Is Healthcare a human right?

[TurtleCrusher]

Forum section changed... nvm.

 

[hal2kilo]

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmcowen674
Come on get with the program.

Poor women and men if they do manage to vote always vote Democrat..




No, you are just the purest definition of a wannabe.

If that were true, all those people "clinging to God and their guns" would be voting differently.

 

[dmcowen674]

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.

Yet there is a poster above you making $20,000 and supports the Republican mantra of IF YOU GET SICK DIE as many on here have been echoing throughout this thread.

I'll never understand that. I'm sure his tune will change once he gets older or sick.

 

[Bowfinger]

They don't rely on services. It ALLOWS the government to intervene.
You have the right to a fair trial, this means that the government CAN NOT try you unfairly.

You have the right to defend yourself, this means that the government CAN NOT come in and take your arms away.

You have the right to free speech, this means that the government CAN NOT censor you.

You have the right to assemble, this means the government CAN NOT stop you from assembling peacefully with people.

You have the right to not be harmed by people. It ALLOWS the government TO INTERVENE against you if you try to hurt someone.

You have the right to your privacy, this means that the government CAN NOT invade your privacy. (without cause)

This really isn't that complicated. I'm heading out for now. Will be back later.

Fair enough, and it's a well-considered list. I think you're reaching a bit on some of them to avoid retreating from your position, however.

For example, if "right to a fair trial" really means only that the government cannot try you unfairly, it also means that you don't have a right to trial. It just means that IF the government decides to try you, it must do so fairly, but there is no right to due process. Is that your position?

Another example, you say that the right to not be harmed really means the government has the right to stop you from harming others. Those are really two different things. "Not be harmed" is a right of people. "Right to intervene" is really a right of the government, and it carries with it no obligation to act ... meaning it gives you no rights at all. Agreed?

Finally, you say the government cannot interfere with freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Good as far as it goes, but what it someone with opposing views decides to interfere? Do you retain your rights, or can they be taken away by others aside from the government? In other words, do your rights carry with them an obligation by the government to let you exercise those rights, or is it Nebor's world of might makes right?

 

[matt0611]

Fair enough, and it's a well-considered list. I think you're reaching a bit on some of them to avoid retreating from your position, however.

For example, if "right to a fair trial" really means only that the government cannot try you unfairly, it also means that you don't have a right to trial. It just means that IF the government decides to try you, it must do so fairly, but there is no right to due process. Is that your position?

Another example, you say that the right to not be harmed really means the government has the right to stop you from harming others. Those are really two different things. "Not be harmed" is a right of people. "Right to intervene" is really a right of the government, and it carries with it no obligation to act ... meaning it gives you no rights at all. Agreed?

Finally, you say the government cannot interfere with freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Good as far as it goes, but what it someone with opposing views decides to interfere? Do you retain your rights, or can they be taken away by others aside from the government? In other words, do your rights carry with them an obligation by the government to let you exercise those rights, or is it Nebor's world of might makes right?

Just to be clear, its not a complete list, neither one that I put too much thought into, its simply examples I could think off the top of my head. I will try to clarify a few things that I may have mis-stated or not explained well enough...

The right to a fair trial simply means that if the government is prosecuting you for breaking a law they cannot try you unfairly (now is no trial at all unfair? I would argue it is). Basically all it is saying is that people should be free from the government coming in and taking you off to jail without any trial or with an unfair one. You are not owed any service it just means that IF you a persecuted by the government then they must try you fairly before taking away your rights.

The right to not be harmed allows the government to intervene against people who try to hurt me. It cannot possible keep me free from harm 100%. It does not guarantee anything. It also means the government cannot just come in and harm me for no reason.

About the freedom of speech, I'm not sure if I fully understand your example but I'll try anyway. Freedom of speech makes it so that the government cannot come in and make laws to censor me.

If I am on someone else's property they have the right to kick me out for what I say.

If we are on public property than I suppose if neither of us are harming people the government can't really do anything? If we try to harm each other physically than the government could come in and stop us from hurting each other.


I'm not saying a state such as California cannot make a universal healthcare system for people, I'm just saying I don't believe its a human right.

 

[werepossum]

They don't rely on services. It ALLOWS the government to intervene.
You have the right to a fair trial, this means that the government CAN NOT try you unfairly.

You have the right to defend yourself, this means that the government CAN NOT come in and take your arms away.

You have the right to free speech, this means that the government CAN NOT censor you.

You have the right to assemble, this means the government CAN NOT stop you from assembling peacefully with people.

You have the right to not be harmed by people. It ALLOWS the government TO INTERVENE against you if you try to hurt someone.

You have the right to your privacy, this means that the government CAN NOT invade your privacy. (without cause)

This really isn't that complicated. I'm heading out for now. Will be back later.

That's a well thought out list, and illustrates the difference between rights and benefits. A right is G-d given and costs no one else anything to provide, although it may cost society something to protect. You have a right to bear arms, but no one must pay to arm you. You have a right to free speech, but no one has to buy you a bull horn or an advert. You have the right to assemble, but buy your own bus pass to get there. A benefit on the other hand is something that inherently costs society something. Taxes indeed being a form of self-imposed slavery, any benefit means collectively we lose a bit of freedom. Same with laws and regulations: I give up my freedom to take things without payment so that others don't take things without payment from me, I give up my freedom to build a house on any piece of land I choose so that others similarly respect my private property rights (and environmental concerns as well.)

The key to a prosperous free society is to sell our bits of freedom as dearly as possible, so that we get the maximum benefits for society (and therefore indirectly for ourselves) at the minimum direct cost (in freedom and labor lost) to ourselves. Confusing rights with benefits defeats this process. If we decide as a society that universal health care is a benefit we want, then we (ideally) set out to get the most benefit for the least investment. If however we decide as a society that universal health care is a human right, then no constraints on that right are acceptable and no costs can be too high. If it costs a million dollars a day to keep you alive (and unlikely as it sounds, that has happened), society is bound to do it, else it is a violation of your right to health care. I suspect that, universal health care proponents typically being no more sophisticated than children demanding what they want at others' expense, single payer would grow much less popular if, say, smart phones or broadband Internet became taxed to the point of being available only for the wealthy as a function of funding health care.

As Hayabusa Rider pointed out, the OP has made some astoundingly stupid statements in his thread. Far better to realize that health care for those who cannot afford it is a benefit we wish our society to have, that health care like anything requiring time and/or treasure is and will always be inherently rationed no matter how it is funded or administered, and that we really need to separate health care from employment for reasons of competitiveness. Then we can concentrate on the dual concerns of funding it and maximizing its efficiency. Those two things are not at all the same, even if they have to be considered together.

 

[Nebor]

In other words, your definition of "rights" is best summed up by "might makes right." /spit What a morally bankrupt view of the world. I will thank you, however, for conclusively demonstrating that it's you who is confused about what rights are, not me.

Dismissed.

First of all, I didn't define the word rights. You're putting words in my mouth. I said you can call whatever you want a right, because they don't exist anyway.

If you think the world functions in any other way, you're just used to your sheltered life, in the mightiest country in the world. For 80% of the world's inhabitants, they get to see might making right in person, every day.

Your claim to anything in this world is only as strong as your ability to protect it. In your fantasy system, you would have a large group of mighty people (the government) take the goods and services of others to distribute to the less fortunate.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Yet other countries that are fatter, smoke more, and drink more are healthier because EVERYBODY goes to the doctor more often and doesn't have to wait until things are worse.

The "people will go to the doctor more and therefore catch things before they're serious" argument, aka the preventative care argument, was thoroughly debunked:

In an Aug. 7 letter to Rep. Nathan Deal, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf writes: "Researchers who have examined the effects of preventive care generally find that the added costs of widespread use of preventive services tend to exceed the savings from averted illness."

 

[theeedude]

The "people will go to the doctor more and therefore catch things before they're serious" argument, aka the preventative care argument, was thoroughly debunked:

Yeah, people living longer increases costs.

 

[hal2kilo]

Yeah, people living longer increases costs.

My old boss used to use the "not wanting to screw up the actuarial tables" as an excuse to not quit smoking.

 

[Nebor]

The "people will go to the doctor more and therefore catch things before they're serious" argument, aka the preventative care argument, was thoroughly debunked:

Pffft, anyone that's played Tropico 3 could tell you that setting your hospitals to "preventative" care increases costs too much to be viable.

 

[theeedude]

If conservatives really believe not getting preventative care and getting treated at the ER instead reduces costs, they should adopt this approach themselves.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

If conservatives really believe not getting preventative care and getting treated at the ER instead reduces costs, they should adopt this approach themselves.

Studies have shown that the "preventative care will reduce costs" argument is false per my link. Argue with the CBO, not me. No one said anything about people getting treated at the ER. Who said I agree with that?

And even throwing out the cost argument for a moment, you guys are assuming that people will actually go to the doctor frequently. Are you prepared to "mandate" that every citizen goes to the doctor once per year for a physical in order to realize these alleged "savings"? Are you going to "mandate" full body scans every year too, just in case?

 

[SparkyJJO]

Yet there is a poster above you making $20,000 and supports the Republican mantra of IF YOU GET SICK DIE as many on here have been echoing throughout this thread.

I'll never understand that. I'm sure his tune will change once he gets older or sick.

I'm not saying "if you get sick, die" Those are your words 🙄

My tune will not change. I guarantee you. I am not entitled to money from your wallet to pay for my health issues. And neither are you (or anyone else) entitled to money from my wallet to pay for yours. Simple as that.

Oh, and I love this country. And I'm a republican. Eat that.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Yeah, people living longer increases costs.

This is true, but unfortunately for you, completely unrelated to the topic we were discussing.

 

[ericlp]

Depends on what country your in.

 

[bfdd]

Have some compassion, that person who needs ten million dollars a year to live could have easily been you, and you would be begging for society to pay for your treatment.

or not. because not everyone is a selfish asshole who thinks the world owes them something.

 

[hal2kilo]

This is true, but unfortunately for you, completely unrelated to the topic we were discussing.

As a person who recently buried his mother after her being in a nursing home for the last twenty years with her having Alzhiemers and her not knowing even who my father was far at least the last 7 years or so, there are limits. Warehousing humans is an extremly profitable business and is where most of the medical costs are going to. The reality is that there is a place and time for professionasl to determine at the minimum when a Do Not Resusitate (DNR) order should be imposed. This is a sticky wicket. Euthanasia is one thing, and suiside another. People need to at least be required to have some sort of living will.

 

[Amused]

That's a specious argument. For example, what about guns? After all, someone has to mine the metals, someone has to manufacture them, someone has to transport them. Are they all "slaves" because we have a right to bear arms? No, they aren't because they freely chose to work in their industries and they are compensated ... just like health care providers.

Or are you suggesting we don't really have a right to bear arms either? If so, you're selectively redefining the concept of "rights" to match your preconceived positions.

The 2nd Amendment does not give me the right to walk into a gun factory, and demand a gun free of charge or that someone else pay for it.

How would you feel if I walked into your workplace and demanded what you make for free as my "right?" All you do with a socialized plan is displace the slavery and spread it around. But in the end, it is still making the work product of one man the right of another.

 

[alkemyst]

I'm not saying "if you get sick, die" Those are your words 🙄

My tune will not change. I guarantee you. I am not entitled to money from your wallet to pay for my health issues. And neither are you (or anyone else) entitled to money from my wallet to pay for yours. Simple as that.

Oh, and I love this country. And I'm a republican. Eat that.

If this is true and you only make $20k a year, I don't think you'd make the cut over someone making more than you.

Personally though, the whole bipartizan approach needs to end now. Open it up to simple votes and a simple 'party'. The internut has ended the gap in non-local areas and these ideals are over a century old.

It's become fodder to get buy in from the masses and why those inclined want to take a pauper's job wage to be in the heat. Kick backs for the win.

 

[Tab]

I'm not saying "if you get sick, die" Those are your words 🙄

My tune will not change. I guarantee you. I am not entitled to money from your wallet to pay for my health issues. And neither are you (or anyone else) entitled to money from my wallet to pay for yours. Simple as that.

Oh, and I love this country. And I'm a republican. Eat that.

If so, why should I pay for your police protection? It's my fucking money, it's your problem. Wouldn't that be actually fair?

 

[Nebor]

If so, why should I pay for your police protection? It's my fucking money, it's your problem. Wouldn't that be actually fair?

Doesn't he pay for his own police protection?

 

[Amused]

If so, why should I pay for your police protection? It's my fucking money, it's your problem. Wouldn't that be actually fair?

Another failure.

Without law and order, there can be no freedom or individual rights. The very charter of the federal and state government is to protect the rights of the individual citizens and provide a common defense.

The ideal is NOT "no government" but the minimal government needed to protect the rights of individuals so they may have liberty.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

That's a well thought out list, and illustrates the difference between rights and benefits. A right is G-d given and costs no one else anything to provide, although it may cost society something to protect. You have a right to bear arms, but no one must pay to arm you. You have a right to free speech, but no one has to buy you a bull horn or an advert. You have the right to assemble, but buy your own bus pass to get there. A benefit on the other hand is something that inherently costs society something. Taxes indeed being a form of self-imposed slavery, any benefit means collectively we lose a bit of freedom. Same with laws and regulations: I give up my freedom to take things without payment so that others don't take things without payment from me, I give up my freedom to build a house on any piece of land I choose so that others similarly respect my private property rights (and environmental concerns as well.)

The key to a prosperous free society is to sell our bits of freedom as dearly as possible, so that we get the maximum benefits for society (and therefore indirectly for ourselves) at the minimum direct cost (in freedom and labor lost) to ourselves. Confusing rights with benefits defeats this process. If we decide as a society that universal health care is a benefit we want, then we (ideally) set out to get the most benefit for the least investment. If however we decide as a society that universal health care is a human right, then no constraints on that right are acceptable and no costs can be too high. If it costs a million dollars a day to keep you alive (and unlikely as it sounds, that has happened), society is bound to do it, else it is a violation of your right to health care. I suspect that, universal health care proponents typically being no more sophisticated than children demanding what they want at others' expense, single payer would grow much less popular if, say, smart phones or broadband Internet became taxed to the point of being available only for the wealthy as a function of funding health care.

As Hayabusa Rider pointed out, the OP has made some astoundingly stupid statements in his thread. Far better to realize that health care for those who cannot afford it is a benefit we wish our society to have, that health care like anything requiring time and/or treasure is and will always be inherently rationed no matter how it is funded or administered, and that we really need to separate health care from employment for reasons of competitiveness. Then we can concentrate on the dual concerns of funding it and maximizing its efficiency. Those two things are not at all the same, even if they have to be considered together.

The left calls benefits rights because its easier to justify using someone else's money to pay for them when you call them rights. Whether or not we should spend money to provide universal health care its clearly a benefit not a right.

 

[Linflas]

The left calls benefits rights because its easier to justify using someone else's money to pay for them when you call them rights. Whether or not we should spend money to provide universal health care its clearly a benefit not a right.

Sadly there are a lot of people, left and right, which do not understand that the thing that made the United States exceptional was that our government was founded on the principle that rights are yours by virtue of birth, given to you by your creator/nature. That was the essential debate when the Bill of Rights was included in the Constitution. Sadly it appears that those opposed were right when they said that it would end up being viewed as government granting rights rather than a list of rights viewed as so basic that they needed to be enumerated in our governing document. You have every right to seek out whatever healthcare you can obtain, you do not have the right to demand that it be paid for by someone other than yourself. You do not have a right to anything that compels another to provide that right.