Conference rdvax::grateful

    
    hmmmm...  interesting question...
    
    to me, a "civil" right is one granted by law (as opposed to a basic
    human right which is intrinsic to a person by virtue of thier
    existence)...  with this distinction made on the "type" of right,
    i think my answer is no...  healthcare is not a civil right...  i think
    people have a right to seek medical attention and care, but i don't
    feel that they have any right to *expect* it (at least as things are
    today) just by virtue of the fact that they are sick and may need it...
    
    now if a law were passed (ie constitutional ammendment) that granted
    this as a right the above statement would change, but until such time
    as this happens, i don't believe anyone has a right to healthcare...
    i believe they have a right not to be descriminated against in
    delivering of healthcare services, but that's not quite the same
    thing... 
    
    that being said, i will now complicate things a bit by saying that i
    believe that government in an enlightened society has an obligation to
    provide for it's citizens, and that this obligation also includes
    healthcare...  it will be interesting to see whether or not government
    chooses to accept this "obligation"...
    
    i do believe we shoudl have a national healthcare system so that care
    is provided to all citizens without regard to individual financial
    situations, but until such a system exists, for the benefit of all,
    then no, i do not believe that healthcare is a civil right...
    
    it may sound kind of cold and un-da ve-like, but i believe that we have
    a right to live...  a right to take care of ourselves...  and then if
    we fail to do so, a right to die...  but a right to take care of
    oneself does not, at least for me, translate into a right to be cared
    for...
    
    				one man's humble opinion...
    
    				subject to change without notice... :^)
    
    						da ve

    
    >Is healthcare a fundamental civil right?  Is the lack of
    >healthcare due to its expense, an acceptable reason why
    >people should suffer and die?
    
    I think it should be, in a truly civilized society.  I think
    technolgical breakthroughs and cures should belong to all of humankind,
    not just those that can afford them.  I don't think the right to not
    die of polio, or some other disease that is completely preventable,
    should only be granted to folks who can afford to pay for the shot.  
    
    

    IMO, yes healthcare should be considered a fundamental right. There is
    something amiss when society allows people to suffer or die because
    they can't afford health care. There is something amiss when society
    allows epidemics of preventable disease to occur.
    
    I hold the same view of education.
    
    Beyond the simple humanity of universal healthcare, I have to think
    that a healthy workforce is going to be more productive and more
    competitive than the current condition. Ditto for educated workforce.
    
    Now this doesn't necessarily mean socialised medicine. Personally, I
    like the idea of nationalized health insurance - everyone get a basic
    level of health insurance, not tied to employment, not tied to specific
    service providers. If you want more insurance, you pay for the extra.
    
    gary

    Interesting take in .1. I hadn't thought about the significance of the
    term 'civil rights'.
    
    According to the dictionary (DEC-issue Am. Heritage)
    
    civil rights: rights belonging to an individual by virtue of his or her
    status as a citizen
    
    [This is, to the best of my knowledge, incorrect. As a resident, I am
    afforded the same rights and obligations as citizenship, except for the
    right to vote.]
    
    However, the spirit of that definition implies that unless society says
    that everyone is entitled to health care, it isn't a civil right.
    
    gary

I think the question isn't is it a civil right, but is it a social right? Or:
are we in fact genitically predisposed to altruism?  Anthropologically,
_successful_ cultures have indeed shown altruistic tendancies in caring for
their sick, old, and handicapped. In short, My opinion is that a societies'
tendancy towards altruism in fact _defines_ its success as a culture. 

The definition of successful above, though, is key. It applies to those 
cultures, that IMO have in their struggles to survive, managed to provide 
viscerally first, then socially next, an enduring way of living such that the 
costs of altruistic behavior are adequately compensated for in culturally-
defined currencies of return payment to that society: There is always the 
chance that in exchange for paying for the care of a Lou Ghering's-infected 
individual, you'll get a Steven Hawking.

Since our U.S. culture promulgates Selfish behaviors rather than altrusitic
ones, thousands of Hawkings don't even get into their teens in this country.
I believe our current policy shifts are not enough to tip the scales on this,
only perhaps enough to placate the masses into thinking we are on the road to
success as a society. But class, race, education, and bigotry all have to
written out of our policies too, and then culturally erased. Some silly
health care edict that everyone will have "access" just aint gonna cut the 
mustard on this one, folks.

    re .4
    
    >[This is, to the best of my knowledge, incorrect. As a resident, I am
    >afforded the same rights and obligations as citizenship, except for the
    >right to vote.]
    
    If I read your reply correctly, then you are incorrect.  If you are a
    resident alien (don't you love that term?), you could, under certain
    circumstances, be deported.  As an American citizen, they can do a lot
    but throwing me out of the country is not one of them.
    
    re  healthcare as a right.  
      
      As Gary says, healthcare is a right only when the gov says it is.  Is
    access to quality healthcare a benefit that should be available to
    everyone?  Yes.
    
      However, that "Yes" answer can lead to unrealistic expectations as to
    what constitutes "quality healthcare".  Does it mean cosmetic
    procedures if it impacts one's self-image?  What about transplants, or
    "heroic measures"?  Should the public pay for experimental procedures? 
    What about an accident victim?  Fix their legs.  Sure but what if they
    need a prothesis?  Do we pay for that.  They can live a decent life
    without a leg can't they?  A prothesis would make their life a better
    one but does society own it to them?
    
      If we do go to a national program agreeing on the definitions and 
    necessary limitations may turn out to be tougher than paying for the
    program.
    
      A tough nut.
    
    Marv
    
    

Should someone die because they can't afford the treatment
to get better?

Should someone suffer because they can't afford relief?

Should someone crawl because they can't afford the prosthesis
to let them walk, and thereby be a more productive member
of society?

tim

    You talk'n to me?
    
    Marv
    

No, not specifically Marv,

Just general questions...

I know people having to make tough decisions like these.
It hurts to watch them struggle with circumstances that
they cannot resolve.

For example:  

Your daughter is born, beautiful and healthy.  After six
months, though, you notice she doesn't move around much,
just sort of lies there smiling at you.  She tries to
crawl, and suddenly turns blue.  You go to the doctor that
your health insurance pays for, and your worse fears are 
confirmed: she has a life threatening heart condition that
will require a valve replacement, and ongoing major care.

You adapt, and over time life seems to become normal.  
Then, your job is eliminated, and you are looking for 
work...(or, for that matter, your job becomes
unbearable, and you need to look elsewhere)...

But there's a problem: health insurance at your new job
won't cover your daughter's "pre-existing condition", and
she will require open heart surgery by the time she
enters puberty (to replace the valve).

Is that fair?

tim

P.S. This is not the circumstance of the people I mentioned
earlier, but just an example of the way our healthcare
system avoids providing care for the deserving who are in
need.

	I like the idea of Total American Healthcare....
	
	It would be nice to know that if I got laid
	off at least I would have something to take
	with me to college besides a small check.

	I am concerned that it may become another system
	in which people will freeload off of and break 
	the bank.  Medical law needs to be rewritten before
	this happens or we'll have lawsuit city!
 

    re .4  as has been pointed out, i think a citizen has MORE obligations
    	and rights than a resident...  deportation is one situation, but i
    	believe that there are other situations that change as a result of
    	citizenship status as well..
    
    re .5  no, the question was "is it a fundamental civil right" and not
    	anything about social right...  don't change the subject dammit! 
    		:^) :^) :^)
    	and as for not cutting the mustard, i agree...  however even the
    	longest journey begins with a single step...  would you say we are
    	moving in the right direction with this type of thing?
    
    re .6  some good points Marv...  i actually have some opinions on
    	prosthetics and such from my personal experiences...  i would
    	support people getting prosthetics, wheelchairs etc...  probably
    	most expensive and experimental stuff too
    
    re .7  Tim, my first reaction was "hey, when are you going to quit
    	asking questions and giving some answers?"  :^)  :^)  :^)
    
    
    a little personal history/opinion...  
    
    in the kind of case Tim outlines, i believe the child shoudl get
    treatment...  in the case of an insurance company not covering an
    existing situation, i say that's within thier rights to do...  it boils
    down to terms of contracts for them...  in the case o a life
    threatening illness, i believe that the care should be made
    avaialable...  inthis case i would see a natl healthcare system
    SUPPLEMENTING a private insurance...
    
    in my case, my daughter was born almost 3 months premature with a
    number of complications that were not immediately discernamble...  i
    was unemployed...  no insurance, no money, nothing...  not homeless due
    to the charity of a friend who let us have his house for nothing til i
    found work...
    
    Diana got all the care she needed to survive and it didn't cost me a
    cent...  this included 5 months of neo-natal intesive care, 24 hour
    monitoring, reviving her on several occasions...  major surgery to her
    bowels, eyes, and lungs...  lots of stuff like that...  she got it all
    for nothing and the bill for the service was literally hundreds of
    thousands of dollars...  i can't be specific because other than the
    bill for the first 2 weeks i never saw another...  the state picked up
    the rest...
    
    i beleive the care is available to those in dire need now in many cases
    and situations if people know hwo and where to look...  althogh i also
    know that 12 years of republican administrations have dismantled many
    of the networks that were there for us then...  a national healthcare 
    situation would, imho, have been able to adress an extremem situation
    like ours, and the one Tim describes, in a much more cost effective
    manner than in my case...  with us, medicare, social security and other 
    "welfare" programs footed the bill for a lot of expensive stuff from 
    private providers and institutions...
    
    now, while the care to save lives has been made avaiable, wheelchairs
    and the like have not...  in fact, most privbate insurance carriers
    will not cover that stuff either...  you have to come up with it
    yourself or altruistic folks around you have to raise the money for
    you...  that happened with us when my daughters bus driver started
    a fund raising campaign to buy the wheelchair... (some of you may
    remember that story)  it was exactly what
    the republican administrations said SHOULD happen, but the fact is we
    were lucky and lots of other people aren't...  they are no less
    deserving thna we were....  i feel that "quality of life" stuff like
    prosthetics and wheelchairs etc should also be made avaialable to the
    needy folks and that systems can be put in place to facilitate this in
    a cost effective manner...
    
    					da ve_who'll_shut_up_now

da ve,

I was thinking of you when I wrote that, but I didn't want
to be presumptuous.  On the other hand, yours is not an
unusual case, when it comes to healthcare distress.

The girl with the heart problem really exists.  My friend
in Florida who has melanoma and can't change jobs.  Another
with a daughter with cerebral palsy.  I think if we look
around, we all know someone in this situation, if it isn't
ourselves.

I don't think the insurance industry should have the leeway
to exclude people based on pre-existing conditions.  I also
don't think they should be allowed to cancel the policy on
someone, simply based on a diagnosis of an expensive, fatal
disease, like AIDS.

You can say we can't afford it, but we pay for it anyway.
I would suggest that it would be cheaper to have everyone
covered for treatment before the problem gets out of hand.
Preventive medicine: the thing HMO's were supposed to be
doing before they changed their minds and became Republicans.

tim

    re .11
    
    I neglected to mention the deportation aspect. Up until a couple of
    years ago, that required all of the due process required to send
    someone to prison, and even then you could not be deported if you could
    show that you had significant 'family ties' (I can't think of the
    legalese, but basically if you had a spouse or children who were
    citizens).
    
    This was quietly changed a couple of years ago, thanks to the War on
    Some Drugs.
    
    Other than that, I can't vote and I can't get elected.
    
    Back to health care...
    
    I have a couple of friends who are terrified of losing their job
    because it will eliminate health care coverage for a dependant under
    the existing illness stuff. That really sucks.
    
    Who came up with the idea of tying health insurance to employment? That
    has to be one of the stupidest aspects of the US health care industry,
    and one that Clinton seems adverse to changing.
    
    gary

    re .12
    
>I don't think the insurance industry should have the leeway
>to exclude people based on pre-existing conditions.  I also
>don't think they should be allowed to cancel the policy on
>someone, simply based on a diagnosis of an expensive, fatal
>disease, like AIDS.
    
    The Supremes recently ruled that companies that self insure (like DEC)
    have the right to arbitrarily cap the benefits for a long term illness,
    without warning. No contract is involved so the employer can change
    things at will.
    
    The test case was some small record company where one employee had
    AIDS.
    
    gary

    A few more, probably disjointed, comments.
    
    The healthcare system in this country is a mess.  Many, many reforms
    are needed or things will get so out of control that only the very rich
    or the very poor will be able to get the care they need.  To a large
    extent we already have reached that point.
    
    The cost of prescription drugs is way out of control.  Some
    non-specific examples:
    
    My mother was just prescribed a new antibiotic.  Two per day.  Cost
    is $2.10 per pill.  One month supply is $126.  This is on top of the
    other five or six 'scripts that she takes.  Total average cost for
    prescriptions - $240 per month.  Without prescription insurance, many
    people cannot afford the drugs their doctor prescribes and either do
    without them or do without food or other necessities.
    
    Medicare: this is the medical care component of the Social Security
    system.  Medicare is a two part program that covers hospital expenses
    (Part A) and doctor expenses (Part B).  Part A is free to those
    eligible for SS and Part B costs $35per month.  The program covers
    individuals for 80% of the charges that it consider usual and
    customary.  It is up to the individual to pay for the balance.  There
    is a small annual deductible.
    
    Some doctors "accept assignment".  This means that they will accept
    whatever the government deems appropriate.  This allows elderly folks
    on fixed incomes to get medical care paid for by the gov'mint, other
    than the 20% not covered.  Many other doctors, primarily specialist, do
    not accept assignment.  This means that they will charge whatever they
    feel like charging.  A procedure that the govs allows $500 for can be
    as much as $1000 or more.  The gov then pays 80% of the $500 and the
    citizen is liable for the remaining 20% as well as the total amount
    over the gov allowable limit.  By doing this, high priced doctors that
    do not accept assignment essentially force out those without insurance
    and those without the means to pay the amounts over the gov limits.
    
    Many people purchase private policies called "Medi-Gap" insurance to
    pay for the deductible and the 20% the gov doesn't cover but Medi-Gap
    coverage does not include charges over and above the usual and
    customary.  Also, there are 10 "flavors" of medi-gap policies that can
    legally be offered in the U.S.  Monthly costs can range from $35 to
    over $100 per month.  All of these flavors cover the same things
    regardless of the carrier.  However each carrier can charge whatever
    they want and whatever the market can stand.
    
    The result is that elderly, non-rich longterm patients must switch to a
    doctor who accepts assignment or do without the specialized care they
    need.  
    
    Medicaid is a government program that is part of the Welfare system and
    it will pay whatever a particular doctor charges.  So...the rich get
    the best care because they can afford it and the poor can get the best
    care because the gov will pay for it.  The middleclass, fixed income,
    lifelong wage earner gets the shaft.
    
    All doctors should be required to "accept assignment"!
    
    There is a crisis in this country.  When your or my mother
    (father/loved one) dies because they or their family could not afford
    the specialist they needed or because they had to choose between their
    blood pressure medicine and their heart medicine you'll know what rage
    is all about.  I struggle everyday with how and what I can do to make
    sure that doesn't happen to my mother.  However, the costs are so high
    that we are close to making the impossible choices I just mentioned.  
    
    I don't know if it makes sense for the government to pay for
    prosthesis' and experimental treatments when so many millions of people
    cannot afford to get BASIC TREATMENT.
    
    I am wholly sympathetic to those in need of wheelchairs and mechanical
    arms and legs.  God, I do greive for them and their families.  But if
    someone I love dies because there was no money to buy the drugs they
    need, I will be insane with rage and so will others.  If radical
    changes do take place and take place soon, the next revolution will not
    be a political one, it will be a personal one.
    
    Marv-exercising_his_stream_of_consciousness  

RE:       <<< Note 339.11 by ROULET::DWEST "if wishes were horses..." >>>
    
>    	longest journey begins with a single step...  would you say we are
>    	moving in the right direction with this type of thing?
    
	Yes, but, there have been no steps yet, only genuflects. Ask me again 
	after the "first hunnert days."

:-)

	Civil, social, they really are the same thing, kinda, when yer 
	talking anthropomologically, dammit: did I really change the subject 
	that much?  :-)

    re fog in -.1
    
    no, you didn't change the subject that much...  :^)  just being a pain
    in the butt becuase of the very specific way i was treating the
    original question...  i agree that everyone should get the care they
    need and have a basic human right to seek out the best treatment
    available...  but in terms of civil rights (the original question)
    then no, in my opinion there is no civil right to healthcare...
    
    Marv, again you are quite right about doctors accepting the rate that
    the government is willing to pay...  yes, doctors have a right to
    charge what they deem the service is worth, but in a case where a
    person is denied treatment because of exhorbitant rates, well, it flies
    in the face of the hypocratic oath and makes me sick from the greed
    involved...
    
    i also agree that there are lots of folks who can't get basic care and
    that shoudl be the first priority...  still, the same situation that is
    in place for prescription drugs also exists for prosthetics and
    assistive devices...  becasue ti costs a lot to develop a product for a
    limited market (whose ability to pay is also usually limited) then the
    prices go sky high...  it cost almost $9K for a chair like my
    daughters...  no one covers it...  not too many people who find
    themselves in need of such devices have that kind of capital on hand...
    if we consider medical care to be aimed at getting people back to a
    productive state, we MUST include these kinds of devices in coverage...
    
    basic care first, then "additional care", then the
    expensive/experimental stuff...  that's my priority scheme...  gotta do
    the experimental things...  it's how we learn...  todays standard
    treatments are the expensive experiments of yesteryear...  (note that i
    feel this is differnet from expensive "chronic care"...  for people
    with "no hope of recovery" i say pull the plug and the dollars...  i
    know it sounds cold but it's a cold hard world sometimes :^( )....
    
    i think we agree on the basic premises though...  and best wishes for
    your Mom and your family...  it's not fun stuff to grapple with...
    
    
    on a more personal philosophical note...
    
    anyone ever listen to "Jesus Christ Superstar" by Andrew Lloyd Webber
    and Tim Rice?  in "The Last Supper" there is a conversation between
    Jesus and Judas about how some money was spent...  Judas sez words to
    the effect of "we could have spent some of this on the poor instead of 
    treating ourselves so well..."  Jesus replies with:
    	
    	"surely you're not saying
    		we have the resources 
    			to save the poor from thier lot?
    	there will be poor always
    		pathetically struggling 
    			look at the good things you've got..."
    
    i guess my feeling on this and other social programs is, people are
    born, live for a time after our own fashion, and die...  nothing that 
    we do will change that...  we can do what we can to help who we can, 
    but we're all worm food in the end...  i'm a bleeding heart liberal
    through and through and i believe we shoudl do what we can, but the
    fact that some people get nothing should not stop us from giving what
    we can to others...  that's why i say that even when some go without
    basic care other should not be denied either...  just because one
    person dies without the right medicines doesn't mean someone else
    shoudl go without something they need too...
    
    in a wierd sort of way i draw strength from this bit of (il)logic when
    we don't get everything for Diana...  ilike to thinkt hat somewhere
    else some one is benefitting somehow (or the money really just doesn't
    exist)...
    
    					da ve_getting_close_to_rambling_now
    						:^)

One of the big problems of healthcare is money.  People
die of poverty.  We can't cure poverty in one felled swoop,
but we can chip away at it by eliminating one of its more
lethal effects.  Let's at least try to change the meaning
of poverty from what it is today, namely an early death,
to something a bit more humane.

Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, house the homeless, 
cure the sick, help the needy.  What becomes of poverty
when we've done these things?  What becomes of society
when there is no poverty as we know it?  Certainly nothing
but good, I should think.

I suspect that in the long run, it will cost society less
when there are no homeless, no hungry, no untreated sick,
because we'll no longer be forced to pay for the effects
that these problems cost us now.

Poverty can become, and should become, something that's
more embarassing than it is fatal.

tim

P.S. All naked people can form a line at my house this
weekend...;-) ;-)

    it's entries like that last one that make me like Tim Grady  %^)
    we think alot alike....
    
    rfb

Thanks rfb,

And for all you central-massites, I meant what I said
about the naked coming to my house.  ;-) ;-)

tim

    well, i'm not naked right now, but that's easy enough to fix!  :^)
    naked blizzard party???  what was that adress again???  :^) :^) :^)