Exactly. You might as well say that you have a right to a nourishing, healthy diet. I don’t see anyone delivering any organic vegetables to my house.
No health care is not a right. But a country that does not care about those in their midst with problems is certainly selfish. A lot of us would be happy if we got the coverage we pay for. Even that is asking too much. But people who close their eyes while the poor suffer certainly reveal a lot about them selves. So does a nation that allows it. The majority of the poor are children. They should have been born to richer parents. That is their fault, I guess.
IANAL but (in the UK) there was a recent case in which the High Court held that the state has positive as well as negative obligations to uphold the right to life and extended this to the provision of health care services.
Again, it’s not about a right to health care, it’s about a right to ‘equal access’ to health care.
If you understand ‘equal access’ to education, police services, etc, how can you not understand equal access to health care?
Everyone has equal access to roads, police services, fire services, education. Everyone pays regardless, for these things, which enables access for everyone. Not just the wealthy, everyone. Health care should be no different.
I’m still waiting for clarification on who said this, “A right is something that doesn’t cost anyone else anything”, and what the context was!
A ‘for profit’ health care system is predatory and heartless. And that’s not even taking into account all the people who pay into insurance, only to discover at crunch time, they are not covered adequately.
That’s nice – but it’s also irrelevant.
Health care already has enough merits on its own without having to torture the word “right” to make a point. There’s no need to hijack the classical definition of a “right” as it was used (and mentioned by previous post) in the USA Declaration of Independence.
If “universal health care” truly is a better way for society to live, then so bit it – there’s no need to further confuse the matter with parsing the word “right”.
It has been demonstrated the world over – except here – that UHC is the better way. More than that, it’s morally right. And as I said previously, it’s mutually beneficial to the country and to citizens.
In your world there clearly is no brain with the right to the pursuit of happiness attached to that womb.
The right to bear arms inevitably leads to the deaths of innocent sitting in cars in the wrong place. Read about one such woman yesterday. Arresting the people who did it doesn’t bring her back. Maybe that’s worth it, and maybe it isn’t, but that is a cost a bit greater than paying a bit more in taxes.
To you it has been demonstrated but to many observers, it has not. Sweden, France, Canada, etc do not prove UHC because they are struggling with costs and deficits. They haven’t fully solved the math. Also, their UHC exists while the world’s largest economy (the USA) does not have UHC. In other words, their UHC comes at the expense of the USA. Just like USA’s cleaner air comes at the expense of China having smoggy air (via offshore manufacturing).
Implementing USA switch to UHC is not equivalent to Canada adopting UHC because there is no larger economy than the USA to piggyback on for drug and medical research (so that the debit & credit columns of govt accounting within the USA borders make UHC look “affordable”).
On the other hand, if China’s economy were to grow to be double the size of the USA and China’s universities and companies took over 51%+ the drug & medical research, and graduated eminent doctors for deployment worldwide and they themselves did not adopt UHC, the USA would then be able to implement UHC with a fighting chance for fiscal success. In other words, we need to “offshore” many of the expensive health-care related activity to China (just like we offshored textiles and electronics). That way, the USA can brag about implementing UHC while the Chinese citizens can wonder and complain about why THEY don’t have affordable UHC!
All the talk about health care being “a right” and the need for single-payer does not address the supply-side equation of health care at all. Health care in the USA simply costs a lot of money, period. Medical school is expensive. Doctors salaries are expensive. MRI and CAT scan equipment is expensive. Hospital surgery teams, transplants, etc are all insanely expensive. The USA already has the concept of “single-payer” in place for funding the military (manpower + equipment) and yet we still spend more on the military than any other country!
You want affordable UHC in the USA? Convince China to abandon the implementation of UHC for their citizens and also get them to ship over cheaper doctors, cheaper cutting-edge drugs, and cheaper medical equipment.
Doing that is still probably easier, less futile, and more instructive than trying to formulate solutions to a problem that many powerful people, and quite a few ordinary ones, simply do not want solved.
How many times do we have to say this before it sinks in? Most breakthrough medical research is funded by the government today - the stuff that the real advances come from. Big Pharma has gotten less and less effective in doing the (admittedly) expensive reduction to practice - startups, are doing more of it now, startups which get bought by Big Pharma. Plus. marketing costs exceed R&D costs. IIRC s some European doper said that there are no drug ads there. In a UHC system we can cut the hell out of marketing costs, keep R&D, and still save a bunch of money.
Sweden will indeed never equal the US in medical research - nor in computer science research, physics, math, or even movies. We’re just bigger.
At most, health care might be viewed as a “public good,” in the same sense as publicly funded roads, fire services, police …
Even so, it isn’t a right in the pure sense: a “right” to health care would give you the right to the services of medical resources and personnel, which imposes a cost on others.
One may well argue the benefits of publicly-funded basic health care, but as a public good, not a right.
How would healthcare be any different? Wouldn’t you say it too benefits society as a whole?
Forgive me, but that statement seems…odd. It’s like saying, "I don’t believe in in bats, just *mostly nocturnal flying mammals of the order Chiropter. * What is a right other than something we agree everyone should have?
A right is whatever humans assert, obtain, and defend. I don’t think simply agreeing is sufficient. Not that you said that necessarily; I’m just making a point.
Small correction. We have no rights we lack the power to keep; in that sense we have no “rights” to any other rights.
Though my earlier post did not make it clear, I was thinking of rights as spoken of in the United States Constitution, which certainly are things that we have agreed, on a society, to honor. I frankly see no other way to differentiate rights from privileges.
Moreover, consider this scenario. There’s a comely brunette at the table in front of me. Let’s say I decide I have a right to her, and thus, when she leaves the coffeehouse, I follow her, abduct her, and hold her captive, fighting the police when they come to rescue her. Do I have a right to her? Obviously not.
Absolutely. Just as I think access to education can help prevent crime and move society in a positive direction , affordable health care that is financially accessible to everyone is IMO better for society as a whole. I think how those safety nets are structured also has a lot to do with shaping society and it’s attitudes.
Personally I think everyone should pay something in the form of a tax that comes out of your wages similar to what we do now only aimed directly at health care.
That said, that doesn’t make it a right. In the concept of free speech a poor person’s opinion has just as much weight just as their vote counts as much as a rich persons.
Fees for services isn’t the same. Still, in the Constitution we see
domestic tranquility? Promote the general welfare? even secure the blessings of liberty, all seem compatible with establishing some form of UHC.
I’m not sure I agree. I think there are rights that we can assert and no one can completely deny. The difference is the consequences of asserting and exercising those rights vary from nation to nation.
Or by that standard, to any rights whatsoever. Nor do they even matter; if you can do something regardless of opposition, what need do you have of a right to do so?
Redefining “rights” as “power” seems to be the opposite of the entire concept of “rights” to me. Rights are all about what you don’t necessarily have the power to just do regardless of the opposition of others.
What’s the difference practically, though, between a right you have that’s violated, and a right that you don’t have? It seems to me if you say, “people have the right to X”, you’re making a moral claim. If you say, for instance, “People have the right not to be slaves”, what you’re saying is, “It’s morally wrong to take someone as a slave.” If you say, “People have a right to health care”, you’re saying, “It’s morally wrong to deny someone who needs it health care”. But that only has practical effect if there’s a moral consensus or if you’re able to impose your moral views on the people who disagree. Slavery was abolished in this country not because it violated people’s rights, but because the North won the Civil War and was able to force slaveholders (who didn’t believe that slavery violated people’s rights) to emancipate their slaves.