The “right” to healthcare does not require....

[mocgator]

..a doctor to work for free...

As I've stated before after reading this abomination... it is all demand side based. AS IS THE LIBERAL MIND. There is no concept as to the immense problems this abomination will create on the supply side of healthcare. They don't have a clue. Universal Coverage doesn't mean Universal Treatment. The liberals and democrats know this.

Entitlement ALWAYS breed contempt for those that provide the entitlement. Simple human nature my liberal friends.

http://medcitynews.com/2012/11/one-p...work-for-free/

Whenever someone tells me about the “right” to healthcare, I ask, “From whom? From me?” This question exposes this “right” for the robbery and slavery that it is. Take it to the next step. Do you really want to exercise your “right” to healthcare on a physician who doesn’t want any part of this bargain? What kind of care do you think you’ll receive?

Years ago, I stopped doing cardiac anesthesia, because well over half of the patients were ’covered’ by Medicare and payment to me for my services was well below what I thought acceptable ($285 for my last 6-hour cardiac anesthetic). Soon thereafter I stopped my dealings with Medicare (and Medicaid) altogether as I increasingly saw myself as the recipient of money taken from my neighbors against their will. As an aside, the angriest patients I’ve ever encountered were the Medicare patients I subsequently treated with no charge whatsoever. My providing charitable care elicited patient rage like none I’ve encountered since. ( again...Entitlement ALWAYS breed contempt for those that provide the entitlement)

About two weeks after I quit, an angry cardiac surgeon, inconvenienced by my departure from the group of available cardiac anesthesiologists and with his finger in my face, told me that he was going to see to it that I was forced to do these anesthetics, so as not to disrupt his schedule. I guess he thought he had a “right” to my services. It didn’t help things that I laughed. I said, ’Dr. X, I’ll be happy to visit with the family before their loved one’s elective surgery and inform them that I want no part of this and that I don’t really want to be here, but someone is making me do this. Maybe you all would like to wait for an anesthesiologist who wants to be part of this, because I certainly don’t.’ This cardiac surgeon suddenly understood. Now imagine this on a large scale. Angry mobs of folks waving their ObamaCare ’insurance’ cards in the street demanding their free healthcare outside a closed and vacant doctor’s office.


That is what Obamacare is: an insurance card. Come 2014, you’ll have to certify to the IRS that you have such a card, one that is acceptable to the government. Or else you’ll have to pay the government for the ’choice’ to not have insurance: a minimum of $95 at first, climbing to $695 in a few years. It is likely that the provider will not be a physician. The physician you might eventually see will not be working for you. He’ll be working for an ObamaCare Accountable Care Organization, which is paid for not providing care.

[gatordowneast]

Excellent post Moc. You have nailed the liberal mindset between the proverbial cross eyed, glazed over look we encounter when trying to reason with the equivalent of a 3 year old. You don't add 30 M patients to the system with no additional physicians without a tremendous increase in cost and far less time spent with the doc. As a friend at Mayo says, it will be "fast food, drive through medicine", not the quality care we value.

Best to you and many of us hope somehow those with sense see this for what it is.

[northgagator]

Or the right to free medical treatment to resolve self inflicted medical issues.

[AzCatFan]

The thing is, we already provide medical care to those who cannot afford it. Get in an accident and need immediate care, do the paramedics check to see if you can pay before they transport you to the hospital? Do the ER doctors wait to hear from your insurance company before they start to work on you? No.

It's one thing about elective procedures, but there are plenty of people receiving care who can't pay today. Nearly 1/2 of all bankruptcies include significant medical bills. Those with insurance owe an average of $17,000, and those w/out owe about $29,000, and who do you think covers these costs? Those of us with insurance, who have been paying more and more in insurance costs for over the past 20+ years; long before Obamacare ever became part of our lexicon.

[wygator]

Originally Posted by AzCatFan

The thing is, we already provide medical care to those who cannot afford it. Get in an accident and need immediate care, do the paramedics check to see if you can pay before they transport you to the hospital? Do the ER doctors wait to hear from your insurance company before they start to work on you? No.

It's one thing about elective procedures, but there are plenty of people receiving care who can't pay today. Nearly 1/2 of all bankruptcies include significant medical bills. Those with insurance owe an average of $17,000, and those w/out owe about $29,000, and who do you think covers these costs? Those of us with insurance, who have been paying more and more in insurance costs for over the past 20+ years; long before Obamacare ever became part of our lexicon.

We also know that some of the bankruptcies occur because some who could afford health insurance CHOSE not to buy it, choosing instead to buy bigger homes and new cars instead.

[fredsanford]

More slippery slope conservative scare tactics.

Moc and his sources have been discredited and proven wrong on here so often, he's set a personal record.

Romney! Landslide! Book it!

[gatordowneast]

Originally Posted by fredsanford

More slippery slope conservative scare tactics.

Moc and his sources have been discredited and proven wrong on here so often, he's set a personal record.

Romney! Landslide! Book it!

Yea, Yea, Yea. Of course Moc is like many of us, without any idea how many mooches, slackers and lazy bums who had been sent "how to manuals" by democrats for various government programs and were then indebted and scared $hitless not to vote for their sugar daddy and his stash.

[tegator80]

Originally Posted by AzCatFan

The thing is, we already provide medical care to those who cannot afford it. Get in an accident and need immediate care, do the paramedics check to see if you can pay before they transport you to the hospital? Do the ER doctors wait to hear from your insurance company before they start to work on you? No.

It's one thing about elective procedures, but there are plenty of people receiving care who can't pay today. Nearly 1/2 of all bankruptcies include significant medical bills. Those with insurance owe an average of $17,000, and those w/out owe about $29,000, and who do you think covers these costs? Those of us with insurance, who have been paying more and more in insurance costs for over the past 20+ years; long before Obamacare ever became part of our lexicon.

One step further, we did this because we have/had a sense of responsibility and to give back to the community. Now it is at the end of a gun. Try to get an emotionally attached doctor/medical professional when they are being forced by law. Those who are good will either work underground for real payers (read rich) or leave the profession altogether. What will be left over are the financially stuck or the mediocre/poor professionals who can't be hired to do anything else.

In other words, look to the public education system in the liberal big cities as a model for the future healthcare in the US.

[Minister_of_Information]

There is no right to healthcare. In a free society you cannot have the right to the labor of others. What there is, is a social obligation to do what is feasible given limited resources to help those that cannot help themselves. But no one is entitled to an outcome.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

I'm not convinced moc understands how health insurance works.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

There is no right to healthcare.

With this I agree. The possible - and frankly likely - outcome of this is people will die impoverished, homeless, on the street.

We may make a societal decision to prevent this, but it is not an inherent right.

[wgbgator]

If people democratically decide its a "right," then for all intents and purposes it is. The Constitution isnt a charter that denys rights people retain democratically for themselves.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

If people democratically decide its a "right," then for all intents and purposes it is. The Constitution isnt a charter that denys rights people retain democratically for themselves.

It is, however a charter of what today are called "negative rights". The putative right to healthcare is a "positive right". The terms were basically a way to marry the term "right" to things which are actually nothing of the kind.

The closest thing we really have to a right to healthcare is the right to our property and the disposition of it, which is to say, you have the right to trade your time or treasure to someone in exchange for a service like healthcare. Anything beyond that starts to dip into he territory of calling "rights" things that are basically legally imposed burdens on others to provide X of their time, energy, and skill to providing service A to person B.

[ATLitigator]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

If people democratically decide its a "right," then for all intents and purposes it is. The Constitution isnt a charter that denys rights people retain democratically for themselves.

so if the american people democratically decided that they had right to rob and rape every person making over a million dollars...then for all intents and purposes it is a right? .... yeah sounds pretty dumb when I say it too...

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

If people democratically decide its a "right," then for all intents and purposes it is. The Constitution isnt a charter that denys rights people retain democratically for themselves.

Incorrect. You cannot have a "right" that depends upon the will of some unnamed provider. What if they are unwilling? Do you have the right to force them to provide care at gunpoint?

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by ATLitigator

so if the american people democratically decided that they had right to rob and rape every person making over a million dollars...then for all intents and purposes it is a right? .... yeah sounds pretty dumb when I say it too...

Sure. They could legislate that wearing silly hats, free ice cream on Sunday or walking around naked is a right too, and it would be, for all intents and purposes. But the obvious quesiton is, why anyone would want to do those things.

[Minister_of_Information]

Sorry, but no those would not be rights either. Rights are not enacted, they either exist or they do not exist.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Sorry, but no those would not be rights either. Rights are not enacted, they either exist or they do not exist.

Well, legislating them would make them "exist" as legal rights. You dont want to draw a distinction between legal and natural rights?

[wgbgator]

Please note I have used "for all intents and purposes" as a qualifier. Even if it does not meet whatever rigid definition of rights you want to impose, it can and will be treated and refered to as such. See also: "right to vote."

[ATLitigator]

if you have to take something from someone else to exercise your right, then it is not a "right"

two wolves outvoting the lone sheep does not create a right to sheep for dinner!