Writer's Block: Health Care

[violachic]

[Error: unknown template qotd]



My god, you mean people actually ask this question?


The mind boggles.


If you think health care is, or should be, a privilege, you can get the fuck away from my journal right now. Fast. Just go away, I don't need to know you.

Comments

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

AHHHHHH but look at how it is worded. Not what it SHOULD be, but what it IS.

For me, it is a privilege. For my kids, living in a state that covers all kids? It's a right.

Sad. Glad at least to live in a TOWN where healthcare is accessible. Unfortunately, that's it.

[violachic.livejournal.com]

Ah, I see there is the pesky problem of the word "is" :-) "Is" it a right or a privilege" meaning "is it currently", or "Is" meaning "is it, as a broader concept". I think I interpreted it the latter, but I see your point about the former.

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

I clicked on SEE OTHER ANSWERS or whatever the heck it was, to see if anyone DID think that it was a privilege.

BTW do you read Sojourners?

[violachic.livejournal.com]

I haven't read a print copy in ages, but I subscribe to the email version, which I read on occasion :-) I am, in theory, a big fan.

Philosophical quandery.

[ironheadjane.livejournal.com]

I had a long(er) response, but I amended it a bit, hopefully to not cause offense, because none is intended, nor is this meant to be contrary. I would say simply that in the sense that you are saying health care is a right, I agree with you, especially with regard to your personal struggles with health and insurance. However, I take issue with the original question that makes the concepts "right" and "privilege" mutually exclusive. I think that what is a privilege in a global sense can end up a right on an individual scale.

I think that the discussion between "right" and "privilege" is one worth having, not just with regard to health care, but with regard to the concepts themselves and how they shape expectations in first world nations. I think people ask these questions because when you throw around "rights" you have people from all sides of the spectrum telling you and everyone else what and who or whatever has "rights" and who doesn't (or shouldn't). Right to marry, right to privacy, right to life, right to die, etc.

I know you were giving a simple answer to a simple question, but I couldn't help but be interested at a broader conversation. I hope you'll forgive me for that.

Re: Philosophical quandery.

[violachic.livejournal.com]

To be honest, I'm not entirely following. Its probably the drugs. Explain it to me again?

Re: Philosophical quandery.

[ironheadjane.livejournal.com]

The way I interpret "privilege" and "right" is based on how I interpret the United States in a global context. We are privileged in the United States to have access to top-knotch technologies for fighting disease and illness. The privilege I see is the broad access to medical care available on an emergency basis. Even if you are impoverished, if you can get yourself to an ER, they are obligated to stabilize you so you don't die, despite your inability to pay. Unfortunately, this is only in the most basic contexts, and you might spend your time once stabilized arguing that you don't have the funds. Anyhow, that medical treatment is there, and the US is privileged to have these facilities available in the population centers.

Here's where rights come in, and the discussion begins. Do people have the "right" to basic health care, despite their inability to pay. The laws have decided that at ER's, you have the right to be medically stabilized, regardless of you ability to pay. However, in this country, basic, preventative or quality-of-life improving care is not currently a right bestowed by federal law. Since we have a glut of affluence, especially compared to some parts of the globe, does the wealth and availability of health care at large make all parts of it a right to those who have the inability to pay?

The broader question is where do a person's rights come from and do they come solely from government? This is a tricky question because if you want to maintain the separation of church and state, the first thing to do when answering the question, imho, is eliminate any religious reasoning for a right that would be supported by the state. For people who believe that you can't have morals and ethics without a sense of religion, this can be problematic - and perhaps either shove the responsibility for maintaining basic rights to private interests outside of government mandate or give a cry for a religiously oriented government.

Then there's established, philosophically non-religious schools of ethics (and dogma) that come into play. I could go on, and would, but I don't need to bother you with my own philosophical meanderings at such an early hour, and on so little sleep.

[bammba-m.livejournal.com]

it seems to me that health care has been a privilege in my life.

During my 20's my "health care" was an awesome ob/gyn who would pass me from one med-study to the next. Some paid me actual cashy money, but most were just enough to cover the bus fare to get to her office for the past six months, or even just free birth control pills. Not enough for any kind of profit, just the free check-ups.

Also during this time, i had one job where i was making $7/hour. They offered insurance at a rate of $140/month ($70/pay period which was twice monthly) with a $1200 annual deductible. I declined this coverage because there was no possible way i could afford this and other luxuries such as "eating" or "rent." The HR manager called me into his office to talk to me about my decision and asked me what i planned to do if i was in an accident with some horrific amount of monetary damage to myself? I said, "cross that bridge when i get there. But there's no way my regular medical expenses are MORE than ($140 * 12) + $1200 per year. Doctor's visits don't cost that much. EMERGENCY ROOM VISITS don't cost that much. I could probably take a ride in an ambulance for less than that." I think the only reason i was allowed to decline it was because it was such a huge portion of my overall paycheck.

At Disney, i was making $7/hr, but my health insurance (which was mandatory) was something like $13/week with a $500 annual deductible. It's worth saying that Disney is WAAAAAAAAAY larger than the other company i was working for.

Now i make considerably more than that, and my insurance isn't too much more than it was at Disney, and i still haven't made a doctor's appointment for a regular check-up. My bad, i know. Really bad, yes, i know. i'm totally wasting my privilege.

i agree that health care SHOULD be a right. It's in the best interest of our society to take care of our sick, and i don't even mind my taxes picking up the bill for those less fortunate. It just seems to me that it's treated more as a privilege.

[violachic.livejournal.com]

I see what you're saying- see my response above to Kibbles.

And actually, most hospitals do have charity care. It should not be used in the place of insurance, if insurance is available, but it is there nontheless. For me, charity care is the only option, which is obnoxious that I'm in a position to have a chronic medical condition where I need to make regular use of the charity care.

But there is no excuse for this country not having universal health care.

[bammba-m.livejournal.com]

i totally agree. i don't know what Illinois has in place NOW, but ten years ago they had several programs that would help folks out specifically in cases of urgent care need. (So the fear tactic used by my HR manager was not only unnecessary, it was just plain wrong.) No, it's absolutely no substitute for medical insurance, but i was also getting regular check-ups via the med-study programs of my ob/gyn. Which, i realize now, was like winning some sort of amazing lottery.

i totally agree there needs to be universal health care. it should be a right. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," yeah? Well, life is first, so we should make sure it's something worth having, yeah?