E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Employee Benefit Research Institute
According the study, 21.5 percent of 50+ households made prescription drug changes, 19.4 percent skipped doctor appointments and 27.5 percent had difficulty making monthly payments.
If you’ve ever thought twice about going to the doctor or taking a pill because of the cost, you likely aren’t alone.
About 20 percent of Americans over the age of 50 are switching to cheaper prescriptions, failing to take the medicine they are supposed to or skipping trips to the doctor to save money, according to a new research from a Washington-based think tank.
It's the latest example of how high health care costs are forcing some Americans to choose between financial and physical health.
The Employee Benefit Research Institute used a comprehensive 2009 survey of 4,433 Americans 50 and over to get a sense of how many older people couldn’t afford to get the health care that was recommended to them.
The survey found that 19 percent said they had skipped or postponed a doctor’s appointment to save money, while 21.5 percent said they had made prescription drug changes to save money.
The most common approach was the least worrisome: Many said they switched to cheaper generic drugs or used free samples.
But about one-quarter of those who made prescription drug changes said they’d stopped taking one or more pills. About one-fourth also said they’d split pills or taken a reduced dosage to make the medications last longer.
Skipping an occasional pill or doctor’s appointment might not affect you much, as long as you are generally in good health. But the researchers found that the people who were most likely to skimp on health care were also the ones who reported they were in poor health.
Single women and African-Americans were the most likely to report making such changes to save money.
Leave a Comment:
The unstated assumption of the article is all health care should be free. It should have no impact on a budget or other priorities. It assumes that decision not to take a full dose of a marginal medicine is a fault of the system. It assumes many people are suffering and dying from lack of medicine.
Just not true.
Last time I checked I was paying for medicare and social security and working for the money I put into it. I just want that money back when I retire. I don't consider something an entitlement if I pay for it by working. Medicaid on the other hand .... I pay for that too but it goes for those who do not work or contribute. That is an entitlement. Congressional salaries, healthcare and benefits. I pay for those too and get no return. That is an example of an entitlement program with no benefits to society. high cost low return. Get rid of it.
You also want everything else your government provides on borrowed money. You aren't paying for your future healthcare and retirement! You aren't even paying for the current uses of medicare and SS! You are borrowing money to pay theirs, and you expect yours to be there when you are of age? Can't you see the basic immorality of such a system that enslaves future workers to a debt for things you demand today? It's time to accept that we will not have a high standard of living for at least a generation. Eventually, someone has to pay and it should be the ones who rigged the system.
yes, I don't get enough medical care - i don't have health insurance. but medical care in this country is ridiculously expensive and not worth it. drugs are about 1/2 the price if you get them in canada and lots less elsewhere. the drug companies have discovered that they can sell cheap to other countries and let the american public make up the difference. same is becoming true of medical procedures and some people are starting to go other countries for surgeries. how about the corporation that donates to a large charity, takes their tax deduction, but then makes up the difference by charging the american public more - is that right. if we added up all of the public's contributions to the needy through contributions from businesses, we would all find out we are contributing more to the needy than we are spending on ourselves. it's one thing for our government taking from us and giving to the poor, but add this in the scenario, and it's totally out of control. This country should go back to the days where the church helped the poor and truly needy - they do a much better job than the corruption and lies of our government and big business. the worst thing to ever happen to this country was the idea of an insurance company. we are all having to support that middle man as well as greedy pharmaceutical companies and other big business medical centers.
Obama is cutting all the care that seniors in this country paid for through the nose, and sending it to his Muslims friends in the Middle East by way of "bending his sorry knees", again to them and appeasing them with more of our hard earned tax dollars.
What does Congress care, they have their meds for life paid for by the very seniors that don't have money for medications, food, housing. Meanwhile they are sending money to the poor starving people of Africa, and buying weapons for the thug rebels in Syria.
Mean while our Seniors in this country have to scrimp and safe just to make it day to day.
You should start a newsletter... you could call it 'random rambling theories about things I really know nothing about'.
It all depends on perspective. If you view health care as a commodity to be bought and sold on the open market then you feel that capitalism with rationing by ability to pay is totally appropriate. If you view health care as a utility (like water, gas and electricity) that is necessary to day-to-day living then you most likely think it should be non-profit or at the least controlled so that it is affordable.
I think most of the former folks are the ones that work for large companies and still have great health care benefits....even possibly into retirement. Although to them I would caution that since the 1990's companies have been reducing retiree health care benefits which after medicare kicks in becomes your supplemental insurance. Companies going through bankruptcy frequently do that....just look at Kodak. You are happy to have rationing by income. The richer you are the more you can afford so you feel that you somehow deserve that. And if you are poor, working poor or middle class and cannot afford all that, or were unlucky enough to not get hired by a large business then you are fine with saying "too bad, so sad." Even before the financial crisis we have had rationing by income for those on medicare who could not buy supplemental plans from their $1000 per month SS check and could not pay the 20% co-pays required by medicare.
The latter category are those that likely buy on the so called individual market, possibly have uninsurable health issues or must pay a heck of a lot of money for the insurance and then still have a high annual deductible and co-pay. They live the reality of rationed or limited health care. In some cases they think it is their choice when it reality the choice is forced upon them.
Contrary to opinions expressed here the gov`t has not required specific tests or treatments heretofore. Various medical colleges (of xyz) have recommended treatments and protocols but none have been mandatory. However, oft times insurance companies won`t pay for ones that are not recommended. That`s business, not government. Even the health care reform act only now requires insurers to cover without co-pay some basic health maintenance visits.
It`s all a moot discussion however. Health care in America is nothing more than a bubble like all the other bubbles we've seen over the last 30 years. The cost of health care has grown astronomically compared to the growth in salaries. Almost invisible to the worker whose salaries have remained stagnant because their health care bennies have cost more those costs today are increasingly being transferred to the worker who still has stagnant salaries. Higher deductibles, higher co-pays have come along as well. Even we military retirees will be slammed over the next several years as our retiree pay gets slashed by the charges for health care that before we did not have to pay for. Places like NYC have already begun to see the impact of all this as specialists have seen their patient loads going down (another article from last year). Medicine.....insurance have priced themselves beyond what the market can really bear. It isn`t so much a bubble as a pus pocket on our backsides that is rupturing. It will be messy.
So, gas, electric and water are utilities that the government should pay for too? Tell my utility comanies that so I don't have to pay for them any longer.
Alison, you aren't paying for it. Those who pay taxes in the future are paying for it along with the accrued interest.
The rest of the world has Socialized Medicine and are very happy with it, why not the U.S.??? It's the word "Socialized" that has people scared. People think it mean's Communism. The only reason they want to cut out Medicare and Social Security is so they have that money to go and start more wars. Oh, and to give it away as Foreign aid. Just think that without social security and medicare, they could keep a war going for thirty years or more. Wouldn't that be great?
I've told both doctors and dentists that people weren't coming to them because they couldn't afford it. They just give me a blank look and say they don't believe it. Doctors especially are in a dream world. They think that everyone's insurance will pay for everything and no one would not go to a doctor if they needed one. I was recently in a surgery waiting room where a man was waiting for his wife to wake up. She'd had an emergency surgery. Their daughter had just broken her arm. It had cost $5000 to fix the arm and now the man was trying to figure out how he'd pay that off and the surgery. It was sad.
I feel like I'm a natural resource being exploited by drug, insurance companies and the medical industry. As a diabetic, I have to monitor my blood sugar. Those supplies are paid for by Social Security, each test strip raking in close to 80 cents. When I purchased them out of pocket while on a trip, they cost about $1.20 each, same strips, same pharmacy. When I total drug and insurances costs for the year it amounts to nearly $10,000 shared by medicare, SSI, supplemental insurance and my savings account, and my aliments are common - BP, cholesterol, diabetes. I'm happy that Obama pushed through health reform but those efforts pissed off a lot of people who are making a fortune on our overpriced system. I'm hoping to make them livid.
So now you are not spending $10,000 a year? Your test strips don't cost 80 cents?
My prescriptions run about $10,000 a year. That cost is paid for by MedicareRX, Social Security, supplemental private insurance and out of pocket; we all pay for it. My complaint is not with how this cost is shared but with the producers who are trying to suck the well dry. Drugs and Medical paraphernalia in this country is highly overpriced because there is little competition after the doctor prescribes a treatment program. They have us locked in and they know it. There is very little you can do about it except to cut back and that may not be a wise course of action, but I'll be damned if I'm going to let them bleed me dry. That task used to belong to barbers.
I'm one of the proud scrimpers, and I take great pleasure in knowing that if I do get sick the wealthy will be picking up the tab. Frankly, everyone should stop paying their health insurance premiums and let the fat cats pick up the check. Maybe then the republicans will finally get the message that if they don't get their act together we the people will take their cash any way we can get it. Single payer health care for all!
Finally, someone making sense. All liberals should stop clogging up the health care system.
I would love that idea.. My husband and I are young. He is now disabled at the age of 36 I work full time for a temp service on long term contracts. I have 0 health insurance and he is too young for medicare and has not been disabled a full 48 months to qualify.. We pay a whole paycheck a month to his med bills and pills. We are facing over a million in medical debt and I doubt I will even make a million in a lifetime.. I love how they say stuff.. We have a test that can help blablabla but it cost 36k and considering your already mounted debt we can not in good conscious order these helpful things.. Thank you Mr doctor for becoming my financial adviser and telling me what I cant afford.. Where were you when you ordering up a million worth of debt for me... So after ranting.. I just wish it was available and affordable for all.. I mean I have no insurance so they charge more. If you have 1 kind of insurance they get better discounts. Why is a ct scan 10k for me 5k for medicaid and 3 k for bcbs? why cant a stupid test just cost x dollars?
Anyone see the article today about all the dental work being done by ER's? Let's get single pay and get it over with.... The VA has it and Medicare has it... and it works....
Kevin -
VA is not single payer, it's socialized medicine. Medicare is single payer.
I bet the percentage is far higher for younger people. I can tell you we devote all the healthcare money to the kids before we go to a doctor.
Regarding health care in Europe, in the fall of 2006 I had to enter a German hospital for medical care. I was in the emergency room, then transferred to another area. I was worried about the cost (since as an American I wasn't under their "socialized" medicine) and one of the physicians said not to worry: "We don't get paid what the American doctors get paid." The total cost for three nights was about $2,000. The surgeon stopped by my bed to make sure that surgery wasn't required. I had health care comparable to what I would have had in the U.S. The facilities and equipment were first rate.
This is America this article is talking about isn't it? Well I got some different info, it's 99 percent that skimp or don't have healthcare alltogether. Then there's the one percent who want more. WAKEUPAMERICA.
Honestly, I'm so tired of hearing about the poor old people who can't afford their health care. A huge chunk of my under-40 friends can't afford health insurance (most often, because their employers don't offer it). At least the elderly have the benefit of Medicare. We're jeopardizing the health of future generations! It's hard for me to care about the older generation that has disproprotionately directed funding to themselves at the expense of their grandchildren.
WOW, stella where is your head not to mention your brain and heart!
The Republicans do not want universal health care for all, the elderly are vulnerable but we wish every single person in the USA (the world) had universal health care coverage and we would vote for universal health care for all!
Please direct your criticism at those who are blocking universal health care, the Republicans, universal health care would reduce health care costs across the board.
When along comes 2008 & 2009, you are retired, in my case because of being poisoned in the hospital, medical bills are accumulating, you have two children in college and your retirement investments are now worth 50% of what they had been worth, you must draw out money to exist (pay taxes on it as you draw) you find yourself in a precarious position.
Thank you, G W Bush Administration, fiduciary duty unheard of, malfeaseance rampant, ignorance prevelant, Republican hypocricy the norm!
Now why on earth might I be forced to skimp on doctor visits, prescription drugs, dental visits, food and other essentials. Have even been putting off a needed serious surgery.
Getting septic blood poisoning during surgery in the hospital is to be expected, neither the surgeon or the hospital has a responsibility to provide a safe and sane facility. Oh golly you lost most of the use of your leg and you will be in pain the rest of your life, you can no longer earn a living, your quality of life has been dramaticaly limited, well sorry about that but our lobbyists have seen to it we are not at risk!
You will absolutely love socialized medicine.
concernedusa - Tell your two children that college is NOT a necessity for human survival, your priorities need adjusting
Health care should be universal. It would actually save money if more attention were paid to preventative care; and, if emergency rooms were only used for emergencies!
Not entirely true: Many "preventative measures" end up costing more than "treatments."
For example, having annual mammograms for all women over 40 would cost significantly more than simply treating the few women that get breast cancer. I've seen the numbers, and it's a simple truth. Mass screening can frequently be more expensive than treatments -- the cost is a few more lives. I'm not saying it's "right," but the numbers are there. The "preventative" measure that actually save money are exercise incentives, annual "check-ups" etc., which are simple in implementation, cost very little.
One of the fallacies of "saving money" is the notion that preventative medicine can actually save money -- it frequently costs more.
So Matt, what you are saying is that it is perfectly OK to let women die as long as it saves all that money that is paid for preventive testing like mammograms!
I feel sorry for your Mother that she raised such a non-caring child!
Besides, what if they don't happen to do the right thing and just die from the cancer? Then they still have to deal with living with surgery and/ or other methods for treating the cancer, does that help lower the cost? Not to mention the pain & agony caused by the treatments!
I somehow doubt his reaction would be the same if the preventative care involved his male member! In general, preventative care saves money...particularly when you factor in social costs such as lack of productivity caused by illness, children growing up without a parent because of death, etc., etc.
Wow, way to completely miss what I'm saying: It is not accurate to say that "preventative medicine saves money." It may save lives, but it is more expensive to go through exhaustive screening procedures for every person, rather than treat cases as they come up. Don't blame me for stating truths, blame reality.
You keep going with the notion that somehow giving every woman yearly mammograms will save money, but you still have to treat cancer when it's detected. You still will have lots of false negatives, positives, and all the associated issues. It is not whether or not I think preventative medicine is good for the health of people -- it is simply a falsehood to state that it saves money.
This article only falls under the category of 'news' if one assumes that 'everyone has a right to health care' - which is a ridiculous concept for anyone who lives in the real world.
Greg K - your comment is a ridiculous concept, statement!
Concernedusa5031 - why is that?
Greg K - if you have to ask, I feel sorry for you!
In other words, you can't explain why my statement is ridiculous - thanks for clearing that up!
By real world, you mean within the borders of the United States. Things are rights when people get together and agree they are rights. That is all it takes.
Falstaffsmind
No, I would not limit that to the United States.
And unfortunately or not, it take a bit more than for 'people to get together' to make something a right. But let's assume for a moment that it did not take more than that.
In your opinion, how many people would have to get together to make polygamy a 'right', for example? How many people would have to get together to make 'freedom to use heroin' a right?
You mean it's a ridiculous concept for anyone who lives in the US. Countries around the world have universal healthcare for their citizens - just ask our neighbor.
The for-profit health-care system in our country has continually lead to higher prices and less health-care. A capitalist health-care system only cares about the profits the corporations can generate for their stockholders. This has caused more black-market prescription drugs as well as people being turned away who cannot afford to pay thousands and thousands of dollars to these corporations.
Sorry Greg, but our for-profit health-care system isn't working for the people of the US, and it must be changed. It is a right of people in our country to have affordable health-care. These for-profit corporations must be stopped.
fed up X5
Sorry, I lived for several years in a country with 'universal health care', and am glad to be back in the good old USA. No system is perfect, because people are not perfect.
Again, you make the assertion that 'It is a right of people in our country to have affordable health-care' - who told you that universal health care is a right?
Universal health care is no more a right than is the right for everyone in the US to have 'affordable' food, clothing, and housing. Those certainly are admirable goals to aspire to - but they are not 'rights'.
Greg - The US is a member of the World Health Organization. From that organization's constitution:
Looks to me like the US has signed on to treating healthcare as a right.
Brian, nice try, but the WHO constitution says that 'health' is a right - not health care.
'Health' and 'health care' are not equivalent, any more than 'wealth' and 'amassing wealth' or 'preserving wealth' are equivalent.
The people are making it a right. It's been wrong for too long now. The health-care industry has been taking and taking from those people who cannot afford it - insurance premiums paid but corporations that refuse to honor those insurance premiums - pharmaceutical companies that pay $250,000 to doctors who work for the CDC because they want their vaccine approved (for a non-deadly virus). It's all come down to money - not healthcare. People should not have to skip their medicine because it's too costly, or lose their home because an insurance company refuses to pay for a life-saving procedure, because the corporation says it's an unproven procedure. It's all about reducing their costs to benefit their stockholders, at the expense to our society. Oh no, there's that word "society". Sorry folks, but society, and my fellow man, is more important to me than the health-care corporations and their stockholders.
THE PEOPLE ARE MAKING IT A RIGHT BECAUSE IT'S BEEN WRONG FOR TOO LONG!
Greg - That's got to be the most illogical argument I've ever seen. One cannot have wealth without either amassing it or preserving it. One cannot be assured of health without healthcare in some form.
Brian - you are getting closer to the truth - don't give up yet!
Of course it is possible to have wealth without having amassed it. That generally is called 'inherited wealth'.
What is illogical is to propose that everyone has a right to 'health' to begin with.
If everyone has a right to 'health', then anyone who has ever been born with a deformity or an incurable condition, or anyone who has ever been in an accident, has had their 'rights violated'.
The WHO proclamation is indeed aimed at making 'health care' a right, but to declare something a right does not make it a right. By first declaring that 'health' is a right, one can then argue (as you do) that 'health care' is a right - just as one could declare 'a good college education' a right, and then declare that no university can turn away any student, for any reason, because everyone has a 'right to a college education'.
I believe it boils down to one's world view. Some people believe there are inalienable, God-given rights. Others believe that if enough people get together (never quite sure, though, what that magical number is) and declare something a right, then it becomes a right. I am in the former camp.
All natural rights are granted by us to one another. In the Declaration we use the poetical 'endowed by their creator'. What that really means is mutual consent. Virtually everyone agrees we have these rights, so we do. It's as simple as that. If we simply agree we have an inalienable right to quality healthcare, then we do. Slavery is probably the best example of when rights were withheld, and then granted. Today, we all agree virtually to the man, that anyone born in the United States is free, and can't be owned or held in bondage. We grant that right to freedom via mutual consent. Once granted, rights are often added to the constitution, but the mutual consent must exist beforehand.
Greg -
You changed your argument. This is what you said @ 59.10
The "or" clearly indicates one or the other and now you want to delete the "or preserving wealth" portion. If inherited wealth is not preserved, it disappears. Very sloppy logic.
My view of "Rights" - The only truly inalienable right is how you choose to act in any given situation. All other so-called "rights" are, in reality, privileges proclaimed as rights by society and granted by law. In world society view it is apparently time to include health and, by extension, healthcare as a right.
Falstaffsmind
Not sure what you mean by 'natural rights' - are the unnatural rights, or supernatural rights?
What the framers of the constitution meant by 'endowed by their creator' was most definitely not 'mutual consent'.
You may disagree with their belief, or you may dispute their logic, but to pretend that people who wrote 'endowed by their creator' meant 'what we mutually agree' upon is intellectually dishonest.
And again, no, it is not as simple as 'agreeing that we all have a right'. By way of example, if everyone in the US today were to agree that 'we all have a right to a perfect set of teeth' or that 'we all have a right to a 4-bedroom, 3-bath house on a half-acre, that would not make it a right. It would merely serve to illustrate how silly it is for people to make such grandiose statements about how 'we all have a right to //fill in the blank//.
I believe our founding fathers deliberately kept the list short - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - because they knew how easy it would be for everyone to add their own favorite 'right' to that list. Then again, it might be that they believed that this list truly encompassed all of our inalienable rights.
Regardless, it still is true that calling something a right does not make it a right.
Natural rights are the rights that are rooted in one's status as a human being. Natural rights are not subject to abridgment or qualification by the law. The law, however, can grant additional rights, above and beyond the natural rights.
The Constitution interacts with both: Natural rights, which the Constitution would recognize (because it isn't the law's place to grant them; they're inviolably granted); and legal rights, which the Constitution grants explicitly.
Mutual agreement (two-thirds of Congress; three-quarters of the legislatures; etc.) is a perfectly acceptable basis for the establishment of legal rights. I chalk up your comment here to not realizing the difference between natural rights and legal rights.
Greg - Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness were part of the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution. There are ten items in the Bill of Rights and none of them reference the Creator in the language, Amendment 5 is the only one to reference life and liberty. All of the those rights were proclaimed through mutual agreement and written into law.
Greg -
Here's the Preamble to the Constitution. Doesn't say anything about a Creator but clearly says that "We the People" are doing this. Constitutional rights are granted by agreement and law.
Brian, as to 59.18, thanks for the correction, and good point about the Bill of Rights. Nevertheless, the Bill of Rights does not include a 'right to affordable health care'.
As to 59.15, I am not sure what argument you think I have changed. It is of course true that wealth is lost if not preserved, but that does not mean that 'having wealth' and 'preserving wealth' are equivalent terms.
Greg... "You may disagree with their belief, or you may dispute their logic, but to pretend that people who wrote 'endowed by their creator' meant 'what we mutually agree' upon is intellectually dishonest."
If liberty, one of the inalienable rights specified in the declaration, was withheld from slaves, was this the work of the Creator? Or was it withheld by mutual consent, and then subsequently granted by mutual consent?
WaltUU
Thanks for the explanation of natural rights - I was too lazy to look that up, but what you say makes good sense.
Note that I am not disagreeing with the establishment of additional legal rights - I am simply arguing that health care is not a natural right. If enough people want to agree to legislate the right to health care, it would become a legal right. But it seems that many people are arguing that health care is a right simply because they say that it is a right.
And perhaps this would be for another discussion, but I think that it would be a mistake to make health care a legal right.
Falstaff -
No, it was the work of men.
It was withheld, and later granted, by mutual consent.
Now, what is your point?
My point is that is how all rights are granted... by mutual consent. It is also how rights are taken away.
Falstaffsmind
OK, I understand what you are saying now. You do not believe that there are any inalienable, natural rights.
Of course, the founding fathers, and most people today would disagree with you.
You can't conceive of a totalitarian society in which life and liberty are not rights universally granted? I can think of many examples of such societies. In fact before our forefathers started reading Locke and Rousseau, natural rights were unheard of.
Well, I think they're right and you're wrong. Natural rights fall into three categories, often referred to as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, because of how our Declaration of Independence worded things. Note that this is a very clear departure from earlier concepts of natural rights, and that difference is important.
Regardless, these are categories, not literal absolutes. That should be pretty clear, since while the word "life" can be interpreted as either, "liberty" and "pursuit of happiness" cannot. So it is important to understand that, as categories, there are a number of actual rights within each category. I tend to present natural rights as a prioritized list for society:
Then, once society has ensured that everyone's natural rights, it can serve as a wonderful environment for fostering interactions and trade.
Note that natural rights are not necessarily automatically assured. They should be, but they're not. Also, note that the obligation to satisfy natural rights are, to some extent, a reflection of what society has the capacity to offer. My cousin is in the Sudan right now, and while it would be nice to have schools built for all the children there, they're having a hard enough time satisfying that number one priority, safety, right now.
Anyway, as you can see, health care, to some extent, is indeed a natural right.
Walt -
'Well, I think they're right and you're wrong.'
In other words, you believe that if people declare something to be a natural right, then it becomes a natural right'. By extension, you would have to agree that if enough people were to agree that polygamy, or incest, or the use of heroin or other mind-altering drugs is a natural right, then polygamy, incest, and the use of such drugs would 'become a right'.
Sorry, but I can't even say that I respect your opinion on that; and, of course, I disagree.
'Anyway, as you can see, health care, to some extent, is indeed a natural right.'
No, what I see is your opinion (well-stated) as to what you believe society 'should do'. Nothing wrong with that in principle, although, as with many liberal arguments, it fails to take into account how people actually behave.
Falstaffsmind
'You can't conceive of a totalitarian society in which life and liberty are not rights universally granted?'
Of course I can conceive of such a society; but you are still missing the point. Either you believe in something called natural rights, which exist regardless of whether they are recognized as such, or you believe that there is no such thing as a natural right, and that a right only exists if it is acknowledged, or granted, within a society.
Again, you are welcome to your opinion (which is that natural rights do not exist), but I disagree - as would most people, including the founding fathers.
Nope, that's not what I believe. You should try sticking with what I actually said I believe, instead of making something up that is easier to argue against.
What I outlined for you is the reason why there is an intersection between health care and natural rights. Not because anyone "says" it is, but rather just because it is. That's how natural rights work.
Since you corrupted what I wrote, your "extension" is even further off-target.
Sorry I'm not going to let you get away with that. I made it pretty clear that health care is related to the three categories of natural rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence. If you disagree, you're going to have to prove why health care doesn't have anything to do with any of these three categories. To be fair, cosmetic surgery and such are clearly not reflective of natural rights. The point is that you cannot legitimately assert that no provision of health care is a reflection of natural rights.
Walt, I wasn't trying to misrepresent your position; I guess I just don't see anywhere in your comments where you outlined 'the reason for an intersection between health care and natural rights', and I am not sure what you mean by intersection. I am assuming that that is a deliberately vague attempt to avoid presenting an actual argument.
You mentioned that 'I made it pretty clear that health care is related to the three categories of natural rights' - No, you asserted that health care is related to the three categories. Nowhere did you present any argument to support that assertion.
You also said 'So it is important to understand that, as categories, there are a number of actual rights within each category.' (notice that I am sticking to your words this time!) - but again, you have presented a rather vague statement - an opinion - without offering any evidence or arguments to support your opinion.
Your list of 'what society should do' reflects your misunderstanding of what a right is. You have phrased your list in terms of what that indefinable 'we' should do for others - all of which are noble goals - but a right is defined in terms of what a person may do for themselves, or what a person may not be compelled to do if they do not want to. A right is not defined in terms of what 'we' have to do for others, other than to not interfere with their rights.
So, again, a person has a right to life, but that does not obligate anyone else feed or clothe that person, for example. A person has a right to pursue happiness - for example, by sitting on a mountaintop and meditating, until they starve to death - but I have no obligation to help that person pursue their happiness.
Not at all - quite the opposite. I'm being very precise. The word "intersection" in this context means "the set of elements common to two or more sets". So the two sets we were talking about were (a) health care, and (b) natural rights. The point is that there is an intersection between the two. Not all health care is a reflection of natural rights, but some is.
What kind of argument are you expecting to see to support an assertion that something is a natural right. Please be sure, in your reply, to provide such an argument for something that you agree is a natural right. What you'll find is that your argument for something that you agree is a natural right is going to look exactly like what I posted with regard to health care.
I also used the word "word" in this sentence without presenting arguments justifying my assertion that the word "word" is a word. I think in some of this you're just playing games to try to derail the thread.
We'll have to agree to disagree about that. I am confident that I'm correct and you're simply working hard to look at rights in such a narrow way so as to justify what I consider an immoral evasion of society responsibility for ensuring people can exercise their natural rights.
But society does have an obligation to protect a person's right to life, and therefore ensure that society is structured such that a person can gain access all they need to remain alive, i.e., society is not structured such that anyone is deprived of such access, such as by making these basic too expensive, restricted by law, or otherwise inaccessible.
Sorry, Walt, I can't invest any more time in trying to help you with this.
I haven't said that society has no obligation to protect rights. I said that the obligation and the right are not the same thing. You are arguing for 'society's obligation' while neglecting personal responsibility.
You have asserted that health care is a natural right, without any argument to support that. The arguments for 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' would not necessarily equate with an argument for including health care. If they did, then you would have to say that the founding fathers 'forgot to include health care' (which I am sure you are not saying), which leaves your assertion that 'health care' is somehow 'understood to be included in 'the right to life' or perhaps 'the right to liberty'.
If most people understood that to be the case, or agreed with you, we would not be having this discussion. You have your opinion, you just seem unwilling to support it with any arguments.
I don't need your help. Perhaps this would work better if you didn't assume you knew more than I did. Perhaps you can allow for the possibility that reasonable people could disagree about it.
Then let's build on our agreement there.
The fact that I don't talk about every aspect of life in every message I post doesn't mean I'm neglecting anything. My messages are long and wordy enough without having to say, "Oh and this, and this too, and this, and this, and this." Personal responsibility doesn't obviate society's obligation, and society's obligation happens to be what I was talking about.
False. You're welcome to claim that you don't agree with my argument to support it, but until you provide you own argument for something that you agree is a natural right, your contention that what I presented isn't precisely what you're asking for is vacuous.
Your writing isn't as precise as mine. Forgiving that, I'm curious why you think health care isn't related to life, liberty or pursuit of happiness. If you die, then you don't have life. If you live sickly, then you right to pursue happiness is violated. If your lack of health deprives you of other natural rights, then that secondary effect is significant.
You can claim that health doesn't have bearing on life, liberty or pursuit of happiness, but you can also claim that rain isn't wet, I suppose, and I cannot prove to you that rain is wet.
It's actually about half-and-half right now. The half who "disagree" with me are short-sighted by avarice. They value money now more than health when they have trouble holding onto it unassisted.
Another leftist article/ .Let me explain something to the liberals of this world. Everyone scrimps on everything. We all would like the porterhouse steak but we buy the hamburger. We all want a BMW convertible but we buy the Ford Taurus. We all want a friggin mansion but we buy what we can afford, unless we are a liberal and dont repay the mortgage then blame the banker for lending them the money, or we rent. Why do you think they make generic drugs? To save money on the real thing. We would all like to go to Obama's doctor but we cant afford him so we go to the local schlub. Another case of class warfare from the retarded left.
100% agree! MSNBC declared a war on wealthy.
You are conflating access to healthcare with war on the wealthy?
Falstaffsmind, who does not have access to healthcare in the United States? You seem to be conflating access with payment.
Read the article for the answer to that "question." And, of course appropriate health care contributes to better health. Presently, the U.S. is number 34 in the world in terms of both infant mortality AND life expectancy (i.e. 33 other countries have less infant mortality and greater life expectancy.) To suggest there is no need for improvement in health care delivery in this country is to put one's head in the sand.
Sorry but the Health care industry in this country is nothing more than a dam RACKET!There are so many people on so many drugs that they do not need nor need to be on!
Frankly about really getting sick and tired of opening a magazine, or listening to a radio,a tv add, about this drug and that drug, scare tactics, and preventative screening and on and on and on! It's a constant diet of this CRAP!So much so I just turn it off!I can't stand to listen to it!As far as skimping on health care and insurance,health care and health insurance is the biggest racket of them all!
The United States is the sickest country on the planet!
Well not the sickest; but there are 33 countries healthier, measured both by infant mortality and life expectancy. This is mainly because we do a much worse job of delivering health care. And yes, despite some really stupid comments on this thread, there IS a relationship between health care delivery and health!