• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

Jaymageck
Member
(09-25-2017, 08:16 PM)
Jaymageck's Avatar
Imagine you have yet to be born and know nothing of whether you will be born into a rich family or poor family.

Would you prefer that the world you are being born into gives you equal access to health coverage right from the beginning, or that you start off with low / no access to health care and have to somehow overcome that barrier (even if your health is an obstacle to overcoming that barrier), where as the rich guy got access to it right away?

I think most people would want to live in a world where they have equal access to healthcare.

I take the Rawlsian 'veil of ignorance' approach to thinking about basic rights of society and I believe it leads us to the conclusion that health care is a right.
Valhelm
contribute something
(09-25-2017, 08:16 PM)
Valhelm's Avatar
We have a moral obligation to provide people with a safe and comfortable existence, and this definitely includes healthcare. That millions of people can't afford healthcare while living in the world's wealthiest nation means that something is seriously wrong here. For our political and economic institutions to fail at this basic requirement is an indictment of our whole society.
Immortal_Daemon
Member
(09-25-2017, 08:16 PM)
Immortal_Daemon's Avatar
Going to go against the grain here and say no. Healthcare is not a right.
It IS something any civilized country's government should provide, because that's part of what makes us civil, but it's not an inalienable right.


A right is something nobody else has to provide for you. They can be taken away, of course, but don't have to be provided.
You have the right to free-speech because nobody has to give it to you. As long as you're not being prevented from speaking, nobody else has to lift a finger for you to be able to express your thoughts. Same thing with practicing religion, and many other rights. The point is that you can do it all by yourself.
Healthcare requires effort from another person. It's not something you can do on your own, so it's not a right.


It IS a right to be treated the same as others are treated, because it requires extra effort to treat somebody unfairly. If one person can be treated, all people can be treated equally. Money should have nothing to do with it.
Healthcare is still, technically, a privilege, though. If it requires somebody else to do work, it's not a right.


But, again, any decent person should be able to see that whether it's a right or not doesn't really matter. The ethical way to treat each other is nicely and fairly, and helping out those in need is part of that ethical way.
Gutek
Banned
(09-25-2017, 08:17 PM)
Donít think of it as a right.

Do you think firefighters should be privatized? Police? Roads?

If your answer is no, then why should your healthcare be?
Vital Tundra
Member
(09-25-2017, 08:19 PM)
Vital Tundra's Avatar
YUP. You have a right to live.
ApharmdX
Member
(09-25-2017, 08:19 PM)
ApharmdX's Avatar
Is health care a right? Of course it is! We can debate all day about how to provide that right to the nation, but if you aren't here yet then there's not a lot of hope for you.

Originally Posted by AstroNut325

Reading further in the article... The right wing opinions just keep getting worse.

Edit:
Holy sh... The cognitive dissonance... It's astounding!

F***.THESE.PEOPLE!

Yeah, this shit quickly gave me a headache. I can't get through the article. It's too much, mindboggling that someone could file bankruptcy due to medical bills, and then be against health care for all. As a nation we are lost.
Chjemah
Junior Member
(09-25-2017, 08:19 PM)
Chjemah's Avatar
I talked with someone recently who said it shouldn't be a right because then you are telling doctor's they have to help you with your medical problems even if you're uninsured or can't pay for it etc. Does that mean private practices wouldn't be allowed to exist? I'm not very educated on the matter and didn't really have a good answer for them.
entremet
Member
(09-25-2017, 08:19 PM)
entremet's Avatar

Originally Posted by The Albatross

No, it's a privilege of living in a modern society that meets the needs of its people.

If your society does not have provide health care, then it's not a modern society meeting the needs of its people.

This is my thought. Right is a bit too broad for such a complex topic. We can barely ensure quick and speedy criminal trials and thatís a codified right.
Akuun
Looking for meaning in GAF
(09-25-2017, 08:20 PM)
Akuun's Avatar
Isn't that the whole point of the Hippocratic oath? That if you can, you should provide health care to anyone who needs it, regardless of their views, status, or ability to reciprocate?

It's certainly a right and a part of any civilized society.
Acerac
Alyssa's Significant Otter
(09-25-2017, 08:20 PM)
Acerac's Avatar
I mean, I guess not technically. It's also not a right to have police or education.

Granted, you would have to be a pretty terrible country to try to privatize any of these potentially ridiculously profitable industries though.

God I love America.
BstnRich
Junior Member
(09-25-2017, 08:22 PM)
BstnRich's Avatar
Yes.
yanipheonu
Member
(09-25-2017, 08:22 PM)
yanipheonu's Avatar
Frankly, before the argument of it being a right, there's the argument that it's just easier to run a society if more people are well and not crippled by medical fees.

Don't even need to bring overarching rights into it, just seems like a practical thing to do.
sflufan
Member
(09-25-2017, 08:23 PM)
sflufan's Avatar

Originally Posted by Immortal_Daemon

A right is something nobody else has to provide for you. They can be taken away, of course, but don't have to be provided.
You have the right to free-speech because nobody has to give it to you. As long as you're not being prevented from speaking, nobody else has to lift a finger for you to be able to express your thoughts. Same thing with practicing religion, and many other rights. The point is that you can do it all by yourself.

I have a fundamental disagreement with the notion that these are "rights" because they are very much "privileges" that are provided/granted by whatever society deems to be "authority". Like just about anything else, they too can be rescinded by that authority because there is nothing inherent on unalienable about them. Just because you can do these things "on your own" doesn't make them "rights" - they are only byproducts of the accident of existence.
-Plasma Reus-
Service guarantees member status
(09-25-2017, 08:24 PM)
-Plasma Reus-'s Avatar
If there is government there must be healthcare
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
(09-25-2017, 08:24 PM)
The Technomancer's Avatar
Now that it is capable of being a right, yes it absolutely is
Acerac
Alyssa's Significant Otter
(09-25-2017, 08:27 PM)
Acerac's Avatar

Originally Posted by yanipheonu

Frankly, before the argument of it being a right, there's the argument that it's just easier to run a society if more people are well and not crippled by medical fees.

Don't even need to bring overarching rights into it, just seems like a practical thing to do.

It really depends what your goal is. If the motive is trying to maximize short term wealth gain for those who are best off in a society suddenly it becomes a less enticing proposition.

Who is to say what a government's true purpose is, after all?
matthewuk
Junior Member
(09-25-2017, 08:29 PM)
The question in wrong, it is not "is healthcare a right" it is "do you belive healthcare should be based on need or your ability to pay".

If you try make the case that it should be a right you will get your arse kicked by smug libatariants and endless debates about entitlement by republicans and it will go nowhere. The principal about need is much harder to break. And it's that principal of need that drives single payer and other hybrid systems.
Immortal_Daemon
Member
(09-25-2017, 08:31 PM)
Immortal_Daemon's Avatar

Originally Posted by sflufan

I have a fundamental disagreement with the notion that these are "rights" because they are very much "privileges" that are provided/granted by whatever society deems to be "authority". Like just about anything else, they too can be rescinded by that authority because there is nothing inherent on unalienable about them. Just because you can do these things "on your own" doesn't make them "rights" - they are only byproducts of the accident of existence.

They have to be taken from you, though. They don't have to be given.
In a pure form of anarchy, in which there is no governing body, people could still express their thoughts. They would not be able to receive healthcare, though.

I can see what you mean when you say that free speech is just something many governmental bodies just happened to decide was worthwhile, whereas in other countries it's not. I would argue governments which do not allow free speech are impeding on rights, as opposed to speech simply not being a right in that particular area.



But again, because I know how people like to read latest posts and miss context, I'm not opposing universal healthcare. I think privatized health is one of the major flaws in many 'developed' nations.
yanipheonu
Member
(09-25-2017, 08:33 PM)
yanipheonu's Avatar

Originally Posted by Acerac

It really depends what your goal is. If the motive is trying to maximize short term wealth gain for those who are best off in a society suddenly it becomes a less enticing proposition.

Who is to say what a government's true purpose is, after all?

True enough, that's the trick right? "What do you think government's role is?" really is one of the most important political questions.

Of course I'd press that letting the proletariat become too discontented can have some bad effects on the rich and the ruling parties.
CyclopsRock
Member
(09-25-2017, 08:34 PM)
CyclopsRock's Avatar
I disagree, but I probably also disagree on the definition of "rights" that most are using. IMO rights aren't something you're able to do, but something no one can stop you doing. As such, nothing that requires the knowledge/labour/whatever of someone else can be considered a "right", because such a thing would then require their action or service, whether they wish to give it or not.

That said, I don't believe that "rights" and "services provided by the state" are the same thing either.
shadowkat
Member
(09-25-2017, 08:35 PM)
shadowkat's Avatar
Yes. Or if not a right, universal healthcare should be provided to everyone.
Greedings
Member
(09-25-2017, 08:36 PM)
Greedings's Avatar
I don't think it's a right, there's nothing inherent about healthcare that means it should be available to everyone.

That said, I am absolutely pro-free health care. It should be available to everyone, because it's a good thing to do.
Zoloft Sonic
Member
(09-25-2017, 08:38 PM)
Zoloft Sonic's Avatar
Yes, healthcare is a right.

America is the only country still arguing about who 'deserves' the medical care they get, and under what conditions they 'should' be allowed to get it.

America's overlords have worked hard to get folks stuck on all the wrong questions.
Fluffernutter Pancake
Member
(09-25-2017, 08:40 PM)
Fluffernutter Pancake's Avatar
"Healthcare is a fundamental right."

Define "healthcare".

If by "healthcare", you mean getting treated for any and all illnesses in a timely manner in " the best possible way", then how to you meet demand without severely lowering standards and the definition of "best possible way"?

How do you reconcile this with malpractice issues/lawsuits/payouts etc?

How do you churn out enough doctors that exceed a certain "bar" threshold of knowledge, skill & training time criteria to provide quality care without severely lowering that "bar" and thereby severely lowering the quality? How do you adequately compensate them to motivate such dedicated practitioners to sacrifice so much time & energy during training and then actual profession? Most doctors in training and many fulltime physicians work 80+ hours/week and that sometimes still isn't enough.

The list of questions can go on, but the above are some critical ones.

I'd certainly say that LIMITED healthcare is a good service for a country to provide, such as preventative care etc., but I think it is incredibly unrealistic to think that UNLIMITED healthcare is feasible, without severely lowering standards.
Last edited by Fluffernutter Pancake; 09-25-2017 at 09:21 PM.
Geist-
Member
(09-25-2017, 08:43 PM)
Geist-'s Avatar
Even if healthcare didn't deserve to be a right (it does), providing healthcare to a nation's citizens improves the productivity of those citizens and consequently improves the economy, as well as lowering the cost of healthcare overall. Not having to worry about cost means people can get the preventative medicine they need before any problem becomes a debilitating illness and therefore won't need to take time off, nor let it become something that would eventually become even more costly to treat.
Royal_Phalanx
Member
(09-25-2017, 08:49 PM)
Royal_Phalanx's Avatar
Ensuring a decent standard of living for all in your country is a moral duty IMO. Sadly most countries fail at this, especially in undeveloped countries.
Acerac
Alyssa's Significant Otter
(09-25-2017, 08:50 PM)
Acerac's Avatar

Originally Posted by yanipheonu

True enough, that's the trick right? "What do you think government's role is?" really is one of the most important political questions.

Of course I'd press that letting the proletariat become too discontented can have some bad effects on the rich and the ruling parties.

Very true, which is why I edited my post to note that the priority for any country following this route would be explicitly short term gains.

Current American politics will be so interesting to study in the future, though I must admit that watching it all happen is fascinating in it's own way.
DontBeThatGuy
Member
(09-25-2017, 08:56 PM)
DontBeThatGuy's Avatar
No one should have the unnecessarily cloud of medical debt or death (or for any 'quality of life' reason, really) hanging over their heads.

It should absolutely be a right.
Last edited by DontBeThatGuy; 09-25-2017 at 08:58 PM.
Earthbound64
Member
(09-25-2017, 08:56 PM)
Earthbound64's Avatar
Yes.
Eylos
Member
(09-25-2017, 08:58 PM)
Eylos's Avatar
Rights are anything the state say It is. Its not a right in the US, It should be.

This thing of privilege etc, is a speech to try to confuse something thats simple and objective.

I never seen this discussion in the Law School, If the state say something is a right It is, If dont its not.

If its not a right in the US, then You have to change this to turn It into a right.


For me It should be a right.
Robot Pants
Member
(09-25-2017, 08:59 PM)
Robot Pants's Avatar

Originally Posted by Viewt

This is a dumb debate. Of course healthcare should be a right. Everyone deserves the same shot at living, and no one deserves to die from a treatable illness.

Also, the whole argument of "I don't wanna pay for someone else's healthcare" is fucking dumb. YOU ALREADY ARE. That's what insurance is. The healthy subsidize the sick. This is the case for all health insurance, private or public. Universal coverage just creates a mandate so that everyone pays into the system, thereby widening the pool and lowering the mean cost.

People who are against universal healthcare are either corporate thieves or rubes. End of story.

There we go. Done.
dreams
Member
(09-25-2017, 08:59 PM)
dreams's Avatar
Yes, absolutely. And trying to muddy it up with debating the definition of a "right" is a bad look, imo.
BotoxAgent
Member
(09-25-2017, 09:08 PM)
BotoxAgent's Avatar
of course it's a right. Why should the rich be the only one who gets the best change to live, the best services? Especially since the most important (and also the most risky) jobs out there don't necessarily pay the most. Healthcare should be a moral and social obligation.
Acerac
Alyssa's Significant Otter
(09-25-2017, 09:27 PM)
Acerac's Avatar

Originally Posted by BotoxAgent

of course it's a right. Why should the rich be the only one who gets the best change to live, the best services? Especially since the most important (and also the most risky) jobs out there don't necessarily pay the most. Healthcare should be a moral and social obligation.

Theoretically because they, as the richest in the land have the most potential impact on the nation's economy therefore it would be in said country's best interests to prioritize their well being.

Granted, I feel this is a terrible reason to deny health care to those without wealth, but rest assured widely accepted justifications exist.
Tapioca
Junior Member
(09-25-2017, 09:28 PM)
Tapioca's Avatar
Framing it as a right only adds fuel to the right wing anti-healthcare talking points.

You're wasting time on debating if it is a right or not. Just spend time on getting universal healthcare going.

Healthcare should not be tied to employers in any way. It hurts the economy and is just generally a dumb concept.
Last edited by Tapioca; 09-25-2017 at 09:39 PM.
Pagusas
Member
(09-25-2017, 09:30 PM)
Pagusas's Avatar
Rights are a man made thing, the truth is no one is owed any rights by the laws of nature. But in terms of the society we have built with our current social contract? Yes I think so.
Messofanego
Member
(09-25-2017, 09:33 PM)
Messofanego's Avatar
Is there any country in the world that fights this much against universal healthcare that this can even come to a question?

I really feel USA is alone on this, especially as a developed country.
kamineko
Does his best thinking in the flying car
(09-25-2017, 09:33 PM)
kamineko's Avatar
No, the only right is for wealthy people to stay wealthy by bankrupting poor people

/s
Marvie_3
(09-25-2017, 09:36 PM)
Marvie_3's Avatar
Absofuckinglutely its a right.
TheSpaceBetween
MyGoddamnEars
(09-25-2017, 09:43 PM)
TheSpaceBetween's Avatar
In general, yes. But as someone who works for a medicaid managed care program, I've seen people take advantage and abuse the system, as well as people take NO responsibility for their own part in getting better, and basically WASTE state funds (calling ambulances every other day, not taking their medication, etc). I'm not saying these people don't deserve healthcare, but they certainly do not deserve yours and my hard earned tax dollars paying for it.
ChryZ
Member
(09-25-2017, 09:43 PM)
ChryZ's Avatar
How is this even a question?
Pagusas
Member
(09-25-2017, 09:47 PM)
Pagusas's Avatar

Originally Posted by ChryZ

How is this even a question?

Itís a very good question if you think deeply about why we have any rights at all. As I said in my post above, this idea of rights is all a man made thing. Nature has no rights.
EGM1966
Member
(09-25-2017, 09:47 PM)
EGM1966's Avatar
I'd argue yes and would always push for it in any way I could politically. The future is going to be one of automation and more freedom if we can break through the stranglehold of corporations and governments and I'd say all of the following should be basic rights made available to everyone:
  • somewhere to live
  • food to eat
  • solid education
  • free healthcare

From my perspective though the world's still crowded with uninformed people who don't seem to see this is correct way forward.
sflufan
Member
(09-25-2017, 09:49 PM)
sflufan's Avatar

Originally Posted by Pagusas

It’s a very good question if you think deeply about why we have any rights at all. As I said in my post above, this idea of rights is all a man made thing. Nature has no rights.

This is a superb response.

Each and every society SHOULD carefully consider the notion of what are, aren't, should be, or shouldn't be "rights" because those answers will have a fundamental bearing on the very core framework of that society in all aspects.
RangerX
Member
(09-25-2017, 09:50 PM)
RangerX's Avatar
Unquestionably. The health service in my own country Ireland isn't great but looking over the water the American system seems off the scale batshit insane. I just don't understand the moral argument for a purely for profit system.
Phrozenflame500
Member
(09-25-2017, 09:54 PM)
Phrozenflame500's Avatar
Absolutely, although to what extent I couldn't say. Definitely all life-threatening or severely debilitating illness, as well as preventative care.
open_mouth_
insert_foot_
(09-25-2017, 10:00 PM)
open_mouth_'s Avatar
It is a fundamental right for every single human being on this planet.
Timeaisis
(09-25-2017, 10:03 PM)
Timeaisis's Avatar
Life is a right. Access to healthcare is a right. Not having to pay for healtchare is the arguable bit, I don't see how you can argue that such a thing is a basic human right.

But the definition of "right" is so freaking muddy right now. So let's get back to basics with Locke (the big three):

Life: everyone is entitled to live.
Liberty: everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn't conflict with the first right.
Estate: everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it doesn't conflict with the first two rights.

Protecting these rights is tantamount to the American system. But protecting is different than providing. I think proponents of universal healthcare could make a lot more headway if they weren't obsessed with championing it as a "right" and more focused on making it a practical privilege in any advanced moral society.

Just my two cents.
tensuke
Member
(09-25-2017, 10:19 PM)
tensuke's Avatar

Originally Posted by Anoregon

Owning a deadly firearm - right
Treatment for being on the receiving end of a deadly firearm - not a right

It's simple you guys

It's a right to have the ability to own a gun. Nobody thinks that because we have the right to bear arms, the government has to provide us with guns. I think that's where a lot of people are with healthcare, we should all have the ability to receive healthcare, but should the government have to provide us with healthcare?

Taking it a bit further, who is providing the healthcare? Doctors, and nurses. If we had no doctors and nurses, the government couldn't reasonably provide us with healthcare. That wouldn't stop us from having the right to access healthcare, even if (for practical purposes) it didn't exist anymore. That's what a right is. Not a tangible thing given to you. In the US, rights are things that the government in general can't take away from us, not that they have to provide for us. The government can't curb freedom of expression, but that doesn't mean they have to give every citizen a notepad. If the government is giving you something, they can take it away. That's the difference between rights and goods/services.


All that said, even if I don't think providing healthcare and treatment is a right, I think access to healthcare is a right and while on principle I disagree with social services, right now there's no better way to deal with certain issues, especially among low-income households and the homeless. I don't think people should be prevented from using a private option when they can afford to, but I think there are baseline levels of healthcare that should be provided to all citizens regardless (and people shouldn't have to worry about being able to afford an operation or just see a doctor to check something out).

Edit: I'll just say that I don't believe making policy decisions (or advocating policy) should ever blindly follow ideology. It's easy to say the government should just provide everything for us, but there are issues with that. On the flip side, it's easy to say the government shouldn't provide anything for us, but there are problems with that, too. It's important to take a critical eye to problems and be able to look past personal preference or beliefs on an issue.
Last edited by tensuke; 09-25-2017 at 10:23 PM.
Prodigal Son
Member
(09-25-2017, 10:20 PM)
Prodigal Son's Avatar
it should be

Thread Tools