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.
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.Its 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.
In most countries with universal healthcare, yes.Does it being a "right" extend to non-citizens?
Demand for food and Water is infinite.No. Demand for healthcare is infinite which makes it being a right a philosophical impossibility.
Yep. Aside from dental for some stupid reason. Someone should challenge that on a constitutional level.Of course it is. It is here in Canada too..
Demand for food and Water is infinite.
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.
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.
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.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.
It should absolutely be a right
There are plenty of developed countries with universal healthcare, which makes it being a right a factual possibility.No. Demand for healthcare is infinite which makes it being a right a philosophical impossibility.
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.
Yes, absolutely. And trying to muddy it up with debating the definition of a "right" is a bad look, imo.
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.
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.
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.
Dragging existentialism into the debate isn't making it a good question.
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
We are more wealthy than we have ever been. We can afford it.
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.
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.
In most countries with universal healthcare, yes.
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.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.
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.
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.
Yep. Aside from dental for some stupid reason. Someone should challenge that on a constitutional level.
If basic things like healthcare are never going to be a right, then I don't even know why humans bother to band together.
Like... if there was a vote? Would it... would it be a nationwide thing? Or... or would... would this be voted on by Congress?I wonder if Americans would pick the right to carry a gun or to have good healthcare if they had to pick one.
Hopefully it's more of your point. That garners more sympathy thank a philosophy of entry-level comedy.
Yeah, otherwise you're valuing human lives differently according to how much money they have.
I don't understand what this means.
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.
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.
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.
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.