Is healthcare a right? why or why not?

[Bern80]

Social security does not provide enough money to pay for healthcare costs in this day and age. States vary wildly on their health care coverage and the administration of those plans is often a complete and utter nightmare. There's a reason why politicians are spouting rhetoric about this. Intelligent or not, they are piquing a keen interest of the American people. Public healthcare currently fails, it needs fixed.

Be careful with your last statement. The healthcare system works well for the vast majority of Americans it provides the best healthcare in the world. It is a small fraction that are left without. I think that can be fixed without a major overhall.

There are too seperate issues here. Providing healthcare to those that can't provide for themselves and the issue as to whether healthcare is truly overpriced. If it is, why? and what types of efficient steps can we take to make it better?

 

[CharlestonChad]

The words "health care" arent found anywhere in Article I Section 8.


And enslave people in order to do it?

Please explain how providing healthcare for the unable would enslave people? Canada doesn't enslave it's citizens, yet they get healthcare (although not as good as ours).

But there in lies the problem in your thinking. You put abortion, death penalty and assisted sucided together as if they're equal. You seriously beleive the life of a murder is of equal value to that of an innocent unborn human? I'm not up in arms over the death penalty because the world is a better place without those people in it. I'm am up in arms about abortion because you have no right to snuff out the life of someone who has done nothing to deserve it.

We already have the best medical care for our sick and injured, but don't the people that provide those service have the right to make a liveing as well?

If you want, we can break this down to ethics and morals. I'm fine with taking this debate in that direct if you're up to it.

 

[Bern80]

If you want, we can break this down to ethics and morals. I'm fine with taking this debate in that direct if you're up to it.

The direction I'm interested in is you answering the quesitons I asked you.

 

[CharlestonChad]

The direction I'm interested in is you answering the quesitons I asked you.

There's no point in answering the questions if you won't understand what I'm talking about.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually it's entirely relevant, which is why I suspect I had to pull a little brat attack for you even to respond. Your desire to say that forcing people to provide the means for others to exercise their rights is like slavery or enslavement is DIRECTLY linked to the actual history of real people who have been enslaved.

See bold. There are numerous instances.
Why do you continue to miscaharterize my argument?

Slavery is slavery. In every shape, place, instance and form, it is an unacceptable, intolerable, reprehensible attack on liberty.
Don't you agree?
Don't bother responding unless you directly answer that question.

Your ability to act faux shocked and appalled at my saying "prove to me slavery is wrong" is because we ALL know the history of slavery, we know what it did to people and we know how horrible it was, therefore you shouldnt have to explain why slavery is bad to anyone.

Yes. And yet, youlre perfectly willing to allow certain forms of slavery - describing it as a "minor form" because you think its not as "bad" as other forms. When doing this, you marginalize the peopel who are enslaved and the liberty they have lost.

HOWEVER, forcing to provide the means for others to exercise their rights is no where NEAR even the most minor forms of actual human enslavement that give the term "slavery" its negative connotations. Saying so is an act of historical violence that erase the actual experience of enslaved people and replaces it with your modern financial gripings and inconvenience. It's ridiculous and offensive for you to act like forcing people to provide the means for others to exercise their rights is like slavery.

You AGREED that forcing to provide the means for others to exercise their rights is slavery.

You have attempted to play a rhetorical game that attempts to make me look like I'm callous and think slavery is insignificant.

Actually YOU do this when you argue that certain forms of slavery is OK, so long as you think so. This is no different that arguing that certain forms of genocide are OK, depending on who is being exterminated, and why.

In fact it is YOU who sees slavery as insignificant by invoking it during a discussion about forcing to provide the means for others to exercise their rights.

On he contrary -- I see ALL forms of slavery as unacceptable, intolerable, reprehensible attack on liberty. It is YOU that sees certain forms of slavery -- and, necessarily the people that are enslaved -- as insignificant.

Let me be clear so there is no confusion.
1. There is no greater good justification for chattel slavery. Chattel slavery is a very specific institution.

Slavery is slavery. In every shape, place, instance, and form, it is an unacceptable, intolerable, reprehensible attack on liberty.
Dont you agree?

2. There ARE greater good justifications for forcing to provide the means for others to exercise their rights .
Please let me know if there are any further misunderstandings

Just one:
Why do you contine to mischaraterize my positon?

And now, please tell me:
What are the "greater good" justifications for forcing to provide the means for others to exercise their rights, understanding that:
-you agreed that forcing to provide the means for others to exercise their rights is slavery
-you agreed that there are no greater good arguments that justify slavery?

Dont bother responding unless you answer the question.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Please explain how providing healthcare for the unable would enslave people? Canada doesn't enslave it's citizens, yet they get healthcare (although not as good as ours).

Simple:
Forcing people to provide the means for others to exercize their rights is involuntary servitude.
Involuntary servitude is slavery.

 

[CharlestonChad]

But there in lies the problem in your thinking. You put abortion, death penalty and assisted sucided together as if they're equal. You seriously beleive the life of a murder is of equal value to that of an innocent unborn human? I'm not up in arms over the death penalty because the world is a better place without those people in it. I'm am up in arms about abortion because you have no right to snuff out the life of someone who has done nothing to deserve it.

We already have the best medical care for our sick and injured, but don't the people that provide those service have the right to make a liveing as well?

Here's a simplified answer.

You're imposing your morals onto the value of life, when in actuality life is only as important as the good one can serve it's society. An abortion is killing someone with potential to better their society, but also the potential to worsen it. Killing a killer is ridding society of a person who has wronged society in the past, but has potential to better or worsen the society if released. Therefore, murderers are put to death b.c you believe they are not fit for society, when in actuality they are just as capable of contributing as an unborn fetus.

If we have the best care for our sick and injured then there wouldn't even be a debate. The fact is, we don't. Not everyone can afford health care. I believe if we choose to value any form of life, then we should value the health of the sick. Having more money does not make a person more worthy of the right to live a healthy life. Do you believe that wealth should correlate with the quality of health a person can have?

 

[CharlestonChad]

Simple:
Forcing people to provide the means for others to exercize their rights is involuntary servitude.
Involuntary servitude is slavery.

Then by that statement being an tax paying citizen makes you a slave already.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Then by that statement being an tax paying citizen makes you a slave already.

That depends entirely on where the taxes go to. Not all taxes pay for programs that provide people with the means to exercize their rights, and not all programs provide people with the means to exercize their rights.

But, you posted that because you think I am wrong.
If you think I am wrong, then -show me- how I am wrong.

 

[CharlestonChad]

That depends entirely on where the taxes go to. Not all taxes pay for programs that provide people with the means to exercize their rights, and not all programs provide people with the means to exercize their rights.

But, you posted that because you think I am wrong.
If you think I am wrong, then -show me- how I am wrong.

You are wrong because by your definition, you are a slave if even 1 of those programs is geared towards providing people with the means to exercise their rights.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You are wrong because by your definition, you are a slave if even 1 of those programs is geared towards providing people with the means to exercise their rights.

OK... so, if even $0.01 of my tax money goes to a program that provide speople with the means to exercize their rights, I am slave.

I am, therefore, a slave.

What's your point?

How am I wrong?

 

[Bern80]

Here's a simplified answer.

You're imposing your morals onto the value of life, when in actuality life is only as important as the good one can serve it's society. An abortion is killing someone with potential to better their society, but also the potential to worsen it. Killing a killer is ridding society of a person who has wronged society in the past, but has potential to better or worsen the society if released. Therefore, murderers are put to death b.c you believe they are not fit for society, when in actuality they are just as capable of contributing as an unborn fetus.

Nice spin. Though the argument becomes mute if we examine your original assumption: we americans value human life. That is a broad generalization that in fact doesn't exist. Simply and factually we don't value human life equally. You can make arguments as to whether we shoudl or shouldn't but the fact is if you ask a million americans if bin Laden's life is as valuable as an unborn child's you're not likely to get many that woudl agree with that.

If we have the best care for our sick and injured then there wouldn't even be a debate. The fact is, we don't. Not everyone can afford health care. I believe if we choose to value any form of life, then we should value the health of the sick. Having more money does not make a person more worthy of the right to live a healthy life. Do you believe that wealth should correlate with the quality of health a person can have?

Of course not. I have never made that argument. I believe a cpable persons choices shoudl correlate into the quality of their health. The fact is that you are talking about two different things. The quality of our doctors, facilities and technology is not the same thing as whether those things are affordable or not. What is the point of free healthcare if it is bad healthcare? In a sense you would be saying the best heart surgeon in the world is a bad heart surgeon because someone couldn't afford his servives

 

[CharlestonChad]

OK... so, if even $0.01 of my tax money goes to a program that provide speople with the means to exercize their rights, I am slave.

I am, therefore, a slave.

What's your point?

How am I wrong?

You said you're a slave, which you have been stating would be the result of giving the needy health care. So nothing would change, meaning the whole slavery argument is pointless.

Nice spin.

Someone watches a little too much of TheFactor.

Though the argument becomes mute if we examine your original assumption: we americans value human life. That is a broad generalization that in fact doesn't exist. Simply and factually we don't value human life equally. You can make arguments as to whether we shoudl or shouldn't but the fact is if you ask a million americans if bin Laden's life is as valuable as an unborn child's you're not likely to get many that woudl agree with that.

Please forget I even mentioned any forms of life, you're getting too hung up on my examples.

Americans value human life. This is common sense. Therefore, it is only logical that we take care of those in pain. We are not doing this now, which is why I believe we need to supply affordable health care to those in need.

 

[Larkinn]

OK... so, if even $0.01 of my tax money goes to a program that provide speople with the means to exercize their rights, I am slave.

I am, therefore, a slave.

What's your point?

How am I wrong?

Then you have an incorrect definition of slavery which no longer makes it immoral. Thats how you are wrong.

You are confusing the word slavery to make your point. You are claiming that you have your little definition of "exercising rights" or whatever...which is slavery...and slavery is always wrong. However, we think its wrong because we, as most people do, have a different definition of slavery...and hence think the connotations of the word slavery have are very negative. Its an interesting and complex tactic, but one that fails nonetheless.

 

[Larkinn]

Yes its a right. Its inherent in the right to life.

However...the two different views on this reflect two different views about causality. There is an old philosophical problem which explores this quite well.

There is a train coming down the tracks. You are watching from a bridge and have the ability to cause the train to switch tracks. There are currently 4 people tied to the tracks. On the other track, the one which the train is currently not on, but would be on if you pulled the lever and caused it to switch, has 1 person tied to the tracks. Now...do you pull the lever and have one person die? Or do you not pull the lever and have 4 people die?

Those that think that everyone is responsible for their own healthcare would likely think that you don't pull the lever. After all, if you don't do anything you aren't at fault right? Those that think we are responsible to care for each other would pull the lever and kill 1 instead of 4.

To me, the argument is stupid. Nonaction IS an action. You are choosing not to move...and so if you have the ability to save 3 lives and you don't, you are, in effect, part of the cause of their deaths. This becomes more intuitive (on my side, at least) if we take it to criminal examples. If I know that someone is going to blow up the GW bridge, I have a responsibility (under the law) to tell someone.

This is similar to healthcare. We have the ability to save more lives. We choose not too. Why? What is the reason for thinking that we only have rights FROM things, we have no rights FOR things? Why think that if someone punches you in the face, they should go to jail...so you have an inherent right to not have your face punched in...but if it DOES get punched in, you don't have an inherent right to get it fixed?

 

[Diuretic]

Both, what's your point?

If a landmass is populated only by individuals then the human rights of those individuals exist simply because those people are humans. Each one of them defends his or her rights as best they can. They, being individuals, have no obligation to anyone else, only themselves. But the moment those individuals start to coalesce, not matter the size of the groupings, then the question of obligations to others arises. Healthcare policy is a matter of obligation, not right, so using rights arguments either for or against certain healthcare policies is irrelevant.

 

[Diuretic]

Be careful with your last statement. The healthcare system works well for the vast majority of Americans it provides the best healthcare in the world. It is a small fraction that are left without. I think that can be fixed without a major overhall.

There are too seperate issues here. Providing healthcare to those that can't provide for themselves and the issue as to whether healthcare is truly overpriced. If it is, why? and what types of efficient steps can we take to make it better?

The claim of best healthcare in the world is fallacious. Yes there are some excellent services available but that's only one factor. It's got nothing to do with the policy issues being discussed. Even if the healthcare was average the policy issues wouldn't change.

 

[Diuretic]

Simple:
Forcing people to provide the means for others to exercize their rights is involuntary servitude.
Involuntary servitude is slavery.

That's a totally fallacious argument. As I said above, this isn't about "rights", it's about obligations. You pay taxes to central government. That's an obligation. The government spends the taxes it receives on programmes which are legislated by a democratically elected legislature that approve the programmes. No individual can stop paying taxes because they are offended that his or her taxes are being used to wage war or to provide health care. How that money is spent is subject to approval at the ballot box. There's no servitude or slavery involved.

 

[Bern80]

Yes its a right. Its inherent in the right to life.

If it's a right would I be correct in saying you think it should be free?

Those that think that everyone is responsible for their own healthcare would likely think that you don't pull the lever. After all, if you don't do anything you aren't at fault right? Those that think we are responsible to care for each other would pull the lever and kill 1 instead of 4.

I see a few problems with your interpretation:

If it is our responsiblity to care for each other how do you justify essentially not careing for the one person by killing him/her?

And I would like to slightly modifty part of your assumption. I don't think everyone is responsible for their own healthcare (yes I know you didn't say that I did). I think everyone who is able to provide for their own healthcare should.

Lastly you used this philisophical example to illustrate why you believe it's a right. right? I don't see how the example proves it is a right (or maybe it isn't suppossed to prove that). You illustrates what the more moral choice may be . For the record I would pull the switch.

This is similar to healthcare. We have the ability to save more lives. We choose not too. Why? What is the reason for thinking that we only have rights FROM things, we have no rights FOR things? Why think that if someone punches you in the face, they should go to jail...so you have an inherent right to not have your face punched in...but if it DOES get punched in, you don't have an inherent right to get it fixed?

The constitution doesn't say either of those things (rights FROM or FOR). It says we have rights TO things. How do you have a right from or for anything. Can you even make real sentence out of that? I have the right FOR ______. I have the right FROM _____. I wasn't an english major but can you even do that? Maybe the the FROM you can. The right from unlawful persecution? Still doesn't sound quite right. If you mean something else by FROM or FOR please clarify.

Another faulty assumption, or un-proven one at least, is that 'it' (what is 'it' btw?) would save more lives. I assume you mean some form of free or socialzied medicine? We know it would save more lives from a certain group of people (those currently without access to healthcare). We don't know however if that will be offset by a possible degradation in quality of the system as a whole that would lead to more deaths in the group of people that did have access before.

The main reason I don't see it as a right is it has to be paid for somehow. Generally you don't have to pay to have access to a right. Which no matter what side your on (paid through premiums or via) taxes is still paying for them. Isn't it inherent in a right that it should be supplied to you with no barriers whatsoever to access?

 

[Bern80]

The claim of best healthcare in the world is fallacious. Yes there are some excellent services available but that's only one factor. It's got nothing to do with the policy issues being discussed. Even if the healthcare was average the policy issues wouldn't change.

I'll ask you the same simple question. You have a heart condition that only the best heart surgeon in the world can fix. But you can't afford him. Is he therefore a bad heart surgeon? Because that is the implication in your reasoning.