Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is healthcare a right?

LiberalProlifer
Posts: 803
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2016 9:10:04 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
I think it is. People have the right to their own bodies. If someone does not want to be sick or injured, they do not have to. It is wrong to force someone to be sick or injured.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2016 9:19:50 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/6/2016 9:10:04 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
I think it is. People have the right to their own bodies. If someone does not want to be sick or injured, they do not have to. It is wrong to force someone to be sick or injured.

The argument has to be that healthcare is a civil right. It is, in effect, a requirement to insure equity. it is a smart decision for any society regardless, but framing it as a right upsets the typical detractors of the concepts od equality as a right.
LiberalProlifer
Posts: 803
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2016 9:23:24 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/6/2016 9:19:50 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/6/2016 9:10:04 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
I think it is. People have the right to their own bodies. If someone does not want to be sick or injured, they do not have to. It is wrong to force someone to be sick or injured.

The argument has to be that healthcare is a civil right. It is, in effect, a requirement to insure equity. it is a smart decision for any society regardless, but framing it as a right upsets the typical detractors of the concepts od equality as a right.

Well said, I agree.
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,376
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2016 9:26:57 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/6/2016 9:10:04 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
I think it is. People have the right to their own bodies. If someone does not want to be sick or injured, they do not have to. It is wrong to force someone to be sick or injured.

Nobody is forced to be sick. Unless, they are forced to ingest some virus or have their legs intentionally broken.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
LiberalProlifer
Posts: 803
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2016 9:30:37 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/6/2016 9:26:57 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/6/2016 9:10:04 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
I think it is. People have the right to their own bodies. If someone does not want to be sick or injured, they do not have to. It is wrong to force someone to be sick or injured.

Nobody is forced to be sick. Unless, they are forced to ingest some virus or have their legs intentionally broken.

If someone's RIGHT to healthcare is denied, they are forced to be sick or injured. The FACT remains that healthcare is a right.
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,376
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2016 9:36:09 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/6/2016 9:30:37 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 2/6/2016 9:26:57 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/6/2016 9:10:04 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
I think it is. People have the right to their own bodies. If someone does not want to be sick or injured, they do not have to. It is wrong to force someone to be sick or injured.

Nobody is forced to be sick. Unless, they are forced to ingest some virus or have their legs intentionally broken.

If someone's RIGHT to healthcare is denied, they are forced to be sick or injured. The FACT remains that healthcare is a right.

I never said it wasn't a right. Your reasoning is flawed however. If you are denied seeking healthcare, then it you are being forced, but if you don't have money, then then nobody is forcing you to do anything.

I don't understand this post. You are asking whether it is a right, then you state it's a fact. What's the point of this then?
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2016 9:36:36 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/6/2016 9:26:57 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/6/2016 9:10:04 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
I think it is. People have the right to their own bodies. If someone does not want to be sick or injured, they do not have to. It is wrong to force someone to be sick or injured.

Nobody is forced to be sick. Unless, they are forced to ingest some virus or have their legs intentionally broken.

everyone will need healthcare in their lifetimes. Some will be more susceptible to sickness bases on both genetics and social conditions. Things generally outsode their control.
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,376
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2016 9:38:44 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/6/2016 9:36:36 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/6/2016 9:26:57 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/6/2016 9:10:04 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
I think it is. People have the right to their own bodies. If someone does not want to be sick or injured, they do not have to. It is wrong to force someone to be sick or injured.

Nobody is forced to be sick. Unless, they are forced to ingest some virus or have their legs intentionally broken.

everyone will need healthcare in their lifetimes. Some will be more susceptible to sickness bases on both genetics and social conditions. Things generally outsode their control.

I agree, but nobody is forcing them to be sick, it's caused by other factors.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2016 9:41:26 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/6/2016 9:38:44 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/6/2016 9:36:36 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/6/2016 9:26:57 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/6/2016 9:10:04 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
I think it is. People have the right to their own bodies. If someone does not want to be sick or injured, they do not have to. It is wrong to force someone to be sick or injured.

Nobody is forced to be sick. Unless, they are forced to ingest some virus or have their legs intentionally broken.

everyone will need healthcare in their lifetimes. Some will be more susceptible to sickness bases on both genetics and social conditions. Things generally outsode their control.

I agree, but nobody is forcing them to be sick, it's caused by other factors.

let me try this. Dp you have a right to vote? not being contentious, I think we agree, but trying to clarify how it could, or shpuld, be c'assified as a right.
LiberalProlifer
Posts: 803
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2016 9:42:12 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/6/2016 9:36:09 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/6/2016 9:30:37 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 2/6/2016 9:26:57 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/6/2016 9:10:04 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
I think it is. People have the right to their own bodies. If someone does not want to be sick or injured, they do not have to. It is wrong to force someone to be sick or injured.

Nobody is forced to be sick. Unless, they are forced to ingest some virus or have their legs intentionally broken.

If someone's RIGHT to healthcare is denied, they are forced to be sick or injured. The FACT remains that healthcare is a right.

I never said it wasn't a right. Your reasoning is flawed however. If you are denied seeking healthcare, then it you are being forced, but if you don't have money, then then nobody is forcing you to do anything.

I don't understand this post. You are asking whether it is a right, then you state it's a fact. What's the point of this then?
You have the right to your opinion.
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,376
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2016 9:44:05 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/6/2016 9:41:26 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/6/2016 9:38:44 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/6/2016 9:36:36 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/6/2016 9:26:57 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/6/2016 9:10:04 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
I think it is. People have the right to their own bodies. If someone does not want to be sick or injured, they do not have to. It is wrong to force someone to be sick or injured.

Nobody is forced to be sick. Unless, they are forced to ingest some virus or have their legs intentionally broken.

everyone will need healthcare in their lifetimes. Some will be more susceptible to sickness bases on both genetics and social conditions. Things generally outsode their control.

I agree, but nobody is forcing them to be sick, it's caused by other factors.

let me try this. Dp you have a right to vote? not being contentious, I think we agree, but trying to clarify how it could, or shpuld, be c'assified as a right.

You have the right to vote.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,376
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2016 9:44:45 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/6/2016 9:42:12 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 2/6/2016 9:36:09 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/6/2016 9:30:37 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 2/6/2016 9:26:57 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/6/2016 9:10:04 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
I think it is. People have the right to their own bodies. If someone does not want to be sick or injured, they do not have to. It is wrong to force someone to be sick or injured.

Nobody is forced to be sick. Unless, they are forced to ingest some virus or have their legs intentionally broken.

If someone's RIGHT to healthcare is denied, they are forced to be sick or injured. The FACT remains that healthcare is a right.

I never said it wasn't a right. Your reasoning is flawed however. If you are denied seeking healthcare, then it you are being forced, but if you don't have money, then then nobody is forcing you to do anything.

I don't understand this post. You are asking whether it is a right, then you state it's a fact. What's the point of this then?
You have the right to your opinion.

And, your point is?
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
LiberalProlifer
Posts: 803
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2016 9:51:12 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/6/2016 9:44:45 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/6/2016 9:42:12 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 2/6/2016 9:36:09 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/6/2016 9:30:37 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 2/6/2016 9:26:57 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/6/2016 9:10:04 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
I think it is. People have the right to their own bodies. If someone does not want to be sick or injured, they do not have to. It is wrong to force someone to be sick or injured.

Nobody is forced to be sick. Unless, they are forced to ingest some virus or have their legs intentionally broken.

If someone's RIGHT to healthcare is denied, they are forced to be sick or injured. The FACT remains that healthcare is a right.

I never said it wasn't a right. Your reasoning is flawed however. If you are denied seeking healthcare, then it you are being forced, but if you don't have money, then then nobody is forcing you to do anything.

I don't understand this post. You are asking whether it is a right, then you state it's a fact. What's the point of this then?
You have the right to your opinion.

And, your point is?

Yes or no: Is healthcare a right?
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,376
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2016 9:51:45 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/6/2016 9:51:12 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 2/6/2016 9:44:45 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/6/2016 9:42:12 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 2/6/2016 9:36:09 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/6/2016 9:30:37 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 2/6/2016 9:26:57 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/6/2016 9:10:04 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
I think it is. People have the right to their own bodies. If someone does not want to be sick or injured, they do not have to. It is wrong to force someone to be sick or injured.

Nobody is forced to be sick. Unless, they are forced to ingest some virus or have their legs intentionally broken.

If someone's RIGHT to healthcare is denied, they are forced to be sick or injured. The FACT remains that healthcare is a right.

I never said it wasn't a right. Your reasoning is flawed however. If you are denied seeking healthcare, then it you are being forced, but if you don't have money, then then nobody is forcing you to do anything.

I don't understand this post. You are asking whether it is a right, then you state it's a fact. What's the point of this then?
You have the right to your opinion.

And, your point is?

Yes or no: Is healthcare a right?

In my opinion, I believe healthcare is a right, but not for the reasons you listed.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2016 9:52:55 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/6/2016 9:44:45 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/6/2016 9:42:12 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 2/6/2016 9:36:09 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/6/2016 9:30:37 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
At 2/6/2016 9:26:57 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/6/2016 9:10:04 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
I think it is. People have the right to their own bodies. If someone does not want to be sick or injured, they do not have to. It is wrong to force someone to be sick or injured.

Nobody is forced to be sick. Unless, they are forced to ingest some virus or have their legs intentionally broken.

If someone's RIGHT to healthcare is denied, they are forced to be sick or injured. The FACT remains that healthcare is a right.

I never said it wasn't a right. Your reasoning is flawed however. If you are denied seeking healthcare, then it you are being forced, but if you don't have money, then then nobody is forcing you to do anything.

I don't understand this post. You are asking whether it is a right, then you state it's a fact. What's the point of this then?
You have the right to your opinion.

And, your point is?

the point the right should be thought of in a similar fashion. It is about allowing equal access for all. worrying about cause of illness is not very Important. theoretically your vote is worth quite a bit, but it not something we allow you to buy or sell.
walker_harris3
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2016 11:29:02 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/6/2016 9:10:04 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
I think it is. People have the right to their own bodies. If someone does not want to be sick or injured, they do not have to. It is wrong to force someone to be sick or injured.

Not in the sense of centralized health care, because centralized healthcare forces people to help sustain the health of others, while in some cases, it doesn't even support the health of the individuals. I've only been to a hospital one time in my life for stitches, yet under this centralized system, I'm forced to theoretically pay for my own health and other people's health every month. In the end, I'm forced to pay more for other people's health than my own health.

Here's how rights work, they're two-way streets. When person A claims that he has a right to his life, person B's obligation is to recognize A"s body and refrain from harming it. A's right to life does not demand action on the part of B. It demands restraint. If A is drowning, A's right to life does not force B to save A from death. But A"s right to life does force B to not drown A.

In terms of the right to health, people have the right to not have their health compromised by other people. So person B does not have the right to intentionally get person A sick. Person A, however, is not forced to help person B recover from sickness through this right to health. In other words, we have the right to respect the health of others, but we are not required to mend the health of others.

When supporters of the central coordination of the provision of healthcare by the state say that healthcare is a human right they mean that this right ought to place an obligation on everyone not just to refrain from causing harm, but to act in such as way as to support everyone else's health needs and to force everyone to relinquish part of their income or wealth to the state so that the state may finance or provide health services to someone else, presumably someone in need. So supporters of this actually infringe on our rights.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2016 12:54:19 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
I have a right to immortality.

I have a right to live accident and risk free.

I have a right to food, water, shelter, and clothing.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2016 1:10:48 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/6/2016 11:29:02 PM, walker_harris3 wrote:
At 2/6/2016 9:10:04 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
I think it is. People have the right to their own bodies. If someone does not want to be sick or injured, they do not have to. It is wrong to force someone to be sick or injured.

Not in the sense of centralized health care, because centralized healthcare forces people to help sustain the health of others, while in some cases, it doesn't even support the health of the individuals. I've only been to a hospital one time in my life for stitches, yet under this centralized system, I'm forced to theoretically pay for my own health and other people's health every month. In the end, I'm forced to pay more for other people's health than my own health.

Here's how rights work, they're two-way streets. When person A claims that he has a right to his life, person B's obligation is to recognize A"s body and refrain from harming it. A's right to life does not demand action on the part of B. It demands restraint. If A is drowning, A's right to life does not force B to save A from death. But A"s right to life does force B to not drown A.

In terms of the right to health, people have the right to not have their health compromised by other people. So person B does not have the right to intentionally get person A sick. Person A, however, is not forced to help person B recover from sickness through this right to health. In other words, we have the right to respect the health of others, but we are not required to mend the health of others.

When supporters of the central coordination of the provision of healthcare by the state say that healthcare is a human right they mean that this right ought to place an obligation on everyone not just to refrain from causing harm, but to act in such as way as to support everyone else's health needs and to force everyone to relinquish part of their income or wealth to the state so that the state may finance or provide health services to someone else, presumably someone in need. So supporters of this actually infringe on our rights.

Start by thinking about healthcare without any cost to anyone. Dismiss if you use more or less than another. Now. Work the question without these points and see where you get to.
walker_harris3
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2016 1:20:51 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/7/2016 1:10:48 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/6/2016 11:29:02 PM, walker_harris3 wrote:
At 2/6/2016 9:10:04 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
I think it is. People have the right to their own bodies. If someone does not want to be sick or injured, they do not have to. It is wrong to force someone to be sick or injured.

Not in the sense of centralized health care, because centralized healthcare forces people to help sustain the health of others, while in some cases, it doesn't even support the health of the individuals. I've only been to a hospital one time in my life for stitches, yet under this centralized system, I'm forced to theoretically pay for my own health and other people's health every month. In the end, I'm forced to pay more for other people's health than my own health.

Here's how rights work, they're two-way streets. When person A claims that he has a right to his life, person B's obligation is to recognize A"s body and refrain from harming it. A's right to life does not demand action on the part of B. It demands restraint. If A is drowning, A's right to life does not force B to save A from death. But A"s right to life does force B to not drown A.

In terms of the right to health, people have the right to not have their health compromised by other people. So person B does not have the right to intentionally get person A sick. Person A, however, is not forced to help person B recover from sickness through this right to health. In other words, we have the right to respect the health of others, but we are not required to mend the health of others.

When supporters of the central coordination of the provision of healthcare by the state say that healthcare is a human right they mean that this right ought to place an obligation on everyone not just to refrain from causing harm, but to act in such as way as to support everyone else's health needs and to force everyone to relinquish part of their income or wealth to the state so that the state may finance or provide health services to someone else, presumably someone in need. So supporters of this actually infringe on our rights.

Start by thinking about healthcare without any cost to anyone. Dismiss if you use more or less than another. Now. Work the question without these points and see where you get to.

You're asking me to dismiss reality. Even if we lived in a money free world, there'd still be a cost attributed to any kind of centralized healthcare system as they stand today.

As I said, the right to your health means that others must respect your health and not put it in jeopardy. That right does not force anyone to restore someone's health, and that's exactly what centralized health care is.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2016 1:22:38 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/7/2016 1:20:51 AM, walker_harris3 wrote:
At 2/7/2016 1:10:48 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/6/2016 11:29:02 PM, walker_harris3 wrote:
At 2/6/2016 9:10:04 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
I think it is. People have the right to their own bodies. If someone does not want to be sick or injured, they do not have to. It is wrong to force someone to be sick or injured.

Not in the sense of centralized health care, because centralized healthcare forces people to help sustain the health of others, while in some cases, it doesn't even support the health of the individuals. I've only been to a hospital one time in my life for stitches, yet under this centralized system, I'm forced to theoretically pay for my own health and other people's health every month. In the end, I'm forced to pay more for other people's health than my own health.

Here's how rights work, they're two-way streets. When person A claims that he has a right to his life, person B's obligation is to recognize A"s body and refrain from harming it. A's right to life does not demand action on the part of B. It demands restraint. If A is drowning, A's right to life does not force B to save A from death. But A"s right to life does force B to not drown A.

In terms of the right to health, people have the right to not have their health compromised by other people. So person B does not have the right to intentionally get person A sick. Person A, however, is not forced to help person B recover from sickness through this right to health. In other words, we have the right to respect the health of others, but we are not required to mend the health of others.

When supporters of the central coordination of the provision of healthcare by the state say that healthcare is a human right they mean that this right ought to place an obligation on everyone not just to refrain from causing harm, but to act in such as way as to support everyone else's health needs and to force everyone to relinquish part of their income or wealth to the state so that the state may finance or provide health services to someone else, presumably someone in need. So supporters of this actually infringe on our rights.

Start by thinking about healthcare without any cost to anyone. Dismiss if you use more or less than another. Now. Work the question without these points and see where you get to.

You're asking me to dismiss reality. Even if we lived in a money free world, there'd still be a cost attributed to any kind of centralized healthcare system as they stand today.

As I said, the right to your health means that others must respect your health and not put it in jeopardy. That right does not force anyone to restore someone's health, and that's exactly what centralized health care is.

You can't fairly decide what is or isn't a right based on what it costs. I mean seriously, think about what that would mean. As I pointed to above, your vote is a right. What do you think it is worth?
walker_harris3
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2016 1:41:22 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/7/2016 1:22:38 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/7/2016 1:20:51 AM, walker_harris3 wrote:
At 2/7/2016 1:10:48 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/6/2016 11:29:02 PM, walker_harris3 wrote:
At 2/6/2016 9:10:04 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
I think it is. People have the right to their own bodies. If someone does not want to be sick or injured, they do not have to. It is wrong to force someone to be sick or injured.

Not in the sense of centralized health care, because centralized healthcare forces people to help sustain the health of others, while in some cases, it doesn't even support the health of the individuals. I've only been to a hospital one time in my life for stitches, yet under this centralized system, I'm forced to theoretically pay for my own health and other people's health every month. In the end, I'm forced to pay more for other people's health than my own health.

Here's how rights work, they're two-way streets. When person A claims that he has a right to his life, person B's obligation is to recognize A"s body and refrain from harming it. A's right to life does not demand action on the part of B. It demands restraint. If A is drowning, A's right to life does not force B to save A from death. But A"s right to life does force B to not drown A.

In terms of the right to health, people have the right to not have their health compromised by other people. So person B does not have the right to intentionally get person A sick. Person A, however, is not forced to help person B recover from sickness through this right to health. In other words, we have the right to respect the health of others, but we are not required to mend the health of others.

When supporters of the central coordination of the provision of healthcare by the state say that healthcare is a human right they mean that this right ought to place an obligation on everyone not just to refrain from causing harm, but to act in such as way as to support everyone else's health needs and to force everyone to relinquish part of their income or wealth to the state so that the state may finance or provide health services to someone else, presumably someone in need. So supporters of this actually infringe on our rights.

Start by thinking about healthcare without any cost to anyone. Dismiss if you use more or less than another. Now. Work the question without these points and see where you get to.

You're asking me to dismiss reality. Even if we lived in a money free world, there'd still be a cost attributed to any kind of centralized healthcare system as they stand today.

As I said, the right to your health means that others must respect your health and not put it in jeopardy. That right does not force anyone to restore someone's health, and that's exactly what centralized health care is.

You can't fairly decide what is or isn't a right based on what it costs. I mean seriously, think about what that would mean. As I pointed to above, your vote is a right. What do you think it is worth?

That isn't really my argument with this. My argument is what the right to good health is. By holding that the right to good health means that people must be forced to contribute to the health and well being of others, the right for others to pursue happiness is infringed.

Rights have no set value, they're theories. In America's case, the right to vote and Democracy was worth a revolution. In authoritarian nations, the right to vote has no value because it doesn't exist in those nations. What do you think the right to vote is worth?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2016 2:33:00 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/7/2016 1:41:22 AM, walker_harris3 wrote:
At 2/7/2016 1:22:38 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/7/2016 1:20:51 AM, walker_harris3 wrote:
At 2/7/2016 1:10:48 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/6/2016 11:29:02 PM, walker_harris3 wrote:
At 2/6/2016 9:10:04 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
I think it is. People have the right to their own bodies. If someone does not want to be sick or injured, they do not have to. It is wrong to force someone to be sick or injured.

Not in the sense of centralized health care, because centralized healthcare forces people to help sustain the health of others, while in some cases, it doesn't even support the health of the individuals. I've only been to a hospital one time in my life for stitches, yet under this centralized system, I'm forced to theoretically pay for my own health and other people's health every month. In the end, I'm forced to pay more for other people's health than my own health.

Here's how rights work, they're two-way streets. When person A claims that he has a right to his life, person B's obligation is to recognize A"s body and refrain from harming it. A's right to life does not demand action on the part of B. It demands restraint. If A is drowning, A's right to life does not force B to save A from death. But A"s right to life does force B to not drown A.

In terms of the right to health, people have the right to not have their health compromised by other people. So person B does not have the right to intentionally get person A sick. Person A, however, is not forced to help person B recover from sickness through this right to health. In other words, we have the right to respect the health of others, but we are not required to mend the health of others.

When supporters of the central coordination of the provision of healthcare by the state say that healthcare is a human right they mean that this right ought to place an obligation on everyone not just to refrain from causing harm, but to act in such as way as to support everyone else's health needs and to force everyone to relinquish part of their income or wealth to the state so that the state may finance or provide health services to someone else, presumably someone in need. So supporters of this actually infringe on our rights.

Start by thinking about healthcare without any cost to anyone. Dismiss if you use more or less than another. Now. Work the question without these points and see where you get to.

You're asking me to dismiss reality. Even if we lived in a money free world, there'd still be a cost attributed to any kind of centralized healthcare system as they stand today.

As I said, the right to your health means that others must respect your health and not put it in jeopardy. That right does not force anyone to restore someone's health, and that's exactly what centralized health care is.

You can't fairly decide what is or isn't a right based on what it costs. I mean seriously, think about what that would mean. As I pointed to above, your vote is a right. What do you think it is worth?

That isn't really my argument with this. My argument is what the right to good health is. By holding that the right to good health means that people must be forced to contribute to the health and well being of others, the right for others to pursue happiness is infringed.

Happiness is infringed by lack of medical care. You have to work to connect money to happiness. Health is naturally connected.


Rights have no set value, they're theories. In America's case, the right to vote and Democracy was worth a revolution. In authoritarian nations, the right to vote has no value because it doesn't exist in those nations. What do you think the right to vote is worth?

Yea, in the same way that health is connected with equality. As to the worth of my vote... Well, between 0 and thousands. Literally. If votes were allowed in a free market, we would see, but I have little doubt that my vote for president would go for somewhere in the 500-750$ range. Governor, senators say 125-250. Congress, 20-100. State, misc another combined 500.
walker_harris3
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2016 4:59:23 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/7/2016 2:33:00 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/7/2016 1:41:22 AM, walker_harris3 wrote:
At 2/7/2016 1:22:38 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/7/2016 1:20:51 AM, walker_harris3 wrote:
At 2/7/2016 1:10:48 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/6/2016 11:29:02 PM, walker_harris3 wrote:
At 2/6/2016 9:10:04 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
I think it is. People have the right to their own bodies. If someone does not want to be sick or injured, they do not have to. It is wrong to force someone to be sick or injured.

Not in the sense of centralized health care, because centralized healthcare forces people to help sustain the health of others, while in some cases, it doesn't even support the health of the individuals. I've only been to a hospital one time in my life for stitches, yet under this centralized system, I'm forced to theoretically pay for my own health and other people's health every month. In the end, I'm forced to pay more for other people's health than my own health.

Here's how rights work, they're two-way streets. When person A claims that he has a right to his life, person B's obligation is to recognize A"s body and refrain from harming it. A's right to life does not demand action on the part of B. It demands restraint. If A is drowning, A's right to life does not force B to save A from death. But A"s right to life does force B to not drown A.

In terms of the right to health, people have the right to not have their health compromised by other people. So person B does not have the right to intentionally get person A sick. Person A, however, is not forced to help person B recover from sickness through this right to health. In other words, we have the right to respect the health of others, but we are not required to mend the health of others.

When supporters of the central coordination of the provision of healthcare by the state say that healthcare is a human right they mean that this right ought to place an obligation on everyone not just to refrain from causing harm, but to act in such as way as to support everyone else's health needs and to force everyone to relinquish part of their income or wealth to the state so that the state may finance or provide health services to someone else, presumably someone in need. So supporters of this actually infringe on our rights.

Start by thinking about healthcare without any cost to anyone. Dismiss if you use more or less than another. Now. Work the question without these points and see where you get to.

You're asking me to dismiss reality. Even if we lived in a money free world, there'd still be a cost attributed to any kind of centralized healthcare system as they stand today.

As I said, the right to your health means that others must respect your health and not put it in jeopardy. That right does not force anyone to restore someone's health, and that's exactly what centralized health care is.

You can't fairly decide what is or isn't a right based on what it costs. I mean seriously, think about what that would mean. As I pointed to above, your vote is a right. What do you think it is worth?

That isn't really my argument with this. My argument is what the right to good health is. By holding that the right to good health means that people must be forced to contribute to the health and well being of others, the right for others to pursue happiness is infringed.

Happiness is infringed by lack of medical care. You have to work to connect money to happiness. Health is naturally connected.
But when you provide medical care for people at higher costs and don't give them a say in who their doctor is, you infringe on their rights and actually exacerbate the problem. Also now by forcing people to buy insurance at progressively higher premiums with high deductibles leaves less money for the individual to do even save money for not only their own well being, but also the well being of their posterity; as well as spend money for their own health benefits. Like healthier foods which cost more money. Individual health is not a collective issue. It's the issue of the individual. How do you solve it? You go see a doctor when the time comes and pay for that trip instead of being forced every month to pay for other people's health.

But wait, centralized health care is also hurting the doctors, the people who take the moral responsibility to go out and help the person B's who are sick or suffering. More doctors than ever already refuse Medicaid and Medicare due to inadequate payments for care, and that will only accelerate as government lowers reimbursements. Understandably so, as medicaid only pays doctors 56% of what they get from private insurers. And then guess what? The Medicaid that is failing the doctors is also causing the private insurance premiums to substantially increase. All this centralization is devastating economic and ironically medical freedom in our country across the spectrum. Here's more: A study in the Journal of Hospital Medicine found higher in-hospital mortality rates for Medicaid patients than for privately insured patients even after adjusting for factors such as age, gender, income, other illnesses, and severity. The same study also found that Medicaid patients hospitalized for strokes and pneumonia also ran up higher costs than the privately insured, as well as the uninsured.

Yes, happiness is infringed by lack of health. But more money leads to better quality food and products which leads to better health which leads to more happiness. You have to work to sustain health in this day in age. We can agree that the most unhealthy in this country are those who are impoverished. In this day in age money and happiness are connected in nearly all cases.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2016 5:01:24 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/7/2016 4:59:23 AM, walker_harris3 wrote:
At 2/7/2016 2:33:00 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/7/2016 1:41:22 AM, walker_harris3 wrote:
At 2/7/2016 1:22:38 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/7/2016 1:20:51 AM, walker_harris3 wrote:
At 2/7/2016 1:10:48 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/6/2016 11:29:02 PM, walker_harris3 wrote:
At 2/6/2016 9:10:04 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
I think it is. People have the right to their own bodies. If someone does not want to be sick or injured, they do not have to. It is wrong to force someone to be sick or injured.

Not in the sense of centralized health care, because centralized healthcare forces people to help sustain the health of others, while in some cases, it doesn't even support the health of the individuals. I've only been to a hospital one time in my life for stitches, yet under this centralized system, I'm forced to theoretically pay for my own health and other people's health every month. In the end, I'm forced to pay more for other people's health than my own health.

Here's how rights work, they're two-way streets. When person A claims that he has a right to his life, person B's obligation is to recognize A"s body and refrain from harming it. A's right to life does not demand action on the part of B. It demands restraint. If A is drowning, A's right to life does not force B to save A from death. But A"s right to life does force B to not drown A.

In terms of the right to health, people have the right to not have their health compromised by other people. So person B does not have the right to intentionally get person A sick. Person A, however, is not forced to help person B recover from sickness through this right to health. In other words, we have the right to respect the health of others, but we are not required to mend the health of others.

When supporters of the central coordination of the provision of healthcare by the state say that healthcare is a human right they mean that this right ought to place an obligation on everyone not just to refrain from causing harm, but to act in such as way as to support everyone else's health needs and to force everyone to relinquish part of their income or wealth to the state so that the state may finance or provide health services to someone else, presumably someone in need. So supporters of this actually infringe on our rights.

Start by thinking about healthcare without any cost to anyone. Dismiss if you use more or less than another. Now. Work the question without these points and see where you get to.

You're asking me to dismiss reality. Even if we lived in a money free world, there'd still be a cost attributed to any kind of centralized healthcare system as they stand today.

As I said, the right to your health means that others must respect your health and not put it in jeopardy. That right does not force anyone to restore someone's health, and that's exactly what centralized health care is.

You can't fairly decide what is or isn't a right based on what it costs. I mean seriously, think about what that would mean. As I pointed to above, your vote is a right. What do you think it is worth?

That isn't really my argument with this. My argument is what the right to good health is. By holding that the right to good health means that people must be forced to contribute to the health and well being of others, the right for others to pursue happiness is infringed.

Happiness is infringed by lack of medical care. You have to work to connect money to happiness. Health is naturally connected.
But when you provide medical care for people at higher costs and don't give them a say in who their doctor is, you infringe on their rights and actually exacerbate the problem. Also now by forcing people to buy insurance at progressively higher premiums with high deductibles leaves less money for the individual to do even save money for not only their own well being, but also the well being of their posterity; as well as spend money for their own health benefits. Like healthier foods which cost more money. Individual health is not a collective issue. It's the issue of the individual. How do you solve it? You go see a doctor when the time comes and pay for that trip instead of being forced every month to pay for other people's health.

But wait, centralized health care is also hurting the doctors, the people who take the moral responsibility to go out and help the person B's who are sick or suffering. More doctors than ever already refuse Medicaid and Medicare due to inadequate payments for care, and that will only accelerate as government lowers reimbursements. Understandably so, as medicaid only pays doctors 56% of what they get from private insurers. And then guess what? The Medicaid that is failing the doctors is also causing the private insurance premiums to substantially increase. All this centralization is devastating economic and ironically medical freedom in our country across the spectrum. Here's more: A study in the Journal of Hospital Medicine found higher in-hospital mortality rates for Medicaid patients than for privately insured patients even after adjusting for factors such as age, gender, income, other illnesses, and severity. The same study also found that Medicaid patients hospitalized for strokes and pneumonia also ran up higher costs than the privately insured, as well as the uninsured.

Yes, happiness is infringed by lack of health. But more money leads to better quality food and products which leads to better health which leads to more happiness. You have to work to sustain health in this day in age. We can agree that the most unhealthy in this country are those who are impoverished. In this day in age money and happiness are connected in nearly all cases.

I will go through this, but on scan you can't seem to separate cost from right. I say it has nothing to do with the discussion.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2016 5:04:07 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
Why do you start a new thread on this issue every couple of months...? I mean, I don't mind if you bring new arguments or facts to the table every time, but this doesn't seem to be what you're doing here.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
LiberalProlifer
Posts: 803
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2016 9:05:19 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/6/2016 11:29:02 PM, walker_harris3 wrote:
At 2/6/2016 9:10:04 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:
I think it is. People have the right to their own bodies. If someone does not want to be sick or injured, they do not have to. It is wrong to force someone to be sick or injured.

Not in the sense of centralized health care, because centralized healthcare forces people to help sustain the health of others, while in some cases, it doesn't even support the health of the individuals. I've only been to a hospital one time in my life for stitches, yet under this centralized system, I'm forced to theoretically pay for my own health and other people's health every month. In the end, I'm forced to pay more for other people's health than my own health.

Here's how rights work, they're two-way streets. When person A claims that he has a right to his life, person B's obligation is to recognize A"s body and refrain from harming it. A's right to life does not demand action on the part of B. It demands restraint. If A is drowning, A's right to life does not force B to save A from death. But A"s right to life does force B to not drown A.

In terms of the right to health, people have the right to not have their health compromised by other people. So person B does not have the right to intentionally get person A sick. Person A, however, is not forced to help person B recover from sickness through this right to health. In other words, we have the right to respect the health of others, but we are not required to mend the health of others.

When supporters of the central coordination of the provision of healthcare by the state say that healthcare is a human right they mean that this right ought to place an obligation on everyone not just to refrain from causing harm, but to act in such as way as to support everyone else's health needs and to force everyone to relinquish part of their income or wealth to the state so that the state may finance or provide health services to someone else, presumably someone in need. So supporters of this actually infringe on our rights.
This is my body. I have the right to healthcare.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2016 9:14:38 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/7/2016 5:04:07 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
Why do you start a new thread on this issue every couple of months...? I mean, I don't mind if you bring new arguments or facts to the table every time, but this doesn't seem to be what you're doing here.

Hey, man, I don't like your tone. Spamming the politics forum with stupid threads is his RIGHT!
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2016 9:44:54 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/7/2016 9:05:19 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:

This is my body. I have the right to healthcare.

Sure. You have a right to administer your own healthcare. Take as many drugs as you want man.