The liberal mythology of healthcare being a right

[bripat9643]

God is love
Love is blind
Stevie Wonder is blind
Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.

What does that idiocy have to do with my question?

It's not idiocy. Your bringing up the law of gravity is fallacy of equivocation, which is what I was pointing out.

Your syllogism didn't fit the definition of "fallacy of equivocation." Wht I posted wasn't a fallacy. It was an example of a principle that was "defined by humans," according to your definition of the phrase.

 

[bripat9643]

That literally doesn't mean anything at all to the conversation of how rights are concluded.

Sure it does. The Soviet Union was a sick society. it collapsed because a society based on compulsion is harmful to human beings.

Which has nothing to do with the origin of rights.

Yes it does.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I should be more precise: Initiation of force is what is harmful to society. "Compulsion" means the use of force or the threat of force.

And how is any social rule anything less than the threat or actual use of force? Breaking the law incurs punishment. When laws are weakly enforced, the threat of force is diminished. Nonetheless, the same mechanism persists. A threat of force is relied upon in order to gain compliance with the rule.

Some feeling you may have isn't compulsion.

It is, if that feeling arises from a perceived threat of force, and/or is counter to what one would do otherwise.

If the swat team comes, breaks your door down, and hauls you off to jail, then you are being compelled.

That is not necessary to create a compulsion. Speeding laws compel people drive certain speeds because they do not want to incur the fine. Company policies compel people to behave a certain way at work because people do not want to get fired, hurt their chances for advancement, etc.

Sorry, but simply claiming it should be a right doesn't prove that it is a right.

I never claimed anything was a right. All I did was point out that based on your own arguments, agreeing that health care is a right is an inescapable logical conclusion.

Compulsory healthcare is harmfull by definition because it requires initiating the use of force against innocent people.

When did I say anything about compulsory health care? Like I said, this talk about compulsion has nothing to do with anything I ever said. All I said was that health care is a right, if we accept your theory that natural rights arise from those principles that develop a healthy society.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Your syllogism didn't fit the definition of "fallacy of equivocation."

Then you apparently don't know what equivocation means.

Wht I posted wasn't a fallacy. It was an example of a principle that was "defined by humans," according to your definition of the phrase.

Your "example" was to refer to the "law" of gravity, in comparison to laws of society. The two are not anywhere close to the same thing, and share only an incidentally similar verbage. Logically, you would have been just as well off to invoke the axel on an automobile.

 

[dblack]

My original point was - that the unalienable rights according to an atheist are NECESSARILY made up by human beings.

I think you're confusing how we determine which rights government will recognize and protect, with the existential nature of those rights in the first place. The whole point of the concept of inalienable rights is one of categorization. They're specifying a type or right, in particular, rights that require no grant from anyone else. These rights aren't 'made up' or designated by anyone. They're infinite in nature and consist of anything and everything you might choose to do.

This distinction is wholly pertinent to the concept of health care as a right, because health care could never be an inalienable right. It would require the active participation of another person. Inalienable rights do not. You have them as long as no one else violates them. You have them even if no one else but you exists. Health care, by definition, involves someone else taking care of you. Our government was not set up to protect this kind of 'right'.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I think you're confusing how we determine which rights government will recognize and protect, with the existential nature of those rights in the first place. The whole point of the concept of inalienable rights is one of categorization. They're specifying a type or right, in particular, rights that require no grant from anyone else. These rights aren't 'made up' or designated by anyone. They're infinite in nature and consist of anything and everything you might choose to do.

This opens up a whole new messy can of worms. If we accept your theory, there is a natural right to murder people which is inalienable.

 

[dblack]

I think you're confusing how we determine which rights government will recognize and protect, with the existential nature of those rights in the first place. The whole point of the concept of inalienable rights is one of categorization. They're specifying a type or right, in particular, rights that require no grant from anyone else. These rights aren't 'made up' or designated by anyone. They're infinite in nature and consist of anything and everything you might choose to do.

This opens up a whole new messy can of worms. If we accept your theory, there is a natural right to murder people which is inalienable.

Again, calling something an inalienable right is just a classification. We would never protect a right that takes away the rights of others. The point of "inalienable" is that it's a freedom, and not a grant that someone else must give you.

 

[dblack]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

The whole point of this statement is to affirm that governments are instituted to protect our freedoms, no to hand out favors.

 

[Mr.Nick]

This is a dumb topic considering doctors are obligated to save an individual in a life or death situation.

Not to mention in most cases they will work on you even if it's not life or death.

Quite frankly, if our government booted those who abuse social welfare, universal health care could potentially be possible...

However no one should be forced to partake in such a program.

Not to mention presently the powers that be that support such a program as "obamacare" only do such because it gives them a prerequisite to control an individuals life under the ruse of "hazard."

5-years down the road you will have government and progressive idiots dictating peoples lives because all of a sudden you're footing the bill for me and I'm footing the bill for you.

After 10 years we're all showing medical approval to buy certain foods and do certain activities..

That's what the evil leftist tyrannical government wants.

They want to play "The Sims" with all of us while they sit there, drink their booze, laugh and point fingers - or sit there and believe they're the greatest people in the world.

1984....

 

[dblack]

My original point was - that the unalienable rights according to an atheist are NECESSARILY made up by human beings.

I think you're confusing how we determine which rights government will recognize and protect, with the existential nature of those rights in the first place. The whole point of the concept of inalienable rights is one of categorization. They're specifying a type or right, in particular, rights that require no grant from anyone else. These rights aren't 'made up' or designated by anyone. They're infinite in nature and consist of anything and everything you might choose to do.

This distinction is wholly pertinent to the concept of health care as a right, because health care could never be an inalienable right. It would require the active participation of another person. Inalienable rights do not. You have them as long as no one else violates them. You have them even if no one else but you exists. Health care, by definition, involves someone else taking care of you. Our government was not set up to protect this kind of 'right'.

That as determined by whom?

It's not a determination, it's a description. It's a classification of a certain kind of rights, for the purpose of designating the purpose of government. (i.e. to protect freedoms). I realize you're preoccupied with this notion that rights are 'created', and to the extent that we must deliberate and vote on what rights government will protect, I can sort of understand your view.

But you're missing the point of the passage from the DOI. The point isn't to begin a list of rights, but to characterize, in general, the purpose of government. It's saying the the kinds of rights governments protect are freedoms that we have before government is even created, not favors or perks granted by authority. They were specifically rejecting the view that freedom is something that must be granted. They were making the point that we're free to begin with.

 

[kiwiman127]

I wonder how God feels about the subject.

 

[Steelplate]

My original point was - that the unalienable rights according to an atheist are NECESSARILY made up by human beings.

I think you're confusing how we determine which rights government will recognize and protect, with the existential nature of those rights in the first place. The whole point of the concept of inalienable rights is one of categorization. They're specifying a type or right, in particular, rights that require no grant from anyone else. These rights aren't 'made up' or designated by anyone. They're infinite in nature and consist of anything and everything you might choose to do.

This distinction is wholly pertinent to the concept of health care as a right, because health care could never be an inalienable right. It would require the active participation of another person. Inalienable rights do not. You have them as long as no one else violates them. You have them even if no one else but you exists. Health care, by definition, involves someone else taking care of you. Our government was not set up to protect this kind of 'right'.

Wow... OK... so no one helps a person get wealthy? They do it all by themselves with no help from no one? What a crock... or, maybe not... that makes the wealthys' assets subject to this question too. according to your definition, that is.

If your definition is correct, I say that the wealthy did not get that way in a vacuum.. that means their money is not their "inalienable right" either.

 

[dblack]

My position was that men determined which rights were and were not unalienable, not God or happenstance of being born - because Men declared such plain and simply. You're babbling about why they declared them, I'm babbling about who declared them, and under what authority.

'Unalienable' is an adjective - a description of a type of right. You're trying to sell the view that rights are either unalienable, or not, based on simple decree and that's nonsense. They either fit the definition of the description or they don't.

To bring this back to the OP, health care can't be - no matter how much we want it be so - an unalienable right. An unalienable right is one that no one has to give you. Any time no one is around to give you health care, that "right" is alienated. Freedom of speech, for example, is innately unalienable. Unless someone acts to silence you, your freedom is preserved.

 

[dblack]

Wow... OK... so no one helps a person get wealthy? They do it all by themselves with no help from no one? What a crock... or, maybe not... that makes the wealthys' assets subject to this question too. according to your definition, that is.

If your definition is correct, I say that the wealthy did not get that way in a vacuum.. that means their money is not their "inalienable right" either.

What???

 

[toxicmedia]

I kind of skipped from the OP to the last page, and as I would have assumed, we seem to be in a Mexican standoff regarding the definition of a "right".

To me this is quite simple, and I work for a medical insurer, so I do have a dog in this hunt besides my own need for healthcare.

Government delivered medical care will become a right when the government starts providing it, and not before.

Obamacare is insufficient to assuage the impending access to care crisis in the US because it does not effectively address the cost drivers of healthcare, and spends too much time simply modifying the benefits on the insurance level.

What happens when you modify the benefits, is that insurers compensate with higher premiums and deductables/copays. So it's the free markets that will render Obamacare ineffective.

I see two scenarios for the future.

1. The free market will continue, and when only the wealthy can afford medical care, or insurance, providers will need to offer low cost direct pay services, or go out of business, because there are way too many providers for the small market share of rich people.

2. The government will panic during the access to care crisis, and will set up government clinincs, that will eventually grow into a UK or French style government controlled model.

Either way...it's really not the end of the world. Certainly not the way the left describes it, where people will be dieing in the streets, nor like the right describes it, a Stalinist takeover of healthcare where Dr's behave like DMV clerks.

 

[Steelplate]

Wow... OK... so no one helps a person get wealthy? They do it all by themselves with no help from no one? What a crock... or, maybe not... that makes the wealthys' assets subject to this question too. according to your definition, that is.

If your definition is correct, I say that the wealthy did not get that way in a vacuum.. that means their money is not their "inalienable right" either.

What???

I'm saying that rich folk don't get that way without the help of others. Therefore, their wealth is not an inalienable right. You just said that health care isn't an inalienable right, because it requires the help of someone else to provide it.