# Reframing "socialism" into "natural human rights" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 2, 2020, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789 "2020-03-02T15:19:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Ashtura](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ashtura/32/2963_2.png) [@Ashtura](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ashtura)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2020, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/61 "2020-03-03T20:38:15Z")
> [@](#): > > So the question really is this - if a poor person injures themselves, what minimum level of care should they expect? Should they just be left to die in the street until the local publicly funded sanitation service comes to take away their remains? Probably not, because that’s not really happening now. In most cases, they wind up in the ER and the hospital writes it off. Back in the day, when I was struggling financially, I had a doctor growl at me “You gonna pay for this?” right before I went under for a procedure. I said yessir, and paid in installments. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2020, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/62 "2020-03-03T20:50:18Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Isn’t that the central theme of this thread? Whether to call certain ethical positions “natural human rights” instead of “socialism”, etc? > > ~Max Okay… so I’m arguing the theory behind the messaging, if that’s the message that’s chosen. We already treat firefighting as a “natural right”, so let’s treat healthcare the same way too. But I think the messaging about socialism is already working – the favorability of the term has gone way, way up in recent years. Maybe we don’t need to change anything – just stick to the message, and highlight all the people that are harmed unjustly by the current system. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2020, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/63 "2020-03-03T21:10:01Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > There is no natural human right to an education, mail, fire fighting, or police. Natural human rights has a meaning and it is not “Things the government should do”. That’s a fair point – police and fire services are not things I would generally call rights. But, while it isn’t part of our Constitution, I think the idea that everyone is entitled to a basic education in the United States at the expense of the government is pretty much a right. I suppose you might quibble as to the difference between a right to education and an entitlement to education (or whatever), but the fact that every kid in the US can go to a public school sure walks, talks, and quacks like a right. > [@Shodan](#): > > The demand for fire-fighting services is not continuously rising. Then our doctors need not worry about **Max S.**'s concern. Problem solved! Although I think you meant this in a different spirit, of course. Given the choice between a more efficient system that serves everyone; and a more wasteful system that serves only the wealthy; I know what I’m choosing. ---
**Author:** ![JcWoman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jcwoman/32/2889_2.png) [@JcWoman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JcWoman)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2020, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/64 "2020-03-03T21:14:12Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > But because we live in a civilized society, we as a society have come to an agreement that certain services like law enforcement, education, fire departments, national defense, roads and other infrastructure should be available to all people and funded through pooled resources (i.e. taxes). > > So the question really is this - if a poor person injures themselves, what minimum level of care should they expect? Should they just be left to die in the street until the local publicly funded sanitation service comes to take away their remains? I would agree with your point, and answer the question as “definitely not”. > [@Ravenman](#): > > That’s a fair point – police and fire services are not things I would generally call rights. But, while it isn’t part of our Constitution, I think the idea that everyone is entitled to a basic education in the United States at the expense of the government is pretty much a right. I suppose you might quibble as to the difference between a right to education and an entitlement to education (or whatever), but the fact that every kid in the US can go to a public school sure walks, talks, and quacks like a right. > > Then our doctors need not worry about **Max S.**'s concern. Problem solved! > > Although I think you meant this in a different spirit, of course. Given the choice between a more efficient system that serves everyone; and a more wasteful system that serves only the wealthy; I know what I’m choosing. This is a good point and echoes my thinking as well, even though my OP was muddled. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2020, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/65 "2020-03-03T21:34:46Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Then our doctors need not worry about **Max S.**'s concern. Problem solved I don’t know what problem you think is solved. Saying we don’t have to worry about healthcare costs because we don’t have to worry about fire-fighting costs is a non sequitur. Health care costs are high and rising. Fire-fighting costs are neither. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2020, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/66 "2020-03-03T21:38:46Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I don’t know what problem you think is solved. > > Saying we don’t have to worry about healthcare costs because we don’t have to worry about fire-fighting costs is a non sequitur. Health care costs are high and rising. Fire-fighting costs are neither. > > Regards, > Shodan Maybe we could try some of the strategies used by countries that don’t have such high and rising health care costs? ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2020, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/67 "2020-03-03T22:14:11Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > We already treat firefighting as a “natural right”, so let’s treat healthcare the same way too. No, we don’t. IIUC, “[natural right](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_rights)” has a specific meaning that does **not** apply to something like firefighting. I agree with what **msmith537** said: > [@msmith537](#): > > Throwing around terms like “natural rights” clouds the issue as it implies that people have some inherent entitlement to a particular service. They don’t. But because we live in a civilized society, we as a society have come to an agreement that certain services like law enforcement, education, fire departments, national defense, roads and other infrastructure should be available to all people and funded through pooled resources (i.e. taxes). ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2020, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/68 "2020-03-03T22:47:02Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Okay… so I’m arguing the theory behind the messaging, if that’s the message that’s chosen. We already treat firefighting as a “natural right”, so let’s treat healthcare the same way too. I think you and **Ravenman** both want to argue in support of healthcare as a right. I’m only here to point out that, while healthcare or health insurance coverage could be made to be a right, it could not be made into a _natural_ or _human right_. When you say we treat firefighting as a “natural right”, you lose me. I don’t think that a person is entitled to firefighting services by virtue of being a human, therefore I don’t treat firefighting as a natural right. I would justify the provision of fire-fighting services as part of a social contract: you abide by the local tax rules, don’t intentionally start fires, and in return the local government pays for firefighters. For adults, there is even consideration in that the adults are free to move elsewhere. If you’re a tax cheat, or an arsonist, in most situations I think the firefighters should go in and save you. But it is not because you have some right to be saved. It would be a waste of life and resources to stand by idly. Saving a life is a good thing, right? But this is sometimes countered because sending firefighters in risks their lives. If we know nobody is in the building, that changes the ethical calculus significantly. Second, firefighters are in no position to determine if you are a tax cheat or arsonist. We’re talking about firefighters, not the IRS, and not detectives. Third, fires can spread and endanger other people. You might not be the only one in the vicinity of the fire. But if you are the arsonist, or a tax cheat, etc, it is not because you deserve the service. Now if you have two houses on fire, with one person inside each, one is known to be the arsonist (maybe he confessed?), the other an innocent, no relevant logistical difference, I would not fault a strained fire dept. for going for the innocent first. There was a story when I was in high school, environmental science I think. Some fire department somewhere let a house burn down. The house was outside of city limits, the residents were safe before the dept. got involved, and the owner had previously refused to pay whatever fee the dept. charged for coverage. The neighbor had paid the fee and the fire dept. came to put out the fire on his farmland. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2020, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/69 "2020-03-03T22:49:41Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I think you and **Ravenman** both want to argue in support of healthcare as a right. I’m only here to point out that, while healthcare or health insurance coverage could be made to be a right, it could not be made into a _natural_ or _human right_. > > When you say we treat firefighting as a “natural right”, you lose me. I don’t think that a person is entitled to firefighting services by virtue of being a human, therefore I don’t treat firefighting as a natural right. I would justify the provision of fire-fighting services as part of a social contract: you abide by the local tax rules, don’t intentionally start fires, and in return the local government pays for firefighters. For adults, there is even consideration in that the adults are free to move elsewhere. > > If you’re a tax cheat, or an arsonist, in most situations I think the firefighters should go in and save you. But it is not because you have some right to be saved. It would be a waste of life and resources to stand by idly. Saving a life is a good thing, right? But this is sometimes countered because sending firefighters in risks their lives. If we know nobody is in the building, that changes the ethical calculus significantly. Second, firefighters are in no position to determine if you are a tax cheat or arsonist. We’re talking about firefighters, not the IRS, and not detectives. Third, fires can spread and endanger other people. You might not be the only one in the vicinity of the fire. But if you are the arsonist, or a tax cheat, etc, it is not because you deserve the service. > > Now if you have two houses on fire, with one person inside each, one is known to be the arsonist (maybe he confessed?), the other an innocent, no relevant logistical difference, I would not fault a strained fire dept. for going for the innocent first. > > There was a story when I was in high school, environmental science I think. Some fire department somewhere let a house burn down. The house was outside of city limits, the residents were safe before the dept. got involved, and the owner had previously refused to pay whatever fee the dept. charged for coverage. The neighbor had paid the fee and the fire dept. came to put out the fire on his farmland. > > ~Max All these are human-created and human-defined concepts, IMO, and thus it doesn’t matter to me what we call it. “Natural rights” or “human rights” or “purple wombat rights” – what matters to me is policy. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2020, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/70 "2020-03-03T23:27:24Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > What if the community cannot cover all of the basic needs? How can you ration “basic human needs” if everybody approaches the problem believing they have an inalienable, _natural human right to satisfy_ their “basic needs”? That’s a theoretical question that has no bearing on reality. We’re not talking about an experimental program. Most countries already have public health care systems and many of them have been in operation for decades. We have clear proof that public health care systems can be done. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2020, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/71 "2020-03-03T23:37:36Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I don’t know what problem you think is solved. > > Saying we don’t have to worry about healthcare costs because we don’t have to worry about fire-fighting costs is a non sequitur. Health care costs are high and rising. Fire-fighting costs are neither. Fire fighting is a public service provided by the government. Its costs are under control. Healthcare is provided by private sources in this country. Its cost are high and rising. In other countries, healthcare is a public service provided by the government. Their costs are under control. There’s a clear argument to be made based on your own premises. We could bring the high and rising costs of healthcare under control by enacting a public healthcare system. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2020, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/72 "2020-03-03T23:40:54Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > This is nonsense. According to your argument, teachers, mail men, fire fighters, and police officers are all slaves. > [@puddleglum](#): > > There is no natural human right to an education, mail, fire fighting, or police. Natural human rights has a meaning and it is not “Things the government should do”. > > If you define natural human rights as things the government should do then the argument is we should reframe health care as something the government should provide instead of something the government should provide. There seems to be no connection between what I wrote (which you quoted) and your response. I didn’t say anything about rights. I said that public employees aren’t slaves. Which was in direct response to somebody who said they were. So what’s your opinion on that issue? Do you feel that public employees are slaves? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2020, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/73 "2020-03-03T23:44:21Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > All these are human-created and human-defined concepts, IMO, and thus it doesn’t matter to me what we call it. “Natural rights” or “human rights” or “purple wombat rights” – what matters to me is policy. I agree that practicality of setting policy matters more than the theoretical underpinnings that the policy is based upon. But the practicality of theory is that we’re a democracy. Part of setting a policy is building up public support for the existence of a program. And sometimes the best means to do that is to argue the theoretical underpinnings. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2020, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/74 "2020-03-04T00:03:59Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > That’s a theoretical question that has no bearing on reality. We’re not talking about an experimental program. Most countries already have public health care systems and many of them have been in operation for decades. We have clear proof that public health care systems can be done. What’s theoretical? Food, water, electricity, internet, and even healthcare shortages happen in real life. I was thinking about triage after disaster in particular. You cannot ethically compromise on human rights, even in emergency situations. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2020, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/75 "2020-03-04T01:06:39Z")
Ya know, I’m no fan of Bernie, but it cracks me up that Bernie calls himself a “democratic socialist” and so many of his critics get lathered up over the linguistic gymnastics and retort that a socialist is a socialist. Meanwhile, we discuss healthcare as a part of a social contract between people and their government, and suddenly these very fine distinctions between a right, a natural right, a public service, a human right, a purple wombat right, an entitlement, or a flibbity-floo-flop-flee… and the meanings of each of those words are VERY IMPORTANT for REASONS. After all, aren’t we a REPUBLIC and not a DEMOCRACY??? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2020, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/76 "2020-03-04T05:03:18Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > What’s theoretical? Food, water, electricity, internet, and even healthcare shortages happen in real life. I was thinking about triage after disaster in particular. You cannot ethically compromise on human rights, even in emergency situations. Outside of the immediate aftermath of a natural disaster, can you think of any examples of a country running out of healthcare? ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2020, 8:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/77 "2020-03-04T08:16:56Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > > [@Shodan](#): > > > > I don’t know what problem you think is solved. > > > > Saying we don’t have to worry about healthcare costs because we don’t have to worry about fire-fighting costs is a non sequitur. Health care costs are high and rising. Fire-fighting costs are neither. > > Maybe we could try some of the strategies used by countries that don’t have such high and rising health care costs? > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Fire fighting is a public service provided by the government. Its costs are under control. > > Healthcare is provided by private sources in this country. Its cost are high and rising. > > In other countries, healthcare is a public service provided by the government. Their costs are under control. > > There’s a clear argument to be made based on your own premises. We could bring the high and rising costs of healthcare under control by enacting a public healthcare system. I think **iiandyiiii** and **Little Nemo** both provided excellent responses to **Shodan** ’s argument. Let me add another point to add some further perspective. It can fairly be said that health care is expensive and costs are rising throughout the industrialized world. The _ **reason** _ for that is that health care is making major technological advances all over the world (not just in the US, BTW; a surprising amount of some of the some sophisticated medical equipment comes from Europe, and absolutely none of it has anything to do with private health insurance which is essentially a useless parasitical industry). The _ **result** _ of is that people (or in the US, people who can afford it) are living longer, healthier lives. Life expectancy is rising not so much because people are living to extraordinarily old age, but because they are no longer dying young to nearly the same extent. Their conditions are treatable. No such technologies were even imaginable when the Founders wrote the Constitution. The practice of medicine was essentially non-existent. Even something so simple as anesthesia wasn’t discovered until the middle of the 19th century. I once read a book about primitive medical practices prior to those days, and it was horrifying. Today we have surgeries performed with precision robotic aids that would have been unimaginable just a decade or two ago. One such procedure saved my sister-in-law’s life, who had lung cancer that was otherwise untreatable. I think we can all agree that these advances are good things. But health care costs are far lower everywhere in the world than they are in the US, by a significant margin, and on average are rising more slowly. And most of that US overpricing is waste, going to administrative overhead and often reckless profiteering, not to medical research. Since the capabilities of health care systems will continue to become more complex and expensive, doesn’t it make sense to have the most efficient possible system funding it? Medical services in Canada on average cost roughly half of what they do in the US, and some specific services, like MRI and CT scans, can literally cost ten times as much in the US. And there’s absolutely no reason for it except that they can, and since they can, the price structure supports a wasteful surplus of diagnostic imaging facilities, kind of like streets would be overcrowded with hot dog carts if hot dogs could be sold for $100 each. Someone asked a question [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=22166539&postcount=1) about why a one-night stay in the ICU cost $90,000! This is the kind of shit-show that is absolutely not sustainable. My mother was put in ICU once for one night because she had a heart condition and there was no bed available in the cardiac ward. It didn’t cost us a cent (nor did the rest of the hospital stay). And it was a beautiful modern facility. The rooms were arranged in a large circle, every one with floor-to-ceiling windows and a great view, with glass fronts that could be temporarily covered with blinds for privacy, all manner of monitoring equipment, and a central desk that was very well staffed from which all the patients were monitored, electronically and visually. Socialized medicine in Canada! It’s not perfect, but I wouldn’t trade it for the US system for anything in the world. Even if I was very wealthy and would benefit from private health coverage, or just pay my own way, my conscience wouldn’t let me. ---
**Author:** ![Urbanredneck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ea5d25/32.png) [@Urbanredneck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urbanredneck)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2020, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/78 "2020-03-04T12:18:15Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > y. Socialized medicine in Canada! It’s not perfect, but I wouldn’t trade it for the US system for anything in the world. Even if I was very wealthy and would benefit from private health coverage, or just pay my own way, my conscience wouldn’t let me. I actually agree with you and am ok with a national medical system. What I see is a expanded medicare system where more and more doctors and hospitals would take medicare. Right now the reimbursement rates are not high enough so only a few doctors take it. Private hospitals, doctors, and insurance will still exist though for the very rich. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2020, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/79 "2020-03-04T12:47:41Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > It is no different to me than the provision of education, roads, fire, police, judiciary or the armed forces. Whether they are “rights” or not doesn’t concern me but certainly I think they are better provided by a collective distribution of tax money. > > Unlike such things like food or personal transport and housing, Healthcare seems like the perfect example of where a person’s need to make use of the service cannot reasonable be anticipated long term and an individual’s demand of it will vary from person to person by multiple orders of magnitude with the risk of pain, misery or death if that demand isn’t met. And none of that disproportionate demand may be the choice of that individual. I agree that the argument over whether it is a “right” is irrelevant. There is a clear societal benefit - and vast cost efficiencies - to UHC systems. Diseases and medical conditions get treated sooner (or just plain get treated, as some don’t now), meaning that disease spread is more limited and the workforce overall is healthier (which has a knock-on economic benefit to employers). People aren’t tied to specific employers out of fear of losing healthcare coverage and thus the free movement of people increases, which also has an economic benefit. Price management becomes much easier, fraud identification becomes much easier, distribution of services becomes better coordinated - this is exactly the sort of service the government **should** be doing. Never mind debates over principles - on a utilitarian basis it makes sense. > [@puddleglum](#): > > It doesn’t matter if you call it a fundamental human right or a purple monkey dishwasher, government paid for health care means everyone’s taxes will double while quality suffers. This appears to be an article of faith amongst opponents of UHC but it is not borne out by the numbers. UHC is much cheaper per capita because it is far more efficient, and outcomes are better. And you can still overlay a private system on top of it without negatively affecting that. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2020, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789/80 "2020-03-04T13:45:45Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Maybe we could try some of the strategies used by countries that don’t have such high and rising health care costs? Defining health care as a human right isn’t going to automatically reduce health care costs. Which is why this talk about fire-fighting is beside the point. Fire-fighting isn’t cheaper than healthcare because fire-fighting is defined as a human right, and it isn’t cheaper because fire-fighting is a public service. Regards, Shodan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reframing-socialism-into-natural-human-rights/848789.md?page=5)