Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 5 votes

What Does It Mean to Have a 'Right' to Health Care?


  • Please log in to reply
155 replies to this topic

#1 SemiAuto

SemiAuto

    The cake is a lie.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 42,005 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 11:13 AM

Despite the popular misconception, health care is not beyond economic law; it is not a free good that falls like manna from heaven. It has to be produced, which means people must mix their scarce labor with scarce resources to produce the things used to perform the medical services we want. It would be foolish to expect them to donate their labor and resources because other people need them. They have their own lives to live and livelihoods to earn. It would be wrong to compel them. They are not slaves.

In other words, no one can have a right to medical care or insurance, that is, to the labor services and resources of other people—including the taxpayers. We hear a great deal about the need to respect all people; well, respecting people must include respecting their liberty and justly acquired possessions. Without that, "respect" is hollow.

Politicians, of course, can declare a right to medical care, but those are mere words. What counts is what happens after the declaration. Since a system in which everyone could have, on demand, all the medical care they wanted at no cost would be unsustainable, the so-called right to medical care necessarily translates into the power of politicians and bureaucrats to set the terms under which medical services and products may be provided and received. This is crucial: a government-declared "right" (that does not reflect natural rights) is no right at all; it is rather a declared government power to allocate goods and services.


source

#2 bmore_ken

bmore_ken

    Posting Champ

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 74,668 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 11:20 AM

This should be fun to watch :D :D :D


Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. It has a nice sound to it

Suggs has signed. I've never been so happy to be wrong

Don't blame me, I voted Bob Barr:cool:

#3 ms maggie

ms maggie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38,143 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 11:20 AM

Isn't national defense "the labor, services and resources of other people"? "Paid for by the taxpayers"?

How about PK through 12? How about a currency system? This stuff isn't free either.

What a completely specious argument.

#4 banner1124

banner1124

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 23,086 posts
  • LocationAlbuquerque, NM

Posted 20 March 2017 - 11:22 AM

Isn't national defense "the labor, services and resources of other people"? "Paid for by the taxpayers"?

How about PK through 12? How about a currency system? This stuff isn't free either.

What a completely specious argument.

Well not to folks like semi.... folks like that don't think we should be paying for any of the stuff you just mentioned because they think taxation is theft.  You're not likely to get any sort of adult debate when that kind of nonsense is one side's starting point.


*****HAIL TO THE REDSKINS*****

#5 SemiAuto

SemiAuto

    The cake is a lie.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 42,005 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 11:37 AM

Isn't national defense "the labor, services and resources of other people"? "Paid for by the taxpayers"?

How about PK through 12? How about a currency system? This stuff isn't free either.

What a completely specious argument.


That would be the liberal idea of limited government. If you want to call that specious then that is up to you.

Government supplied defense has given us the MIC paid for by the taxpayers at great expense. Is there really no better way?

#6 ms maggie

ms maggie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38,143 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 11:45 AM

That would be the liberal idea of limited government. If you want to call that specious then that is up to you.

Government supplied defense has given us the MIC paid for by the taxpayers at great expense. Is there really no better way?

So walking away from the "right" argument?

If the society collectively desires universal, single payer healthcare, then the society should pursue it.

Classic liberalism opposed workers' rights and supported the supremacy of corporations over individuals. It also didn't support universal suffrage and didn't support the govt protecting the right to vote.

This infatuation with classic liberalism needs a cold dose of facts.

Edited by ms maggie, 20 March 2017 - 11:53 AM.


#7 SemiAuto

SemiAuto

    The cake is a lie.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 42,005 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 11:50 AM

So walking away from the "right" argument?

If the society collectively desires universal, single payer healthcare, then the society should pursue it.


Even at the expense of human rights?

#8 ms maggie

ms maggie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38,143 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 11:53 AM

Even at the expense of human rights?


What human rights?

#9 FatBoy

FatBoy

    Obama Did It Too

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 15,822 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 11:54 AM

This should be fun to watch :D :D :D

Agreed. 


If we are here to help others, I often wonder what the others are here for. - Sir Thomas Robert Dewar

#10 bmorepunk

bmorepunk

    I Can't Read Good

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,555 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 12:01 PM

Classic Semi.



#11 SemiAuto

SemiAuto

    The cake is a lie.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 42,005 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 12:04 PM

What human rights?


"In other words, no one can have a right to medical care or insurance, that is, to the labor services and resources of other people—including the taxpayers. We hear a great deal about the need to respect all people; well, respecting people must include respecting their liberty and justly acquired possessions. Without that, "respect" is hollow."

#12 SemiAuto

SemiAuto

    The cake is a lie.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 42,005 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 12:06 PM

Classic Semi.


Classical liberalism.

I suppose I could have dug up something about the civil war or gun control. ;)

#13 ms maggie

ms maggie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38,143 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 12:09 PM

"In other words, no one can have a right to medical care or insurance, that is, to the labor services and resources of other people—including the taxpayers. We hear a great deal about the need to respect all people; well, respecting people must include respecting their liberty and justly acquired possessions. Without that, "respect" is hollow."


So people who live in countries that have universal healthcare don't enjoy human rights?

Bummer.🙄

#14 MiddleOfTheRoad

MiddleOfTheRoad

    Among the thinking people

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,351 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 12:10 PM

This could be a good discussion, unless posters decide to chase the subject down the normal sewer.

Constitutionally, about the only path to getting to health care as a "right" is the "promote the general welfare" clause. I guess depending on your perspective, it is either very fortunate or very unfortunate that the path is considered fairly wide - and our government over the years has turned it into a 12 lane road.

The measure of that width reflects your preference for government involvement/intrusion in your life and establishes your priorities.

#15 zenwalk

zenwalk

    Pundit

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 48,444 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 12:13 PM

Universal healthcare is about acknowledging compassion as an integral part of being human.  If government is about the public interest there are few issues of greater public interest than a healthy population.  


"A screaming comes across the sky. . ." -- Thomas Pynchon

#16 SemiAuto

SemiAuto

    The cake is a lie.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 42,005 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 12:14 PM

So people who live in countries that have universal healthcare don't enjoy human rights?

Bummer.


It is a shallow view of human rights to live at the expense of your fellow man.

#17 bmore_ken

bmore_ken

    Posting Champ

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 74,668 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 12:18 PM

I knew this would be fun to watch :lol: :lol: :lol:


Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. It has a nice sound to it

Suggs has signed. I've never been so happy to be wrong

Don't blame me, I voted Bob Barr:cool:

#18 SemiAuto

SemiAuto

    The cake is a lie.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 42,005 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 12:19 PM

Universal healthcare is about acknowledging compassion as an integral part of being human.  If government is about the public interest there are few issues of greater public interest than a healthy population.


From the article:

Advocates of a government-directed medical system may have the best intentions, but intentions can't override market forces, which are generated by purposeful human action. Moreover, we have no reason for confidence that politicians and bureaucrats will sufficiently distinguish the public's interest (if that can be defined beyond peoples' individual interests) from their own interests. Government officials are no less devoted to their careers and prestige than people outside the government; indeed, power is what may have attracted many to government "service." We must not compare the real-world market to the idealized state, because in reality, state operatives lack both the information and incentives needed to deliver the goods.



#19 ncbirdfan

ncbirdfan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,330 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 12:20 PM

It is a shallow view of human rights to live at the expense of your fellow man.

That is the core of a successful representative government. We the People work together for the common good. That is why when you go to work there are paved roads and there are safety measures such as stop signs, red lights, speed limits, etc. Cars also have to meet legal safety requirements. If we all just fended for ourselves, chaos would prevail.



#20 workerbee

workerbee

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 15,480 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 12:21 PM

Even at the expense of human rights?

Can't wait to see the governments allowed maximum daily calorie intake... minimum required time per day exercising... Maximum amount of time to spent in the sun  with relief if the proper amount of government approved sun block is used, with documentation. The advantages are ... endless!


TERM LIMITS NOW!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users