Welcome to the forum thread for "Is There a Right to Health Care?," the Justice Talking show for the week of March 17 - 23, 2008.

With health care at the top of the domestic policy agenda and the presidential candidates stumping on the issue all across the nation, Justice Talking takes a look at how health care is being handled, from Massachusetts to California. Why has a program that was meant to provide medical care to people in Third-World countries found an increasing need to set up emergency clinics in the United States? We'll also ask whether health care should be seen as a right in this country.

Please post your comments on this Justice Talking issue using this thread.

Thanks for your participation!

Judy Jarvis
Outreach Coordinator

The question if health care is (or should be) a right is a great one to ask.  But it's really not possible to debate without defining what "health care" means.  Does it cover basic care if one has the flu?  What about a broken arm or prenatal care?  What about lung cancer? What about a rare form of cancer that would require experimental (and very expensive) therapies?  Does everyone have a right to the best care that technology can provide without regard to cost and who pays for it?

You might want to interview the former governor of Colorado, Dick Lamn, who has some very provocative views on treating health care resources as if they were finite - which of course they are.  The implication is that since they are a finite resource we must decide how to deploy and use them.  It's not a very pleasant thought, but without enough resource to treat every person regardless of their illness, some hard choices are going to have to be made. 

But NOT making a choice doesn't change the fact that there isn't enough resource to go around.  Today, those without a job and health care are unlikely to get treatment that could cure them, even in an emergency room, for cancer.  Those with a job have a chance for more aggressive treatment depending on the plan provided by their employer.  His point (if I understand him correctly) is that whether we like it or not, choices on how to allocate the resources have already been made, just not in a public forum.

I think you would do the public a great service by moving this discussion to the next level and beginning to define what is meant by "health care".

I believe emphatically that there is a right to high quality healthcare in America. The Scandinavian countries provide it for their citizens at a lower per-capita cost than we have. If the already-existing taxes were channeled in the direction of domestic concerns, we could have universal health care. While I don't think such things as cosmetic surgery for vanity reasons should be included, I do think just about everything else should. Certainly, basic preventive healthcare and health maintenance, treatment for conditions detected during those basic examinations, dental and vision care, women's health issues, and mental health care should be provided.

First I hope your family can find ways to deal with significant health issues.  Yes, we need universal health insurance.  Fees can be a merger of job related fringe benefits and an income/asset based sliding scale of personal payments.

There may indeed be cosmetic based surgery.  I do not believe this exists in large numbers.  Most facial surgery is done to deal with health issues!  Hospitals have utilization review systems in place already. 

Let's simply make a decision every human being deserves competent, affordable health care! 

First, we must define the word, "right".  Rights are something that you can do, but that requires no action or participation or claim against others.  I believe there is no right to health care, but that we as a society should provide access to basic healthcare to all based on ability to pay.  Basic healthcare does not include many services.  Healthcare wants, and even needs, are unlimited.  Our ability, or willingness, to pay is not.  How much should one person be forced to pay for another's healthcare?

OK ... can I just say I believe it is unfortunate that health care is based on 'ability to pay'. I think it's crazy enough that that the justice system is based on 'ability to pay', and the fact that our health care system is as well is very unfortunate.
Keep a smile ... california health insurance

Of course we need universal health insurance.  Note, this differs greatly from "socialized medicine" offered in other countries.

At present it takes more than money to purchase insurance.  "Previous conditions" render many people uninsurable.  Since group insurance is often job based people with disablities often remain trapped in low level jobs just to maintain insurance continuity.  When insurance is a fringe benefit  provisions need to exist to have permanent not temporary "COBRA".
Long term an insured population maintains better health, reduces the chance of a pandemic, and increases productivity at work and stability in one's private life.