TOTALLY GEEKED!

Health Care is absolutely a right. Health Care Coverage is not.

Any civilized country should take care of its citizens.

flan

Everyone should have access to reasonably-priced comprehensive coverage but not necessarily government-funded.

I know I phrased it broadly;  for instance, let's say I develop cancer. Do I have the right to treatment whether or not I have resource to pay?  Is my treatment a right, owed to me by my fellow Americans?

Ohfour wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Any civilized country should take care of its citizens.

flan

---

Meaning what?  Paying for all medical?  That's absurd. 

---

 Of course not...but offer AFFORDABLE health insurance. I'm sick of drug manufacturers and insurance companies getting rich.

flan

---

That's not the government's job. And if you stifle prices, then drug companies will not be able to develop new drugs.  It's not cheap...

---

 Why not? There is REASONABLE profit, then there is GREED.

flan

Here's one example:

Patients’ out-of-pocket spending for EpiPens climbed 535 percent from 2007 to 2014, the analysis of prescriptions filled by privately insured people under age 65 found.

“For EpiPen in particular, failing to fill a prescription due to cost could mean the difference between life or death when serious allergic reactions occur - this is why Mylan’s EpiPen price hikes are so ethically troublesome,” Chua said by email.

Generic drugmaker Mylan obtained the rights to sell EpiPen in 2007. Since then, Mylan has increased the list price from $94 to $609, researchers report in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In October, Mylan agreed to pay the U.S. government $465 million after it was accused of falsely classifying the brand EpiPen as a generic medicine to increase revenue from Medicaid by avoiding paying higher rebates per unit sold. Mylan didn’t admit wrongdoing.

Mylan avoided paying $426 million in rebates on only two formulations of EpiPen from 2012 through 2016, according to a separate study in JAMA Internal Medicine. That suggests the total amount Mylan owed the government may far exceed what the company agreed to pay in the settlement, the authors write.

www.reuters.com/article/us-health-epipen-costs-idUSKBN16Y24O

flan

flan327 wrote:

---

Here's one example:

Patients’ out-of-pocket spending for EpiPens climbed 535 percent from 2007 to 2014, the analysis of prescriptions filled by privately insured people under age 65 found.

“For EpiPen in particular, failing to fill a prescription due to cost could mean the difference between life or death when serious allergic reactions occur - this is why Mylan’s EpiPen price hikes are so ethically troublesome,” Chua said by email.

Generic drugmaker Mylan obtained the rights to sell EpiPen in 2007. Since then, Mylan has increased the list price from $94 to $609, researchers report in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In October, Mylan agreed to pay the U.S. government $465 million after it was accused of falsely classifying the brand EpiPen as a generic medicine to increase revenue from Medicaid by avoiding paying higher rebates per unit sold. Mylan didn’t admit wrongdoing.

Mylan avoided paying $426 million in rebates on only two formulations of EpiPen from 2012 through 2016, according to a separate study in JAMA Internal Medicine. That suggests the total amount Mylan owed the government may far exceed what the company agreed to pay in the settlement, the authors write.

www.reuters.com/article/us-health-epipen-costs-idUSKBN16Y24O

flan

---

The Epi Pen is not a drug.  It's a device. The drug is available elsewhere.

flan327 wrote:

---

It contains Epinephrine, which IS a drug.

flan

---

A drug you can get just as easily without the pen. 

That's like saying If Tylenol raises the price of their Gel-Caps, you are screwed.  No, you can take tablets or liquid.  The Epi Pen is nothing but a vessel to get the drug into your system.   

flan327 wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

It contains Epinephrine, which IS a drug.

flan

---

A drug you can get just as easily without the pen. 

That's like saying If Tylenol raises the price of their Gel-Caps, you are screwed.  No, you can take tablets or liquid.  The Epi Pen is nothing but a vessel to get the drug into your system.   

---

AND, in a life or death situation, it is the QUICKEST way.

flan 

---

Yeah, so you are paying for convenience.  Not the drug... 

Divine Geek wrote:

---

Didn't we already beat the Epi Pen horse to death? And then continue kicking it just to be sure. Or am I dreaming that?

---

 I honestly don't remember, DG. It was just the first example that came to mind.

flan

excepting emergencies which are sort of a grey area would say healthcare is definitely not a human right

burns07 wrote:

---

excepting emergencies which are sort of a grey area would say healthcare is definitely not a human right

---

 Yeah, I agree with this. But a patient still has the obligation to pay. Now in the case of a horribly pricey illness, I do think we should help that person out so they aren't out living on the streets and eating out of dumpsters.

I would like to add that no one should be turned down for care, but it is time to re establish fiscally reasonable options such as clinics.  Clinics should not be demonized.

-- Edited by I know what to do_sometimes on Friday 5th of May 2017 04:41:19 PM

I know what to do_sometimes wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

It contains Epinephrine, which IS a drug.

flan

---

A drug you can get just as easily without the pen. 

That's like saying If Tylenol raises the price of their Gel-Caps, you are screwed.  No, you can take tablets or liquid.  The Epi Pen is nothing but a vessel to get the drug into your system.   

---

AND, in a life or death situation, it is the QUICKEST way.

flan 

---

Yeah, so you are paying for convenience.  Not the drug... 

---

 No, you are paying for your LIFE.

flan

---

 Isn't your life worth that $600??

---

 What's the manufacturer's profit?

flan

flan327 wrote:

---

I know what to do_sometimes wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

It contains Epinephrine, which IS a drug.

flan

---

A drug you can get just as easily without the pen. 

That's like saying If Tylenol raises the price of their Gel-Caps, you are screwed.  No, you can take tablets or liquid.  The Epi Pen is nothing but a vessel to get the drug into your system.   

---

AND, in a life or death situation, it is the QUICKEST way.

flan 

---

Yeah, so you are paying for convenience.  Not the drug... 

---

 No, you are paying for your LIFE.

flan

---

 Isn't your life worth that $600??

---

 What's the manufacturer's profit?

flan

---

Ok, go ahead and negotiate with the company as you lay dying.  You didn't answer the question, is your life not worth $600?

 

Well the whole epipen debacle is a perfect example of why the Government should not be in the business of healthcare, the Gov't contract with that company drove the price up.

I know what to do_sometimes wrote:

---

burns07 wrote:

---

excepting emergencies which are sort of a grey area would say healthcare is definitely not a human right

---

 Yeah, I agree with this. But a patient still has the obligation to pay. Now in the case of a horribly pricey illness, I do think we should help that person out so they aren't out living on the streets and eating out of dumpsters.

I would like to add that no one should be turned down for care, but it is time to re establish fiscally reasonable options such as clinics.  Clinics should not be demonized.

-- Edited by I know what to do_sometimes on Friday 5th of May 2017 04:41:19 PM

---

 I use a clinic. It more than provides the services I need, and I have some fairly serious needs.

 

Get the generic. WAY cheaper...

I think she should be allowed to set up a payment plan with the clinic. It may take her years to pay off, but she would be alive.

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:

---

When people are forgoing life-saving treatment because they cannot afford it, we, as a country suck.

My sister has a friend living with her husband and three VERY young children IN A TENT, YEAR ROUND, because even though her husband works a full-time job, it is not enough to pay for both rent and chemo.

She got fired for missing too much time FOR HER CHEMO TREATMENTS.

She already knows she will not live to see her youngest graduate kindergarten, now she lives in fear they will be taken away by the state, and well, maybe they should be.

It makes you sick. Healthcare should 100% be a right. I am OK with my taxes going to pay for chemo and heart transplants and birth control and that idiot who literally shot himself in the foot.

If you aren't, then don't you DARE tell me how pro-life you are, because no, you are not.

---

 Why Dona? Sounds as though they would qualify for medicaid.  Sometimes we have to make life decisions which might include swallowing out dignity and asking for help.  I hear these stories all the time and there is always some underlying other situation going on.

WHAT IS A RIGHT?
Fatal Blindness (FR archives) ^ | 06/14/99 | Fulton Huxtable
Posted on 8/31/2003, 12:27:09 PM by NMC EXP

A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others. The concept of a right carries with it an implicit, unstated footnote: you may exercise your rights as long as you do not violate the same rights of another—within this context, rights are an absolute.

A right is universal—meaning: it applies to all men, not just to a few. There is no such thing as a "right" for one man, or a group of men, that is not possessed by all. This means there are no special "rights" unique to women or men, blacks or white, the elderly or the young, homosexuals or heterosexuals, the rich or the poor, doctors or patients or any other group.

A right must be exercised through your own initiative and action. It is not a claim on others. A right is not actualized and implemented by the actions of others. This means you do not have the right to the time in another person’s life. You do not have a right to other people’s money. You do not have the right to another person’s property. If you wish to acquire some money from another person, you must earn it—then you have a right to it. If you wish to gain some benefit from the time of another person’s life, you must gain it through the voluntary cooperation of that individual—not through coercion. If you wish to possess some item of property of another individual, you must buy it on terms acceptable to the owner—not gain it through theft.

Alone in a wilderness, the concept of a right would never occur to you, even though in such isolation you have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In this solitude, you would be free to take the actions needed to sustain your life: hunt for food, grow crops, build a shelter and so on. If a hundred new settlers suddenly arrive in your area and establish a community, you do not gain any additional rights by living in such a society nor do you lose any; you simply retain the same rights you possessed when you were alone.

A right defines what you may do without the permission of those other men and it erects a moral and legal barrier across which they may not cross. It is your protection against those who attempt to forcibly take some of your life’s time, your money or property.

Animals do not have rights. Rights only apply to beings capable of thought, capable of defining rights and creating an organized means—government—of protecting such rights. Thus, a fly or mosquito does not possess rights of any kind, including the right to life. You may swat a fly or mosquito, killing them both. You do not have the right to do the same to another human being, except in self-defense. You may own and raise cows, keep them in captivity and milk them for all they are worth. You do not have the right to do the same to other men, although that is what statists effectively do to you.

There is only one, fundamental right, the right to life—which is: the sovereignty to follow your own judgment, without anyone’s permission, about the actions in your life. All other rights are applications of this right to specific contexts, such as property and freedom of speech.

The right to property is the right to take the action needed to create and/or earn the material means needed for living. Once you have earned it, then that particular property is yours—which means: you have the right to control the use and disposal of that property. It may not be taken from you or used by others without your permission.

Freedom of speech is the right to say anything you wish, using any medium of communication you can afford. It is not the responsibility of others to pay for some means of expression or to provide you with a platform on which to speak. If a newspaper or television station refuses to allow you to express your views utilizing their property, your right to freedom of speech has not been violated and this is not censorship. Censorship is a concept that only applies to government action, the action of forcibly forbidding and/or punishing the expression of certain ideas.

Statists have corrupted the actual meaning of a right and have converted it, in the minds of most, into its opposite: into a claim on the life of another. With the growth of statism, over the past few decades, we have seen an explosion of these "rights"—which, in fact, have gradually eroded your actual right to your life, money and property.

Statists declare you have a "right" to housing, to a job, to health care, to an education, to a minimum wage, to preferential treatment if you are a minority and so on. These "rights" are all a claim, a lien, on your life and the lives of others. These "rights" impose a form of involuntary servitude on you and others. These "rights" force you to pay for someone’s housing, their health care, their education, for training for a job—and, it forces others to provide special treatment for certain groups and to pay higher-than-necessary wages.

Under statism, "rights" are a means of enslavement: it places a mortgage on your life—and statists are the mortgage holders, on the receiving end of unearned payments forcibly extracted from your life and your earnings. You do not have a right to your life, others do. Others do not have a right to their lives, either, but you have a "right" to theirs. Such a concept of "rights" forcibly hog-ties everyone to everyone else, making everyone a slave to everyone else—except for those masters, statist politicians, who pull the strings and crack the whips.

Actual rights—those actions to which you are entitled by your nature as man—give you clear title to your life. A right is your declaration of independence. A statist "right" is their declaration of your dependence on others and other's dependence on you. Until these bogus "rights" are repudiated, your freedom to live your life as you see fit will continue to slowly disappear.

www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/973633/posts

You own the time of doctors now?

WYSIWYG wrote:

---

Healthcare is a right.

In fact it's one of the rights that's mentioned in the Constitution itself (before the Bill of Rights was even in consideration). It's what "promote the general welfare" in the Preamble was speaking of, in part. The "general welfare" is the health and safety of the citizens.

It's also mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, "And among these rights are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". You can't have life if you are dead.

The solution for this problem is Universal Healthcare. Obamacare destroyed what was. It's going down in flames now too (as I believe was intended from the beginning). We can't rebuild the healthcare system from the remains of the destroyed one. We have to start over with something that can work and last.

When a building is demolished to make way for new construction, the replacement building isn't built using the ole destroyed materials. The old materials are taken away and the new building is built with new materials.

---

 I think you read too much into the Constitution, it does not talk about healthcare. Healthcare is a privilege most people in this Country have.  That is due to employers competing against each other to get the best and brightest employees.  They offer health insurance so attract employees.  That health insurance means that the employees can get affordable health care. 

WYSIWYG wrote:

---

Healthcare is a right.

In fact it's one of the rights that's mentioned in the Constitution itself (before the Bill of Rights was even in consideration). It's what "promote the general welfare" in the Preamble was speaking of, in part. The "general welfare" is the health and safety of the citizens.

It's also mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, "And among these rights are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". You can't have life if you are dead.

The solution for this problem is Universal Healthcare. Obamacare destroyed what was. It's going down in flames now too (as I believe was intended from the beginning). We can't rebuild the healthcare system from the remains of the destroyed one. We have to start over with something that can work and last.

When a building is demolished to make way for new construction, the replacement building isn't built using the ole destroyed materials. The old materials are taken away and the new building is built with new materials.

---

 If healthcare is a right mentioned in the constitution, what was the insurance company and who used it?  

Using the logic that "general welfare" is the health and safety of the citizens, I think food would contribute to general welfare.  Do we need a system to provide free food to everyone?  Housing is important to for good welfare, free homes to everyone too.

Having a treatable disease doesn't matter if you're starving to death.

Neither of those are rights either. Lots of people are denied food stamps.