Czuch:

Like you, I was a little busy and could not reply to your post.

> it was about the companies, and even you admitted that it was a US
> company that develops a majority of drugs

Please don't put words in my mouth! I never said what you wrote and in that same post I gave examples of half a dozen drug companies which are not American. Drug development is done by pharmaceutical companies all over the world.

> You claim they make billions in profits, maybe so... but explain why then, if
> a government like Canada can make socialized medicine a part of their way,
> why doesnt the same government spend the money and time to develope
> their own drugs?????

Do you really think Canada has no research into drugs and pharmaceuticals? You should visit universities and companies here. Canadias spend billions in research too, both through private and public funds. Pharmaceuticals are a huge business and Canada exploits them too, like many other countries.

> Also, the question about health care being a right, my point was also missed.....
> we can have rights like the right to free speach, or the right to unlawful search
> or seasure etc, but how can we have rights to a service like health care?

I had on purpose stayed out of HEALTHCARE AS A RIGHT. The reason is that it is not as simple as it looks. Individual beliefs play a big role here, just as with many other issues of "rights".

I can give a good example too of how "rights" are interpreted differently by different people. Consider the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I brought this up to make a point. Many Americans consider the second Amendment to be an unalieanable right. They see restriction on gun possession as a direct infringement of their rights. Here is a good question. If it is a right for people to possess a deadly weapon, is that right a good or a bad thing? The answer to this has raised heated debates in the United States and here in Canada too. Gun control in Canada was a source of bitterness for many gun owners, as much as it is in the US.

Likewise, the "right" to healthcare is a source of a lot of vitriol on both sides of the political spectrum. One thing is interesting. Republicans generally tend to oppose gun control and healthcare reform. The defend one right (bear arms) and oppose the other (healthcare). Democrats generally oppose the right to bear arms (they support stronger gun control) and defend the right to healthcare.

> What about an MRI, do I also have a right to an MRI? What if the MRI isnt
> invented yet?

The issue of access is central to the debate of healthcare as a right. The question is not a black and white question. Consider a case of two men. One needs a hip joint replacement to be able to walk and the other needs a heart transplant to survive.

Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that everyone the right to life. Denying health care to the first man does not violate his human rights, but denying the second man does. The second man would die if not given treatment. The question is, does this man have a right to healthcare on account of his potential death if not given a transplant? The question is difficult. Assuming that doctors and a heart donor is available, would denying the transplant on accounts of economic reasons be a violation of human rights?

Now, two men need a heart transplant. One is wealthy and has all the insurance coverage he needs. The other is poor and is without adequate insurance to cover his operation. Is denying the poor man insurance coverage a violation of his human rights?

Most cases are not as drastic as this, like somebody who just needs prescription glasses, or simple pain relief for arthritis. It is a complex question. I think that ultimately a health care system has to attempt to balance all sides of the issue. Insurance companies have a right to make a profit, as do doctors and hospitals. However, if profit takes precendence over the protection of the inalienable right to life, then somehow the state has to find balance through legislation and a public system of some kind.

Some countries like Canada and Sweden have solved the problem by going for a publicly run system. These systems are not perfect, and often the state is unable to provide all the services needed.

Other countries don't care at all and all medical services are done privately with minimal state intervention. I have been to developing countries where healthcare is chaotic because the state has little or no involvement at all. In these places millions of people die every year because of poor healthcare.

Other countries like the United States and Australia have both private and public health care and they seem to function well except for the segments of society with the lowest incomes.

The balance has to lie somewehere. I am of the opinion that the Obama administration should do its best to find a balanced approach in which both public and private interest should try to cooperate to find a solution to the problems, rather than playing to public passions to defeat one or the other side of the issue. Of course, in real life special interest and individuals put themselves ahead of an entire country's well-being.

Is healthcare a right? I think it is when people die as a result of poor healthcare. To me Article 3 of the Declaration of Human rights takes precedence over anything else.