Insurance Companies Just Accidentally Made The Case For Medicare For All

[moonshaz]

America’s Health Insurance Plans, the trade group for commercial health insurance companies, published an infographic this month breaking down how the industry spends every dollar it receives in premiums

Comments

[moonshaz]

I have no idea if those that say "health care is a basic human right" mean that simple preventive care should be no or low cost; if they mean emergency care; or if they mean the best and most advanced care (which has a limited number of providers/suppliers); or if people get the medicines/drugs that they want for no or low cost (not necessarily what they need, which is a baseline, such as meds to treat blood pressure or the like, but the meds that they saw on tv, which are under patient).

You do know that the U.S. is the only developed nation on the planet that still treats health care like a privilege rather than a right? This means that there are plenty of examples to look at to help us answer these questions. For that reason, it seems highly disingenuous to me to base an objection to single payer health care in the US on "issues" such as the ones you raise.

As for Canada, all I know is that I constantly hear Canadians sing the praises of their system and say that they don't know how Americans can put up with ours. I've also seen polls showing that the vast majority of Canadians greatly prefer their setup to what goes on in the US. All of this carries a lot more weight for me than a single, secondhand, anecdotal example, about which I know next to no details and have no way to find out more.

Besides, I have never heard anyone claim the Canadian system--or any other--is perfect, just that it has a lot of advantages over ours, and I find that to be quite believable.

[nervhq7]

I will acknowledge that the US does do health care differently than every other developed nation (that I'm aware of). And I would much prefer that we moved to some sort of single payer model or hybrid basic public & more comprehensive private model.

That being said, I'm not trying to wave away the need for a different system (or even arguing for or against a different system). Instead, I was trying to get an honest answer as to what level of coverage someone else was talking about when they say "health care is a basic human right." In addition, I would like someone to literally define what they mean by "privilege" and "right" in such discussions.

[lightframes]

It's a right because it's necessary to live, and so access to it shouldn't be based on what you can pay for it. Every person, rich or poor, urban or rural, needs access to health care.

It's not just routine care, either. Other services are rights outside of annual exams, mammograms, etc. If a poor child who lives far from the city needs a specialist to treat her rare cancer, shouldn't that be provided, even if her family can't afford to pay for it? Why should she have to die from something that can be treated because her family is poor?

ETA: I'm not saying everything has to be free, but it can definitely be provided much more affordably than it is now.

[amw]

There is no need to be obtuse here. It is literally right there in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

[nervhq7]

No, I wasn't trying to be obtuse, as I literally have not seen people attempt to define it up until this point (which is why I was asking). This is the first time I've seen the language from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Thank you for the link.

[amw]

Sorry for jumping to conclusions, I woke up in a cranky mood.

What I find interesting about the UDHR is how many countries voted in favor but when it comes to domestic law do not always consider these rights. Granted, it's not easy to guarantee every human being a "standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family", but I would expect that any healthcare or other social security law be drafted at least with this ideal in mind. Instead Republicans seem to envision a Randian dystopia where the government disappears in a puff of smoke and the rich can enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness while the poor toil for scraps and then die.