Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Oregon State Lawmakers Vote To Make Health Care A Right

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Oregon State Lawmakers Vote To Make Health Care A Right

    Is health care a basic human right?

    I think so.

    The Oregon House voted Tuesday to refer a constitutional amendment to voters that would make health care a basic right.

    If House Joint Resolution 203 clears the Legislature and voters approve it, the Oregon constitution would make it a fundamental right for every Oregonian to have access to effective, medically appropriate and affordable health care.

    House Democrats voted for the idea, Republicans against it.

    https://www.opb.org/news/article/hea...on-house-vote/

  • #2
    What are your thoughts on individuals who have lifestyles/habits that drive higher medical expenses?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Mikepetersson View Post
      What are your thoughts on individuals who have lifestyles/habits that drive higher medical expenses?
      In a lot of cases, it's unproveable that lifestyle is to blame. My mother, for example, smoked three packs of cigarettes a day for 50 years, but she ultimately died from a condition which had nothing whatever to do with smoking. Risk factors do not decree becoming ill. And we still do not know how much genes affect risk.

      It implies a certain kind of guilt, that a person is basically to blame for his own ill health and therefore should be punished. Medically, most of the time, changes in lifestyle have relatively little effect.
      Metpatpetet מתפתפתת
      אשרי אדם, מצא חכמה ואדם יפיק תבונה
      Proverbs 3:13

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Mikepetersson View Post
        What are your thoughts on individuals who have lifestyles/habits that drive higher medical expenses?
        Like being gay and risking becoming HIV positive?

        Lifestyle shouldn't deny us the right to basic health care anymore than being stupid should deny us the right to a basic education.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Metpatpetet View Post

          In a lot of cases, it's unproveable that lifestyle is to blame. My mother, for example, smoked three packs of cigarettes a day for 50 years, but she ultimately died from a condition which had nothing whatever to do with smoking. Risk factors do not decree becoming ill. And we still do not know how much genes affect risk.

          It implies a certain kind of guilt, that a person is basically to blame for his own ill health and therefore should be punished. Medically, most of the time, changes in lifestyle have relatively little effect.
          I understand that a lifestyle doesn't always lead to a particular medical condition but to say that there not significant correlations is incorrect. And, there are sometimes consequences for the choices we make whether it be smoking, riding motorcycles, or not exercising. There is sometimes guilt in the end result.

          Money is always limited. People who make unhealthy or risky choices take more resources than those who do not on average. Unless such risk factors are somehow offset those who make healthy choices will be unfairly penalized. There are ways to offset these risks such as taxes on cigarettes or motorcycle registration that would flow directly to a health care pool.

          I personally believe that we need to have a basic level of care for all but there should be boundaries on it.




          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Mel View Post

            Like being gay and risking becoming HIV positive?

            Lifestyle shouldn't deny us the right to basic health care anymore than being stupid should deny us the right to a basic education.
            I wouldn't consider sexual orientation a risk factor but would consider the number of partners and precautions to be.

            Your analogy of intelligence/education and lifestyle/choices is flawed. Deliberate choices are made in one but not the other.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Mikepetersson View Post

              I wouldn't consider sexual orientation a risk factor but would consider the number of partners and precautions to be.
              Are you claiming people who have a history of multiple same-sex sexual partners should be denied the right to basic health care?

              Comment


              • #8
                This is a 25 minute video, but it is very interesting about the discoveries being made, and my guess is that the field of epigenetics will be increasingly important as we understand how genes work better. [Note, you don't have to be diabetic to watch it<g>]
                Metpatpetet מתפתפתת
                אשרי אדם, מצא חכמה ואדם יפיק תבונה
                Proverbs 3:13

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Mel View Post

                  Are you claiming people who have a history of multiple same-sex sexual partners should be denied the right to basic health care?
                  No, I'm not. I'm just broadly saying that I believe that lifestyle choices should be a consideration in the discussion of public health care coverage. I'm not saying which choices in particular. And, I'm not looking at it as a binary acceptance or denial of coverage.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Mikepetersson View Post
                    I'm just broadly saying that I believe that lifestyle choices should be a consideration in the discussion of public health care coverage
                    I'm just saying that basic health is a god given right just as the freedom to choose how to live is a god given right. I was willing to once live a risky lifestyle to help ensure that you and all others might some day have those rights if you don't already. If you want to consider having multiple sex partners as living a life of risk than I am going to suggest nothing. Some people's minds are made up. And I support your right to be that type of person if you so wish.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Mel View Post

                      I'm just saying that basic health is a god given right just as the freedom to choose how to live is a god given right. I was willing to once live a risky lifestyle to help ensure that you and all others might some day have those rights if you don't already. If you want to consider having multiple sex partners as living a life of risk than I am going to suggest nothing. Some people's minds are made up. And I support your right to be that type of person if you so wish.
                      I also support the freedom to choose how to live. I do, however, feel that when someone voluntarily makes choices that they are responsible for the consequences. They shouldn't burden their neighbors with the costs of these consequences. Forcing ones neighbor to do so violates their freedom.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Mikepetersson View Post

                        I also support the freedom to choose how to live. I do, however, feel that when someone voluntarily makes choices that they are responsible for the consequences. They shouldn't burden their neighbors with the costs of these consequences. Forcing ones neighbor to do so violates their freedom.
                        Do you believe it is wrong to force someone to join the armed forces?
                        What consequences should those who choose not to fight to protect they homeland suffer?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Mel View Post

                          Do you believe it is wrong to force someone to join the armed forces?
                          What consequences should those who choose not to fight to protect they homeland suffer?
                          That is really a different argument. I'm referring to voluntary choices that people make outside of crisis.

                          But, I think a just society allows for conscientious objectors, especially if they can be placed in non-combat roles that provide support in some way. If the situation was extremely dire, however, I might think differently.
                          Last edited by Mikepetersson; 02-15-2018, 04:40 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Mikepetersson View Post

                            That is really a different argument. I'm referring to voluntary choices that people make outside of crisis.

                            But, I think a just society allows for conscientious objectors, especially if they can be placed in non-combat roles that provide support in some way. If the situation was extremely dire, however, I might think differently.
                            Like having more than one sex partner during their lifetime. (Your example was that the number of sexual partners a person has should be a precursor in deciding if a person should qualify for basic health care.)

                            A person who live in Ca. is voluntarily living a riskier life style than I am. Smug, stress, traffic, and crime are examples of these amplified risks. Should this disqualify someone in Ca. from receiving basic health care needs?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I never wrote that the number of sex partners should be a precursor. You had asked me if being gay should be a risk factor and I wrote no. I then wrote risk factors were how one went about sex. I also wrote that I wasn't taking a position whether or not sexual behavior should be a consideration.

                              There are different ways risk could possibly assessed and dealt with. One possible way would be to tie it to an extra fee on a policy. Another could be to require an outside policy (e.g. auto insurance). And yes, if California is deemed more risky this could be included in policy pricing.

                              Basically, I think freedom to choose doesn't include freedom from consequences.

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                Originally posted by Metpatpetet View Post
                                [Note, you don't have to be diabetic to watch it<g>]
                                Since I'm diabetic, I guess I have to! Looking forward to it.

                                MK

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  Originally posted by Mikepetersson View Post

                                  They shouldn't burden their neighbors with the costs of these consequences. Forcing ones neighbor to do so violates their freedom.
                                  Where do you draw the line? Riding motorcycles (I drove them for decades without an accident)? Being overweight? Flying small planes? Smoking? Drinking (how much?)

                                  MK

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    Originally posted by Mark Kirkpatrick View Post
                                    Where do you draw the line? Riding motorcycles (I drove them for decades without an accident)?
                                    I voted no on the helmet laws. I'm still not sure if I was right or wrong on this issue.

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      Originally posted by Mark Kirkpatrick View Post
                                      Where do you draw the line? Riding motorcycles (I drove them for decades without an accident)? Being overweight? Flying small planes? Smoking? Drinking (how much?)

                                      MK
                                      Exactly. That is a difficult question to answer. I think risk needs to be considered but I'm not offering specifics because I don't care to give it that much thought.

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        Originally posted by Mark Kirkpatrick View Post
                                        Since I'm diabetic, I guess I have to! Looking forward to it.

                                        MK
                                        I found the research extremely interesting. Of course, if the nutrition of the mother of a child, prior even to her pregnancy, will cause effects in the health of that child when it is an adult, it can make eliminating the disease a great deal more difficult.

                                        How are you coping with your glucometer, et al? I found that doing shift work, with some nights at work and some not, made trying to have a reasonable diet plan very difficult [you can't depend on eating regular meals when taking care of women in labor, and I imagine you will have much the same problem on long-haul flights]
                                        Metpatpetet מתפתפתת
                                        אשרי אדם, מצא חכמה ואדם יפיק תבונה
                                        Proverbs 3:13

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X