Is healthcare a right? why or why not?

Discussion in 'Healthcare/Insurance/Govt Healthcare' started by Bern80, Sep 24, 2007.

  1. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726
    Why do I ask? To me it seems to be the most fundamental part of why some advocate for universal health care and why some advocate for privatized healthcare. Every candidate on the dem ticket has a plan of some type for of universal or government run healthcare. So I have to think that most of them think it is a right. By extension then people basically have the right to good health it would seem.

    The problem I have with it being a right is the concept of a 'right' itself. A 'right' like the right to free speech or right to bear arms is something that is provided you without any cost or requirment to obtain access to. You don't have to earn the right to free speech or pay a fee when you want to speak. The conundrum I have with healthcare is if it is your right, that is you are under no personal responsibility to provide it for yourself, then who's responsibility is it, and why? If I'm not paying for the services somone else must be. According to Hillary anyway that will be increased taxes on the rich. But wait healthcare is a right, so why should the rich be expected to pay for it? It's a right so isn't it suppossed to be free to them as well? Why should they be worried about their own health as well as those that can't pay for it?

    Rush had a caller on today who was a female physician and basically asked the same question. Why is she, a provider of a service like any other service, expected to provide it a reduced rate or free all together? You can't control all aspects of your health anymore than you can control all aspects of your car working, but we expect people to pay to have their own car fixed even if not responsible for the problem, yet some have this expectation that when 'shit happens' where your health is concerned it's suppossed to be free to get 'fixed'.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
  2. Doug
    Offline

    Doug Active Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2005
    Messages:
    394
    Thanks Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    England
    Ratings:
    +52
    Good question. But note: the right to free speech can be interpreted to mean only that the government shall not undertake measures to limit your free speech. Now suppose that every time you tried to speak, someone else stopped you from doing so -- say, by standing next to you with a bullhorn, or bombing your newspaper, or rioting outside your editorial office when you print a cartoon they don't like. Do you have the "right" to demand that the government protect your free speech?

    We certainly feel we have the right to demand that the government protect us from criminals, for example. But should we? Do we have a "right" to pursue our lives unmolested by criminal predators?

    Also note that on the "right to bear arms", again, this is a kind of negative limitation on the government, not a positive demand that they provide you with arms to bear. However, if someone tried to take away your guns, you would expect the government to ... well, at least to come and carry away their corpse.

    So ... are there any "rights" at all which require that the government do something, as opposed to refrain from doing something?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Mr.Conley
    Offline

    Mr.Conley Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,958
    Thanks Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New Orleans, LA/Cambridge, MA
    Ratings:
    +116
    Well, it depends. Morally? Yes Legally? Maybe not.
     
  4. DiogenesDog
    Offline

    DiogenesDog Zen Bonobo

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Messages:
    186
    Thanks Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Wady-Peytona Sector
    Ratings:
    +21
    If this were truly a Christian nation in the spirit that prevailed prior to the co-opting that took place in the reign of Constantine, it would be a sacrament.

    I propose such a sacrament be a benchmark or litmus test for the Divine health of the the nation's everlasting spirit.

    religion morality ethics humanism
    (Don't mind me, I am just tagging.)

    I AM
     
  5. maineman
    Offline

    maineman BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    13,003
    Thanks Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    guess
    Ratings:
    +572
    It is a right? probably not. Is it something that the richest most powerful nation on earth ought to provide to its citizenry? I would say so.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. Diuretic
    Offline

    Diuretic Permanently confused

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    12,653
    Thanks Received:
    1,397
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Australia est 1836
    Ratings:
    +1,397
    No, there's no right. An associated question might be, does a society have an obligation to ensure that health care is available to its citizens? If there's agreement on that question then the next question is only how it should be funded. If the answer to the question is no, society has no such obligation, then I'd suggest that the social contract has just been ripped up and there would be an argument for someone who was indigent and unable to afford health care would, simply by dint of survival, be able to steal money or commit a fraud to get the funds for their health care.
     
  7. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726
    That's getting to it I suppose. So why do you think we ought to? Why is a society that simply provides things to people with no expectation of responsibility better than a society that ask its citizenry to have a level of responsibility to provide for it's own well being?

    I hate to bring up Rush again because the left loves to just pick him apart but he noted that that mentality, where we do things that just feel good and right is an example of a sentiment of people who's hearts are disconnected from their brains (what makes sense vs. what feels good). It feels good to say we 'ought to provide poeple free healthcare'. But is that really what's best for the growth of a society? Is it really best that a society over time learn that it can be dependant on others for what they need rather than take responsibility for providing it to themselves?
     
  8. Diuretic
    Offline

    Diuretic Permanently confused

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    12,653
    Thanks Received:
    1,397
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Australia est 1836
    Ratings:
    +1,397

    If you don't bring up Rush you deny us on the left the pleasure of mocking him. Please feel free to bring him up whenever you wish :D

    Society ought to ensure healthcare is available to all its citizens. How it should be funded is the moot point so, as usual, Rush is wrong. Ah, the pleasure :D
     
  9. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726
    Mock all you want. I think it would behuve you to have actually listened to it instead of assuming he said something he didn't and thus just looking silly.

    And you still haven't answered the question. Why should society do that? Because again I don't see how breeding dependancy on government for the things we need helps a society strenghten itself. If you want to get real technical we already do make sure those that need healthcare get it.
     
  10. Diuretic
    Offline

    Diuretic Permanently confused

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    12,653
    Thanks Received:
    1,397
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Australia est 1836
    Ratings:
    +1,397
    I don't mind looking silly, I've gotten used to it over the years :rofl:

    I answered your question but I'll answer the re-phrased question too.

    Why should society ensure that healthcare is available? Because it actually does strengthen society as opposed to promoting the interests of only those who can actually afford healthcare. You mention "breeding dependency on government". Does that mean that people shouldn't rely on government for anything?
     

Share This Page