It’s a moral question not a practical one in the first place.
I get more and more irritated by this question. No, it is not a right. Is protection of your and my property a right? No, it isn’t. Is there a right to police protection? Of course not. To public schoos and libraries? No. To public water and sewage supplies? Of course not. There are no rights.
But our societies have socialized these and many other things and made rights of them. I once had a libertarian friend who advocated that streets and sidewalks be private and tolls collected whenever you walked and rode on one. He eventually went off to law school (after getting a PhD in math) and ended up, IIRC, as a public prosecutor in LA (thus living on the public teat, what irony) but is still active in Libertarian circles. He, and presumably other libertarians felt that police and defense were natural rights, not accepting that they were just as socialistic as everything else society had chosen to socialize.
Most of us are not aware that through the mid 19th century, the great cry of “Socialism” was directed at municipal water and sewage.
My point is that we are all socialists (well, maybe not total anarchists, who must believe in the rule of the strongest–if they have thought it through at all). Even my former friend. We disagree only about what should be socialized.
I am also something of a libertarian; the government has no business interfering with things like drugs and gambling. On the other hand, corporations are social enterprises and have no individual rights. Obviously, I am on a totally different wavelength from the people who prate on about rights.
So my answer is that virtually all developed societies (with the obvious exception) have decided to socialize medical care in one way of another. I, living for 40 years in Canada, would have it no other way.
IMO that’s the intriguing part of the quote
A right is something that doesn’t cost anyone else anything.
Freedom of speech, freedom of{and from} religion, the pursuit of happiness are all things that can be exercised without someone else providing for them. One of the remarkable things our founders tried to instill and I think is reflected in several of the world’s great religious and philosophical traditions is the idea that whatever rights we seek to claim for ourselves we need to support and defend for others as well.
If you imagine something as your right, that damages someone else against their will {like your scenario} then you have distorted the principle of what a “right” is.
Concerning health care, yes it’s better for society as a whole to establish a system where quality health care is accessible to more people but it’s not for someone to claim as their right that someone else should pay for the things they can’t afford.
I think establishing the difference is an important part of the overall mindset that moves society forward in a healthy manner.
Please reveal where you got this quote and it’s context, you’ve been asked repeatedly.
Or did you just make it up as it fit your agenda?
That’s what “defend” means.
Perhaps I wasn’t clear. I meant to say the agreeing is insufficient. We still have to defend those rights. The Constitution doesn’t *prevent *anyone from denying me rights, but it does provide me an avenue to obtain and defend them.
Well sure. I have some devious purpose for presenting it as a quote when I actually made it up myself. Try guessing what it is.
Yes. Rights, as the Founding Fathers understood them, are things that we have naturally, until someone infringes upon them or tries to take them away from us.
My hasty, ill-thought-out rule of thumb is that rights (in this sense) are things that can be described using verbs: “I have a right to _____,” or maybe “I have a right not to be ________ed,” where the blank is filled in with a verb (like “live” or “pursue happiness”), not a noun (like “food” or “health care”).
Things like food and health care aren’t rights; they’re needs. In order for these needs to be met, we ourselves and/or someone else has to do something to provide them for us. Now, if we can’t do what needs to be done to provide these things for ourselves, it may be because someone is unfairly standing in our way, and thus there may be a very real, though perhaps hidden, infringement upon our rights.
But mostly, I don’t think it’s helpful to think of things like food or health care as rights. Because if we think of them as rights, then the focus is on, “Who’s infringing on the people’s rights? Who’s tyrannically denying them the things they need?” Whereas if we think of them simply as things that everyone ought to have, we can work on figuring out how to set things up so that everyone has access to them.
Health care is a particularly tricky one: whether it’s something that everyone has a “right” to or just something that everyone should have, how much should everyone have? How much health care is enough?
Interesting take. It seems most agree that it’s a need rather than a right. The important difference to me is in the mindset. I think it’s important to establish that people need to do all they can to help provide for their own needs before relying on a safety net set up by society. I think it’s a good idea for everyone to pay.
A libertarian friend of mine sent me the Tytler cycle
I think we see in California the problems of having the the public vote directly on how funds should be spent.
After several decades of observing I see the down side of of having part of society pay the bills for others. In my fathers day it would never occur to him to go to the government for help paying his bills. Instead he got a 2nd job and cut corners to make ends meet. We need to encourage that kind of personal responsibility as we set up these types of programs.
So your house catches fire, a big and difficult fire, several fire trucks respond with numerous firefighters and it takes a day and half to get under control. The tab for this fire fight far exceeds the amount you have paid in, through your taxes, over the years.
We can assume that you’d rush right out and cash in your 401K and children’s college funds to cover that bill, right? Because you’re not right with costing anyone else money to provide for you or your families needs. I’m sure your Dad would give you his retirement funds too, since he feels the same. And, of course, it would take you a lifetime to pay off, so no retirement for you or he.
Or would you suddenly be okay with costing others out of pocket?
Yeah, that’s what I thought!
Not relevant to my point .
Right, which is why asking, “Is X a right” is one of those questions without an objective answer, so I really don’t understand the purpose of the debate here.
And, btw, Tytler probably never came up with the “Tytler cycle”.
How exactly is it not relevant? Or do you just want to talk the talk, but not walk the walk?
You have disingenuously avoided all requests for the context of your ‘quote’, and now dismiss my example as not relevant.
You and your Dad both expect to use the safety net that is fire services and are comfortable with others covering the cost. But since you can both afford decent health care, everyone else can be damned and don’t deserve a safety net?
Seems like you’re playing both sides of the street there bub!
Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.
In your father’s day he’d never have a million dollars in medical bills either. One million dollars. It boggles the mind doesn’t it? It’s like winning the lottery in reverse. How do you plan for something like that? What safety net in your own life have you set up to cover for that possibility? Does every worldly possession you and your family own equal the cost of medical payments if something, by complete fluke, were to happen to you?
And if the answer to that last question is yes, are you prepared to give it up, all of it up, cash everything in to pay that bill when the time comes?
Wow! You are assuming things not in evidence and happen to be wrong. Maybe you should ask for clarification before you jump to incorrect conclusions.
I said in th OP I had heard the quote years ago so sorry, I don’t remember where it came from. I did a quick Google search and still couldn’t find the source although the concept itself is a a part of a lot of discussions.
I did think it was amusing that you imagined I might have lied about it being a quote for some reason. I just don’t see any purpose for that at all or any way it would bolter the overall concept. It’s just an idea up for discussion, that’s all.
If you had read my responses with comprehension you’d know why you example is not relevant. I never proposed that individuals should pay their own medical bills without any assistance. In fact I supported the idea of UHC while asking the question, is it a right or just a compassionate choice for a modern society? The very forst post, the OP, remember?
In my fathers day, supporting a family of 5 on around 5 thousand a year, it took a whole lot less than a million to result in unmanageable debt.
You’re not understanding my point. I am not suggesting everyone pay for their own bills and not receive any outside support. I’m not interested in defending a point I haven’t made.
Why is Medical school so expensive? Since the number of students wanting to get into medical school (the demand) is high and the number of available medical schools (the supply) is low then in a free-market environment competition should have created additional medical schools. Is there some artificial control in place that is reducing competition in this industry and artificially “setting” the price of medical school by controlling the supply? Is this legal? This condition is affecting the economic stability and thus the security of the entire nation. This condition has already cost tax-payers untold billions and is about to cost them a projected $900 billion (Healthcare reform) over the next 10 years.
Until the consumer cost of health care is set by free-market competition (not artificially manipulated by the supply of doctors) then access to health care for ALL consumers must be mandated by the Federal government, and thus a de facto “right”.
The cost of health care is not determined by competition. The majority percent of health care in America is provided by one huge controlling company. In 25 states , one company provides more than half the health insurance in the state. Those are the most populous states. We don’t use the power of the government to break up companies that control markets. In New Hampshire ,one company provides 71 percent of the health care. Competition is an illusion. Companies do not want to compete. It costs money. They want to maximize profits.
I assume here you are referring to the government.
Regards,
Shodan
I would say it is a smart compassionate choice that people are entitled to.
Aside from the US, no wealthy countries lack universal access to health care. And many developing nations like India, Brazil, Mexico, etc either have or are instituting universal health care systems.
So I don’t know if it is a ‘right’ per se, but it is a natural consequence of a nation with a basic level of civility and/or wealth. Same with police protection or pensions for the elderly. I don’t know if those are rights, but they are natural consequences of wealth and civility.
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.gadling.com/media/2007/07/healthcareworldbig.jpg