Is Healthcare a human right?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Is Healthcare a human right?

  • Yes, but people should pay for it themselves.

  • Yes, and we need a single payer system.

  • No, fuck the poor.

  • No, but everyone should still have good healthcare.


Results are only viewable after voting.

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
LOL another fine example of liberal logic. A clue for you: in order to exercise your right to bear arms, one must first *purchase* his firearm......last I heard, the government doesn't give out "free" guns like you want to give out healthcare.

Silly liberals.
Yes sweetie, and though I know following a discussion is hard for your blindly partisan mind, you're trying to change the subject. The assertion was essentially that national health care is a form of slavery. It's a dumb claim; health care providers chose their field and are compensated accordingly. The question of who pays that compensation is a different subject, unrelated to the "slavery" fallacy. Now if everyone's willing to concede that was a bogus premise, we can move on to more useful discussion.
 

DCal430

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2011
6,020
9
81
Answer this what can a private insurance company do that a government run one can't? The only thing is collect tons of profit. A government run insurance company would ALWAYS have lower prices for the people than a private run one.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Sorry, your position -- national health care is a form of slavery -- was off. I just showed how absurd it was using your same "logic." The reality is in both cases the people delivering the service do so willingly and are paid accordingly. There is no slavery, not by any rational, non-partisan standard anyway. Trying to divert attention from your fallacy by pointing at me doesn't cut it. Can you defend your premise or not?

Well I think slavery is inappropriate, but it would be fair to say that someone who expects another to pay for something they could get for themselves is stealing from the whole, whether it be in the form of taxes to pay for a service or a trip to the emergency room.

I don't expect you to buy me a meal if I can do it myself, however it's not quite what was said by Amused. Well not a lot like it really.

I have no problem paying for those who cannot work because of some real condition, but not because they choose to avoid it. The present system is horrid and encourages multigenerational dependencies. Unless that's addressed as well as other issues, it's hard for me to have much faith in government led health care. It seems to be "well ok, you say we screwed up, but if you give us control we promise to do better". I'd not let an employee do that because it doesn't make sense. Turning health care into a medicaid cluster doesn't seem like a good idea. That's admittedly off the point, but in any discussion where some say it "should" be, there needs to be a reasonable expectation of improvement as part of the "how".
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Answer this what can a private insurance company do that a government run one can't? The only thing is collect tons of profit. A government run insurance company would ALWAYS have lower prices for the people than a private run one.

Exactly, the sole reason of any company is to maximize profits. If they can decline treatment, provide "cheap" treatment, they ought to do it. A government insurer has no incentive to do this.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
Exactly, the sole reason of any company is to maximize profits. If they can decline treatment, provide "cheap" treatment, they ought to do it. A government insurer has no incentive to do this.

And the people can choose the company they want.

Every government program doesn't just not make a profit, but constatly operate at a loss.

Good luck being the low-man on the totem pole when the budget attempts to be balanced.

There is nothing wrong with profits. Our country is based on capitalism. By the company profiting, it's workers get paid, bonuses given out and thus the economy stimulated.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
I'm not trying to divert, I think you're just not understanding my position, hence your off analogy.

You have the right to arm yourself, however, that does not mean you have the right to a gun provided to you by the government AKA your fellow citizens.

In this same way, you have the liberty to purchase health care.

Now, you say you have the right to healthcare itself, which means it must be provided for you by your fellow citizens right?
Doctors, nurses, equipment, medicine must be paid for with something right?
So following your logic, this would mean that people have the right to other peoples production -> slavery.

That is why it cannot be a human right.

The problem is healthcare is becoming out of reach, and now for many middle-class Americans. Yea, you're on stable financial footing making 35-55k/y, but if you get sick you might just go broke. This is why the government comes into play.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
I'm not trying to divert, I think you're just not understanding my position, hence your off analogy.

You have the right to arm yourself, however, that does not mean you have the right to a gun provided to you by the government AKA your fellow citizens.

In this same way, you have the liberty to purchase health care.

Now, you say you have the right to healthcare itself, which means it must be provided for you by your fellow citizens right?
Doctors, nurses, equipment, medicine must be paid for with something right?
So following your logic, this would mean that people have the right to other peoples production -> slavery.

That is why it cannot be a human right.
Nope, still fails for the same reason. It's slavery only if people are forced to do it against their will. Health care providers are not. They are free to choose whatever profession they want. Furthermore, they will be paid for their labors, something one usually doesn't associate with slavery.

In short, you're trying to exploit a cheesy emotional argument instead of offering honest and well-reasoned concerns.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
And the people can choose the company they want.

Every government program doesn't just not make a profit, but constatly operate at a loss.

Good luck being the low-man on the totem pole when the budget attempts to be balanced.

There is nothing wrong with profits. Our country is based on capitalism. By the company profiting, it's workers get paid, bonuses given out and thus the economy stimulated.

Capitalism, Socialism, and combination of these have their place, or would you prefer we have toll-roads, pay-for-police, etc?
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Well I think slavery is inappropriate, but it would be fair to say that someone who expects another to pay for something they could get for themselves is stealing from the whole, whether it be in the form of taxes to pay for a service or a trip to the emergency room.

I don't expect you to buy me a meal if I can do it myself, however it's not quite what was said by Amused. Well not a lot like it really.

I have no problem paying for those who cannot work because of some real condition, but not because they choose to avoid it. The present system is horrid and encourages multigenerational dependencies.
I generally agree. It's one thing to offer a safety net to those truly unable to provide for themselves due to physical limitations, lack of jobs, etc. It's another thing entirely to indulge those who are too lazy to get off their asses and make reasonable efforts to take care of themselves.


Unless that's addressed as well as other issues, it's hard for me to have much faith in government led health care. It seems to be "well ok, you say we screwed up, but if you give us control we promise to do better". I'd not let an employee do that because it doesn't make sense. Turning health care into a medicaid cluster doesn't seem like a good idea. That's admittedly off the point, but in any discussion where some say it "should" be, there needs to be a reasonable expectation of improvement as part of the "how".
It is a different issue, but I would also like to see it addressed.
 

matt0611

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2010
1,879
0
0
Nope, still fails for the same reason. It's slavery only if people are forced to do it against their will. Health care providers are not. They are free to choose whatever profession they want. Furthermore, they will be paid for their labors, something one usually doesn't associate with slavery.

In short, you're trying to exploit a cheesy emotional argument instead of offering honest and well-reasoned concerns.

Bowfinger, you are not following...I'll try one more time.

The money that is being used to pay for the health care comes from somewhere, it is taken from other people, from what they produce.
So in this regard it means that people have the right to other peoples production. This is why it cannot be a human right.
 

freegeeks

Diamond Member
May 7, 2001
5,460
1
81
Completely wrong.

Pretty much all studies show that the US has much better healthcare outcomes than most European countries with their 'free' healthcare.

Generalized studies that show people in one country living longer or how infant mortality is better in another countries tend to ignore outside factors that effect such statistics. When you remove murder and drug related deaths and other means of death that we excel at then our mortality rate becomes very close or even better than countries with 'free' healthcare.

If you really want a good measure of how effect our healthcare system is then compare survival rates among cancer and other long term treatable diseases.

Finally, our problem is NOT our healthcare (which is among the best in the world) our problem is how to pay for such a system and turning it over to congress is NOT the solution.

nice way to generalize but you are wrong

studies show that survival rates for cancer varies a lot depending on the type of cancer and if you are a man or a woman. One country scores better then the other...

"Researchers found that USA has the best score with 5 years of survival rate for breast cancer at 83.9% and prostate cancer at 91.9%. Japan scores the best for colon cancer at 63% and rectal cancer at 58.2% in men. Women living in France have the highest rates for colon and rectal cancers at 60.1% and 63.9% respectively."

In fact in the US it even depends from state to state and you better not be black

"US rates also vary significantly depending on region and race: New York City scored the worst, apart from rectal cancer in women, which was the worst in Wyoming, Hawaii scored the best in US for all cancers. Idaho was the best with rectal cancer survival rate, and Seattle was the best with prostate cancer survival rate. White patients were more likely to live longer than black patients with better scores at 7% for prostate cancer and 14% for breast cancer."

conclusion:

"Researchers suggest that such a huge difference in cancer survival rates depends upon access to health care. Most countries have necessary means to detect cancers and time and provide with proper treatment, but not all patients are able to pay for diagnosis and treatment."

so basically, you are wrong....

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080716184419.htm
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,205
10,865
136
Old people smell bad enough, poor old people smell WAY WORSE. Let nature take its course, stop playing god, and let the old bastards drop dead at normal ages of 55 or 60.

Imagine how much cheaper health care will be, and how much quicker we'll all be treated.

*No offense to those of you over 60, I'm just looking out for myself and I'm sick of paying your Social Security and Medicare (i.e. your rent, diapers, and medical bills).

FOAD
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
And the people can choose the company they want.
Generally not true in practice. Most people have no practical alternative but to accept whatever company their employer offers. Further, as I discuss in the "Obamacare overturned" thread, there is often little actual competition between carriers. This means consumers' "choices" are often more illusion than substance.


Every government program doesn't just not make a profit, but constatly operate at a loss.
Nonsensical. Government isn't intended to make a profit. P&L are irrelevant.


Good luck being the low-man on the totem pole when the budget attempts to be balanced.
Huh?


There is nothing wrong with profits. Our country is based on capitalism. By the company profiting, it's workers get paid, bonuses given out and thus the economy stimulated.
That's fine. What's your point? Some things are best done by a capitalist private sector. Others, especially vital services that are difficult to make profitable, are best done by government.
 
Last edited:

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Bowfinger, you are not following...I'll try one more time.

The money that is being used to pay for the health care comes from somewhere, it is taken from other people, from what they produce.
So in this regard it means that people have the right to other peoples production. This is why it cannot be a human right.
The same can be said of all taxes. Are you saying that taxation is a form of slavery? if so, it's a specious argument.

If you are retracting your "slavery" assertion, then (as I said before) we can move on to more productive discussion. That is the specific argument I was addressing.
 
Last edited:

matt0611

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2010
1,879
0
0
The same can be said of all taxes. Are you saying that taxation is a form of slavery? if so, it's a specious argument. If you are retracting your "slavery" assertion, then (as I said before) we can move on to more productive discussion.

No, but they are not taken in the name of a "rights".

Healthcare is not a right, it cannot be a right.
I'm not saying a country cannot elect to universal healthcare system.
But it is in no way a "human right".
Its impossible, I know you don't like this, but its a fact.
 
Last edited:

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
No, but they are not taken in the name of a "rights".

Healthcare is not a right, it cannot be a right.
I'm not saying a country cannot elect to universal healthcare system.
But it is in no way a "human right".
Its impossible, I know you don't like this, but its a fact.
Are you still saying universal health care is slavery or not?
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
There is nothing wrong with RESPONSIBLE profits. Our country prospers when capitalism is properly regulated, we all get shafted (except the rich) when it is out of control by nature of the beast

fixed

The problem with you guys ideology is this fairytale market self-regulation stuff, it is patently false when you look at history again and again. I know big business has a lot of money to dazzle you guys with their bullshit but folks with a impartial view and a drop of common sense see the difference between responsible capitalism and irresponsible.
Pull your head from talk radios ass and try using it for a second, a history book may help too. Try it. You will look like a lot less of a dumbass to non-talk radio junkies.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

matt0611

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2010
1,879
0
0
Are you still saying universal health care is slavery or not?

I actually never said it was (at least I didn't mean to if I did). I said that healthcare is not a right because that would mean you have the right to other peoples production which is slavery. We are sort of arguing semantics here, but that what the topic is. Is healthcare a human right? I assert that it is not.

some universal healthcare system != slavery
The "right" to some product that must be produced by someone (healthcare or otherwise) == slavery, which makes it not a right, its impossible.
 
Last edited:

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
I actually never said it was (at least I didn't mean to if I did). I said that healthcare is not a right because that would mean you have the right to other peoples production which is slavery. We are sort of arguing semantics here, but that what the topic is. Is healthcare a human right? I assert that it is not.

some universal healthcare system != slavery
The "right" to some product that must be produced by someone (healthcare or otherwise) == slavery, which makes it not a right, its impossible.
I would be interested then to see your list of human rights. Many of the things I consider basic human rights -- adequate food, clean water, representative government, equal protection under the law -- all rely on other people's production.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
fixed

The problem with you guys ideology is this fairytale market self-regulation stuff, it is patently false when you look at history again and again. I know big business has a lot of money to dazzle you guys with their bullshit but folks with a impartial view and a drop of common sense see the difference between responsible capitalism and irresponsible.
Pull your head from talk radios ass and try using it for a second, a history book may help too. Try it. You will look like a lot less of a dumbass to non-talk radio junkies.


On the other hand we have the multigenerational poverty program called Medicaid, where people are paid to have babies.

Seems there's room for improvement at a lot of levels.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
So Bowfinger's solution is to enslave black doctors in order to provide free medical care to those unwilling or unable to pay? That's terrible.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
I don't have a right to anyone else's services.

This.

Health care is NOT a right, it is a service provided by someone else. You have the right to seek health care, but no, you do not have the right to force someone else to provide a service for you, that is slavery.