A recent essay by Jim Wright, a favorite writer of mine, pointed out that in all the healthcare debates this obvious question is never asked or answered.
Instead we debate around the issue with details of politics, implementation, morality, economics etc.
Jim points out that we may well not want to deal with the answer to the question.
So, fellow dopers, the question is a simple Yes or No. What is your answer?
I thought the idea whether healthcare was a right or a privilege was one of the basic points of the debate and informed the opinions of people on how to tackle it. My view is yes.
It is a right in the same way as education is a right. I see them as pretty much identical in terms of societal benefit
Me too. Or having a fire department standing by if you need one. Doesn’t matter if you call it a “right” or not, but it’s a basic governmental function. Life health care could be.
Yes, but more than that it is a question of does a nation have the wealth to make Healthcare a right.
It’s be nice if Healthcare were a right in India, but they have a per capita income of about $1500. Things like Healthcare, universal education, democracy, fighting pollution tend to occur as a nation grows wealthy. I think most nations implement universal. Health care when their per capita income hits 10k or higher.
What is the per capita income of the United States?
SOME LEVEL of healthcare ought to be provided to the extent a society can afford to do so.
The poll question is too broad to be answered. Ought every person have the right to not have governments spew toxins into their immediate air/water/food without enabling them to relocate? You betcha. Food, housing, safety are - in part - healthcare issues.
Does every preemie/substance abuser/old person have a right to organ transplants? Uh-uh.
I would say that the provision of basic healthcare to as many of its citizens as possible ought to be one of the primary functions of a society. Personally, tho, I would probably advocate for providing the most generally needed, lowest cost care first, before providing individuals with costly heroic measures.
HEard something on NPR a while back, saying the Gates and Buffett foundations have saved more lives worldwide than anyone else, by focusing on the broadest, lowest cost therapies. Things like providing mosquito nets to reduce malaria. The contrasted the (IIRC) $30k cost of training a blind person and service dog, compared to how many peoples’ blindness could be prevented by simple measures in developing countries.
We could use a lot more nutritional/exercise training, counseling and education, instead of treating the joint/pulmonary/cardiovascular/diabetic complaints of obese smokers with lousy diet/exercise habits.
Yes, but with caveats. Yes, everyone who breaks a leg should be treated - citizen, illegal immigrant, rich, can’t pay a dime, etc.
But I am uncomfortable with the idea that someone is compelled to serve someone else because it’s the latter’s “right.” By this logic, if every doctor, nurse, and medical professional in America suddenly resigned today, they’d be violating the rights of everyone else by doing so, since America has a “right” to their services.
Seems like it’s asked quite a bit.
Unless you are a doctor, healthcare is a service provided by others. I don’t see how a person can have a right to the services performed by others. I voted no.
Well, if you’re charged with a crime, in the US, you have a “right” to a lawyer to represent you. That’s a service performed by others.
And that’s why the question doesn’t get asked that often. It’s not helpful. It doesn’t provide any information as to what the healthcare system should look like, or what should be covered. It doesn’t even indicate whether or not it should be a governmental function (I may think free speech is a basic human right, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the government should pay for my blog or buy me a printer).
For similar reasons, referring to the details of implementation as “arguing around the issue” strikes me as unproductive.
I do think this is the strongest counterfactual to my assertion. The sixth amendment right to counsel to include appointed counsel was recognized gradually beginning in 1932. Only after 1963 was this incorporated against the states. And even then, this is an enumerated right. Healthcare does not enjoy the same protections. Medicare is the method among others, that Congress has elected to provide for the care of the indigent, as an entitlement, not a right.
Nothing can be a “right” if it imposes an obligation on somebody else. The most fundamental right is the right to be left alone. That is, not to be killed, kidnapped, conscripted, or have your stuff taken away from you.
I’m with Bone here. I’m pretty skeptical of positive rights in general, as distinct from the right not to have the state do something to you (or have the state condone other people doing it to you). But I’m especially skeptical of healthcare as a right, since it is so broad a category as to be almost meaningless.
I’m also unclear on why it matters, politically. Aren’t you effectively just using “right” here as a stand-in for “really good thing”? If not, what do you mean by the term?
Well, yes, if we’re prosecuting you, we offer you an attorney as part of the package deal. I always figured it’s like the bit where a guy challenges you to a duel, and, as part of the challenge, produces an ornate wooden case containing matched weapons: you take one because he takes one, and then he tries to kill you; but he’s being downright sporting about it, is the thing.
Not a right, for the reasons Bone described. IMO a right is something that an individual exercises independently. If you get stranded on a deserted island and die it wasn’t due to any human rights violation.
Since the same government that charges you with a crime, gives you a public defender, I think a better analogy might be if the government says that if you want to be a *plaintiff *and *accuse *someone of a crime, that you have the right to have a lawyer.
If it is a basic human right shouldn’t it be a basic right for every human?
In a political discussion, a right is something that requires action (or occasionally inaction) from the government. There are plenty of really good things that we don’t require the government to provide or protect. If something is defined as a right, that means there is a government responsibility to ensure that it is provided or not taken away.
rather than a basic human right I think it falls under the category of bi-laws. A wealth enough nation may vote to include healthcare. There are lots of good reasons not to include healthcare, Slackers will take advantage of free healthcare while working illegally under the table earning money and not paying taxes.