Is healthcare a right? why or why not?

[Diuretic]

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.

The quality of the surgeon's skill stands by itself. The issue of how to pay for his services is another issue.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

There's ALWAYS a point to opposing slavery, as slavery, regardless of cirumstance, in an unacceptable condition.
Don't you agree?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

Under my argument:
Slavery:
The condition of being forced, or the act of forcing people to provide the means for others to exercise their rights.

Please tell me how my defintion is wrong in a subtsantive way that does not also then invalidate any other relevant definition of slavery. Please tell me how this does not substantively describe the condition of every slave that has ever been a slave.

However, we think its wrong because we, as most people do, have a different definition of slavery...

Well, you can THINK it is wrong all you want, but that doesnt make it so -- you need to show how my definition of slavery is invalid.

Its an interesting and complex tactic, but one that fails nonetheless.

Not that you have shown.

And lets not forget that the person primarily engaged in this discussion opposite me AGREED that my definition is valid.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That's a totally fallacious argument.

Specifically: How?

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.

None of that changes the fact that the government, by forcing you to pay for the health care of others is forcing you to provide the means for others to exercise their rights.

There's no servitude or slavery involved.

Absolutely there is.
You are FORCED to provide for the health care of others. Its not a VOLUNTARY condition. When you are FORCED to give the fruits of your labor to others so that they may directly benefit from it -- so that they may exercise their rights -- that's involuntary servide, which, necessarily, is slavery.

 

[Diuretic]

Specifically: How?


None of that changes the fact that the government, by forcing you to pay for the health care of others is forcing you to provide the means for others to exercise their rights.


Absolutely there is.
You are FORCED to provide for the health care of others. Its not a VOLUNTARY condition. When you are FORCED to give the fruits of your labor to others so that they may directly benefit from it -- so that they may exercise their rights -- that's involuntary servide, which, necessarily, is slavery.

That's not the case. You pay taxes. The elected government decides how that income is disbursed. The individual taxpayer doesn't get to decide on disbursement programmes except at federal elections when the parties lay out their platforms and the voter makes a choice. If Party A says its programme is to institute a system of health care that involves a single-payer system (for example) and Party B says its programme is to institute a system of health care where people can purchase insurance (for example) then the electors get to vote on those.

The taxes that everyone pays will also pay for other government programmes such as national defence, social security and the rest. The individual taxpayer has no say in how those taxes will be disbursed outside of elections.

Your argument has failed.

 

[Larkinn]

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

No, but it should be available to everyone.

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?

Err its our responsibility to care for each other, but sometimes we simply can't.

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.

So do I. But that still leaves millions of people with no healthcare that you are ignoring.

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.

It doesn't prove anything. Its a test of ones moral intuitions.

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.

No the Constitution says you have rights FROM things. You have the right from government interference in freedom of speech. You don't have the right of freedom of speech everywhere...for example a bar can kick you out if they don't like what you are saying...but the government can't keep you from that speech.

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.

Sure you do. The government can't keep me from placing an ad in the newspaper. Freedom of speech...still a right, even though I am paying for said 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?

Yup...it should be supplied to you with no barriers to access. That doesn't mean those who can afford it should pay for it.

 

[Larkinn]

Under my argument:
Slavery:
The condition of being forced, or the act of forcing people to provide the means for others to exercise their rights.

Please tell me how my defintion is wrong in a subtsantive way that does not also then invalidate any other relevant definition of slavery. Please tell me how this does not substantively describe the condition of every slave that has ever been a slave.

Its irrelevant whether it is right or wrong. Definitions are wavy things. The point is that when one says slavery one is thinking about selling and buying human slaves. Hence when you ask "is slavery wrong", you are bringing up connotations of that. By tying this other thing to slavery you are implicitly making it negative by association. Its like if I said baking bread was a terrorist act. I could get you to disagree with baking bread, even though there is no reason to disagree with it, but because your connotations about terrorism are so negative you would find it hard to justify baking bread as a terrorist act.

Well, you can THINK it is wrong all you want, but that doesnt make it so -- you need to show how my definition of slavery is invalid.

No, I don't. As I said definitions are wavy. The only thing that is invalid is you trying to conflate slavery-human trading, and slavery-exercising rights.

And lets not forget that the person primarily engaged in this discussion opposite me AGREED that my definition is valid.

And then said that slavery was ok. Why? Because under your definition it is ok.

 

[Larkinn]

Absolutely there is.
You are FORCED to provide for the health care of others. Its not a VOLUNTARY condition. When you are FORCED to give the fruits of your labor to others so that they may directly benefit from it -- so that they may exercise their rights -- that's involuntary servide, which, necessarily, is slavery.

Since you are making annoying arguments, here is one back for you.

Who holds a gun to your head and forces you to provide for the healthcare of others? Oh wait...they just threaten to put you in jail. So you have a choice...either go to jail, or pay. Its entirely up to you. Whatsa matter...can't handle making your own decisions?

 

[M14 Shooter]

You pay taxes

This is the part where you are "forced".

The elected government decides [to disburse it so that others may exercise their rights]

This is the part where you provide the means for others to exercise their rights.

Not sure how you restating my argument in somewhat more specific terms defeats my argument.

The individual taxpayer doesn't get to decide on disbursement programmes except at federal elections when the parties lay out their platforms and the voter makes a choice. If Party A says its programme is to institute a system of health care that involves a single-payer system (for example) and Party B says its programme is to institute a system of health care where people can purchase insurance (for example) then the electors get to vote on those.

Given the above, this is meaningless.
The procedure doesnt matter; what matters is that you have no choice but to provide for others.
-The government forces you to give up your labor
-The government takes that labor and gives it to others to they might have the means to exercise their rights.

Your argument has failed.

Not that you have shown.

 

[Diuretic]

You edited a quote of mine.

You wrote:

The elected government decides [to disburse it so that others may exercise their rights]

I didn't write the words in square brackets in the quote. That distorts my point.

If you equate taxation with servitude then argue it. But don't distort my argument. Since the discussion isn't about whether or not taxation is servitude what you've introduced is also irrelevant.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Who holds a gun to your head and forces you to provide for the healthcare of others? Oh wait...they just threaten to put you in jail. So you have a choice...either go to jail, or pay.

According to your argument here -- that if you have a choice, you arent a slave -- there has never been any such thing as slave, as ALL 'slaves" have a choice:

Work as you are told to work or be whipped/beaten/raped/killed. Your choice.

Whatsa matter...can't handle making your own decisions?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I didn't write the words in square brackets in the quote. That distorts my point.

Not in any menaingful way, as that's exactly what the government does.

 

[Diuretic]

Not in any menaingful way, as that's exactly what the government does.

As I said, if you want to discuss the nature of taxation then fine, no problems. But I'd ask that you don't introduce it as a red herring in this discussion. I mad e the point that we don't get to tell the govt how to spend the taxes it takes from us except when we go to elections. And then we get a choice on policy. That's the essence of a democracy. Health care policy is usually discussed in elections and parties lay out their policies. Then we vote for them according to how we think things should go.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Its irrelevant whether it is right or wrong.

Then why are you trying to argue that my definition is wrong?

The point is that when one says slavery one is thinking about selling and buying human slaves.

That's your misconception. There are manyforms of slavery, all of shich have a common reference -- you are forced to provide for others. The specifics of the actual instance are maningless, as slavery, in all forms, is wrong
Dont you agree?

 

[M14 Shooter]

As I said, if you want to discuss the nature of taxation then fine, no problems. But I'd ask that you don't introduce it as a red herring in this discussion.

Its not a red herring, and taxation, in and of itself isnt the issue.
The issue is being forced to provide for others, and how that is slavery.

I mad e the point that we don't get to tell the govt how to spend the taxes it takes from us except when we go to elections. And then we get a choice on policy. That's the essence of a democracy. Health care policy is usually discussed in elections and parties lay out their policies. Then we vote for them according to how we think things should go.

Yes... and I made the point that this is meaningless:
It doesnt matter how its decided that you are a slave -- you;re still a slave.

 

[Larkinn]

According to your argument here -- that if you have a choice, you arent a slave -- there has never been any such thing as slave, as ALL 'slaves" have a choice:

Work as you are told to work or be whipped/beaten/raped/killed.

Whatsa matter...can't handle making your own decisions?

Yup.

Then why are you trying to argue that my definition is wrong?

I'm not. I stated it was wrong. But I'm not going to argue that because, as I said, definitions are wavy things.

That's your misconception. There are manyforms of slavery, all of shich have a common reference -- you are forced to provide for others. The specifics of the actual instance are maningless, as slavery, in all forms, is wrong
Dont you agree?

IF that is my misconception, than no, not all forms of slavery are wrong.

 

[M14 Shooter]

IF that is my misconception, than no, not all forms of slavery are wrong.

REally...
So, how do you decide when it is/isn't OK to enslave others?
What's your objective criteria?
And if your criteria isnt objective, how do you have any standing to argue that ANY form of slavery is 'wrong'?

 

[Diuretic]

Its not a red herring, and taxation, in and of itself isnt the issue.
The issue is being forced to provide for others, and how that is slavery.


Yes... and I made the point that this is meaningless:
It doesnt matter how its decided that you are a slave -- you;re still a slave.

Do you pay taxes?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Do you pay taxes?

Yes. Why?

 

[Larkinn]

REally...
So, how do you decide when it is/isn't OK to enslave others?
What's your objective criteria?
And if your criteria isnt objective, how do you have any standing to argue that ANY form of slavery is 'wrong'?

This should be obvious. Its not ok when it fits into the classic definition of slavery. When it doesn't, than it is ok. As a loose description at least.

As far as objectivity...

Define objectivity for me. Then when you are done with that I'd like to know how any subjective elements disallow me from having a "standing to argue" anything.