Support NeoGAF

[ironmang]

Does it being a "right" extend to non-citizens?

 

[mantidor]

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.

I really don't think it happens anywhere else.

 

[ChryZ]

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.

Dragging existentialism into the debate isn't making it a good question. The OP is pretty clear, human society and norms are a given here.

 

[DrSlek]

Does it being a "right" extend to non-citizens?

In most countries with universal healthcare, yes.

 

[Xyphie]

No. Demand for healthcare is infinite which makes it being a right a philosophical impossibility.

 

[npm0925]

Not until every member of the 1% has a gold-plated toilet seat! #MAGA

 

[Eylos]

No. Demand for healthcare is infinite which makes it being a right a philosophical impossibility.

Demand for food and Water is infinite.

 

[jerry113]

I think it SHOULD be a right to any citizen of a decently moral country. I think a society can only be measured by how it treats its most destitute and unfortunate.

We pay taxes to the government in exchange for protection and services like police enforcement, military guardianship, public schools and universities, fire departments, basic utilities like water and roads to walk and drive on. We give something, we receive something back. It's how societies function.

Why shouldn't healthcare be among those services? A healthier population is in society's best interests.

 

[Woo-Fu]

Nothing is a right until your society puts it into law. I think a better question would be, "Should it be a right in -insert a country where it isn't-?"

I think universal healthcare makes sense for enough other reasons that whether it is a right or not kind of misses the mark.

 

[Ogodei]

Part and parcel to the right to life. Everyone would agree that a life without food, healthcare, clothing, privacy, and shelter is no life worth living. It's implied that we have a right to be alive, then we have a right to have these dignities while we live.

 

[NeoZeedeater]

Of course it is. It is here in Canada too..

Yep. Aside from dental for some stupid reason. Someone should challenge that on a constitutional level.

 

[Xyphie]

Demand for food and Water is infinite.

Even if you wanted to eat infinite food there's a finite limit to how much a human can drink without getting water poisoned or dying from overheating. So no, demand is not infinite.

Getting a 1 trillion dollar of healthcare provided to you has a net positive marginal benefit to your health on the other hand.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

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.

Aye. Truly astonishing.

 

[KernelPanic]

As a Canadian I can't understand people arguing for paying for ever increasing insurance premiums in order to pad the profits of a greedy insurance company. That same company which takes your money and tries to weasel their way out of covering your needs and screw you on every claim you submit.

i mean we have private health insurance but it's for largely non essential stuff and it pisses me off dealing with them as is. Couldn't imagine ending up in a hospital and worrying about that shit.

Should be a right.

 

[y2dvd]

Everyone should have the right to one's well being so yes.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

As a Canadian I can't understand people arguing for paying for ever increasing insurance premiums in order to pad the profits of a greedy insurance company. That same company which takes your money and tries to weasel their way out of covering your needs and screw you on every claim you submit.

i mean we have private health insurance but it's for largely non essential stuff and it pisses me off dealing with them as is. Couldn't imagine ending up in a hospital and worrying about that shit.

Should be a right.

The white majority don't want poor folk (unless it's them and only them) and minorities to have these things. They don't want to share.

 

[Eylos]

Even if you wanted to eat infinite food there's a finite limit to how much a human can drink without getting water poisoned or dying from overheating. So no, demand is not infinite.

Getting a 1 trillion dollar of healthcare provided to you has a net positive marginal benefit to your health on the other hand.

If demand for food an water IS not infinite by this definition, neither IS healthcare, You dont Go to the doctor and to the hospital every day (unless You are Very sick) or take infinite drugs.

 

[televator]

Yes. Next easy question.

 

[WiiredShawn]

Yes. And it's not a hard argument to win, honestly.

Replace "healthcare" with "roads."

We have roads. They're useful. They're a public good. Very few people "worked" for those roads. But we nonetheless expect those roads to exist, because those roads provide people with opportunities. So we imbue our government with the responsibility of creating and maintaining our roads. We pay taxes in order to diffuse the overall cost of doing that work.

Inevitably, there will be people who use roads wastefully or dangerously. The presence of roads means that someone will drive drunk on them and potentially hurt or kill others.

That inevitability doesn't make us say "Let's get rid of roads." Instead, it invites us to deal with those accompanying issues in other ways. But the public good remains for all to use because that's fundamentally better for everyone.

Whether it's a "right" or not is more of a rhetorical question to me - claiming "rights" is a way to shortcut a larger argument about authority and need. But we have the resources to transform healthcare into a public good, just like roads, and we should.

 

[Redd]

It should absolutely be a right

Yup. It should be.

 

[ChryZ]

No. Demand for healthcare is infinite which makes it being a right a philosophical impossibility.

There are plenty of developed countries with universal healthcare, which makes it being a right a factual possibility.

 

[Cocaloch]

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.

Then your law school hasn't focused much on the history of law or jurisprudence. Conceptions of rights have historically been quite important to the establishment and development of law.

Yes, absolutely. And trying to muddy it up with debating the definition of a "right" is a bad look, imo.

This is pretty much the same thing as me saying

"Disagreeing with me in anyway is a bad look, imo."

Sometimes debates on topics like this either have wider implications or involve arguments come from more systemic thought. Smart thinkers rarely approach topics in isolation.

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.

To me this statement is totally meaningless because all thought is inherently social so it's hardly a contradiction to have socially constructed natural rights.

To many this statement is patently wrong because law of nature is a major topic in a number of systems of thinking. Ironically foremost among theses systems is the very contract theory you're bringing up.

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.

You don't seem to understand Locke's conception of Liberty and Property. Property trumps Liberty. The major exception is that an individual cannot willingly reduce himself to losing Liberty through Property, i.e. debt slavery is not possible. That's a major part of the core of his argument. Because property is identified with the self. All other rights stem from this right to one's own property, itself stemming from the right to defend oneself. Ironically he makes an argument that can be interepreted as pro-healthcare early on, though I'd say this is somewhat of a misreading as 17th century thinkers liked to emphasis negative action over positive ones.

Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.

Also I don't think too many people that seriously deal with these questions anymore are Lockeans. Most historians don't even think Locke was that important to America's revolution anymore, instead civic republicanism used some Lockean thought, and it was never that important to that of the French, ideologically based on Rousseau who is totally at ends with Locke.

Dragging existentialism into the debate isn't making it a good question.

No one in this thread brought up existentialism.

 

[mantidor]

Even if you wanted to eat infinite food there's a finite limit to how much a human can drink without getting water poisoned or dying from overheating. So no, demand is not infinite.

Getting a 1 trillion dollar of healthcare provided to you has a net positive marginal benefit to your health on the other hand.

Healthcare is a service, not a supply/demand thing. Most people will never need 1 trillion dollars of "healthcare", governments should be able to stablish a system that allows access to healthcare for anyone at any time, because this is something that is not needed for everyone, all the time at the same time, unlike food/water.

But seriously this argument of "it's too expensive!" falls apart when there are countries with a smaller GDP per capita than the US and they are perfectly capable of making it work.

 

[Eylos]

Then your law school hasn't focused much on the history of law or jurisprudence. Conceptions of rights have historically been quite important to the establishment and development of law.



This is pretty much the same thing as me saying

"Disagreeing with me in anyway is a bad look, imo."

Sometimes debates on topics like this either have wider implications or come from more systemic thought. Smart thinkers rarely approach topics in isolation.

We discuss the conceptions of rights, but in pratic, a right only exists If it exists in the jusnormative system of the country, If dont It isnt a right. You can discuss whats the right to healthcare, whats law, but the existence, If its a right or not is the state that turn this into a right if a state say It is then yes, otherwise no, i never seen somebody saying otherwise.
Unless jusnaturalists that may Go against juspositivists,or supraconstitutional norms?

 

[SkateorDi3]

Yes. When you live in one of the richest countries in the world, healthcare should be free if you pay taxes and have a job. I cant believe the amount of debt i incurred just by having a couple simple tests done.

 

[balohna]

The government of any civilized nation should make it a priority to prevent its citizens from dying due to conditions that can be treated, cured or prevented. I believe that socialized medicine is the best way to handle this so far, and it amazes me that there are people in the United States that would rather have moderately lower taxes than ensure that the poor and middle class people can go to the doctor without going broke, take an ambulance with going into debt, or get sick without dying. How fucking selfish and cruel can you be, holy shit.

 

[SkateorDi3]

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.

We are more wealthy than we have ever been. We can afford it.

 

[Cocaloch]

We discuss the conceptions of rights, but in pratic, a right only exists If it exists in the jusnormative system of the country, If dont It isnt a right.

Well sure this is true in legal effect, i.e. there's nothing to enforce the existence of rights outside of the state, but that's clearly conceptually not true as you admit. People had made arguments, including legal ones, for and against certain rights long before, if ever, those things were codified as rights. Moreover people's conception of rights, specifically natural rights, are clearly influential on states actually legislating those rights, and in common law countries making them rights through the judiciary, see Pocock. For a more large-scale example, see Britain in the 18th century or Revolutionary France.

If its a right or not is the state that turn this into a right if a state say It is then yes, otherwise no, i never seen somebody saying otherwise.

Have you never read any political philosophy? How about Locke? Or Paine's Rights of Man? Those are two incredibly obvious examples. More importantly see Natural Law Scholars of the 17th century who essentially are the bedrock of Western political epistemology.

How do you think rights get legislated?

Unless jusnaturalists that may Go against juspositivists,or supraconstitutional norms?

I think we're running into a bit of a language issue here sorry. If I'm understanding you correctly you're saying you've never heard of anyone who says something, except for the people who say that thing.

We are more wealthy than we have ever been. We can afford it.

That's what he is saying.

 

[Mihos]

No, rights do not compel action in others. Pursuit of healthcare, yeah sure.... but you are not born entitled to anything.

 

[Foffy]

It's not a right via the Constitution, but you have to remember this was a document written about "all people being equal" while the oppression, suppression, and exploitation of women, children, and blacks existed. Don't be a stupid nostalgic: ideas show looseness over time. Religion is another case where this absolutism is actually a curse, not a cause of good.

It's a right via humanism and decency, something America often avoids engaging entirely.

 

[Not]

No, rights do not compel action in others. Pursuit of healthcare, yeah sure.... but you are not born entitled to anything.

Most people who are actually born with privilege find this easy to believe.

 

[Foffy]

Most people who are actually born with privilege find this easy to believe.

Or Libertarians, but those are kooks.

Hopefully it's more of your point. That garners more sympathy than a philosophy of entry-level comedy.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

Read like half of it so far but my answer will always be yes and income shouldn't dictate your service. To put it simply a homeless person should have the same options a billionare has.

the latter part isn't realistic with private healthcare providers being around.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

Which document did they put 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'?

 

[WaterAstro]

I wonder if Americans would pick the right to carry a gun or to have good healthcare if they had to pick one.

 

[ironmang]

In most countries with universal healthcare, yes.

Do a lot of people take advantage of that? Like if someone needed a lot of expensive care it seems like it'd be better to just fly to one of those countries instead of staying in their home country and letting their family struggle to pay.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

Do a lot of people take advantage of that? Like if someone needed a lot of expensive care it seems like it'd be better to just fly to one of those countries instead of staying in their home country and letting their family struggle to pay.

lots of people take advantage of lower costs in other countries for equal care but universal healthcare is generally handled through citizenship (family), residency, work or asylum meaning it's not extended to tourists. Unless there's contracts between your insurance and local insurers which there usually are across europe.

 

[KernelPanic]

The white majority don't want poor folk (unless it's them and only them) and minorities to have these things. They don't want to share.

Yeah and I can't understand that thinking at all.

I got a family. My wife is pregnant. I worry if my family is covered.

Do I care if my Muslim neighbors have coverage as well partially due to my taxes?

Hello no, I have my own problems.

 

[bardia]

Absolutely. My family immigrated to Canada very poor and I had to have some work done as a young kid that wasn't life threatening necessary, but greatly affected my quality of life and was able to have it done thanks to health care. Now that I'm well off I'll gladly pay higher taxes to pay it forward.

 

[Eylos]

Well sure this is true in legal effect, i.e. there's nothing to enforce the existence of rights outside of the state, but that's clearly conceptually not true as you admit. People had made arguments, including legal ones, for and against certain rights long before, if ever, those things were codified as rights. Moreover people's conception of rights, specifically natural rights, are clearly influential on states actually legislating those rights, and in common law countries making them rights through the judiciary, see Pocock. For a more large-scale example, see Britain in the 18th century or Revolutionary France.



Have you never read any political philosophy? How about Locke? Or Paine's Rights of Man? Those are two incredibly obvious examples. More importantly see Natural Law Scholars of the 17th century who essentially are the bedrock of Western political epistemology.

How do you think rights get legislated?



I think we're running into a bit of a language issue here sorry. If I'm understanding you correctly you're saying you've never heard of anyone who says something, except for the people who say that thing.



That's what he is saying.

Yes, I think our discussion is in the word exists. Does in the US today have the right to universal healthcare?
No, their state doesnt have or defend this

Does every man have(should) have the right to universal healthcare in the US?
Yes.


I was talking about the existence of the right in the US today.

 

[old manatee]

If basic things like healthcare are never going to be a right, then I don't even know why humans bother to band together.

 

[CazTGG]

Yep. Aside from dental for some stupid reason. Someone should challenge that on a constitutional level.

Not just dental (I don't believe gender reassignment surgery is covered either) but yes, oral healthcare should be covered, even if it does mean paying marginally higher taxes.

 

[travisbickle]

If basic things like healthcare are never going to be a right, then I don't even know why humans bother to band together.

So the rich and wealthy can exploit the poor and needy.

 

[Acerac]

I wonder if Americans would pick the right to carry a gun or to have good healthcare if they had to pick one.

Like... if there was a vote? Would it... would it be a nationwide thing? Or... or would... would this be voted on by Congress?

Oh you were just shitting on millions of people who would have agreed with you minus your condescending tone. I guess you are better than Americans, so you have every right to look down upon an entire nation.

 

[Not]

Hopefully it's more of your point. That garners more sympathy thank a philosophy of entry-level comedy.

I don't understand what this means.

 

[hydragonwarrior]

Yeah, otherwise you're valuing human lives differently according to how much money they have.

What's wrong with survival of the richest

 

[Foffy]

I don't understand what this means.

People being rich and affluent and thinking health care is a choice comes from the blindness of their privledge.

Libertarians make the case on childish remarks about society, the individual, taxation, and just straight up mysticism in some regards.

One might be blind from their status, but the other becomes blind by their beliefs.

 

[Cocaloch]

Yes, I think our discussion is in the word exists. Does in the US today have the right to universal healthcare?
No, their state doesnt have or defend this

Well, no one here thinks this is currently a thing. People are clearly saying is it a right, with the implication being that the state then needs to codify it. Their conception of it being a right descends not from what is the current law, but instead a conception of either "natural" or socially determined rights.

Does every man have(should) have the right to universal healthcare in the US?
Yes.


I was talking about the existence of the right in the US today.

I'm not really sure why you're doing that. Clearly no one thinks this is a current legal reality.

People being rich and affluent and thinking health care is a choice comes from the blindness of their privledge.

Libertarians make the case on childish remarks about society, the individual, taxation, and just straight up mysticism in some regards.

One might be blind from their status, but the other becomes blind by their beliefs.

Libertarians are making an argument from the Lockean misconception of the state of nature. There was no state of nature. It was a philosophical fiction used for an argument.

I think libertarianism is probably the least well thought out and, excuse my frankness, most adolescent political philosophy but I think you're being a bit unfair. Many libertarians I know are hardly privileged, and the system in internally consistent. It's just based on particularly bad premises and is simple enough to be attractive to people that don't think all that much about these sorts of matters.

 

[WaterAstro]

Like... if there was a vote? Would it... would it be a nationwide thing? Or... or would... would this be voted on by Congress?

Oh you were just shitting on millions of people who would have agreed with you minus your condescending tone. I guess you are better than Americans, so you have every right to look down upon an entire nation.

Yes, I look down on anyone who thinks open carry policy is a good thing, especially if they rather have that over healthcare for dying people.

 

[Eylos]

Well, no one here thinks this is currently a thing. People are clearly saying is it a right, with the implication being that the state then needs to codify it. Their conception of it being a right descends not from what is the current law, but instead a conception of either "natural" or socially determined rights.



I'm not really sure why you're doing that. Clearly no one thinks this is a current legal reality.



Libertarians are making an argument from the Lockean misconception of the state of nature. There was no state of nature. It was a philosophical fiction used for an argument.

I think libertarianism is probably the least well thought out and, excuse my frankness, most adolescent political philosophy but I think you're being a bit unfair. Many libertarians I know are hardly privileged, and the system in internally consistent. It's just based on particularly bad premises and is simple enough to be attractive to people that don't think all that much about these sorts of matters.

Yeah thinking about this, i took too literraly the question and misunderstood the intention of the op. So my bad about this, but why the attack?