Healthcare: An Entitlement or a Privilege? - Discuss

Kevin Duffy

Mike 1972 wrote: »

I didnt say I would restrict people from obtaining fertility treatment privately if they could afford to pay.

I know you didn't, what you said was that you view "procreation as a privilege". I'm examining the logic of your statement and the above is not an answer to my question.

Gigabytes

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

I know you didn't, what you said was that you view "procreation as a privilege". I'm examining the logic of your statement and the above is not an answer to my question.

Fertility treatment isn't beneficial to either parties health, it is a privilege to bear a child, it is also a basic human right, which government or society shouldn't interfere with.
If you can afford it you should pay for it

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Sandwlch wrote: »

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

How do you feel about mentally handicapped children? Same?

Yes, the same. But the humanity in most of us means we choose to help them and have a society that does provide healthcare to those who cannot do so for themselves - even though they have no entitlement to it.

Seriously? You would rather sit back and watch children suffer than help out? Obviously, the humanity in some of us is sorely lacking.

There is no entitlement to be born equal, nor to to then have that inequality equalised.

This does not make sense.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Who do you think should pay?

Taxpayer. I would happily pay more tax for an equal and more efficient health service. Judging by the poll, so would others.

Einhard

People already buy health insurance- it used be called PRSI, now it's incorporated in the Universal Social Charge. If one pays for it, then one should be entitled to access it.

Einhard

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Taxpayer. I would happily pay more tax for an equal and more efficient health service. Judging by the poll, so would others.

Are you loopers?? The problem isn't lack of money- it's lack of efficiency and accountability in spending that money. If we trebled the amount we spend on health, we won't get much more a return unless there's fundamental reform.

Fluorescence

robinph wrote: »

Healthcare should be free at the point of service. You should not have to hand over cash to a GP before they will diagnose what is wrong with you. Tax something else to pay for it if needed, but there should not be anything that discourages people from getting seen early by a GP to diagnose problems.

Get diagnosed sooner and it will save money. Charge people €60 to see a GP and they will put off seeing them until the situation gets worse and then end up costing more to fix what ever the issue was in the first place.

Absolutely agree. UCD have a system where you have a healthcare account, where you go see the GP or whatever, get sorted, and pay online later. No reason why such a thing couldn't be implemented nationwide.

Kevin Duffy

Gigabytes wrote: »

Fertility treatment isn't beneficial to either parties health, it is a privilege to bear a child, it is also a basic human right, which government or society shouldn't interfere with.
If you can afford it you should pay for it

Really? Permit me to strongly disgaree that the ability to reproduce isn't a benefit to health. Finding you can't must be a hugely damaging thing to your psychological health if you want to do it. I'd also disagree that it would be ruled out of being publicly funded, that's a value judgment I would think it's very dangerous to make.

Gigabytes

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

Really? Permit me to strongly disgaree that the ability to reproduce isn't a benefit to health. Finding you can't must be a hugely damaging thing to your psychological health if you want to do it. I'd also disagree that it would be ruled out of being publicly funded, that's a value judgment I would think it's very dangerous to make.

Well as a person who is going through fertility treatment right now at this minute, if it doesn't work out, i will not drop dead in a few days/weeks/months time as a result of it.
Depression may set in, but that is were the healthcare system should come in and do what it does.

Louise_M1990

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

I believe its one of the most basic human rights.

Agree 100% percent.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Einhard wrote: »

Are you loopers?? The problem isn't lack of money- it's lack of efficiency and accountability in spending that money. If we trebled the amount we spend on health, we won't get much more a return unless there's fundamental reform.

Oh, I completely agree that it needs reform - I did say "more efficient health service".

flutterflye

Oh fertility treatment should definitely be free for people unable to conceive.

Being unable to have kids already comes with so many emotions, as does the actual process of fertility treatment/ivf etc...

Is the person/couple going to die if they don't have a child? No.

But I don't think money should stand in someone's way if they wish to bear a child.

Affluent people do not have more rights to have children than less wealthy people.

And yes, of course anyone can scrimp and save no matter what their financial situation, but I don't see why they should have to.

Kevin Duffy

Gigabytes wrote: »

Well as a person who is going through fertility treatment right now at this minute, if it doesn't work out, i will not drop dead in a few days/weeks/months time as a result of it.
Depression may set in, but that is were the healthcare system should come in and do what it does.

Best of luck with it, but your argument doesn't make sense - it's medical treatment, just the same as the treatment for your hypothetical depression would be and giving one a value above the other is, in my opinion, a dangerous thing to do. What's next? Will we not treat broken legs if they occur in sport 'cos it's only a game and sports injuries take up A&E time at the weekends?
It also doen't appear to make sense to not provide or fund a treatment that could avoid the depression and instead wait for the depression and treat that instead.

Gigabytes

A broken leg or depression is an injury or illness, infertility is just bad luck to an otherwise healthy human being.
Depression may or may not set in, it is not a guarantee

Kevin Duffy

Gigabytes wrote: »

A broken leg or depression is an injury or illness, infertility is just bad luck to an otherwise healthy human being.
Depression may or may not set in, it is not a guarantee

What definition of injury or illness do you base your distinction on?

Gigabytes

If a person is prohibited from functioning as a member of society due to an injury or (mental) illness then they should require healthcare

Kevin Duffy

Gigabytes wrote: »

If a person is prohibited from functioning as a member of society due to an injury or (mental) illness then they should require healthcare

So if you can manage to function, no treatment or only treatment you can afford? Really? No room in your definition for quality of life considerations, or the effect of transmissible diseases, or the length of life considerations? What's your definition of "functioning as a member of society"?

Gigabytes

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

So if you can manage to function, no treatment or only treatment you can afford? Really? No room in your definition for quality of life considerations, or the effect of transmissible diseases, or the length of life considerations? What's your definition of "functioning as a member of society"?

Healthcare is healthcare, the clue is in the name, it is there to improve a persons health/quality of life, fertility treatment doesn't improve a persons health

Kevin Duffy

Gigabytes wrote: »

Healthcare is healthcare, the clue is in the name, it is there to improve a persons health/quality of life, fertility treatment doesn't improve a persons health

So going from being unable to have children when you want to, to being able to have them doesn't qualify as "care" or have a bearing on the quality of life according to you.

Permit me to say I think that's nonsense. I will never need it, but if my taxes are or were paying for fertility treatment for others, that is a great thing.

Fluorescence

Gigabytes wrote: »

Healthcare is healthcare, the clue is in the name, it is there to improve a persons health/quality of life, fertility treatment doesn't improve a persons health

Humans are made to reproduce; for a great many people it is the fundamental point of their existence. Fertility treatment should be covered.

Gigabytes

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

So going from being unable to have children when you want to, to being able to have them doesn't qualify as "care" or have a bearing on the quality of life according to you.

Permit me to say I think that's nonsense. I will never need it, but if my taxes are or were paying for fertility treatment for others, that is a great thing.

I would rather see my taxes support people in real need of healthcare like cancer patients, people with disabilities etc. than to people like myself and my partner in the off chance we might have a baby, you do know it is only a 40% chance of becoming pregnant through IVF, and the older the person the lesser the percentage

robinph

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

So going from being unable to have children when you want to, to being able to have them doesn't qualify as "care" or have a bearing on the quality of life according to you.

Permit me to say I think that's nonsense. I will never need it, but if my taxes are or were paying for fertility treatment for others, that is a great thing.

Having children is not an "entitlement" for an individual though. But I do think that fertility treatment should be provided as the health of a nation is dependant on a constant supply of babies.

Gigabytes

fluorescence wrote: »

Humans are made to reproduce; for a great many people it is the fundamental point of their existence. Fertility treatment should be covered.

Yes but it is not healthcare

Kevin Duffy

Gigabytes wrote: »

I would rather see my taxes support people in real need of healthcare like cancer patients, people with disabilities etc. than to people like myself and my partner in the off chance we might have a baby, you do know it is only a 40% chance of becoming pregnant through IVF, and the older the person the lesser the percentage

So what? People in hospices won't improve or recover and life has a 100% mortality rate, will be close the hospices and just give up on life? CPR has a low success rate - only about 20% even in the most ideal circumstances - does that make it pointless? Or does the 40% chance of success with IVF actually represent pretty decent odds? Based on the 40% possibility, which I'd guess is high compared to some surgeries or other treatments, I'll keep being happy to see it funded.

Gigabytes

Well we'll agree to disagree

Mike 1972

robinph wrote: »

But I do think that fertility treatment should be provided as the health of a nation is dependant on a constant supply of babies.

Not necessarily.

Herb Powell

Definitely a fundamental right and entitlement
Anyone who says otherwise is IMO a dickhead, no exceptions

robinph

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Not necessarily.

Well either babies or young immigrants are required.

Which is likely to be the least controversial in elections?

drkpower

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Not necessarily.

Regardless to whether fertility treatment is central to the nation's future, you have yet to explain:
1. what types of healthcare services should be an entitlement; and
2. why these healthcare services should be an entitlement and why fertility treatment should not.

Fluorescence

robinph wrote: »

Well either babies or young immigrants are required.

Which is likely to be the least controversial in elections?

I dunno, I can't exactly picture a baby in the cabinet. Unless it was that kid from the Triple Velvet ads.

Mike 1972

robinph wrote: »

Well either babies or young immigrants are required.

Unless the supply of babies from both sources is already more than adequate. In any case I dont see much issue with immigration. Fresh blood and all that.

drkpower wrote: »

1. what types of healthcare services should be an entitlement

Healthcare comprises of thousands of possible treatments and procedures. Are you looking for a complete list ? Im not a doctor for crysakes

drkpower wrote: »

why these healthcare services should be an entitlement and why fertility treatment should not.

I think Ive touched on both already

drkpower

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Healthcare comprises of thousands of possible treatments and procedures. Are you looking for a complete list ? Im not a doctor for crysakes

Of course it does; but you have already taken one aspect of healthcare (fertility treatment) and declared it not to be an entitlement, so I am simply asking you to clarify what aspects of healthcare qualify as an entitlement and which dont. That does not mean you need to list different procedures (as you have proved already by your own decision to exempt, en bloc, an entire sub-speciality of healthcare)

Mike 1972 wrote: »

I think Ive touched on both already

No you have not. You have just said that you believe healthcare services (without any qualification) are more important/more deserving than fertility treatment. You have not given any reason why (except when you stated the key reason was that fertility treatment doesnt save any lives - but you resiled from that immediately once asked to elaborate).

Have you given any of this any thought or did you just think about it for the first time when you saw the thread title and decided to reply?

RussellTuring

It should either be free for everyone or free for no one, in my opinion. If it is free for all, as is the case with primary and secondary education, then we can expect to have far more people ready and able to find work in the area to which they are best suited, thus benefitting society at large. If this minimum standard is not enough for some people then they should be perfectly entitled to set up their own system using their own funding and resources and see if they can improve on it.

In the case of it being free for no one and seen as a privilege for those who can afford it, then I think the problems we can expect from having a country with huge numbers of people in constant fear of getting sick are reason enough to disregard this option. Those earning the least money feel trapped in their jobs because they know getting sick without health cover is enough to wipe them out financially. They're also less likely to go to a doctor for minor ailments that could progress into much more serious and indeed expensive treatments in the future.

If it is only free for those who do not earn above a certain arbitrary amount then we have the ridiculous situation of people paying for a service they do not receive because they earn too much, rather than them choosing not to use the service. Apart from breeding contempt for those who do receive it, this will inevitably lead to those who can afford it having a superior system to the majority and those just above the cut-off point getting the worst deal of the bunch; paying for the healthcare of others in addition to budgeting for that of themselves and their loved ones.

pragmatic1

I think its an entitlement, as healthcare should be for any civilized county. However, I dont think people should ever take it for granted. We're extremely lucky to have it.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

To the people who think it a priviledge:

What do you feel people have to do to earn this priviledge?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Being about to spell it would be a start.

Anwser* teh* qusetion*, grammer* nazi*!

*intentional tyop*

robinph

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

You earn it in the same way you earn money to buy car insurance. What would make you entitled to have other people's money?

...and for the people who are not able to earn cash, what would you do with them?

flutterflye

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

You earn it in the same way you earn money to buy car insurance. What would make you entitled to have other people's money?

Because you and yours can have said money when needed also.

Everyone pools the money together for anyone to use if needed.

And if people are not entitled "to have other people's money", then they may be very ill and/or die.

You never know what is around the corner, and it could well save your life some day.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

You earn it in the same way you earn money to buy car insurance. What would make you entitled to have other people's money?

So healthcare should only be available to those who can pay for it? Again, what about low-income earners who suddenly find themsleves too scared of being sick to go to a doctor?

Or what about people born wealthy but never work? What have they done to earn healthcare that a person who works every day for a low income hasn't?

Killer Pigeon

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

I just don't understand why someone needs to be forced to help them through government taxation. It's perfectly reasonable to feel sorry for people who can't earn the cash to buy health insurance but why make it the force burdens on other people just because of your own emotions? That's wrong. If you wanted to help them, donate voluntarily to a charity to help them out. Government intervention will just lead to more problems that will lead us back into the same vicious cycle of debt that brought this country to an economic disaster. It also makes people too reliant on the welfare state.

Well if it's a choice between reliant or dead...

I think I would regard it as an entitlement. I am a little torn on the whole tier system thing though.

Amhran Nua

Like everything it depends on how it's set up. If you have private healthcare like the US, it's a disaster. If you have private healthcare like the Dutch, it's pretty damn good. If you have socialised healthcare like Ireland where unions take over everything, it's a disaster. I guess some of the Scandinavians would be good examples of how to do socialised healthcare right.

As for whether or not its an entitlement, we have a society that forms laws and enforces those laws for the common good - no drink driving, don't murder people and so on. The idea of people as a whole acting for the common good is well established as positive, depending on the implementation.

So saying healthcare an "entitlement" or a "privelege" is a false dichotomy. Having people as a whole offer healthcare as part and parcel of society is good for society as a whole, protecting the weaker members, which is vital for many reasons.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

If we had proper competition in the health insurance sector then most people in the country would be able to afford health insurance anyway.

Need to be very careful to avoid a cartel or a govt-insurance company pact, which is more or less what opperates in Germany.

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Look, it you are brought by ambulance tomorrow to a hospital to have emergency life saving surgery, the hospital isn't going to reject you at the door because you don't have the sufficient funds. You'll probably pay after the operation.

Depends on how much it costs. However, the conservaties amongst you would peobably say he probably did something to deserve the accident and so should not be helped.

Amhran Nua

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

why make it the force burdens on other people just because of your own emotions? That's wrong. If you wanted to help them, donate voluntarily to a charity to help them out... It also makes people too reliant on the welfare state.

Sigh. I didn't realise this was a tired old libertarian drum banging thread. You're in favour of abolishing social welfare too, right?

drkpower

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Look, it you are brought by ambulance tomorrow to a hospital to have emergency life saving surgery, the hospital isn't going to reject you at the door because you don't have the sufficient funds. You'll probably pay after the operation.

You wont. In this country, emergency treatment is free (subject to paying a nominal per night fee).

gcgirl

caroline1111 wrote: »

If its free for anyone it should be free for ALL, not the current ridiculous situation where someone on the dole gets as many GP visits and free medication as they want whereas eg their next-door neighbour works hard and has to skimp about to fork up the money to pay for their own care and even puts it off. Its kinda sick when you think about it, working taxpayers are funding healthcare for people on the dole but then mightn't be able to afford to pay for themselves. Needs to be sorted out.

But when it comes to operations and consultants if your public be prepared to wait over a yr,

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

This is exactly what is going to happen why FG/Lab's plan for healthcare. If the government had absolutely no intervention in the healthcare sector you wouldn't have the problems it has.



The individual can pay back for the operation in installments.

1 - That's what they said about the banks and FF
2 - Here, I disagree. If it's life threatening, money should not be an issue.

Amhran Nua

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Yeeeep!!

The only function of government should be to provide internal security (policing), external security (military) and to help solve internal disputes and throwing the book at criminals (judiciary).

So lets be completely clear on this, you want to abolish social welfare, state pensions, all that sort of thing completely?

flutterflye

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

If we had proper competition in the health insurance sector then most people in the country would be able to afford health insurance anyway.

No. Just no!

I see what you mean.
You seem to think that gp rates would all lower their prices to something somewhat reasonable so people could then afford it.

(I want to make the noise here. The 'X' noise from 'Family Fortunes', but I don't know how to spell it phonetically!)

Okay, let's go with your point for a second.

Let's say a trip to gp is €20.
Great.
So I get an infection, off I go.
But my husband and 4 children get sick too.
Okay, so that's €100 more needed.
Oh wait, we also need to each go to the pharmacy and get antibiotics - more money.
2 of the children have gotten worse - €40 more for gp.
Back to the pharmacy for more medicine.
Myself and husband now need inhalers - €40 for gp + €200 in pharmacy
Neither myself of husband have been in work in 2 weeks and don't have a health plan.
Sleepless nights and run down immune systems cause me to get depression.
€100 per month for the next 6 months for the anti deps the doctor prescribed, plus requisite monthly gp visits at €20 each time.
Oh no, my son fell out of a tree in his friends house - hospital visits, leg operation+cast, crutches, pain killers, anti inflammatories, dental appointments.
Whooops! Condom split - up the duff again - gp appointments, hospital visits, midwife visits, scans, tests etc.. for the next 9 months.

You get the gist I'm sure.

Now, our disposable weekly income is €250 due to the loss of my high earning job 2 months ago and now I only have a part-time job as a waitress in a small cafe.

2 kids in childcare and 2 in school, mortgage, bills, food and so on.

We can't cut down any more than we have done, and we are already scraping the bottom of the piggy bank.

How do we afford healthcare and all it entails on that?

Not to mention a serious, fatal accident or illness?

(The above scenario is all hypothetical and not based on me or anyone I know)

Amhran Nua

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

What about "Yeeep" don't you understand?

I don't speak budgie.

<Bishop Len voice>I leave it as an exercise for the readers to contemplate the state of the Dickensian shitemare that these people would drop us in given half a chance.</Bishop Len voice>

I wouldn't mind but libertarians do have a couple of good ideas. If you'd focus on those rather than trying to bumrush the country into the 19th century with completely demolished arguments you might get somewhere.

robinph

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Yeeeep!!

The only function of government should be to provide internal security (policing), external security (military) and to help solve internal disputes and throwing the book at criminals (judiciary).

What about education, infrastructure...

JohnMarston

21 people voted privilege

The mind boggles