NationStates Jolt Archive

Is there a right to healthcare? You say!

Everyone, rich or poor, should have access to it, although if you have the money, you should have opportunities to receive better than average health care.

Well...
According to Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights there is a right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.
By signing that treaty, the party agrees to take steps to achieve the full realisation of that right including
the creation of conditions which would assure to all medical service and medical attention in the event of sickness

So I guess you could say that the provision of healthcare is part of the right to health. Though there may not be a right to healthcare in and of itself...should there be? Probably

Learning how to care for yourself is the right.

Of course not. You have the right to demand that people who go to school for 12+ years submit to your whims and service you for free? Beyond that, a right to healthcare implies you have the right to DEMAND that doctors and such exist. What about their right to get paid for labor and fees? Their right to say "Screw you guys, I'm doing what I want"?

Since when has healthcare been a right? People have lived and died without it for thousands of years but now all of a sudden we recognize it as a basic human right?

Well...
According to Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights there is a right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. ... So I guess you could say that the provision of healthcare is part of the right to health. Though there may not be a right to healthcare in and of itself...should there be? ProbablyInteresting point, I refer you to the CESCR analysis of what is ment by this


http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(symbol)/E.C.12.2000.4.En?OpenDocument

It seems to say there is a right to access to healthcare but not to healthcare per se.


As to my answer to the question : There certainly exists such a thing as "a right to healthcare". This does not consitute a natural human right. Historically it is certainly at best a mosedern right. I think it more properly should be classified as a priviledge of membership in modern society. But the thing "a right to healthcare" most definetely does exist.

Everyone, rich or poor, should have access to it, although if you have the money, you should have opportunities to receive better than average health care.

I agree with the first part of what you said, but not the second. Everyone should receive the same level of health care, that is, the best available. It should be fully funded by the government so that no one dies needlessly of diseases like tuberculosis or the flu.

Of course not. You have the right to demand that people who go to school for 12+ years submit to your whims and service you for free? Beyond that, a right to healthcare implies you have the right to DEMAND that doctors and such exist. What about their right to get paid for labor and fees? Their right to say "Screw you guys, I'm doing what I want"?

Since when has healthcare been a right? People have lived and died without it for thousands of years but now all of a sudden we recognize it as a basic human right?
And we also consider democracy a right, have we done that for thousands of years? If US can invade Iraq on basis of the fact that the citizens live under a dictatorship (which I by the way consider right) then UN should proclaim embargos (at least) against US. Because after all US has agreed to do it, and it is not like they can't afford it.

Doctors aren't supposed to work for free, but the state is supposed to hire doctors.

As to my answer to the question : There certainly exists such a thing as "a right to healthcare". This does not consitute a natural human right. Historically it is certainly at best a mosedern right. I think it more properly should be classified as a priviledge of membership in modern society. But the thing "a right to healthcare" most definetely does exist.
I totally agree that the label "right to health-care" in fact means a privelige, not a right. Sure it may be a bit pointless to argue with a nihilist, but what natural human rights can ÿou say do exist?

Of course not. You have the right to demand that people who go to school for 12+ years submit to your whims and service you for free? Beyond that, a right to healthcare implies you have the right to DEMAND that doctors and such exist. What about their right to get paid for labor and fees? Their right to say "Screw you guys, I'm doing what I want"?

Since when has healthcare been a right? People have lived and died without it for thousands of years but now all of a sudden we recognize it as a basic human right?

This is a http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/strawman.jpg argument.

The arangement is that the government will pay the doctors, nurses and surgeons that perform the needed procedures. I don't think anyone has ever said that they wouldn't get paid.

Yup, healthcare is a service, that you should pay for.

If you can't afford surgery, then DIE.

People have been living and dying for years, why change it?

Besides, according to social darwinism, it's better that those unable to take care of themselves should be weeded out of the gene pool.

(and before I get flamed, I am trying to make a point).

This is a http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/strawman.jpg argument.

The arangement is that the government will pay the doctors, nurses and surgeons that perform the needed procedures. I don't think anyone has ever said that they wouldn't get paid.


By arguing that its a right, thats exactly what you're saying.

Yup, healthcare is a service, that you should pay for.

If you can't afford surgery, then DIE.

People have been living and dying for years, why change it?

Besides, according to social darwinism, it's better that those unable to take care of themselves should be weeded out of the gene pool.

(and before I get flamed, I am trying to make a point).

1. Like everything else...
2. Truly an honourable viewpoint...:P
3. A guy in my class once said a really nice thing.
- I LOVE MAROCCO! There the poor people die, and we can still grant nobility, I PROMISE, only the rich (and thus good) survive that way, we are too sissy in Scandinavia!

Yup, healthcare is a service, that you should pay for.

If you can't afford surgery, then DIE.

People have been living and dying for years, why change it?

Besides, according to social darwinism, it's better that those unable to take care of themselves should be weeded out of the gene pool.

(and before I get flamed, I am trying to make a point).


What point was that?

By arguing that its a right, thats exactly what you're saying.
No the burden lies on the state, NOT on the personal hired by them.

I totally agree that the label "right to health-care" in fact means a privelige, not a right. Sure it may be a bit pointless to argue with a nihilist, but what natural human rights can ÿou say do exist?Very simply those that exist in a state of nature, dependent upon no other person or group of persons for thier exercise. One can wander through the forests all one wants ranting about the sexual perversities of the birchs in accordance with one's natural rights (freedom of speech) for example. Absolute control and authority of one's person and such property as one can influence without infringing upon another person's rights. I imagine one concievably has the right (in a state of nature) to demand of the squirrels that they perform an emergency appendectomy on one, but I doubt that would actually meet the defintion of healthcare (or be very sucessful). There is a whole line of argument that such a concept is absurd and man has always been a social creature, so societal rights are in fact "natural" but I prefer the traditional defintion even if it may be historically innaccurate.

I refrain from using the term "basic human right" since that is a beastie of a different colour. The difficulty is that although something may be a very good and desirable right for the here and now, to declare it a "basic human right" implies that it is wrong to change (or violate) these rights in the future when circumstances are not the same.

What point was that?
My point is that anyone who would turn a poor person away from a hospital because they can't afford the service is a heartless bastard.

What point was that?

based upon his previous posts(in other areas), I am guessing it was a sarcastic post.

My point is that anyone who would turn a poor person away from a hospital because they can't afford the service is a heartless bastard.


Ok... and? Or was that your entire counterargument? That if you turn someone away because they can't pay you for your service you're mean? :(

Very simply those that exist in a state of nature, dependent upon no other person or group of persons for thier exercise. One can wander through the forests all one wants ranting about the sexual perversities of the birchs in accordance with one's natural rights (freedom of speech) for example.
Perhaps we are going OT but how can a freedom of speech be maintained in a state of nature? In a state of nature no right can really be uphold by power, thus not be sacrosanct, and thus not be a right. That you can not walk in forest and rant about sexual perversities birchs (for example) is something we see every day...

Ok... and? Or was that your entire counterargument? That if you turn someone away because they can't pay you for your service you're mean? :(
Why not? Why can't religious/ethical points be counted for? Many people (including him) would not be able to do that, a point as good as any...

Perhaps we are going OT but how can a freedom of speech be maintained in a state of nature? In a state of nature no right can really be uphold by power, thus not be sacrosanct, and thus not be a right. That you can not walk in forest and rant about sexual perversities birchs (for example) is something we see every day...

you're thinking too much and trying to look smart. Stop.

Ok... and? Or was that your entire counterargument? That if you turn someone away because they can't pay you for your service you're mean? :(
Heh. Nice. I'm sure if you were low on cash and needed surgery you would just grin and bear it, say "God bless capitalism and the free market", and then die rather than let the government be perverted by socialism.

based upon his previous posts(in other areas), I am guessing it was a sarcastic post.
Yeah, I'm finding out it doesn't work too well given the crazy nuts who post on NS. All too often I think someone is being sarcastic when they aren't (Nazis, racists, etc.)

Since when has healthcare been a right? People have lived and died without it for thousands of years but now all of a sudden we recognize it as a basic human right?

Do we really need to start a list of things (including rights) that people went without for thousands of years to demonstrate the silliness of this particular line of argument?

Yup, healthcare is a service, that you should pay for.

If you can't afford surgery, then DIE.

People have been living and dying for years, why change it?

Besides, according to social darwinism, it's better that those unable to take care of themselves should be weeded out of the gene pool.



Social Darwinism is a disgusting racist theory, totally obhorent in today's world. It's the theory that some European powers used in the dividing up of Africa into European colonies on the basis that European power (eg white society) was superior to Africans, so the Africans didn't deserve to rule their own affairs anyway.

I think it's the duty of the state to ensure that all its citizens have equal access to health.

Heh. Nice. I'm sure if you were low on cash and needed surgery you would just grin and bear it, say "God bless capitalism and the free market", and then die rather than let the government be perverted by socialism.


who said anything about either the free market or socialism? I thought we were talking about the reality of making healthcare a "right", or were you responding to another thread.

I voted 'no', because as far as I know there is no right. There's no legal right that I know of, and there sure as heck isn't some natural right (I can't even imagine what a natural right would be, perhaps your right to die and to be influenced by gravity). Now, maybe there should be a legal right, but I definitely don't think there is one.

Interesting point, I refer you to the CESCR analysis of what is ment by this


http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(symbol)/E.C.12.2000.4.En?OpenDocument

It seems to say there is a right to access to healthcare but not to healthcare per se.

Ah true, the word access is important there.



In response to what natural rights there could possibly be;
The right to life is an obvious one, the right to health seems to flow from this right, though it is a relatively recent innovation.

And ofcourse we've been wandering around for centuries without having these rights that are suddenly popping up out of Western culture and ideologies. Consider that the whole idea that there may be universal rights and that they could be subject to an international regime only began to take shape with the beginnings of the UN after the atrocities committed during WWII, that was only 60 years ago. That doesn't mean that we should abandon them all because they havn't existed since time immemorial.

Perhaps we are going OT but how can a freedom of speech be maintained in a state of nature? In a state of nature no right can really be uphold by power, thus not be sacrosanct, and thus not be a right. That you can not walk in forest and rant about sexual perversities birchs (for example) is something we see every day...


Rights can be upheld in a state of nature.

Okay, lets define the state of nature. Lets have it go all the way to humans not joining together to form a community. So it's every man for himself as it were. So, I have some property. That property is mine, I have a right to that property as it belongs to me, nobody else has any rights to it. You take that property without permission. Therefore I enforce my right to property by hunting you down and getting it back through any measure possible. Sure I may end up infrinigeing your rights, but I've upheld my right to my property.

Freedom of speech. That's upheld by the simple fact that I can wander around, saying what I like, when I like, without being censured.

The thing is, all rights will be infringed on at some stage and to some degree. To say that they don't exist as a result is just ridiculous.

Since when has healthcare been a right? People have lived and died without it for thousands of years but now all of a sudden we recognize it as a basic human right?

Spurious logic a-go-go!
I think it would be useful to point out some services that are enjoyed in the West that weren't around "years ago" that we take as a given: public safety services (police), fire brigades, public transit...
Our needs as a society change and so too do our values.
a right to healthcare implies you have the right to DEMAND that doctors and such exist. What about their right to get paid for labor and fees? Their right to say "Screw you guys, I'm doing what I want"?
And I don't think anyone here is suggesting that health care providers would not be compensated for their work, just that their cheque would come from the government instead of from the patient.

When's the last time you got a bill from your local fire station?

By arguing that its a right, thats exactly what you're saying.

How? All I am advocating is that the government should pay for it and, therefore, take care of their citizens.

My point is that anyone who would turn a poor person away from a hospital because they can't afford the service is a heartless bastard.
Agreed, but to force someone to accept a bum to their hospital is making other people abide by your someone else's morals. And by most liberal standards it is wrong to force someone to abide by someone else's morals.

Agreed, but to force someone to accept a bum to their hospital is making other people abide by your someone else's morals. And by most liberal standards it is wrong to force someone to abide by someone else's morals.

Well if it's a public hospital it belongs to... the public, so technically nobody should be turned away. And besides, I seriously hope that health professionals are taught not to discriminate against "bums" or any other people for that matter.

I agree with the first part of what you said, but not the second. Everyone should receive the same level of health care, that is, the best available. It should be fully funded by the government so that no one dies needlessly of diseases like tuberculosis or the flu.



I live in Canada were there is Medicare for EVERYONE and it is a great system but because everyone uses it in such an usutainable way, Canada is now considering more private clincs to off set the burden so that medicare can focus on the poorer people and the wealthy people can use a private clinic so that medicare can better direct it's resources to do as much it can for the poorer people.

Well if it's a public hospital it belongs to... the public, so technically nobody should be turned away. And besides, I seriously hope that health professionals are taught not to discriminate against "bums" or any other people for that matter.

Having public hospitals does several things. To have a public hospital, where prices are not controlled by the market, private hospitals are naturally undercut, and typically lose out and must close. That first is depriving people of their right to property.

And then, because these private hospitals close, the now unemployed doctors are forced to work for the public hospitals, thus depriving them of their right to choose their job.

And at the same time as the previous two, the doctors are also deprived of their right to turn down bums.

I will agree that we should teach our doctors that it is wrong to discriminate against turning away anyone, but on the other hand it is UEBER-WRONG to force them to accept someone they don't want to treat. One should never force someone else to comply with their own beliefs.

Public hospitals are called "clinics" and it is made up of doctors that "volunteer". It wouldn't take much to begin funding towards these clinics, but the problem falls on the price gouging of pharmaceutical & insurance companies. Several US officials will not regulate those organizations because many of them (like Hillary Clinton) have stock in them.

Perhaps we are going OT but how can a freedom of speech be maintained in a state of nature? In a state of nature no right can really be uphold by power, thus not be sacrosanct, and thus not be a right. That you can not walk in forest and rant about sexual perversities birchs (for example) is something we see every day...
Maintained? If no one else is around there is no one to restrict it. One may give up one's natural rights in order to become part of a society - like one agrees to limit one's freedom of speech ( agreeing not to stand in front of others houses at 2AM and screaming at the top of ones lungs about the sexual perversities of the birches) , but absent other peoples' attempts to quash them, natural rights do not need to be maintained.

Having public hospitals does several things. To have a public hospital, where prices are not controlled by the market, private hospitals are naturally undercut, and typically lose out and must close. That first is depriving people of their right to property.

And then, because these private hospitals close, the now unemployed doctors are forced to work for the public hospitals, thus depriving them of their right to choose their job.

They can study different fields of medicine and treat different patients.

And at the same time as the previous two, the doctors are also deprived of their right to turn down bums.

While the right of the 'bums' to receive access to health care is being denied otherwise. The right of the bums to receive health care is more important, IMO.

I will agree that we should teach our doctors that it is wrong to discriminate against turning away anyone, but on the other hand it is UEBER-WRONG to force them to accept someone they don't want to treat. One should never force someone else to comply with their own beliefs.

If doctors don't want to help others, they should have chosen a different profession.

Ah true, the word access is important there.yes it is. (I wish I had bothered to find out why that wasn't working as a link.) One can adopt a sytem like the US has, where it is a crime to deny a citizen access to healthcare because they are poor while you charge them an arm and leg afterward for that care and still apparently meet this standard. But is this the same as a right to healthcare? In response to what natural rights there could possibly be;
The right to life is an obvious one, the right to health seems to flow from this right, though it is a relatively recent innovation.

And of course we've been wandering around for centuries without having these rights that are suddenly popping up out of Western culture and ideologies. Consider that the whole idea that there may be universal rights and that they could be subject to an international regime only began to take shape with the beginnings of the UN after the atrocities committed during WWII, that was only 60 years ago. That doesn't mean that we should abandon them all because they haven't existed since time immemorial.I don't agree with abandoning them, but by equating derivitive contingent "rights" with hardcore, should be always in existance, basic rights we weaken the meaning of those basic rights. Is the "right to healthcare" as important as the right to life? If so, since governments limit and restrict which healthcare practices they permit, can they not also restrict whether people shopuld be allowed to live and for how long (life practices)? If they are both "basic human rights" or "universal human rights" there seems to no way to consider one acceptable and one not.

Rights can be upheld in a state of nature.

Okay, lets define the state of nature. Lets have it go all the way to humans not joining together to form a community. So it's every man for himself as it were. So, I have some property. That property is mine, I have a right to that property as it belongs to me, nobody else has any rights to it. You take that property without permission. Therefore I enforce my right to property by hunting you down and getting it back through any measure possible. Sure I may end up infrinigeing your rights, but I've upheld my right to my property.

Freedom of speech. That's upheld by the simple fact that I can wander around, saying what I like, when I like, without being censured.

The thing is, all rights will be infringed on at some stage and to some degree. To say that they don't exist as a result is just ridiculous.
Yes you have some property, but to own property is to "occupie" something, not ensuring that you can own something. To ensure that nothing will come between you and your ability to own you have to organise, and so leave the state of nature. The proclaiming of your right to own also relies on others will to accept that organisation, owning is in short a system of agreements and compromises.

How is it upheld by someone wandering around and talking about the perversities of brinchs? You haven't organised and made other individuals understood of the situation, what would keep them from stopping you?

A right that is something that is sometimes being infringed upon isn't a right, it is a law.

Maintained? If no one else is around there is no one to restrict it. One may give up one's natural rights in order to become part of a society - like one agrees to limit one's freedom of speech ( agreeing not to stand in front of others houses at 2AM and screaming at the top of ones lungs about the sexual perversities of the birches) , but absent other peoples' attempts to quash them, natural rights do not need to be maintained.
I can agree with the first, but there are probably someone around to restrict.
No, because that right ought to be reling on the good-will of others, if you organise you leave the state of nature and thus gain rights. (I know that is what I said to the previous poster)

Hope you folks don't take to seriously on me interfering with the debate. (this is my last post for tonight´, tg if you want to be sure of an answer)...

And I don't think anyone here is suggesting that health care providers would not be compensated for their work, just that their cheque would come from the government instead of from the patient.

When's the last time you got a bill from your local fire station?
You get a bill from your fire station every year, around April. The government has no money in and of itself, it has YOUR money. And I refuse to pay for your healthcare, just because you have stupid priorities that prevent you from paying $100 a month.

Well if it's a public hospital it belongs to... the public, so technically nobody should be turned away. And besides, I seriously hope that health professionals are taught not to discriminate against "bums" or any other people for that matter.
Public hospitals are not allowed to turn you away. Good hospitals are.

Public hospitals are not allowed to turn you away. Good hospitals are.

No hospital can turn away anyone who is in critical need of healthcare.

No hospital can turn away anyone who is in critical need of healthcare.
Yes, private hospitals that receive no state funding can. They're a private entity that don't have to deal with non-customers.

Is there a right to healthcare?
No. Our Constitution does not directly state we have a right to healthcare.

The question should be: Should there be a right to healthcare?

No. Our Constitution does not directly state we have a right to healthcare.

The question should be: Should there be a right to healthcare?
And the answer should still be no, just as there is no right to a Fire Department, a car, or a house.

Yes, private hospitals that receive no state funding can. They're a private entity that don't have to deal with non-customers.Which country? In the US all hospitals, even the private ones (in the sense you use it) cannot legally turn down anyone in need of emergency care ard only to a limited extent those in need of non-emergency care (there has to be an alternative availible for one thing). Need/necessity is a somewhat vague term however, but anything which is lifethreatening even in non-emergency situations must be treated. As for their being customers, well as soon as they recieve treatment they are "customers", and can be billed accordingly. It's part of the liscensing requirements if I remember correctly, and while occasionally it does occur that some private hospitals turn down people edit: in need of treatment based upon their judgement of ability to pay, it is not done legally.

Is there a right to healthcare? You say!
No, why should one person work hard so that those who don't get health care?

No, why should one person work hard so that those who don't get health care?Any why should one be denied healthcare merely because they don't meet some arbitrary standard of working "hard enough"?

Actually this does raise a different question, should "positive" rights exist at all, or only negative rights? Positive rights are those which require someone else to act while negative rights are those which require others not to act. An good example comes from freedom of speech/press (sorry to keep picking on you) where freedom of speech as a negative right merely requies no one to stop you from saying what you want while as a positive right includes requireing publishers to give equal time to different viewpoints or forcing cable companies to carry local channels or forcing broadcasters to use a limited frequency.

Yes you have some property, but to own property is to "occupie" something, not ensuring that you can own something.

I was referring to movable property, chattels, things that aren't attached to the ground. There are two classes of property - real and personal. Whilst you thought I meant real property (ie. land), I in fact meant personal property (eg. my pen). You cannot occupy personal property but you do indeed own it. You own it by having it in your possession. It does not matter what other people think. This means that even the thief owns my goods after he has taken them, but I have a better right to those goods than him, because he wrongfully deprived me of those goods therefore I am entitled to deprive him of owndership.

A right that is sometimes being infringed upon isn't a right, it is a law

Which came first the chicken or the egg?
I mean really, have a think about your statement a little bit more.
That means, there is no right to life, there is no right not to be subject to torture or cruel and inhuman treatment, there is no right to liberty and security of the person, there is no right to freedom of movement, there is no right to equality before the law, there is no right to freedom of association, there is no right to be free from discrimination...these are all acknowledged to be fairly basic and fundamental human rights, yet these are ALL infringed upon in some way. Not necessarily to such a degree as to constitute an illegal infringement. I'll give some examples even;
Right to life - the killing of another deprives them of their right to life
Torture/Cruel and inhuman treatment - need I really give an example here...extreme bullying could be cruel and inhuman. You all know about torture.
Right to liberty and security - Arrest
Freedom of movement - Heard of anyone being turned away from a country, those customs people are doing something right?
Equality before the law - This would assume that not judge has prejudices, that everyone has lawyers with the same capability, that every person even has access to the justice system.
Association - Protection orders
Discrimination - what you've never been subject to discrimination?

The law recognises rights and thereby creates an enforcement mechanism. But it doesn't necessarily create them.

The thing with natural rights is that when we become part of the community, we agree to give up a certain amount so as to get the benefits of being in a community. This does not mean that they're simply not there. That is why the law recognises them, it's part of the social contract we all have with each other.

I don't agree with abandoning them, but by equating derivitive contingent "rights" with hardcore, should be always in existance, basic rights we weaken the meaning of those basic rights. Is the "right to healthcare" as important as the right to life? If so, since governments limit and restrict which healthcare practices they permit, can they not also restrict whether people shopuld be allowed to live and for how long (life practices)? If they are both "basic human rights" or "universal human rights" there seems to no way to consider one acceptable and one not.

I completely agree, I would not say that the right to healthcare, if there is one and could be one, would be fundamental, or a basic right. It would be a right but I don't think you could equate it with those that are so basic as to seem inherent in humanity.

By the way, I did have a look at the link, I heard about this copy and paste thing... But I actually also remembered learning about that a while ago anyway :) So didn't read it all the way through, just enough to jog the memory.

And the answer should still be no, just as there is no right to a Fire Department, a car, or a house.

Actually the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does recognise a right to own property, that could include a right to own a car and a house...

A right is something you are born to, not something bestowed by a government or treaty. You have a right to life, you have a right to freedom. You have a right to speach.

Everyone who has ever been born had these things as a right.

Therefore, you cannot have a right to healthcare because healthcare has not always existed. You would have to accept that our ancestors were denied their right to penicillin even though it had not been invented to believe otherwise.

You DO have a right to choice. You may choose to ask for healthcare as well as choose to provide or not provide it. As soon as you force someone against their will to provide healthcare (or anything else) you have neglected thier rights.

If doctors were not so afraid of having their arse sued off for anything and everything not only would healthcare be more abundant and affordable, but they would also be willing and able to take on more charity cases.

While the right of the 'bums' to receive access to health care is being denied otherwise. The right of the bums to receive health care is more important, IMO.


This is the big difference. I do not believe that any right trumps any other right. Life, Liberty and Property are all equal. You cannot overturn one on the basis of another.

Actually the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does recognise a right to own property, that could include a right to own a car and a house...

Then the UDHR is a wrong.

After a quick look I have skimmed over the UDHR and found what I interperet to be a right to property.

"Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
"
Take note of the word home. A direct reference to property.

After a quick look I have skimmed over the UDHR and found what I interperet to be a right to property.

"Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
"
Take note of the word home. A direct reference to property.


And tell me, what impact does the UDHR have on US or any other nations actual law or constitution?

Privilege, not a right, IMO.

Everyone, rich or poor, should have access to it, although if you have the money, you should have opportunities to receive better than average health care.
Only if above average healthcare is cosmetic surgery. The amount of money you have shouldn't make it any more or less likely that you die.

Of course not. You have the right to demand that people who go to school for 12+ years submit to your whims and service you for free? Beyond that, a right to healthcare implies you have the right to DEMAND that doctors and such exist. What about their right to get paid for labor and fees? Their right to say "Screw you guys, I'm doing what I want"?You can't force doctors to practice, but you can pay them to.

Since when has healthcare been a right? People have lived and died without it for thousands of years but now all of a sudden we recognize it as a basic human right?Yeah, well, we used to mate by beating a gal over the head with a club and dragging her off to a cave, so I think that progress isn't necessarily bad, y-know?

Privilege, not a right, IMO.
A privilege that should be availible free of charge to everyone, and I'll accept that distinction as fair enough

Social Darwinism is a disgusting racist theory, totally obhorent in today's world. It's the theory that some European powers used in the dividing up of Africa into European colonies on the basis that European power (eg white society) was superior to Africans, so the Africans didn't deserve to rule their own affairs anyway.

I think it's the duty of the state to ensure that all its citizens have equal access to health.I don't know about equal, but certainly to provide a very high base line

A privilege that should be availible free of charge to everyone, and I'll accept that distinction as fair enough


Why should it be available free of charge and why should doctors be gyped out of receiving payment for their services that they spent 12 years or so training for?

A privilege that should be availible free of charge to everyone, and I'll accept that distinction as fair enough
I could live with that.

Agreed, but to force someone to accept a bum to their hospital is making other people abide by your someone else's morals. And by most liberal standards it is wrong to force someone to abide by someone else's morals.
Erm, huh? Did you actually say that, did you actually say that someone should be refused access to healthcare cos it might offend the sensibilities of the other patients and health workers???

Why should it be available free of charge and why should doctors be gyped out of receiving payment for their services that they spent 12 years or so training for?
Because a civilized society ought not deny certain things--education, health care, clean water and food--to their citizens simply because they're unable to pay for them. It's immoral to do so.

Having public hospitals does several things. To have a public hospital, where prices are not controlled by the market, private hospitals are naturally undercut, and typically lose out and must close. That first is depriving people of their right to property.

And then, because these private hospitals close, the now unemployed doctors are forced to work for the public hospitals, thus depriving them of their right to choose their job.

And at the same time as the previous two, the doctors are also deprived of their right to turn down bums.

I will agree that we should teach our doctors that it is wrong to discriminate against turning away anyone, but on the other hand it is UEBER-WRONG to force them to accept someone they don't want to treat. One should never force someone else to comply with their own beliefs.I cannot concieve of a morality that I would find even remotely acceptable that allows a doctor to refuse to treat a patient. Lets leave aside this hypothetical morality and point out that it contravenes the hipocratic oath. And you can't say that doctors can have a morality that goes against that unless you want a bunch of Dr Shipmans getting off scot free.

Because a civilized society ought not deny certain things--education, health care, clean water and food--to their citizens simply because they're unable to pay for them. It's immoral to do so.


Wow so we throw around two undefined terms in one statement: civilized and immoral.

So those nations that can't afford a free education system are uncivilized now? Those nations that don't have the technology for health care, or the means to provide for it for free, they're uncivilized? Or are they immoral Inc? Which is it? Or should we just completely return to European colonialism and go take care of our poor "uncivilized" and "immoral" little brown and yellow neighbors?

Why should it be available free of charge and why should doctors be gyped out of receiving payment for their services that they spent 12 years or so training for?
I'm not talking about slave labour for doctors, I'm saying that the government can pay them rather than them having to drag cash out of people who are over a barrel.

I cannot concieve of a morality that I would find even remotely acceptable that allows a doctor to refuse to treat a patient. Lets leave aside this hypothetical morality and point out that it contravenes the hipocratic oath. And you can't say that doctors can have a morality that goes against that unless you want a bunch of Dr Shipmans getting off scot free.


When did this become a morality issue? And even then you're getting into a grey area: whose morality? Yours? So your beleifs should rule the world, is that it? Everyone has to hold the same morals as you?

This isn't about morals, so get over it. This is about reality. So if you wanna debate morality, go find a religious chat forum or the like. Otherwise, some of us live in the rel world, where morality doesn't always rule every decision.

I'm not talking about slave labour for doctors, I'm saying that the government can pay them rather than them having to drag cash out of people who are over a barrel.


And by the government paying them all of us pay for them. The government isn't some magical money making entity. So the question is, once again, what right do you have to FORCE me to pay for your health care because you think its a right?

You get a bill from your fire station every year, around April. The government has no money in and of itself, it has YOUR money. And I refuse to pay for your healthcare, just because you have stupid priorities that prevent you from paying $100 a month.
Stupid priorities like, for example, not having $100 a month?

Since I believe in enforcing my morals on other people, I voted yes :p

Wow so we throw around two undefined terms in one statement: civilized and immoral.

So those nations that can't afford a free education system are uncivilized now? Those nations that don't have the technology for health care, or the means to provide for it for free, they're uncivilized? Or are they immoral Inc? Which is it? Or should we just completely return to European colonialism and go take care of our poor "uncivilized" and "immoral" little brown and yellow neighbors?
Let me put it to you simply--any society can "afford" a free educational system and a free health care system if it chooses to. It's a matter of prioritizing. The US certainly could do both--at present, it only provides one, and so, in my personal opinion, is not as civilized as it could or should be.

And no--I do not advocate a return to colonialism--where you pulled that out of I can only guess.

No, why should one person work hard so that those who don't get health care?
Because if they don't get healthcare, they might die.

This is the big difference. I do not believe that any right trumps any other right. Life, Liberty and Property are all equal. You cannot overturn one on the basis of another.
So if I were to say "you have to be executed because your views offend me", then what would happen?

And by the government paying them all of us pay for them. The government isn't some magical money making entity. So the question is, once again, what right do you have to FORCE me to pay for your health care because you think its a right?So your money--which you earned only because you live in a society stable enough to provide you with the opportunity to earn it, a society stabilized by a government you pay taxes to--is more important to you than other human lives? Is that it?

When did this become a morality issue? And even then you're getting into a grey area: whose morality? Yours? So your beleifs should rule the world, is that it? Everyone has to hold the same morals as you?

This isn't about morals, so get over it. This is about reality. So if you wanna debate morality, go find a religious chat forum or the like. Otherwise, some of us live in the rel world, where morality doesn't always rule every decision.I don't see any evidence that you read the post I was quoting, so I'm really not gonna answer this one.

And by the government paying them all of us pay for them. The government isn't some magical money making entity. So the question is, once again, what right do you have to FORCE me to pay for your health care because you think its a right?
Not being a moral relativist gives me that right.

So if I were to say "you have to be executed because your views offend me", then what would happen?
Here's the beauty of it: Nothing. Nothing would happen on the simple basis that everything comes in conflict, and the issue short circuits itself. Nothing negative happens.

Not being a moral relativist gives me that right.
Not being a moral relativist gives you that right? What? This makes no sense. At all.

For chrissake, universal healthcare is just like the police force, fire department, military, etc.

Someone keeps saying doctors would be "gypped" out of their money...THE GOVERNMENT PAYS THEM.

If you don't think you have a right to healthcare then you shouldn't have a right to police or fire department. If you want a criminal caught you must pay the police to do so. If you are too poor, then too bad! Hah!

Here's the beauty of it: Nothing. Nothing would happen on the simple basis that everything comes in conflict, and the issue short circuits itself. Nothing negative happens.
Which is exactly the same effect as if we decided that your right to life came over my right not to be offended. Its not a short circuit, its an either/or.

Someone keeps saying doctors would be "gypped" out of their money...THE GOVERNMENT PAYS THEM.



None of us are arguing the money issue, we are arguing right to choice.
With socialized medicine the doctor is deprived of choice as to where to work. Under socialized medicine private hospitals fail to flourish. And therefore are required to work for the state.

My view: The only basic right people have in life is the right to die, and it looks like they are trying to take that away from you.

For chrissake, universal healthcare is just like the police force, fire department, military, etc.

Someone keeps saying doctors would be "gypped" out of their money...THE GOVERNMENT PAYS THEM.

If you don't think you have a right to healthcare then you shouldn't have a right to police or fire department. If you want a criminal caught you must pay the police to do so. If you are too poor, then too bad! Hah!

There is no right to police or fire departments either. Some parts of this country do not have either.

So your money--which you earned only because you live in a society stable enough to provide you with the opportunity to earn it, a society stabilized by a government you pay taxes to--is more important to you than other human lives? Is that it?


I'm sorry on what do you base the assumption that everything I earn is because of stability provided by the government? And once, again, I ask why should I have to pay because you get sick? And why do you have a RIGHT to demand that I pay because you get sick?

There is no right to police or fire departments either. Some parts of this country do not have either.
well then...should they?

Let me put it to you simply--any society can "afford" a free educational system and a free health care system if it chooses to. It's a matter of prioritizing. The US certainly could do both--at present, it only provides one, and so, in my personal opinion, is not as civilized as it could or should be.

And no--I do not advocate a return to colonialism--where you pulled that out of I can only guess.


Oh really! What exactly do you base that on? There are nations in the world still based on agrarian economies, but according to you they can afford healthcare and education for everyone right? There are nations in the world where tribal and familial organization is still the norm, but according to you they can afford healthcare and education right?

I'm gonna assume for the moment you're in the US, which I'm pretty sure of. Have you ever been anywhere else in the world? Have you ever been to another country? And not another country like Canada or a European nation, but a non-industrialized nation?

Beside your ass, from what in the world do you speak of when you make idiotic statements like that?

And the colonialism comment was to your blatant use of the term "civilized" as your justification for your ideology. I repeat the question: If a nation cannot afford healthcare, at whatever level, are they therefore uncivilized, ignorant, and brutish in your eyes?

A privilege that should be availible free of charge to everyone, and I'll accept that distinction as fair enough
Just where do you go about finding anyone willing to provide anything free of charge?

You must be the master of all freeloaders.

Because a civilized society ought not deny certain things--education, health care, clean water and food--to their citizens simply because they're unable to pay for them. It's immoral to do so.


No, taking things without paying for them is immoral.

Your statement is about as lame as expecting truffles and caviar for free. They are, afterall, food.

Education, water and food all have costs.

Feel free to pay the government back for all that you have taken.


"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country" - Words from the inaugural address of President John F. Kennedy, delivered in 1961.


STOP FREELOADING!

No, taking things without paying for them is immoral.

Your statement is about as lame as expecting truffles and caviar for free. They are, afterall, food.

Education, water and food all have costs.


Oh but letting people that can't afford things like that die isn't?

Of course not. You have the right to demand that people who go to school for 12+ years submit to your whims and service you for free?

YES. Absolutely. They get paid by the government--the taxes collected from the citizens--and they work as civil servants.

Since when has healthcare been a right? People have lived and died without it for thousands of years but now all of a sudden we recognize it as a basic human right?

:::shrug:::A lot of things didn't exist for thousands of years, but they do now, so that argument is silly.

Yes, healthcare is an absolute right. The simple fact that you exist means that you have the right to be cared for with compassion and whatever medical care you need to continue to exist.

Laurie

Threads like these always make me sad. The vast majority of people posting here are completely clueless of how hosiptals and private healthcare work.

They could not define the difference between a private hospital, a county hospital, a not-for-profit hospital and a secular hospital. Nor do they know which is most common.

They have no idea how an ER works or handles treatment and admissions. They do not get how a hospital collections dept handles billing/insurance/medicare and how these effect each other. They also would be dumbfounded by why a non-profit hospital even has a collections department.

They are completely ignorant of programs like medicare and medicaid and state run programs like medi-CAL. They incorrectly presume the poor have no federal or state help for medicine, and in their ignorance demand even more money must be spent.

They have no idea the difference between an HMP, PPO, managed care or straight deductible insurance and how each affects the free market (if they even understand the free market)

They would be fortunate even to understand the legal difference between when a medical practitioner has an obligation to perform vs the choice to perform.

Last, but not least, they would never be able to grasp how medical liability risk has sadly impacted a doctors cost of doing business or even their ability to perform charitable intentions with their service.

Really there is not much point in posting here unless you do, for without an informed opinion your arguments are full of sound and fury, yet they signify nothing.

Oh but letting people that can't afford things like that die isn't?

I've ready many death certificates but have yet to see 'lack of cash' as anyones cause of death.

See my prior post for the reason why poverty is not fatal or even terminal in America.

So, here is this:
Fire, Police, Military all these services are covered by the government. But, how do they fundamentally differ from healthcare. I can tell you precisely why. These services protect Life, Liberty and Property. Socialized Healthcare on the other hand only protects life, whilst it deprives others of Liberty (doctors, freedom to choose where one works) and property (for those who are financing [very often a group of doctors] hospitals.)

edited to correct my faulty wording

I've ready many death certificates but have yet to see 'lack of cash' as anyones cause of death.

See my prior post for the reason why poverty is not fatal or even terminal in America.
:D I just fell of my chair. thanks, man.

So, here is this:
Fire, Police, Military all these services are covered by the government. But, how do they fundamentally differ from healthcare. I can tell you precisely why. These services protect Life, Liberty and Property. Healthcare on the other hand only protects life, whilst it deprives others of Liberty (freedom to choose where one works) and property (for those who are financing [very often a group of doctors] hospitals.)


You are sadly misinformed about the natuure of hospital ownership/management

Oh but letting people that can't afford things like that die isn't?
It is also worth noting that mortality rates for the poor are no higher than that of the general population. Life insureres - who don't cut slack for ANYONE! - do not charge a premium or rate policies based on income (or lack thereof)

If the poor had such lously healthcare in America then they would be dieing much sooner than people with money, and therefore command a higher risk premium for life insurance. Which is not currently the case.

Smokers, on the other hand, get hozed.

It is also worth noting that mortality rates for the poor are no higher than that of the general population. Life insureres - who don't cut slack for ANYONE! - do not charge a premium or rate policies based on income (or lack thereof)

If the poor had such lously healthcare in America then they would be dieing much sooner than people with money, and therefore command a higher risk premium for life insurance. Which is not currently the case.

Smokers, on the other hand, get hozed.


I never ONCE mention the United States in my posts and yet you assume I am talking about their health care system. Why is that?

I never ONCE mention the United States in my posts and yet you assume I am talking about their health care system. Why is that?

Either you can talk about Canada, or you can talk about the States, but not both as the same subject of your sentence..

If you live is a free healthcare utopia, then why would you reference people who "can't afford things like that.." in your post?

You seem to be a bit defensive. Troubled that the facts don't support your argument about a fatal lack of cash

Last I checked Canada was still in North America - and their mortality rates are no different from their southern (and northern) neighbor. As for the post where I don't quote you I was specific to the states, CA to be specific.

?

Either you can talk about Canada, or you can talk about the States, but not both in the same post.

If you live is a free healthcare utopia, then why would you reference people who "can't afford things like that.." in your post?

You seem to be a bit defensive. Troubled that the facts don't support your argument about a fatal lack of cash

Last I checked Canada was still in North America - and their mortality rates are no different from their southern (and northern) neighbor. As for the post where I don't quote you I was specific to the states, CA to be specific.

?



Well I am a Canadian and medi care was created specifically to make sure everyone, rich or poor, got care when they needed it. This is why we have higher taxes. As for the post where you refer to death certificate saying "lack of cash", of course it wouldn't say that. It would refer to the condition they had that they couldn't afford to pay for that lead to their death. And for afforind things, I was leaning towards food, which some people in Canada cannot afford and even under medi care, homeless people have died from hypothermia during the freakin' cold winter months, I'm simply saying that in the US, if you have no insurance, your in trouble. Also, I do actually favour Private Clinics but no at the cost of the entire medi care system. I know this post bounces around from issue to issue but I'm sure you'll manage.

No, taking things without paying for them is immoral.

Your statement is about as lame as expecting truffles and caviar for free. They are, afterall, food.

Education, water and food all have costs.Denying a person the barest of necessities is immoral, especially if you have the means to ensure otherwise. As a society, as a nation, we have those means. What we lack is the will, and that means we're not as moral a society as we might be, and certainly not as moral a society as the most self-righteous among us claim we are.

Well I am a Canadian and medi care was created specifically to make sure everyone, rich or poor, got care when they needed it. This is why we have higher taxes. As for the post where you refer to death certificate saying "lack of cash", of course it wouldn't say that. It would refer to the condition they had that they couldn't afford to pay for that lead to their death. And for afforind things, I was leaning towards food, which some people in Canada cannot afford and even under medi care, homeless people have died from hypothermia during the freakin' cold winter months, I'm simply saying that in the US, if you have no insurance, your in trouble. Also, I do actually favour Private Clinics but no at the cost of the entire medi care system. I know this post bounces around from issue to issue but I'm sure you'll manage.

Then you have not bothered to read, or have chosen to not comprehend the meaning of my posts. Rich and poor do get the care they need in the states (and better care than in Canada if I may be so bold, based on my experience) As far as dieing from a condition as a result of not being able to afford treatment you once again willingly ignore my prior posts where I made note of the healthcare assistance available in the States - lack of insurance is not fatal or even terminal. -The proof is in the mortality rates; there is no difference based on economic standing.

Food and shelter are different issues left to different topics - though the states have provisions for that as well, but I can't speak for the great white north on that subject.

Denying a person the barest of necessities is immoral, especially if you have the means to ensure otherwise. As a society, as a nation, we have those means. What we lack is the will, and that means we're not as moral a society as we might be, and certainly not as moral a society as the most self-righteous among us claim we are.
You really oughta take a look at post 95 (which came a little bit after the post you quoted here) You make the gross (and incorrect) generalization that -as a society- we lack the will to provide healthcare for the poor. Apparently you are uninformed about medicare, medicaid and other medial assistance programs - or you chose to ignore them in your thread.

Morals are subjective and often can conflict - hence the term 'moral dilema'. Often a balance must be brokered. But they are GREAT for the guilt factor when you lack substance or knowledge in a discussion.

After a quick look I have skimmed over the UDHR and found what I interperet to be a right to property.

"Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
"
Take note of the word home. A direct reference to property.

You should have looked a little further.

"Article 17
1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property."


And tell me, what impact does the UDHR have on US or any other nations actual law or constitution?

Well, technically the UDHR is not in and of itself a binding document. I was adopted by the UNGA and was the preferred method due to the impending Cold War and likelihood that there was not going to be a chance of getting fast agreement on binding principles.
However, there is an argument that many of the rights have become part of the customary international law and as such are binding standards on all nations of the world. Another argument is that it is an authoritative interpretation of the rights that the members of the UN agree to promote respect for in art 56 of the Charter.
Does the UDHR have an actual impact on states around the whole WORLD, well maybe only minimal if at all. It is the CCPR and CESCR and other agreements that have real impact. But they elaborate the principles enunciated in the UDHR.
The impact, well NZ has passed Acts as part of their obligation to create enforceable rights, so has the UK. Individuals have the right to petition under CCPR Optional Protocol 1...

THe right to property itself, is only recognised in the ECHR. That is binding on all the members of the European Council (note, NOT synonomous with EU).

So the UDHR only impacts in the sense that other documents which elaborate on its rights impact on nations.

I just mentioned it as it is a document that 49 states agreed to in 1948 as being universal rights. Its a recognition that these rights may exist.

Since when has healthcare been a right? People have lived and died without it for thousands of years but now all of a sudden we recognize it as a basic human right?
And for tens of thousands of years there was not private property or individual rights. So why should we recognise them now?

You are aware that rights are neither real nor divine but human-created conventions to express how things should be, right?

Okay, now. Some of you seem like pretty smart fellows.

I'm sure you can explain this simple truth I'm about to lay on you to the rest:

Healthcare already pays for it. Every sick person who goes to the hospital and finds out he needs chemotherapy and every car accident victim is already being paid for. Hospitals are instruments of making a profit. That's what they exist for. Or at least, to break even.

When someone gets to the hospital with a smashed-up body and undergoes tens of thousands of dollars worth of reconstructive surgery even though he or she has no insurance and no money, who do you think pays for it?

Everybody who has healthcare coverage and insurance. It's factored into the price of evry procedure our insurance companies cover. It's factored into every premium we pay to get that coverage.

Now, that being said, we have a choice: Those of us that can pay for expensive healthcare can keep footing the bill for everybody, or everybody can pay what they can afford.

Which would you prefer? :D

I don't get this MYTH that wealthy people work harder than less wealthy people. Yeah, I'm sure some CEO sitting around in his office works REAL hard. And wait, don't tell me they got there by working hard... Maybe they did, but that's not to say that someone who say, works in their factory doesn't work bloody hard.

And besides, say you have a wealthy person, THEY CAN AFFORD TO PAY MORE TAXES and still maintain a high quality of life. Yes, I do believe passionately in universal free healthcare and that it should be available to all.

And I'm a medical student. I'm fine with the 48% of my wage that will be going into taxes to fund things like Medicare. (Not so cool with huge insurance premiums but that's another story) And I will work in the public sector for a while, then maybe go into private practice, but I will still bulkbill my patients, meaning that they have no out of pocket costs. And guess what? Doctors in the public system have PLENTY of choice. They can choose a specialty, a sub-specialty, which hospital or clinic to work at or even to go work in a private hospital, which co-exist and thrive along with with public ones!

And on my visits to various hospitals, I've found the standard of care in public hospitals very high and that the doctors are happy to be working there. :eek:

I think this whole "the poor are poor because they're in some way inferior (lazy, incompetent etc)" argument that some of you seem to be peddling is ridiculous and so... Victorian! (as in the time period, not the state)

And on my visits to various hospitals, I've found the standard of care in public hospitals very high and that the doctors are happy to be working there. :eek:


Anecdotal evidence is not greatly enjoyed, get empirical.

I don't get this MYTH that wealthy people work harder than less wealthy people. Yeah, I'm sure some CEO sitting around in his office works REAL hard. And wait, don't tell me they got there by working hard... Maybe they did, but that's not to say that someone who say, works in their factory doesn't work bloody hard.

And besides, say you have a wealthy person, THEY CAN AFFORD TO PAY MORE TAXES and still maintain a high quality of life. Yes, I do believe passionately in universal free healthcare and that it should be available to all.

And I'm a medical student. I'm fine with the 48% of my wage that will be going into taxes to fund things like Medicare. (Not so cool with huge insurance premiums but that's another story) And I will work in the public sector for a while, then maybe go into private practice, but I will still bulkbill my patients, meaning that they have no out of pocket costs. And guess what? Doctors in the public system have PLENTY of choice. They can choose a specialty, a sub-specialty, which hospital or clinic to work at or even to go work in a private hospital, which co-exist and thrive along with with public ones!

And on my visits to various hospitals, I've found the standard of care in public hospitals very high and that the doctors are happy to be working there. :eek:

I think this whole "the poor are poor because they're in some way inferior (lazy, incompetent etc)" argument that some of you seem to be peddling is ridiculous and so... Victorian! (as in the time period, not the state)

No the poor are there usually because they don’t have a marketable skill

You get paid what your skill is worth on the market (adjusting for discrimination … which is wrong but a factor)

Note I probably will get slammed for it but it is true

(btw yes am white … and no did not come up in a rich family … work 16 hr days myself)

And for tens of thousands of years there was not private property or individual rights. So why should we recognise them now?

You are aware that rights are neither real nor divine but human-created conventions to express how things should be, right?

In a natural state is where we are talking about natural rights, basically when someone is totally isolated, what can he do? He can say what he wants, he can do what he wants, he can take into possesion what he wants. Throughout history these rights have been infringed upon by despots, dictators and monarchs. But modern western democratic republics have begun to ensure those rights. But now, reactionary forces (and yes, I do mean socialists when I say reactionaries, a term which is typically taken to mean right wingers, but in my view it comes to the form of anyone who attempts to de-evolve these equal rights.) have begun to erode them ever so slowly, namely property.

No the poor are there usually because they don’t have a marketable skill

You get paid what your skill is worth on the market (adjusting for discrimination … which is wrong but a factor)

Note I probably will get slammed for it but it is true

(btw yes am white … and no did not come up in a rich family … work 16 hr days myself)
Bingo, it may not be fair, but that's how it is.

I was referring to movable property, chattels, things that aren't attached to the ground. There are two classes of property - real and personal. Whilst you thought I meant real property (ie. land), I in fact meant personal property (eg. my pen). You cannot occupy personal property but you do indeed own it. You own it by having it in your possession. It does not matter what other people think. This means that even the thief owns my goods after he has taken them, but I have a better right to those goods than him, because he wrongfully deprived me of those goods therefore I am entitled to deprive him of owndership.
Ok, that you have more right to your property is moral stance I won't debate with you, but I get what you mean.


Which came first the chicken or the egg?
I mean really, have a think about your statement a little bit more.
That means, there is no right to life, there is no right not to be subject to torture or cruel and inhuman treatment, there is no right to liberty and security of the person, there is no right to freedom of movement, there is no right to equality before the law, there is no right to freedom of association, there is no right to be free from discrimination...these are all acknowledged to be fairly basic and fundamental human rights, yet these are ALL infringed upon in some way. Not necessarily to such a degree as to constitute an illegal infringement. I'll give some examples even;
Right to life - the killing of another deprives them of their right to life
Torture/Cruel and inhuman treatment - need I really give an example here...extreme bullying could be cruel and inhuman. You all know about torture.
Right to liberty and security - Arrest
Freedom of movement - Heard of anyone being turned away from a country, those customs people are doing something right?
Equality before the law - This would assume that not judge has prejudices, that everyone has lawyers with the same capability, that every person even has access to the justice system.
Association - Protection orders
Discrimination - what you've never been subject to discrimination?

The law recognises rights and thereby creates an enforcement mechanism. But it doesn't necessarily create them.

The thing with natural rights is that when we become part of the community, we agree to give up a certain amount so as to get the benefits of being in a community. This does not mean that they're simply not there. That is why the law recognises them, it's part of the social contract we all have with each other.
I can't agree, there is in a hypothetical, natural state no rights that can't be interfered with by individuals, and in practics one tend to take advantage of that.

You are right about me, I can not see a reason other than, "I would like to get those rights (read priveliges) you are listing so I give up my personal freedom" to justify the existence of natural rights. I can not acknowledge the existence of those rights other than in minds, communication and affairs of human beings.

The law doesn't reinforce natural rights, the law is a decision that the community takes. To abide the law is not to give up your right to freedom, it is to give up your freedom.

I think that we have to agree that a right is something that has to be sacrosanct and fundamental before we can go further, to me that means that rights will all ways be non-existant on this natural state we talk about.

To get back to the health-care debate. I live in a country with socialised health-care, and know nothing about private. What I think is morally right (and what the majority here thinks), because there are few constitutions that orders the state to provide health-care, is to grant it to everyone, no matter what liberty and money you loose as a result. YES I KNOW that I have declared myself nihilist, that is also what I would truly like to be. But I would never be able to say: You have no right to health-care, to a 5 year old child with cancer, who (raised in normal ways) would?

I'd say "I'm sorry your parents are lazy, and that they are inable to care for you, but here, I know plenty of people who want to and are able to help you. Let's go talk to the high schools' Key Club, or National Honor Society, they can definitely help"

You know how I can say that? I was on the direction committee for my High School's NHS, and a child's story was presented to us, I voted to help the kid, and in the end we raised over $12,000 for this kid. From high schoolers lunch change. The donations from corporations were more than that.

Since when has healthcare been a right? People have lived and died without it for thousands of years but now all of a sudden we recognize it as a basic human right?
It's called "improvement".

Then you have not bothered to read

Your right, I didn't.

(and better care than in Canada if I may be so bold, based on my experience) .


Thats a pretty bold statement (mind you, what I am about to say is too), given I've been in hospitals in both countries, I would regarde ours as better but thats my opinion. Not all hospitals in Canada are necessarly even decent and there is a heavy shortage of doctors and nurses, hence some may not seem all that remarkable.

There is no right to police or fire departments either. Some parts of this country do not have either.
Fire no right, police a right to. This is not a natural right or a basic human right or anything but is instead the first essential right of citizenship - to recieve police protection. Which country is "this country", while some parts of some countries may not have effective police protection or local police departments, all parts of all countries do have police protection. I cannot speak of England, which I think is probably entirely covered by local police departments, but Scottland has areas where there are no local police but the regional (Fife Constablry for example) and national police still have jurisdiction. In the US there are areas where the police protection is somewhat hazy (national parks are an example where the police protection is variously hired from state and county police forces, provided by park rangers, run by the department of the interior as a seperate police force or even local police forces for park undeer federal juriosdiction) but all parts of all the states are covered by the state police and non-state areas are covered by federal police forces. I understand the situation in Australia is similar to the US although there is more federal policing. Police protection is an essential function of government and is a right of citizenship.

In a natural state is where we are talking about natural rights, basically when someone is totally isolated, what can he do? He can say what he wants, he can do what he wants, he can take into possesion what he wants.
Rights and duties make no sense when an individual is in complete isolation. In complete isolation a person will simply do whatever is necessary to survive.

However, this is not the natural state of man. The natural state of man is living in community. And in the first communities there was no private property, work was equally shared and only a loose authority was conferred upon the strongest individual who then had to make sure that the community survived.

These communities endured for 100,000 years before the first cities, kings and priests appeared, and before the Babylonians first coded rights and duties.

However, this is not the natural state of man. The natural state of man is living in community. And in the first communities there was no private property, work was equally shared and only a loose authority was conferred upon the strongest individual who then had to make sure that the community survived.

These communities endured for 100,000 years before the first cities, kings and priests appeared, and before the Babylonians first coded rights and duties.
And these communities existed in stagnation, where the quality of life, lifespan technology and comfort stayed the exact same for 100,000 years.

By arguing that its a right, thats exactly what you're saying.

no it's not. no one has said that all doctors shouldn't get paid for the work they do. that's just ludicrious.

In a natural state is where we are talking about natural rights, basically when someone is totally isolated, what can he do? He can say what he wants, he can do what he wants, he can take into possesion what he wants. Throughout history these rights have been infringed upon by despots, dictators and monarchs. But modern western democratic republics have begun to ensure those rights. But now, reactionary forces (and yes, I do mean socialists when I say reactionaries, a term which is typically taken to mean right wingers, but in my view it comes to the form of anyone who attempts to de-evolve these equal rights.) have begun to erode them ever so slowly, namely property.
No property right is not eroded by socialism. It is eroded by capitalism. If everybody has a right to property, then it means that everybody has a right to property, not just the upper class. When your house and your car belongs to big corporations, where is your right to property?

I'd say "I'm sorry your parents are lazy, and that they are inable to care for you, but here, I know plenty of people who want to and are able to help you. Let's go talk to the high schools' Key Club, or National Honor Society, they can definitely help"

You know how I can say that? I was on the direction committee for my High School's NHS, and a child's story was presented to us, I voted to help the kid, and in the end we raised over $12,000 for this kid. From high schoolers lunch change. The donations from corporations were more than that.
It's nice if you can have health care by your network, but some people are homeless, have no family network and no friend network.
They have a right to health care too.

No property right is not eroded by socialism. It is eroded by capitalism. If everybody has a right to property, then it means that everybody has a right to property, not just the upper class. When your house and your car belongs to big corporations, where is your right to property?
Since when do my house or car belong to "evil" corporations? And believe me, I am no member of any upper class.

Since when do my house or car belong to "evil" corporations? And believe me, I am no member of any upper class.


Maybe not corporation but maybe bank :-P lol

It's nice if you can have health care by your network, but some people are homeless, have no family network and no friend network.
They have a right to health care too.
Then I ask, why are they homeless and lacking any personal support network. They clearly did something to be in this situation.

Since when do my house or car belong to "evil" corporations? And believe me, I am no member of any upper class.
Corporations are not evil. Talking evil and good is only relevant when talking about religion.
Actually I was not talking about your house or your car personally. I was talking about the lower class.

Maybe not corporation but maybe bank :-P lol

What if I'm smart and I only buy stuff I can afford without loans.

Then I ask, why are they homeless and lacking any personal support network. They clearly did something to be in this situation.
No. Most were born in this situation.

None of us are arguing the money issue, we are arguing right to choice.
With socialized medicine the doctor is deprived of choice as to where to work. Under socialized medicine private hospitals fail to flourish. And therefore are required to work for the state.
Excuse me, but if a private hospital can't take the competition, then free market economic theory says they should fold.

What if I'm smart and I only buy stuff I can afford without loans.It is not about you, but about the poors.

What if I'm smart and I only buy stuff I can afford without loans.
A house … buy it without a loan , and you say your not upper class :-P ( I would shake your hand … I’ve done the collage the truck the computer and all my other stuff without loans … but a house I don’t think I could swing)

Excuse me, but if a private hospital can't take the competition, then free market economic theory says they should fold.

Though if they are competing with a federally funded system it really is not a FREE market

No, taking things without paying for them is immoral.

Your statement is about as lame as expecting truffles and caviar for free. They are, afterall, food.

Education, water and food all have costs.
Well, technically you are paying for them. Just not when you get the treatment at the time

i don't think any human has a "right" to the services of another human. that would be slavery. nobody is automatically or inherently entitled to the work that somebody else does. however, if healthcare is going to be made available using public funds then every person in the public has the right to access that healthcare.

Threads like these always make me sad. The vast majority of people posting here are completely clueless of how hosiptals and private healthcare work.

They could not define the difference between a private hospital, a county hospital, a not-for-profit hospital and a secular hospital. Nor do they know which is most common.

They have no idea how an ER works or handles treatment and admissions. They do not get how a hospital collections dept handles billing/insurance/medicare and how these effect each other. They also would be dumbfounded by why a non-profit hospital even has a collections department.

They are completely ignorant of programs like medicare and medicaid and state run programs like medi-CAL. They incorrectly presume the poor have no federal or state help for medicine, and in their ignorance demand even more money must be spent.

They have no idea the difference between an HMP, PPO, managed care or straight deductible insurance and how each affects the free market (if they even understand the free market)

They would be fortunate even to understand the legal difference between when a medical practitioner has an obligation to perform vs the choice to perform.

Last, but not least, they would never be able to grasp how medical liability risk has sadly impacted a doctors cost of doing business or even their ability to perform charitable intentions with their service.

Really there is not much point in posting here unless you do, for without an informed opinion your arguments are full of sound and fury, yet they signify nothing.Wow. And yet, being from the UK, almost none of this is even remotely relevant.

How arrogant to assume that the only system that can be used as a model is the american one, and that anyone not aware of that system doesn't have a worthwhile opinion.

i don't think any human has a "right" to the services of another human. that would be slavery. nobody is automatically or inherently entitled to the work that somebody else does. however, if healthcare is going to be made available using public funds then every person in the public has the right to access that healthcare.
Do you believe in the right to security?

Do you believe in the right to security?
can you be more specific?

Do you believe in the right to security?
Security is not necessarily a SERVICE (not the same)

Health care is the act of caring for someone and maintaining their status. Work


Security is a state of being a current status … you are secure or your not

(unless you mean PROVIDING security and that is totally different)

can you be more specific?
Indeed, security is too wide. I won't take a specific example. I will ask another more specific question instead.
Do you believe in a right to vote?

Indeed, security is too wide. I won't take a specific example. I will ask another more specific question instead.
Do you believe in a right to vote?
depends on the government. do i believe there is some inalienable right to vote? of course not.

Though if they are competing with a federally funded system it really is not a FREE market
Well, I suppose that depends. I've heard free-marketists compare the government to a giant corporation, or even a mafia gang. If thats the case, you can hardly fault them for having a monopoly.

depends on the government. do i believe there is some inalienable right to vote? of course not.

What about an inalienable right to SPAM … yummm
I think every human has a right to spam!
(not the forums kind)

seriously when you think about it besides our sociatial values there is no in alinable rights to anything

Well, I suppose that depends. I've heard free-marketists compare the government to a giant corporation, or even a mafia gang. If thats the case, you can hardly fault them for having a monopoly.

Yeah but they don’t have to draw funding from the service in that particular field, a government is like a corporation that you HAVE to pay or else (your mafia analogy is really dead on when you think of it lol)

depends on the government. do i believe there is some inalienable right to vote? of course not.
Do you believe in any right at all?

Do you believe in any right at all?
depends on the context.

depends on the context.
Even human rights (as in the universal declaration of human rights)?

And these communities existed in stagnation, where the quality of life, lifespan technology and comfort stayed the exact same for 100,000 years.
That's right, and as technological developments, like agriculture, brought on social changes there was a need to grant new rights and duties to the people which would be more in agreement to the new reality.

So, as you see, rights are not immutable, or real, or natural. They change and should be given according to what society perceives as the desired state.

And arguing that a right should not be granted because it hasn't been granted before is a silly argument.

Wow. And yet, being from the UK, almost none of this is even remotely relevant.

How arrogant to assume that the only system that can be used as a model is the american one, and that anyone not aware of that system doesn't have a worthwhile opinion.
OK, just so you realize, I founded this thread on the intent of talking about the AMERICAN health care system, not the UK.

Even human rights (as in the universal declaration of human rights)?
no human has any rights that aren't granted by other humans. in that sense, there are no "universal" rights because you will only have the rights that are granted by the humans you are dealing with. "human" rights will be defined differently by different groups of humans, or even by the same group of humans at different points of time, and these rights do not exist as some kind of objective standard.

now, i personally have a certain set of values and a code of ethics that dictates what i personally consider to be "basic human rights." i believe very strongly that those rights are important, and that defending those rights is in the best interests of humankind. the basic premise behind my standard of human rights is the concept that "your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose."

OK, just so you realize, I founded this thread on the intent of talking about the AMERICAN health care system, not the UK.
ISn't the american health care system a little obsolete?

Wow. And yet, being from the UK, almost none of this is even remotely relevant.

How arrogant to assume that the only system that can be used as a model is the american one, and that anyone not aware of that system doesn't have a worthwhile opinion.
Then share with us what you know about the specifics of British healthcare, health insurance and healthcare assistance.

no human has any rights that aren't granted by other humans. in that sense, there are no "universal" rights because you will only have the rights that are granted by the humans you are dealing with. "human" rights will be defined differently by different groups of humans, or even by the same group of humans at different points of time, and these rights do not exist as some kind of objective standard.

now, i personally have a certain set of values and a code of ethics that dictates what i personally consider to be "basic human rights." i believe very strongly that those rights are important, and that defending those rights is in the best interests of humankind. the basic premise behind my standard of human rights is the concept that "your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose."Don't you confuse freedom and rights there?
Or do you believe freedom is a right?

Excuse me, but if a private hospital can't take the competition, then free market economic theory says they should fold.
A governmental healthcare system is not free market. And they'd fold because they'd be drastically undercut because the government can do that. Governments can run up deficits, whilst private companies cannot.

Don't you confuse freedom and rights there?
Or do you believe freedom is a right?
freedom is among what i believe to be basic human rights. sorry if i was unclear about that. i was merely using that quote to illustrate my general philosophy of human rights, not to say that it is the sum total of my definition.

whilst private companies cannot.They can.

freedom is among what i believe to be basic human rights. sorry if i was unclear about that. i was merely using that quote to illustrate my general philosophy of human rights, not to say that it is the sum total of my definition.
It's ok. I undertstand what you mean now. You think freedom is more of a right than health care, do I have that right?
I believe health care breeds freedom.

It's ok. I undertstand what you mean now. You think freedom is more of a right than health care, do I have that right?
I believe freedom is an illusion.
in my personal system of ethics, a certain range of freedom is a right, while entitlement to services from other humans (including healthcare) is not a right. i do not believe that, objectively, either of these things is a right, because i do not believe rights exist objectively.

They can.

Not in the same manner. And certainly not at the same interest rates.

Where do you draw the line? I would be healthier were I provided free exercise equipment. Does that mean I am entitled to it?

They can.
not for long...

Where do you draw the line? I would be healthier were I provided free exercise equipment. Does that mean I am entitled to it?Indeed very good point.
The question is where to draw the line, really.

No. Most were born in this situation.
Most bums were not born homeless. The average bum was born into a middle->lower middle class family. Because of choices they made (disregarding academics, dropping out of high school, doing drugs, etc.) they failed to make themselves competitive. Believe me, in the US there are a million ways for a lower class kid to work his way up to higher middle class or lower upper class.
First, the public schools are much better than people pretend they are. A student truly dedicated to his education can bring even the most nihlistic teachers on board.
Secondly, public libraries are wonderful places to learn. In the US we have plenty of libraries in which anyone can come in and learn.
Thirdly, work whilst attending school. Don't just go get a job at a 7/11 making slurpees, go and find a creative job. Or even better, start your own business, be creative, build your resume.
Fourthly, make contacts, get acquainted with area small business owners and politicians. Meet your congressman if you want to get involved with public policy.
Fifthly, don't mess yourself up. Live like a Puritan. Don't do drugs, don't drink, don't smoke, don't become a father 7 times before you turn 18.
Sixthly, Be like a Spartan. Deny yourself luxuries now, so as to save money for the future.

not for long...
Because no corporation is as big as the government (for now...)

They can.
Well, they can, but they have a responsibility to stockholders to not go into insane amounts of debt (here's looking at you George Bush) whilst the government tends to do so.

Most bums were not born homeless. The average bum was born into a middle->lower middle class family. Because of choices they made (disregarding academics, dropping out of high school, doing drugs, etc.) they failed to make themselves competitive. Believe me, in the US there are a million ways for a lower class kid to work his way up to higher middle class or lower upper class.
First, the public schools are much better than people pretend they are. A student truly dedicated to his education can bring even the most nihlistic teachers on board.
Secondly, public libraries are wonderful places to learn. In the US we have plenty of libraries in which anyone can come in and learn.
Thirdly, work whilst attending school. Don't just go get a job at a 7/11 making slurpees, go and find a creative job. Or even better, start your own business, be creative, build your resume.
Fourthly, make contacts, get acquainted with area small business owners and politicians. Meet your congressman if you want to get involved with public policy.
Fifthly, don't mess yourself up. Live like a Puritan. Don't do drugs, don't drink, don't smoke, don't become a father 7 times before you turn 18.
Sixthly, Be like a Spartan. Deny yourself luxuries now, so as to save money for the future.You say it to them, not to me.
Some people didn't have a father to teach them those things. They have no education, some people can't read.

Because no corporation is as big as the government (for now...)

Jesus Christ, are you some kind of corporate conspiracy nut, because if you are I can't stand arguing with you.

Well, they can, but they have a responsibility to stockholders to not go into insane amounts of debt (here's looking at you George Bush) whilst the government tends to do so.
It's the same thing really. The stockholders vote, the people vote. The government is just bigger.

Jesus Christ, are you some kind of corporate conspiracy nut, because if you are I can't stand arguing with you.
Then stop arguing with me.

You say it to them, not to me.
Some people didn't have a father to teach them those things. They have no education, some people can't read.
You don't need a father to teach you those things. You are required to go to school in this country. And in the initial years of elementary school we are tought not just the fundamentals in math, science, reading, etc., we are also taught the reasons to go to school.

It's the same thing really. The stockholders vote, the people vote. The government is just bigger.

Yeah, but the government doesn't pay dividends- cash dividends, anyway. The government is able to borrow money without having it really affect the voters much at all.

Then stop arguing with me.
wait, did you just call yourself a conspiracy nut?

Well, the way I see it is, in Britain, if you work, you pay an amount as national insurance. If you don't work, you don't pay it. (In fact, even if you're just visiting, you're entitled to nhs care without charge). the money paid is not a great deal, but I believe there are tiers according to economic income. However. Regardless of the cost of treatment, you will not be billed for it. If you have more money, you can opt to go private, where you will be likely treated faster due to lack of waiting times. Naturally, if you are in a critical condition, you will be moved up the list.
There are problems with it, but I agree with the system. If you read the short history of the NHS (http://www.nhshistory.net/short_history.htm) it explains itself far better than I could.

As far as I'm concerned, this is the best way to run things. Admittedly, the British government makes it difficult though.

I'm not a definitive knowledge on health care, mind. But I wouldn't adopt the American system over the British one.

OK, just so you realize, I founded this thread on the intent of talking about the AMERICAN health care system, not the UK.
Well, you may have had that in mind, and that may be where the discussion was drawn to, but your question wasn't related to that, and if I couldn't read your mind to know exactly what you were talking about then I don't think Bozzy could have either.

A Right to Healthcare is something which is much closer to existing outside the US than within it.

Then share with us what you know about the specifics of British healthcare, health insurance and healthcare assistance.
Thats not necessary either, in fact would be mostly immaterial. I would happily go into detail on the NHS system and the parallel private health organisation BUPA (yes, its true, a private and a public system can co-exist without one destroying the other), but it would be largely pointless unless I generated some other point pertinent to the topic to go with it.

Where do you draw the line? I would be healthier were I provided free exercise equipment. Does that mean I am entitled to it?
I wouldn't be opposed to it, however its not like a treadmill is really any better than taking a run over the park, so... it'd be kinda redundant.

Thats not necessary either, in fact would be mostly immaterial. I would happily go into detail on the NHS system and the parallel private health organisation BUPA (yes, its true, a private and a public system can co-exist without one destroying the other), but it would be largely pointless unless I generated some other point pertinent to the topic to go with it.

which is exactly what I done. I suppose my point would be that I believe that health care is a right, because I'm brough up in a culture where, as far as I'm concerned, it is.

Most bums were not born homeless. The average bum was born into a middle->lower middle class family. Because of choices they made (disregarding academics, dropping out of high school, doing drugs, etc.) they failed to make themselves competitive. Believe me, in the US there are a million ways for a lower class kid to work his way up to higher middle class or lower upper class.
First, the public schools are much better than people pretend they are. A student truly dedicated to his education can bring even the most nihlistic teachers on board.
Secondly, public libraries are wonderful places to learn. In the US we have plenty of libraries in which anyone can come in and learn.
Thirdly, work whilst attending school. Don't just go get a job at a 7/11 making slurpees, go and find a creative job. Or even better, start your own business, be creative, build your resume.
Fourthly, make contacts, get acquainted with area small business owners and politicians. Meet your congressman if you want to get involved with public policy.
Fifthly, don't mess yourself up. Live like a Puritan. Don't do drugs, don't drink, don't smoke, don't become a father 7 times before you turn 18.
Sixthly, Be like a Spartan. Deny yourself luxuries now, so as to save money for the future.
Wow, way to sap the fun outa childhood :D

I don't agree about people being made homeless through their own bad choices. I doubt Bottle would either. I think it can happen, but its usually that combined with plain bad luck, or things that, when they happen to people of a young and impressionable age, can't exactly be blamed on them.

which is exactly what I done. I suppose my point would be that I believe that health care is a right, because I'm brough up in a culture where, as far as I'm concerned, it is.
No, I think you summed it up excellently, and I'd agree that if you don't consider free care under the NHS a right, its pretty bloody close to one.

Then stop arguing with me.
done

Wow, way to sap the fun outa childhood :D

I don't agree about people being made homeless through their own bad choices. I doubt Bottle would either. I think it can happen, but its usually that combined with plain bad luck, or things that, when they happen to people of a young and impressionable age, can't exactly be blamed on them.

I know I'm being a prick, but, hey, I've heard of fifth graders that are mothers, and second graders who are crack addicts, so, hey, I'm just saying if one is capable of making those decisions, then one should be able to make future and educational decisions.

which is exactly what I done. I suppose my point would be that I believe that health care is a right, because I'm brough up in a culture where, as far as I'm concerned, it is.

Many of the truths we cling to depend upon our points of view.

OBI WAN FOREVER! (laughs at the random showing of his former star wars geekdom)

No one deserves something for nothing.

No one deserves something for nothing.

In that case, should we pay our parents for giving birth to us? If so, what would be an acceptable price? $1000 per hour of labour?

No one deserves something for nothing.



Not even the essentials for life?

Not even the essentials for life?
Not for nothing … they should be provided but more like a loan to be payed back sort of thing… everyone can be a productive member somehow … they pay it back in someway if not directly

Not for nothing … they should be provided but more like a loan to be payed back sort of thing… everyone can be a productive member somehow … they pay it back in someway if not directly



So those refuges from Dafur who have been forced out of their homes and into refuge camps in Chad and since have begun to receive aide should be forced to pay back what is given to them even though they have had their lives destroyed?

So those refuges from Dafur who have been forced out of their homes and into refuge camps in Chad and since have begun to receive aide should be forced to pay back what is given to them even though they have had their lives destroyed?

That's different dude. The people providing services to the refugees from Darfur are volunteering their time and services. Under normal conditions they should pay for the services, there are exceptions to everything.

That's different dude. The people providing services to the refugees from Darfur are volunteering their time and services. Under normal conditions they should pay for the services, there are exceptions to everything.



Ok I'm just trying to figure out whether these people believe EVERYONE in the world should have to pay for these things or should it be those who are financially able to?

The people providing those services went through years and years of schooling to be able to do what they do. They will be paid for the services they render whether by the government or by individual people. If they are going to be paid by the government, the government is going to have to raise taxes, inevitably placing some of the burden of health care costs on people that DON'T USE THE HEALTHCARE. People should pay for any operations or services that doctors provide them. Maybe those that cannot pay up front or within a short period of time should be given an opportunity to have a longer window for payment, but they should pay all the same.

The people providing those services went through years and years of schooling to be able to do what they do. They will be paid for the services they render whether by the government or by individual people. If they are going to be paid by the government, the government is going to have to raise taxes, inevitably placing some of the burden of health care costs on people that DON'T USE THE HEALTHCARE. People should pay for any operations or services that doctors provide them.



Hence why Canada's taxes are so high and why doctors are paid by the government, unless you use a private clinic. Don't get me wrong, doctors, nurses, etc should get paid well for what they do.

Should my taxes go to paying for someone elses injury? No. Plus, socialized medicine is not as great as everyone cracks it up to be.

Should my taxes go to paying for someone elses injury? No. Plus, socialized medicine is not as great as everyone cracks it up to be.



Well you don't have to live in Canada and pay them, so you should be happy.

Fair enough. I can't really say anything to that can I?

I am the only one with a right to my property. I worked hard for my property. No one else has any right to my property, and that is basically what socialized healthcare does. There, that's what I've been trying to say this entire thread.

Well you don't have to live in Canada an pay them, so you should be happy.

Not living in canada rocks!

I am the only one with a right to my property. I worked hard for my property. No one else has any right to my property, and that is basically what socialized healthcare does. There, that's what I've been trying to say this entire thread.
How is it you owning a car related with access to health care?

I live in France and it rocks to be able to go to the hospital skip all the administrative and financial bureaucracy stuff. They heal you and that's all. No waiting list, top class treatment, no exclusion.
I don't want to go back to the old system.

I am the only one with a right to my property. I worked hard for my property. No one else has any right to my property, and that is basically what socialized healthcare does. There, that's what I've been trying to say this entire thread.
Actually its the governments money. The government just loans it to you in order for you to help raise revenue and pay the government back with more of its money.

Plus when one is poor Socialized health care if a lot better than our American one. You cam't deny that. Free is cheaper than 1.

Most bums were not born homeless. The average bum was born into a middle->lower middle class family. Because of choices they made (disregarding academics, dropping out of high school, doing drugs, etc.) they failed to make themselves competitive.

Well, studies have shown that something like 30% of homeless people have psychotic illness, such as schizophrenia. Yeah, that's really their fault. :rolleyes:
Then there are other factors, like abusive families, depression etc etc.

And as for the "anyone can make it" argument... I have my doubts. I mean, you generally need qualifications to get anywhere. And not many poor kids can afford university, particularly in the States. Even here, the cost of a degree like mine is around $25 000 if you're funded by the government. And that doesn't take into account the cost of living.

Originally Posted by Andaluciae
I am the only one with a right to my property. I worked hard for my property. No one else has any right to my property, and that is basically what socialized healthcare does. There, that's what I've been trying to say this entire thread.
So are you against all income taxes too? Against things like street lighting, maintained roads?

And as for the "anyone can make it" argument... I have my doubts. I mean, you generally need qualifications to get anywhere. And not many poor kids can afford university, particularly in the States. Even here, the cost of a degree like mine is around $25 000 if you're funded by the government. And that doesn't take into account the cost of living.


So are you against all income taxes too? Against things like street lighting, maintained roads?
First of all anyone can make it (baring the mental illnesses)

You just have to try.
I have to work 70 -80 hrs a week but I have done it. No money no financial support nothing but myself.

You CAN do it.

And I have had plenty of friends … that have made it too. Some of them with more work and tries then me but worked at it hard none the less.

Sorry I just don’t feel bad for those who complain they cant or that people cant. They just haven’t tried hard enough.

As for the street lighting and the non highway roads at least around here those are all property tax funded

How is it you owning a car related with access to health care?
Because he won't be able to afford that car if he's paying for your health care.

Because he won't be able to afford that car if he's paying for your health care.

Oh yeah, that must be why no-one owns a car in the UK.

How is it you owning a car related with access to health care?
he's not talking about owning a car, he's talking about his ownership of his own income, and the idea that it is wrong to take away his income to support other people against his wishes. just as you would not support taking a man's car in order to drive patients to the hospital, he does not support taking his money to fund medical treatment for other people. now, if somebody wants to volunteer their car or their money, donating them willingly, that's another matter, but many people feel it is wrong to mandate such charity.

I am the only one with a right to my property. I worked hard for my property. No one else has any right to my property, and that is basically what socialized healthcare does. There, that's what I've been trying to say this entire thread.
Your property, huh? Are you talking about property that you earned with an educational system subsidized by tax dollars, in a society kept stable by tax dollars? You don't exist in a vacuum--you no more earned that property on your own than you learned to read on your own. You owe an unpayable debt to the society that surrounds you, and all that society asks of you is that you obey the rules and you help pay for it. Now if, as a society, we decide that we don't want to create a health care system that covers everyone regardless of their ability to pay, that's one thing, but you can't legitimately argue that you earned your property on your own and therefore the society you live in has absolutely no claim on it.

Tax dollars come into play at a public institution, not at a private college. Going to a private college, I have evry right to say "Get your grubby hands off my stuff. I'll donate money to help those that can't afford health care when I damn well feel like it." Plus, it isn't really fair to say that ones debt is an unpayable debt. If you get a job and contribute to the economy, you boost the economy and put money back into the tax system for someone else to take advantage of.

he's not talking about owning a car, he's talking about his ownership of his own income, and the idea that it is wrong to take away his income to support other people against his wishes. just as you would not support taking a man's car in order to drive patients to the hospital, he does not support taking his money to fund medical treatment for other people. now, if somebody wants to volunteer their car or their money, donating them willingly, that's another matter, but many people feel it is wrong to mandate such charity.
Taxes pay for a lot of things, some of them you may not agree on; but tax money is no longer yours, it's society's and it's society the one to decide how to spend it.

You could make the case against taxes, but that's not what this thread is about.

So, the question should be not if people should have the right to health care, but if society can afford it. Keep it mind that providing basic health services keeps infectious disease from spreading and that a healthy population can be productive for much longer, in turn driving a healthier economy.

Taxes pay for a lot of things, some of them you may not agree on; but tax money is no longer yours, it's society's and it's society the one to decide how to spend it.

You could make the case against taxes, but that's not what this thread is about.

So, the question should be not if people should have the right to health care, but if society can afford it. Keep it mind that providing basic health services keeps infectious disease from spreading and that a healthy population can be productive for much longer, in turn driving a healthier economy.
i was just clarifying the position i think the original poster was trying to make. however, i disagree with your assessment that this is unrelated to the topic at hand; many people will make the case that tax dollars should only pay for certain services, because it is not the government's job to provide anything beyond the basics.

additionally, as i said in my original post, the "right" to a service like health care is tied directly into the idea of who owns your labor and your wealth. if we say that one human is naturally entitled to the services (time, effort, etc) of another human against the will of the service provider then we are effectively endorsing slavery. slavery can be viewed as a form of property theft, since your body and your efforts are usually seen to belong to you and forcing you to labor for another's benefit against your wishes is "stealing" your efforts.

i was just clarifying the position i think the original poster was trying to make. however, i disagree with your assessment that this is unrelated to the topic at hand; many people will make the case that tax dollars should only pay for certain services, because it is not the government's job to provide anything beyond the basics.

Exactly, but the basics being what? Military? Education? Currency? Well, what about health care? Why should inter-state roads be considered a basic service but not, say, an annual check-up?

additionally, as i said in my original post, the "right" to a service like health care is tied directly into the idea of who owns your labor and your wealth. if we say that one human is naturally entitled to the services (time, effort, etc) of another human against the will of the service provider then we are effectively endorsing slavery. slavery can be viewed as a form of property theft, since your body and your efforts are usually seen to belong to you and forcing you to labor for another's benefit against your wishes is "stealing" your efforts.
Paying taxes is very far from being a form of slavery. If you want to live in a country with certain levels of education, security, stable economy, and other perks, you are going to have to pay taxes because all that costs.

For example, I have no kids, so I could argue that I don't want part of my tax money to go into funding public education. But at the same time I also consider a society where people can read and write and engage in meaningful conversation to be much better than an analphabet one. It works out for me because such a society tends to be richer and generate better opportunities. So, I'm not really against public education.

Same thing with public health-care. I don't have any problems with part of my tax money going into health-care because it makes a much healthier society, one in which sick people tend to have their problems fixes right away instead of infecting me in the street, and in which they can go back to productive work faster, making good for the economy.

Sure, some people will use the system very much, or won't have any productive work to go back too, but in an economically healthy society that shouldn't be too much of a problem.

Exactly, but the basics being what? Military? Education? Currency? Well, what about health care? Why should inter-state roads be considered a basic service but not, say, an annual check-up?

everybody will draw the line in a different place. i think that is, in part, what this thread is discussing.


Paying taxes is very far from being a form of slavery. If you want to live in a country with certain levels of education, security, stable economy, and other perks, you are going to have to pay taxes because all that costs.

For example, I have no kids, so I could argue that I don't want part of my tax money to go into funding public education. But at the same time I also consider a society where people can read and write and engage in meaningful conversation to be much better than an analphabet one. It works out for me because such a society tends to be richer and generate better opportunities. So, I'm not really against public education.

Same thing with public health-care. I don't have any problems with part of my tax money going into health-care because it makes a much healthier society, one in which sick people tend to have their problems fixes right away instead of infecting me in the street, and in which they can go back to productive work faster, making good for the economy.

Sure, some people will use the system very much, or won't have any productive work to go back too, but in an economically healthy society that shouldn't be too much of a problem.
it's fine that you feel that way, and to a certain extent i agree with you. however, many people feel differently on the subject, and feel that it is inappropriate for the government to expect them to pay for service they will not use, or to use their money to support other people's lifestyles.

personally, i have objections in principle to some of this stuff, but in practice i really don't much care...i don't need much money, seeing as how i only have to support myself, and my post-taxes income is fair pay for the work i do (in my opinion). having extra money would be fun, but i'm not really hurting so i'm not terribly bothered by my taxes.

I think I've said all of my positions, and I'm starting to repeat myself, so, if you want to further read on why I am always right, espescially when I'm right, go back in the thread. Joy.

Actually its the governments money. The government just loans it to you in order for you to help raise revenue and pay the government back with more of its money.

Plus when one is poor Socialized health care if a lot better than our American one. You cam't deny that. Free is cheaper than 1.
Wow are you ever misinformed.

Both on the nature of economics and money as well as 'poor'.

Poor people already get free healthcare in the states.

In that case, should we pay our parents for giving birth to us? If so, what would be an acceptable price? $1000 per hour of labour?
I get to pick their nursing home - They would never ask for money from me.

BTW - Birth was the easy part for my mom. The hard part took 18 years.

Not even the essentials for life?

Like food, clothing and shelter?

Gee, I didn't know that stuff was free!

Like food, clothing and shelter?

Gee, I didn't know that stuff was free!
It isn't, you have to earn it, unless you are lazy and choose to exploit welfare.

It's the same thing really. The stockholders vote, the people vote. The government is just bigger.
The government is not required to turn a profit - in fact it is bad if it does. Business that does not turn a profit and has no potential to is not a venture anyone would want to continue.

It isn't, you have to earn it, unless you are lazy and choose to exploit welfare.
Umm, that was my point.

So you've paid for the clothes and food you ate as a baby/infant/young adolescant then? Because that stuff isn't free. You really should pay for it. Do you have any idea how much it costs to raise a child? You probably took the largest chunk out of the family income for several years. That's just freeloading.
Do you have a repayment plan sorted?

Well, you may have had that in mind, and that may be where the discussion was drawn to, but your question wasn't related to that, and if I couldn't read your mind to know exactly what you were talking about then I don't think Bozzy could have either.

A Right to Healthcare is something which is much closer to existing outside the US than within it.


Rights are not bound by geography.

Rights are not bound by geography.

But rights are bound by borders, and that, I believe, was his point.

hehe, it's funny how you're still debating this in america. there's been a consensus in this in most of europe for about 50 years... so backward.

no human has any rights that aren't granted by other humans. in that sense, there are no "universal" rights because you will only have the rights that are granted by the humans you are dealing with. "human" rights will be defined differently by different groups of humans, or even by the same group of humans at different points of time, and these rights do not exist as some kind of objective standard.

now, i personally have a certain set of values and a code of ethics that dictates what i personally consider to be "basic human rights." i believe very strongly that those rights are important, and that defending those rights is in the best interests of humankind. the basic premise behind my standard of human rights is the concept that "your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose."

Rights are not endowed by people and it is dangerous to believe that. You are born with them. People can (and will) try to infringe on them, but rights cannot be taken.

"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..."
Summs it up pretty well.

But rights are bound by borders, and that, I believe, was his point.

No, they are not. Any case to the contrary is invalid. To imply that human rights can vary invalidates the definition of human rights.

A governmental healthcare system is not free market. And they'd fold because they'd be drastically undercut because the government can do that. Governments can run up deficits, whilst private companies cannot.
Actually in the states not for profit hospitals were the norm for decades. For profit hospitals are fairly new to the scene. They have done a good job at competing with the nonprofits by trimming many inefficiencies. A patient can choose between any hospital they wish, except of course, in an emergency when an ambulance is required to go to the nearest facility.

No, they are not. Any case to the contrary is invalid. To imply that human rights can vary invalidates the definition of human rights.

I live in the real world, Bozzy. A world where human rights DO vary across borders. See, the definition that I'm hearing bandyed about in this discussion is some kind of supervague "I'm a human, these are my rights" in a pure form.

In Britain, you do have the right, as a human, to have medical care for free, regardless of income. In America, you do not have that right.

In North Korea, you have virtually no rights. No right to freedom of speech, no right to healthcare, limited right to property.

Rights do vary.

No, they are not. Any case to the contrary is invalid. To imply that human rights can vary invalidates the definition of human rights.
Yes, they are. Any case to the contrary is ignorant. Rights are legal constructs agreed in a society as a way to know what each one can and can not do and how things should work. As such they are bound by geography, time, and the needs and evolutions of societies.

Not all societies recognise the same rights for its members. Therefore the need for a Universal declaration of human rights, a basic outline that nations have agreed to uphold.

But rights are not natural, real, or divine. They are granted by society, coded by law, and upheld by government. Same as duties.

Umm, that was my point.
Yeah, I know, but subtlety is really hard for liberals to understand.

Rights are not endowed by people and it is dangerous to believe that. You are born with them. People can (and will) try to infringe on them, but rights cannot be taken.


if you say so. i don't believe that is the case, and i believe all of human history supports my position, but if you want to argue the point then please feel free to explain.

"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..."
Summs it up pretty well.
i don't believe all humans are equal, i don't believe in a Creator, and i don't believe in inalienable rights. just because somebody famous said something doesn't mean i need to agree with them :).

No, they are not. Any case to the contrary is invalid. To imply that human rights can vary invalidates the definition of human rights.
Human rights are the same, whether or not they are honoured varies from country to country. I was imprecise in my use of language.

No one deserves something for nothing.
Brilliant MunkieBrain! I mean, I honestly hadn't considered this before.

You know, you really have a gift. I mean, here we are, debating this for a dozen or more pages of posts, and you have distilled that down to six words. You have a gift for making things so simple that even the most slow witted moron could understand it.

The people providing those services went through years and years of schooling to be able to do what they do. They will be paid for the services they render whether by the government or by individual people. If they are going to be paid by the government, the government is going to have to raise taxes, inevitably placing some of the burden of health care costs on people that DON'T USE THE HEALTHCARE. People should pay for any operations or services that doctors provide them. Maybe those that cannot pay up front or within a short period of time should be given an opportunity to have a longer window for payment, but they should pay all the same.
But the problem is, the people who can't afford healthcare or health insurance are also those who are most likely to need it. Poor diet, dangerous working conditions... this all leads to a much lower life expectancy without availible healthcare (which these people can't afford). You do it like this, you'll either have a whole bunch of poor doctors or a whole bunch of dead poor people.

he's not talking about owning a car, he's talking about his ownership of his own income, and the idea that it is wrong to take away his income to support other people against his wishes. just as you would not support taking a man's car in order to drive patients to the hospital, he does not support taking his money to fund medical treatment for other people. now, if somebody wants to volunteer their car or their money, donating them willingly, that's another matter, but many people feel it is wrong to mandate such charity.Yeah, but a right to your own property sound righteous, but saying you want to keep all your own mones sounds selfish.

Brilliant MunkieBrain! I mean, I honestly hadn't considered this before.

You know, you really have a gift. I mean, here we are, debating this for a dozen or more pages of posts, and you have distilled that down to six words. You have a gift for making things so simple that even the most slow witted moron could understand it.

You mean you expected a neocon to be capable of independent thought?

Yeah, but a right to your own property sound righteous, but saying you want to keep all your own mones sounds selfish.
i think both statements sound both righteous and selfish. i don't see those two things as being mutually exclusive.

You mean you expected a neocon to be capable of independent thought?
Its not the lack of independant thought, its the ten word answer. Thats what pisses me off. Ten word answers, soundbites, nice little digestable morsels of issue for the public to swallow. Every political candiate will spouts off political wisdom like it came off a fortune cookie... its just obscene. Politics is complicated. If it was simple, we wouldn't still be arguing about these problems, they'd have been solved already. If they were simple, then anyone could do it well, and god knows GWB has proved that that isn't true. But instead of saying "wow, this issue is really hard, both sides have good points, we should discuss this a bit", they come up with things like "People need choice in public services", "I'm a leader, not a politician", "Lowering taxes stimulates economic growth", "I before E, except after C"

i think both statements sound both righteous and selfish. i don't see those two things as being mutually exclusive.
Aristotle and I would disagree with you.

But the problem is, the people who can't afford healthcare or health insurance are also those who are most likely to need it. Poor diet, dangerous working conditions... this all leads to a much lower life expectancy without availible healthcare (which these people can't afford). You do it like this, you'll either have a whole bunch of poor doctors or a whole bunch of dead poor people.
That is why those people get their healthcare for free in the US. And life expectancy is not affected by social/economic status in the US in any measureable way.

i don't believe all humans are equal, i don't believe in a Creator, and i don't believe in inalienable rights. just because somebody famous said something doesn't mean i need to agree with them :).
If you believe that then tell me who are you inferior to? Not at any task, but simply as a human being - who are you inferior to? Which of these 'not so' unalienable rights are you willing to have revoked on you or anyone else;
a) Life
b) Liberty
c) The pursuit of happiness

You may not believe in a Creator, however in the context used the implication is these rights begin as soon as one comes into this world and only end after one leaves - hard to argue unless you also don't believe in this world.

Last but not least: For the numb nuts who don't know what a right is I provide this:
Right - noun - something to which one has a just claim - Merriam Webster.

Rights are permanent - privileges are grantable. You have a right to move about freely in public spaces, but it is a privilege to drive a car on public roads. You have a right to equal access to that privilege.

The Constitution does not grant rights to US citizens, it restricts the government’s ability to infringe on the rights we're born with. As soon as you relinquish your rights over to government (or anything else) you give up some of your freedom. Often the ability to use and express your rights must be defended and fought for -paid for with blood, but they can never be eliminated, only infringed.

You do it like this, you'll either have a whole bunch of poor doctors or a whole bunch of dead poor people.

I don't think it's an either/or situation. I mean, Australia has free healthcare available for everyone, although doctors can choose to charge more.

The doctor from the medical centre I sometimes go to charges nothing out of pocket and STILL has a Mercedes SLK.

And I'm going to be a doctor. I don't mind taking a little pay cut when I start practicing.

I don't think it's an either/or situation. I mean, Australia has free healthcare available for everyone, although doctors can choose to charge more.

The doctor from the medical centre I sometimes go to charges nothing out of pocket and STILL has a Mercedes SLK.

And I'm going to be a doctor. I don't mind taking a little pay cut when I start practicing.
so where do you think the money comes from that ends up in the doctors paycheck? The income fairy?

Healthcare for Everyone :)

Yay free healthcare for all! (except those who pay for it)

But I suppose when market forces are taken off the healthcare industry things will get cheaper right? (doubtful … kind of like a monopoly remove competition and they can charge what they wanted)

Except wait we will make a department to make sure …

Well then we will make a department to over see and coronate that department
And we will need another department to control supplies …

Basically turn into a inefficient mess of departments, bah

Everyone, rich or poor, should have access to it, although if you have the money, you should have opportunities to receive better than average health care.
Canada does it properly

so where do you think the money comes from that ends up in the doctors paycheck? The income fairy?
See there's these things called taxes?
Seriously, people have gone over this many many times. Not everyone is afraid of contributing some of their income toward the common good.

If you believe that then tell me who are you inferior to? Not at any task, but simply as a human being - who are you inferior to?

my worth as a human being is defined by my abilities. there are a great many people to whom i am inferior, as well as some people to whom i am superior. this is the case for pretty much all human beings. also, our relative inferiority and superiority will be defined by the context in which we are being judged, so one person may be superior in one context while inferior in another.


Which of these 'not so' unalienable rights are you willing to have revoked on you or anyone else;
a) Life
b) Liberty
c) The pursuit of happiness

i don't LIKE the idea of any of those rights being revoked for anybody, which is why i have specifically stated that my personal code of ethics supports them as rights. however, they do not exist as objective "rights" for anybody, because rights are defined by humans and humans are dynamic.


You may not believe in a Creator, however in the context used the implication is these rights begin as soon as one comes into this world and only end after one leaves - hard to argue unless you also don't believe in this world.

then i simply disagree with the implication.


Last but not least: For the numb nuts who don't know what a right is I provide this:
Right - noun - something to which one has a just claim - Merriam Webster.

justice is subjective, and therefore the definition of "just claim" is subjective. the definition will depend on the human beings in question.

Canada does it properly
no it doesn't

my worth as a human being is defined by my abilities. there are a great many people to whom i am inferior, as well as some people to whom i am superior. this is the case for pretty much all human beings. also, our relative inferiority and superiority will be defined by the context in which we are being judged, so one person may be superior in one context while inferior in another.


i don't LIKE the idea of any of those rights being revoked for anybody, which is why i have specifically stated that my personal code of ethics supports them as rights. however, they do not exist as objective "rights" for anybody, because rights are defined by humans and humans are dynamic.


then i simply disagree with the implication.


justice is subjective, and therefore the definition of "just claim" is subjective. the definition will depend on the human beings in question.
You are simply disagreeing for the sake of it and using a straw argument void of context. I am done with you.