2009.07.31
Dice: Health care is not a right
Health care is not a right
Sean Dice
Dice, of Lynchburg, is an electrical engineer graduate of Purdue University School of Technology.
Since the first announcement that the federal government wants to provide national health care and/or national health care insurance, I've heard many people say that health insurance and care is a right covered by the "life" portion of the phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Assuming this is a correct statement, which it is not, I want to know by what right you have to compel me by force of law to sacrifice my "pursuit of happiness" for your "life"?
Read more.
RSS feed 
So, my conclusion is that Mr. Dice and others like him would say that hospitals should deny care, even if that results in death or disability, if a person cannot pay for it due to whatever reason.
Comment by KevinL — July 31, 2009 @ 9:40 am
Shorter Sean Dice: Guess who read "Atlas Shrugs" over summer vacation?
Do us all a favor, Sean, spare us the histrionics and "go Galt" now. Even those who have been frightened by the specter of "government-run health care", apparently with no sense of irony, just love Medicare.
As for me, I'll gladly pay taxes for the health and education of my fellow citizens, as well as the necessary infrastructure that we all enjoy. That's an investment in our civil society from which we all benefit.
Comment by Painless — July 31, 2009 @ 9:59 am
Yes the answer to the often insurmountably high cost of health care and health insurance is to allow doctors to engage in malpractice with impunity.
It's all the fault of the poor guy who had the wrong kidney removed. Or wrong leg amputated. Because of him millions of people lack health coverage. Offering the victims a remedy has bankrupted our system and compelled our poor doctors to operate in a hostile environment which might force their insurance to pay out if they screw up.
There's not one shred of evidence to link the cost of malpractice insurance with the skyrocketing costs of healthcare. I've in fact posted links to information that demonstrate exactly otherwise.
Comment by Kristen — July 31, 2009 @ 10:41 am
@ Painless #2
"As for me, I'll gladly pay taxes for the health and education of my fellow citizens, as well as the necessary infrastructure that we all enjoy. "
You are free to do so. Every tax return gives the filer an option to pay additional monies to the treasury. Blindly saying that we'll give whatever the government says it needs for any program anyone thinks up is like giving a blank check to a group of people who have never been able to run operations effectively or efficiently.
Comment by Mike W. — July 31, 2009 @ 10:49 am
This week, I had an opportunity to visit with a very small rural hospital to discuss the possibility of financing a CT Scanner for them. Based on the size of the transaction, I had to review and analyze 3 years worth of financial statements.
Without going into huge amounts of detail, what stood out as most glaring is that in this rural community, 22% of the revenues of this hospital are considered Bad Debt. When pressed about that number, I was told that was the amount that the hospital had to write off because of care for the under-insured or uninsured.
Because of that number, the hospital is not breaking even on its financial statements and is in fact loosing money. Consequently, I am unable to finance a CT Scanner that could in fact improve the quality of health in that community.
The fact that the hospital attempts to charge those with insurance enough to cover the costs for those who don't is a loosing proposition as well.
Absent some kind of assistance, this hospital will be bankrupt.
In light of situations like this, where does one draw the line? Do you deny health care to those who are under-insured or uninsured?
Comment by Will — July 31, 2009 @ 11:19 am
It seems that commentors are confusing health care with health insurance. My fellow Boilermaker, Mr. Dice is correct that there is no right to health insurance, but courts have ruled that an inability to pay cannot be a reason for non-treatment. Hospitals must treat emergent needs regardless of insurance or payment. Ambulances must respond and transport even thought hey are used as taxies, even here in the Valley.
Mandating coverage for pre-exisiting condition is like betting on the Super Bowl the Monday afterward. If you have cancer, the actuarial tables mean nothing, you have a 100% chance of having cancer, it is just a matter of paying for treatment. Insurance is a risk spreading mechanism. There is no "risk" if you already have the disease. It is then cost sharing not risk sharing whic is unfair to the other members of the "risk" pool because they are then paying a higher premium.
Comment by Eric Andrew — July 31, 2009 @ 11:24 am
I agree that mandating that health insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions is essentially incompatible with their underlying business model. My conclusion, thus, is that relying on a largely private health insurance system to provide health care for most individuals is a dubious idea.
If you agree that health care providers should not deny care due to inability to pay, then you're already in favor of a universal health care plan. It's just that the plan happens to be the most expensive, inefficient, and opaque option available largely due to persons only seeking medical attention when a condition has become most dire.
Comment by KevinL — July 31, 2009 @ 12:15 pm
Strawman.
What Constitutional provision there is has naught to do with the put up arguments of the author above.
Section. 8.
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,
Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,
Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Comment by MrRational — July 31, 2009 @ 3:30 pm
I don't see anyone quoting the Dec when it comes to this issue....what I do see and hear is people reference the preamble to the Constitution ..."Promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty".
I don't see what would do more to "promote general welfare" than getting people to the doctor.
Comment by Kristen — July 31, 2009 @ 4:28 pm
The bottom line is if healthcare is made a "right" then you are giving someone the right to take time or money from another person. Healthcare is a great thing to have, but it is not, and should not ever be a right. Reform in healthcare is needeed, but putting it in the hands of government and making it a "right" is insanity and a sure fire recipee for disaster.
Comment by Jim W. — July 31, 2009 @ 4:38 pm
Jim they all already have "healthcare"
They have the right to walk into the ER anything adg get examined and treated or just checked out cause something ached a bit with only a modest risk of getting sued to pay cause the hospital knows they have no assests to attach.
What Congress is debating is a way to get everyone involved to pay their fair share and to do it in a way that the "keep you up at night about being sued into bankruptcy on top of having to bury so and so type worries" get dealt with.
Comment by MrRational — July 31, 2009 @ 5:28 pm
I don't see what would do more to "promote general welfare" than getting people to the doctor.
to me that means protecting this country, nothing to do with paying everyones insurance...I think you are taking welfare to a current meaning...remember they didnt have insurance then at all...people can go to the doctor kristen, there is no one telling them they cant.
Comment by pammala — August 1, 2009 @ 1:45 pm
pammala
"to me [promote general welfare] means protecting this country"
Protect it from what?
Comment by Ed H — August 1, 2009 @ 2:56 pm
pammala
"to me [promote general welfare] means protecting this country"
Protect it from what?
Comment by Ed H — August 1, 2009 @ 2:56 pm
Lol Ed, I'd say the correct answer today is to protect the country from itself.
Comment by Jim W. — August 1, 2009 @ 4:58 pm
What Congress is debating is a way to get everyone involved to pay their fair share ....
Comment by MrRational — July 31, 2009 @ 5:28 pm
Here is an interesting concept, how about people paying for their own care rather than getting everyone else to pay their "fair share?" Just what is a "fair share?" Is that kinda like spreadin the wealth around?
Comment by Jim W. — August 1, 2009 @ 5:02 pm
Jim "how about people paying for their own care rather than..."
I'd like to see that happen too. I've posted on the point several times but the HI co's are raising a stink about it and keeping the rest of this effort bottled up.
As with all crime stories... follow the money.
Comment by MrRational — August 1, 2009 @ 5:51 pm
"Blindly saying that we'll give whatever the government says it needs for any program anyone thinks up is like giving a blank check to a group of people who have never been able to run operations effectively or efficiently."
Like the DOD? Seriously, Medicare spends 97 cents of every dollar on patient health care. Private insurers spend just over 80. Care to define "efficiency"?
Mr. Andrew, hospitals are required to treat "emergent care". This does not include cancer treatment or a myriad of other chronic disease states. They can, and sometimes do, but as Will stated, their bottom line suffers. Many have already closed. Usually what happens is that the patient becomes destitute, then qualifies for Medicaid. So it ends up in the taxpayers lap anyway, but not before the disease has gotten worse.
And if it's unfair to other policy holders to sign up for insurance after the fact, isn't the the practice of rescission by the insurance companies equally unfair? As a business model, hard to argue with. As a model of health care delivery, it's irrational.
And how does the promotion of the general welfare not include health care? Suppose when the smallpox vaccine became available it was denied to those who couldn't afford it. "Sorry, you don't have a right to that vaccine"?
Comment by painless — August 1, 2009 @ 8:43 pm