Total Posts:57|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

"Healthcare is a basic human right"

ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2013 6:40:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Discuss.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2013 7:27:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Rights are not static. They are a concept that evolves over time. The history of human society has been a history of the evolution of rights. I see no reason we will ever stop reinventing it. There can always be new rights. Healthcare is an inevitable point in that evolutionary tree.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2013 8:41:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/22/2013 6:40:41 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Discuss.

Being an idealist I must say yes, it is, but it seems to me that "basic rights" tend to exist in direct proportion to our desire and ability to provide them. Even the value of a human life can become extremely low on an empty stomach.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2013 8:42:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Why not? .... what are rights but bold, declarative statements designed to moralize things we want?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2013 9:07:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/22/2013 8:42:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
Why not? .... what are rights but bold, declarative statements designed to moralize things we want?

So...no?
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2013 9:16:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I suppose so.

It could be thought of as a more advanced (or perhaps I should say "developed" or "evolved") form of the right to life, as the right to healthcare is the right to not just live, but to live a healthy life.

Such a right would therefore be fitting for a developed nation like North America, Canada, or the various European countries.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2013 9:21:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/22/2013 9:07:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/22/2013 8:42:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
Why not? .... what are rights but bold, declarative statements designed to moralize things we want?

So...no?

Insofar as there is such an idea as "rights" I see no reason why healthcare would not be one (seems like a logical extension of the right to live)... but rights are inventions founded on nothing but desires collectively deemed important. Don't take this to mean that I don't personally find those desires important too or that I don't want the fulfillment of those desires protected under the law, but I do recognize (and want others who wish to employ them in argument to also recognize) that they're abstractions that answer to whim and emotion - not reason.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2013 9:11:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
No. Healthcare is not a right. It is a want and a commodity. But it is not a need. You want healthcare because it can help you get easier medical care at a far cheeper cost. But a right is not something that guarantees you a smaller dollar value you have to put down. It is a want. If healthcare actually helped people to stay alive then I could see this argument. Because then it would be a need. However it does not. Even if you are some bum on the street and you don't have a dollar in your name and definitely don't healthcare you are still guaranteed medical services. And while you can make the argument that the money you would have to shell out due to not having healthcare can make your poor and put you at greater risk, I feel that this s a fallacy argument. In conclusion Healthcare is a want and not a need therefore it is not a right. And this is based within the United States of course.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2013 9:46:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
No, it is not.
One has a right to life, not to extend or improve it via another's life/abilities/property.
My work here is, finally, done.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2013 10:28:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/23/2013 9:46:21 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
No, it is not.
One has a right to life, not to extend or improve it via another's life/abilities/property.

If one's life is threatened by lack of access to healthcare, what use is it?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
AndrewB686
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2013 10:35:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Humans do not possess any intrinsic rights. All supposed "rights" are contrived by the society and evolve through the course of human history. In contemporary society, health care is a vital necessity that all humans should have access to. As opposed to a aristocratic and trite system of the wealthy receiving the best care while the poor and destitute rot on the streets. I would say no to it being categorized as a "basic human right", but I would say yes to the notion of it being a "societal right".
There would be more good marriages if the marriage partners didn't live together."
-Friedrich Nietzsche

"In Heaven, all the interesting people are missing."
-Friedrich Nietzsche
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2013 10:51:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/23/2013 10:28:19 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 12/23/2013 9:46:21 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
No, it is not.
One has a right to life, not to extend or improve it via another's life/abilities/property.

If one's life is threatened by lack of access to healthcare, what use is it?

And, where is the line drawn?
Should you be able to rob me at gunpoint for money to pay for medication?
Should I be enslaved to you, since I am a doctor and you need my services?
Could you break into my doctor's office to gain access to medical supplies, since we were closed?
My work here is, finally, done.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2013 10:55:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/23/2013 10:51:47 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/23/2013 10:28:19 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 12/23/2013 9:46:21 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
No, it is not.
One has a right to life, not to extend or improve it via another's life/abilities/property.

If one's life is threatened by lack of access to healthcare, what use is it?

And, where is the line drawn?
Should you be able to rob me at gunpoint for money to pay for medication?
Should I be enslaved to you, since I am a doctor and you need my services?
Could you break into my doctor's office to gain access to medical supplies, since we were closed?

The question of where to draw the line is one which exists separately from the question of whether negative rights (rights from X- right not to be killed, robbed, etc.) have any meaning separated from positive rights (rights to X- right to healthcare, living standards, etc.). If the lack of a positive right endangers a negative right, what is the difference (save intention- and even then that isn't always true) between that and actively endangering another's life?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2013 5:53:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/22/2013 6:40:41 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
"Healthcare is a basic human right"

"No one has a right to medical care. If one assumes such a right, it endorses the notion that some individuals have a right to someone else's life and property. This totally contradicts the principles of liberty.

If medical care is provided by government, this can only be achieved by an authoritarian government unconcerned about the rights of the individual."

-- Ron Paul
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Logical-Master
Posts: 2,538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2013 6:18:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
No, it is not a right. As others have pointed out, it is a product. A commodity if you will. A useful commodity, but nothing more.

Hell, maybe I have a "right" to a play station 4, since said commodity reduces stress/depression, hence contributes to granting me a healthy lifespan.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2013 7:27:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/22/2013 6:40:41 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Discuss.

There is no such thing as a positive human right.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 11:27:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Rights do not exist, as their existence implies a moral standard outside of the actual effects of their implementation. What universal healthcare is is a good idea--but not, ethically speaking, a right. That being said, I would support it as a right in a political context.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 1:01:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/23/2013 4:54:44 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
Yes, as a society we can easily provide healthcare to all at a small burden to everyone. We should treat or own.

Your typo is exactly spot on.

The government owns under the label of "rights." with the issue of public healthcare instead of actually treating.

Life is not fair. People are not fair.

Nobody has a right to exist outside of nature's rules, unless you are an avid advocate of eugenics......
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 1:04:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 11:27:25 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
Rights do not exist, as their existence implies a moral standard outside of the actual effects of their implementation.

Can you elaborate on that? I am somewhat perplexed by this stance. Are you saying a right can only be defined by human morals? What does "outside of the actual effects of their implementation" mean exactly?

Thanks!
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 3:27:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 1:04:42 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 12/24/2013 11:27:25 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
Rights do not exist, as their existence implies a moral standard outside of the actual effects of their implementation.

Can you elaborate on that? I am somewhat perplexed by this stance. Are you saying a right can only be defined by human morals? What does "outside of the actual effects of their implementation" mean exactly?

Thanks!

As a utilitarian, I don't think that anything is ethical or unethical inherently, because one can construct any scenario in which doing something leads to an unethical or ethical end (even considering the act that was performed). So long as there is one case, no matter how far-out, where following a principled right would lead to catastrophe, I do not support the idea of a universal right.

I prefer to think of them as... guidelines.
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2013 8:16:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 3:27:57 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 12/24/2013 1:04:42 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 12/24/2013 11:27:25 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
Rights do not exist, as their existence implies a moral standard outside of the actual effects of their implementation.

Can you elaborate on that? I am somewhat perplexed by this stance. Are you saying a right can only be defined by human morals? What does "outside of the actual effects of their implementation" mean exactly?

Thanks!

As a utilitarian, I don't think that anything is ethical or unethical inherently, because one can construct any scenario in which doing something leads to an unethical or ethical end (even considering the act that was performed). So long as there is one case, no matter how far-out, where following a principled right would lead to catastrophe, I do not support the idea of a universal right.

I prefer to think of them as... guidelines.

So who gets to judge what is an ethical or unethical end? Is there nothing you cherish so much that you would not defend on principal, like your life?
v3nesl
Posts: 4,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2013 8:32:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/22/2013 6:40:41 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Discuss.

From a political viewpoint, there's an essential difference between healthcare and classic rights: Rights can only be taken away by government, not granted. Government does not give life, freedom, or happiness, but they certainly can take it away. So, from the perspective of the constitution, rights are given in a context of "hands off, government!".

Healthcare is an economic commodity, whether we like it or not. Healthcare is not some fundamental thing we're born with that we keep unless somebody takes it away from us. Healthcare must be manufactured - it is 'goods and services' that must be produced and therefore can be measured by money.

One of the reasons Obamacare has gone off the rails is that the left has bought into this silly, sloppy thinking of calling healthcare a right. Nope, it's an economic commodity, and passing a law in Congress doesn't make economic commodities magically appear. Only hard work makes economic commodities, and Obamacare has made the work of healthcare infinitely harder. I hope we can recover from this economic malpractice.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2013 8:37:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 11:27:25 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
Rights do not exist, as their existence implies a moral standard outside of the actual effects of their implementation. What universal healthcare is is a good idea--but not, ethically speaking, a right. That being said, I would support it as a right in a political context.

Universal health care should also be thought of a luxury, I think. One of the reasons Europe can afford this luxury is because the US essential subsidizes them in several ways: By taking care of military security for them, and by funding research (through the higher prices we pay).

One of the things people must remember - if the US also becomes price controlled, who will fund the advanced research? There will clearly be less of it, or else the Chinese and others will grab yet another big slice of the global economy. The magic new drugs will come from China, not NJ.
This space for rent.
sadolite
Posts: 8,833
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2013 2:14:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"Healthcare is a basic human right" So a percentage of the population must be your personal slave. They must pay to be educated themselves, they must pay for a building to store all the medical supplies and to treat you free of charge.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,833
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2013 2:19:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/26/2013 2:14:08 PM, sadolite wrote:
"Healthcare is a basic human right" So a percentage of the population must be your personal slave. They must pay to be educated themselves, they must pay for a building to store all the medical supplies and to treat you free of charge.
Basically a certain percentage of the population is doomed to be forced to do what you want them to do for a living against their will because you think what they are forced to do is your right. Interesting concept
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Juris
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 10:23:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Having a positive government like the United States, healthcare can be considered a basic human right. A positive government has the duty to help its citizens as contrast with the negative which do not interfere with the lives of the people. The government helps its citizens in many ways, like providing employment, defense, health, and others to improve the quality of life of the people. Without a positive government which liberals ans socialists promote, instead have a negative government which conservatives and capitalists want, people would be deprived of their basic need which the government must provide them because it is its primary duty to serve the people.