed by others and has to be paid for, how is it a right? If it is a right, what does that look like? Free neighborhood clinics or cancer treatment at MD Anderson?

Rights are whatever a country chooses to extend to its citizens. But your issues have nothing to do with rights or costs. Your issues are with your version of morality and justice. Why should your insurance premiums cover little Suzie? If only she looked both ways when she got off the school bus she wouldn't have been hit by that car. Or if only Bill had given up red meat years earlier, he wouldn't have had that heart attack? Why should I contribute two pennies to cover that? Or what about Ann? Her parents knew there was a history of breast cancer in that family. They never should have had children to begin with. You don't want your penny to cover Ann's parents poor decisions. They never should have reproduced. Ann needs to die. And so on and so forth.

But you absolutely insist every American pays 100s of thousands, even millions, for your diseases and injuries, because you did everything right. Your family has no history of anything. You never touched a hamburger. You've never had a beer. You exercise twice a day. And you are very serious about your yoga practice and your vegetarian diet. Right?

We are a nation of 340 million people with a $28 trillion GDP. We can easily afford universal health care like every other developed country on Earth. Think of all the jobs that were never created because people are too scared to start companies and lose their corporate health insurance. Think how cheap health care would be if everyone could see a primary doctor and get on a statin before presenting at the ER with a heart attack. But Republicans believe only those with corporate jobs and a freakishly healthy family tree should have access to health care.

If you believe in publicly supported fire and police departments, not to mention schools and roads, I don't see how in principle you can be against health insurance for everyone. But as always with Republicans, the cruelty is the point.

so you believe in eugenics?

How about this...the 22 year old otherwise perfectly healthy person who gets Leukemia (no know cause, it just happens) - so they get treated and now have a pre-existing condition. Should they never be able to gain health insurance again? Or since the treatment cost over a million dollars, they have used up their benefits so they are SOL for the rest of their lives? Because Pre-ACA, that was the situation. And for every situation like that, there are a million others that are similar.

[Anonymous]

to the PP...I meant the eugenics quip and the rest to be directed at the PP

[Anonymous]

Why the hell is sick care costing a million dollars? Now, THAT is sick.

[Anonymous]

Oh, and diseases don’t “just” happen. It’s no coincidence that Americans are the sickest people. It’s all about the Benjamins, folks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you feel about public schools, OP?
I’m guessing you are also like:
Why should I pay to educate someone else’s child?
Why should I pay for roads I don’t drive on?
Why should I pay for fire stations that will likely never benefit me?
Stop enslaving me to pay for schools, roads, and emergency services I don’t use, waah waah waah

I’m guessing if a poor person breaks their arm, you want them to die of sepsis? Too bad for them, huh.

No, I accept that the democratic process and policies of our lawmakers have led to public schools. I would vote for public schools any day and support paying for them. I understand that roads are fundamental to the economy and support them. Fire stations - the same. I would even support a bond measure to raise money (weirdly some municipalities rely on volunteers to put out fires, yet provide free housing to illegal immigrants). I am not opposed to some level of healthcare, but what is provided on medicaid is far above what I would support. Neighborhood clinics for preventive health and life, limb, and eyesight emergent care seems appropriate - and some program for children who need care and treatment for illnesses. Definitely not some insurance scheme that enriches for-profit health systems.

So I agree with you. I think there should be a network of free preventive care in ten form of walk in health clinics and telehealth services (telehealth in the more rural areas where the population doesn’t support a clinic as well as to triage issues), maternal and pediatric care, an emergent care. I have been wondering if we did away with the extent of what Medicaid offers would we be able to provide universal breath? Basically the idea is like social security - everyone gets something even if it’s not enough to fully fund retirement.

What things does medicaid currently cover that you think it should not cover?

Sometimes it's not a matter of theoretical coverage. In the DMV area, there are very few specialists that accept Medicaid. And among those that do - it's often minimal care just to get the Medicaid payout, which is lower than other insurances. Not exactly the best and brightest doctors if you can even find one that takes Medicaid. Outside of hospitals, the Medicaid accepting doctors are often very scammy. So even with Medicaid, you can get basic primary care. And the Hospital ER will keep you alive. But there's not much in between, especially with specialists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
How do you feel about public schools, OP?
I’m guessing you are also like:
Why should I pay to educate someone else’s child?
Why should I pay for roads I don’t drive on?
Why should I pay for fire stations that will likely never benefit me?
Stop enslaving me to pay for schools, roads, and emergency services I don’t use, waah waah waah

I’m guessing if a poor person breaks their arm, you want them to die of sepsis? Too bad for them, huh.


No, I accept that the democratic process and policies of our lawmakers have led to public schools. I would vote for public schools any day and support paying for them. I understand that roads are fundamental to the economy and support them. Fire stations - the same. I would even support a bond measure to raise money (weirdly some municipalities rely on volunteers to put out fires, yet provide free housing to illegal immigrants). I am not opposed to some level of healthcare, but what is provided on medicaid is far above what I would support. Neighborhood clinics for preventive health and life, limb, and eyesight emergent care seems appropriate - and some program for children who need care and treatment for illnesses. Definitely not some insurance scheme that enriches for-profit health systems.

Okay. So the title of your thread is misleading. You obviously believe in some healthcare as a right. So what level of care do you consider "above what you would support"? Do you believe that Medicare is an "insurance scheme"? Please cite the for-profit health systems that are being enriched by Medicare and how that enrichment is taking place. Sounds like you may be worried about fraud (which definitely needs to be prosecuted).

I should have distinguished between medicare and medicaid - medicare, since beneficiaries pay for it, is very different than medicaid going to able-bodied adults and immigrants. It is not a right, but a program. It could be cut, and there would be electoral consequences. The US taxpayer should not be providing government backed health insurance to immigrants either legal or illegal. Visas should be revoked if a visa holder applies for government paid-for insurance. Illegal immigrants should receive no insurance like benefits. They do not receive medicaid, but states that provide illegals their version of medicaid get to offset the money they spend to do this with federal matching.

It is being cut, and there are no consequences.

There are no benefits of this kind going to illegal immigrants.

For legal immigrants, if they have naturalized and are working and paying into Social Security and have achieved their minimim quarters, then why wouldn't they be able to receive benefits from the system?

Wow talk about a false argument. Undocumented immigrants can not use Medicaid or Medicare. They just can’t. So you have no argument.

Let’s argue about what type of cheese the moon is made of. This would be a much more honest and productive use of time.

You and I are agreeing...see the bolded. I think you meant to reply to the PP?

https://www.dhcs.ca.gov/keep-your-Medi-Cal/Pages/Medi-Cal-Immigrant-Eligibility-FAQs.aspx

As of January 1, 2024, Medi-Cal offers full coverage to all eligible Californians, regardless of immigration status. Full-scope Medi-Cal provides access to health care services, including check-ups, mental health and dental care. California gets the luxury of using "state" funds to pay for illegal insurance by making the federal government pay a medicaid insurance "tax."

"In 2023, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) approvedCalifornia’s expanded tax on insurers.10The state had previously taxed insurersa monthly per-enrollee fee of $55. However, the state tripled that tax to $182.50per month per enrollee in 2023 for Medicaid insurance plans (or $2,190 per planannually) but only assessed a $1.75 monthly fee per enrollee for private insuranceplans (or $21 per plan annually).11Under the approved plan, the tax on Medicaidinsurance plans increased to $187.50 per enrollee per month in 2025 and isscheduled to increase to $192.50 per enrollee per month in 2026. Meanwhile, thetax on private insurance plans increased to $2 per enrollee per month in 2025with a scheduled increase to $2.25 per enrollee per month in 2026. The tax ishigher on Medicaid insurance plans because the state receives matching federalfunds when they pay those plans to provide Medicaid coverage. The same is nottrue for commercial insurers. In a sense, the tax on commercial insurers is merelya pretext to meet federal standards aimed at reducing the extent of this obvious kickback scheme."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh, and diseases don’t “just” happen. It’s no coincidence that Americans are the sickest people. It’s all about the Benjamins, folks.

Of course they do. People get sick and die all the time without any real explanation. Not everything can be addressed by lifestyle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you feel about public schools, OP?
I’m guessing you are also like:
Why should I pay to educate someone else’s child?
Why should I pay for roads I don’t drive on?
Why should I pay for fire stations that will likely never benefit me?
Stop enslaving me to pay for schools, roads, and emergency services I don’t use, waah waah waah

I’m guessing if a poor person breaks their arm, you want them to die of sepsis? Too bad for them, huh.

No, I accept that the democratic process and policies of our lawmakers have led to public schools. I would vote for public schools any day and support paying for them. I understand that roads are fundamental to the economy and support them. Fire stations - the same. I would even support a bond measure to raise money (weirdly some municipalities rely on volunteers to put out fires, yet provide free housing to illegal immigrants). I am not opposed to some level of healthcare, but what is provided on medicaid is far above what I would support. Neighborhood clinics for preventive health and life, limb, and eyesight emergent care seems appropriate - and some program for children who need care and treatment for illnesses. Definitely not some insurance scheme that enriches for-profit health systems.

So I agree with you. I think there should be a network of free preventive care in ten form of walk in health clinics and telehealth services (telehealth in the more rural areas where the population doesn’t support a clinic as well as to triage issues), maternal and pediatric care, an emergent care. I have been wondering if we did away with the extent of what Medicaid offers would we be able to provide universal breath? Basically the idea is like social security - everyone gets something even if it’s not enough to fully fund retirement.

What things does medicaid currently cover that you think it should not cover?

Sometimes it's not a matter of theoretical coverage. In the DMV area, there are very few specialists that accept Medicaid. And among those that do - it's often minimal care just to get the Medicaid payout, which is lower than other insurances. Not exactly the best and brightest doctors if you can even find one that takes Medicaid. Outside of hospitals, the Medicaid accepting doctors are often very scammy. So even with Medicaid, you can get basic primary care. And the Hospital ER will keep you alive. But there's not much in between, especially with specialists.

You stated that we need to narrow the scope of medicaid coverage. Can you please explain what you mean by that?

[Anonymous]

When we have pharmaceutical companies advertising directly to consumers, there is a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you feel about public schools, OP?
I’m guessing you are also like:
Why should I pay to educate someone else’s child?
Why should I pay for roads I don’t drive on?
Why should I pay for fire stations that will likely never benefit me?
Stop enslaving me to pay for schools, roads, and emergency services I don’t use, waah waah waah

I’m guessing if a poor person breaks their arm, you want them to die of sepsis? Too bad for them, huh.

No, I accept that the democratic process and policies of our lawmakers have led to public schools. I would vote for public schools any day and support paying for them. I understand that roads are fundamental to the economy and support them. Fire stations - the same. I would even support a bond measure to raise money (weirdly some municipalities rely on volunteers to put out fires, yet provide free housing to illegal immigrants). I am not opposed to some level of healthcare, but what is provided on medicaid is far above what I would support. Neighborhood clinics for preventive health and life, limb, and eyesight emergent care seems appropriate - and some program for children who need care and treatment for illnesses. Definitely not some insurance scheme that enriches for-profit health systems.

What municipalities are these?

[Anonymous]

It seemed strange to me at first to declare health care as a right. It's certainly not enshrined in our Constipation. However, if someone gets shot out in the street and gets dropped off at a hospital, there is no way to deny them health care, insurance or not. If it is impossible to not help someone in a health related crisis then it is essentially a right, because in spite of our faults we are a social species.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since healthcare must be performed by others and has to be paid for, how is it a right? If it is a right, what does that look like? Free neighborhood clinics or cancer treatment at MD Anderson?

It's not a fundamental right for the reason you said.

It is a choice by an advanced, humane society that can afford to relieve the misery of our fellow countrymen. Additionally, it's a pragmatic recognition that our society and economy function best with healthy people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since healthcare must be performed by others and has to be paid for, how is it a right? If it is a right, what does that look like? Free neighborhood clinics or cancer treatment at MD Anderson?

When did having roads become a right?

Or fire stations?

The interstates or a Navy?

Those are not rights, and no one has ever said they were rights.

Universal free education, which you somehow skipped.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seemed strange to me at first to declare health care as a right. It's certainly not enshrined in our Constipation. However, if someone gets shot out in the street and gets dropped off at a hospital, there is no way to deny them health care, insurance or not. If it is impossible to not help someone in a health related crisis then it is essentially a right, because in spite of our faults we are a social species.

I'm not sure what's enshrined in your Constipation. But good for you for highlighting it. There should be a national discussion. There are others who suffer.