Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Healthcare: An Entitlement or a Privilege? - Discuss

Options
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    flutterflye
    Registered Users Posts: 3,538 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #63
    Kevin Duffy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,439 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #64
    Gigabytes
    Registered Users Posts: 72 ✭✭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


  • Options
    #65
    Kevin Duffy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,439 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #66
    Gigabytes
    Registered Users Posts: 72 ✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Kevin Duffy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,439 ✭✭✭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"?


  • Options
    #68
    Gigabytes
    Registered Users Posts: 72 ✭✭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


  • Options
    #69
    Kevin Duffy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,439 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #70
    Fluorescence
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 8,490 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #71
    Gigabytes
    Registered Users Posts: 72 ✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #73
    Gigabytes
    Registered Users Posts: 72 ✭✭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


  • Options
    #74
    Kevin Duffy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,439 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #75
    Gigabytes
    Registered Users Posts: 72 ✭✭Gigabytes


    Well we'll agree to disagree


  • Options
    #76
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #77
    Herb Powell
    Registered Users Posts: 3,097 ✭✭✭Herb Powell


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


  • Options
    #78
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    Not necessarily.

    Well either babies or young immigrants are required.

    Which is likely to be the least controversial in elections?


  • Options
    #79
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #80
    Fluorescence
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 8,490 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #81
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #83
    RussellTuring
    Registered Users Posts: 866 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #84
    pragmatic1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,573 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #85
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users Posts: 33,172 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    To the people who think it a priviledge:

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

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Options
    #86
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users Posts: 33,172 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    Killer Pigeon wrote: »
    Being about to spell it would be a start.

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

    *intentional tyop*

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Options
    #87
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #88
    flutterflye
    Registered Users Posts: 3,538 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #89
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users Posts: 33,172 ✭✭✭✭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?

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Options
    #90
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,309 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Amhran Nua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭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.


Advertisement