It's something else but it's not a right. If it is then it's the governments responsibility to also guarantee, yes guarantee that you have a job, a home and income and 3 meals a day.

This sounds (to me) just like semantics.

How does it follow that if we provide healthcare to a citizen that we must also give them a job or a brand new car?

Personally, I don't think this "slippery slope" argument holds water.

The government ensures that the food we eat and the water we drink are safe -- is that a "right"? Does it follow that in providing this protection and general safety to we citizens that they must also provide all of us with brand new cars?

No.

Same with police protection. The government provides security to all citizens -- but that doesn't mean that they must also provide us with all with plasma TV's.

One doesn't follow the other like a math formula. There is no If/Then formula mandating that If government provides chemotherapy for any woman with breast cancer that needs it to live Then they must provide diamond bracelets to everyone in America too.

I agree that not all medical procedures should be covered and like most other countries once we adopt single-payer we won't cover them.

If a woman needs chemo to treat her breast cancer -- she gets it (regardless of credit score).

If a man wants a sex change operation -- that isn't provided.

I don't think the majority of Americans would object to common sense restrictions on procedures that are deemed non-medically necessary.

I'm still trying to get my head around the fact that some people view not dying a slow painful death as some kind of perk that should only be reserved for the wealthy class.

That same attitude was originally held by many when it came to the law. Luckily we evolved our views so that equal protection under the law (not just wealthy landowners) became the norm.

That same attitude was also held about voting. Surely only male land owners were entitled to such a "right." But we evolved and now think it's silly that we'd ever deny women and African Americans the right to vote.

Voting, equal protection under the law regardless of race or FICO score and even owning property were all at one point in this nation viewed as "perks" reserved exclusively for the wealthy elites alone.

We've changed those attitudes in spite of the grave warnings by the wealthy that to give everyone the same "perks" they had would destroy the country.

We changed our attitudes and grew stronger.

So it shall be with healthcare. Slowly but surely almost everyone now views equal access to medically necessary healthcare and medicine as the "right" of all citizens -- not just the wealthy elite.

"Taxes are the only fair way to go, the only way to spread the burden to everyone."

-- chris49068

Or put more succinctly, Chris: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

If a $7/hr workers gets $200,000 worth of ER services and never pays a penny of it then who does?

I need help with the math on that one.

I keep hearing people claim that they don't want to be "forced" to pay for some poor person -- but I'm not clear on how they think they aren't already.

Guy working 3rd shift and taking out payday loans to make it through the week gets injured or sick -- goes to the hospital -- and leaves with a $15,000 bill.

He has taxes taken out of his paycheck every two weeks to pay for our highways, our military, cops on the streets, etc. But he doesn't have any money to pay this bill -- so he doesn't!

Who pays for this guys bill?

(Hint: there's a reason a tablet of asiprin at your local hospital costs $45 and that Snoopy bandage your kid got was billed at $75. Hospitals have to recoup their losses on defaults somewhere. So, yeah, you are paying for it right now anyway. Taxes would be a helluva lot cheaper.)

Nothing you or anyone else can say will convince me that I have a right to anything more than life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

You did include "life" in the list of rights.

If someone is dying of cancer -- but aren't in danger of dying within the next few minutes -- do they have a right to the medicine and services that will prolong their life? Or do we only make those medicines available when they are on the verge of death and not a minute prior?

Right now we, as a society, have all agreed that we will save the life of anyone (regardless of income or credit score) that is in immediate danger of dying.

But if it will take someone with cancer a few months to die (without access to chemo) -- is it okay to let them get to that near fatal point before we'll offer assistance?

From a financial point of view is it cheaper to treat illness before they become near fatal?

From a moral point of view is it humane to only prevent them from dying for a few days as opposed to helping them sooner and giving them a few more years if not decades?