[Muncle]

The discussion of health care reminded me of an ethics question I've often considered:

If a medical procedure or medicine is created and available, does everyone have a right to it? Should someone who has more money have access to medical treatment that others do not have?

Obviously this is not a hypothetical question, considering the cost of much medical treatment. Depending on your view, then the question arises of what types of medical procedures apply. Should everyone have equal access to Viagra? 040 Cosmetic surgery? :2cool: High-risk replacement surgery?

I have strong opinions on both/all sides of the debate, but really, I don't know. ??? ??? ???

[redwitch]

My take is that if it is to save a life, yes, it should be available -- even the high-risk, experimental surgeries. Things to improve your quality of life depends on what you're improving -- your physical well being, yes. Plastic surgery only if you're truly disfigured. So breast augmentaton or lifts, no. Breast reduction or breast replacement, yes. Liposuction, no. Gastric bypass, yes. Viagra? No. Cosmetic surgery? No. Mental health therapy and medication? Yes.

[iaudit]

Redwitch

Are you aware that the majority of men who have been treated for prostate cancer suffer side effects that necessitate viagra in order to maintain an intimate relationship with their spouse or significant other?

[redwitch]

Yes, I am. There are also other illnesses that cause impotency that can be helped with viagra. However, I do believe there has to be a limit to what is offered for those who can't afford it on their own. Let's face it, there are some women who are so small-breasted that it does affect their psychological well-being. Even so, I would say no to both of them. There are other ways for couples to have intimate relations without intercourse. There are bras made specifically for small-breasted women. There have to be limits.

[iaudit]

I guess I don't understand your logic of saying yes to breast replacement, which does not meet your initial criteria for physical well being. I agree there has to be limits but I subscribe to several prostate cancer mailing lists and impotency after prostate cancer treatment has a serious impact on emotional as well as physical relationships.

[Mallory Voice]

Originally Posted by Muncle

The discussion of health care reminded me of an ethics question I've often considered:

If a medical procedure or medicine is created and available, does everyone have a right to it? Should someone who has more money have access to medical treatment that others do not have?

Obviously this is not a hypothetical question, considering the cost of much medical treatment. Depending on your view, then the question arises of what types of medical procedures apply. Should everyone have equal access to Viagra? 040 Cosmetic surgery? :2cool: High-risk replacement surgery?

I have strong opinions on both/all sides of the debate, but really, I don't know. ??? ??? ???

My my....... how brilliant minds put their brains to work. Don't you play golf, cards, zumba or volunteer anywhere???

Equal is all fine and well. If you've been smart all your life and saved a portion of each pay check, lived under your means, and do what's right..... sure have all those things because you can pay for it!
Mallory Voice

[billethkid]

I picked up a new Rx this morning that was not covered by my insurance....because it is so new it is not in any formulary. If I did not have the $279 (3 ml eye drops!!) I would not have been able to get the medicine. I have a right to it but have to be able to pay to get it.

Is there any other way?

btk

[Irishmen]

However if you were on Medicaid, you'd be able to get your eyedrops.

[ilovetv]

I have a right to buy--not be given--a roof over my head, but I can't afford a premier home in TV nor an oceanfront home on the Gulf. We also buy health insurance and have a Health Savings Account to cover bills till we meet the deductible or to cover things not covered by the insurance, like dental and optical.

On the Viagra thing....If a person cannot maintain a marriage or intimate relationship without having intercourse, there's something a lot more important missing from the mindset and relationship. The words "for better or for worse, in sickness and in health" are in the marriage vows for good reason. It happens all the time.

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by Muncle

The discussion of health care reminded me of an ethics question I've often considered:

If a medical procedure or medicine is created and available, does everyone have a right to it? Should someone who has more money have access to medical treatment that others do not have?

To get the correct answer, I would suggest rephrasing your question as follows: Does anyone have the right to confiscate your earnings, or savings, to pay for someone elses healthcare? I say "no". Regardless of how well intentioned it is, it represents "theft". Whether I rob my neighbors house to pay for my healthcare or whether I have the government do it for me, theft is still theft.

[Bonnevie]

[QUOTE=billethkid;730718]I picked up a new Rx this morning that was not covered by my insurance....because it is so new it is not in any formulary. If I did not have the $279 (3 ml eye drops!!) I would not have been able to get the medicine. I have a right to it but have to be able to pay to get it.

Is there any other way?


I would question first if this drug was absolutely needed, or if a formulary one could be used. Unfortunately, physcians don't always think about cost or formulary....and patient's often think they are getting the only thing that will treat their condition when an older medication would do just as well. I don't know in this case, but it happens a lot

[Irishmen]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

To get the correct answer, I would suggest rephrasing your question as follows: Does anyone have the right to confiscate your earnings, or savings, to pay for their healthcare? I say "no" to this question. Regardless of how well intentioned it is it still repersents "theft". Whether I rob my neighbors house to pay for my healthcare or whether I have the government do it for me, theft is still theft.

Yes to this. Supreme Court basis for the ACA to be constitutional was to classify it as a tax. The exchange means you exchange your funds to give to others in form of tax credits or subsidies. ACA is nothing to do with Heathcare but a legal vehicle to redistribute funds.

[Bonnevie]

at the VA hospital I work at we do supply viagra--four doses a month. I have heard over and over how awful the government is for only giving 4 doses a month. Forget that we have wounded veteran's returning from wars, they want more viagra!
One patient asked "so you're telling me the government is telling me I can only have sex four times a month?" to which my supervisor replied, "no, I'm telling you the government will only pay for you to have sex four times a month"

and don't even get me started on testosterone replacement....everyone wants that now.

[Barefoot]

Originally Posted by Muncle

The discussion of health care reminded me of an ethics question I've often considered:

If a medical procedure or medicine is created and available, does everyone have a right to it? Should someone who has more money have access to medical treatment that others do not have?

Obviously this is not a hypothetical question, considering the cost of much medical treatment. Depending on your view, then the question arises of what types of medical procedures apply. Should everyone have equal access to Viagra? 040 Cosmetic surgery? :2cool: High-risk replacement surgery?

I have strong opinions on both/all sides of the debate, but really, I don't know. ??? ??? ???

Originally Posted by Mallory Voice

My my....... how brilliant minds put their brains to work. Don't you play golf, cards, zumba or volunteer anywhere???

Equal is all fine and well. If you've been smart all your life and saved a portion of each pay check, lived under your means, and do what's right..... sure have all those things because you can pay for it!
Mallory Voice

You may want to check the dates of posts before you reply.

Sadly, Muncle died a few years ago.

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by Irishmen

Yes to this. Supreme Court basis for the ACA to be constitutional was to classify it as a tax. The exchange means you exchange your funds to give to others in form of tax credits or subsidies. ACA is nothing to do with Heathcare but a legal vehicle to redistribute funds.

The question posed by the OP was one of ETHICS rather than legality. It was once legal to own slaves, but it wasn't ethical.