"The health care you deserve"

[scottish]

Access to health care is a basic human right.

But what if someone’s lifestyle choices are contributing to them becoming ill, as in eating a poor quality diet and becoming obese, or doing drugs or drinking too much?

Is there any evidence at all that suggests that people in countries with free health care are more obese, do more drugs, or drink more than those in countries without?  Maybe this fear is completely unfounded.

Hmmm.

America has the highest obesity rate.   http://health.usnews.com/health-news/health-wellness/articles/2014/05/28/america-tops-list-of-10-most-obese-countries

America has the highest rate of illicit drug use.    http://theinfluence.org/five-countries-with-the-highest-rates-of-illicit-drug-use-in-the-world/

But America doesn't have the highest rate of problem drinkers.    https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/05/17/heaviest-drinking-countries/9146227/

This makes me wonder if free health care might improve the health of your citizens.   

Speaking more philosophically, if people aren't worrying about health care they can spend more time being economically productive.   Fully funded health care might be good public policy.    But then the OP's question was how far should access to health care go?    Should an elderly person have access to the newest and most expensive cancer drugs?    If not, should a teenager?

If we start providing public access to this type of drug, how do we pay for them?   Pharma companies make huge investments developing new drugs and they need to see a return on these to continue.    There's no way the government could develop new drugs.

On the other hand, pharma companies will focus on developing drugs that make lots of money.    There could be less expensive, more effective alternatives out there that aren't being pursued because the expected return is low.

I think there are more questions than answers here.

[pxpaulx]

The "liberty" part is the sticky point. If you're compelling someone else to render you services, you're interfering with their liberty.

Said zero doctors ever.

[MrsPete]

A system like the UK is pretty much what I consider to be the healthcare we deserve, minus some of the most recent cuts. In the UK everyone has access to good care with no frills. All basics are provided. If hospitalized, you're not getting a private room, you'll be in a room with several patients most likely. If your issue is life threatening/urgent/emergent you'll be seen promptly. If your issue isn't, even if it might be causing discomfort, you might need to wait for a while to get it fixed.

Note, too, that the UK system pays for you to see the doctor ... but you yourself have to pay for your medicine.  If you need glasses, seeing the eye doctor is free, and he will point you to where you can purchase your glasses.  Many people opt for something similar to our "Urgent Care" ... they go into a drug store called Boots and can see a doctor (a doctor?) for something simple like Bronchitis.  They say it's just easier to get in and out (without a wait), even though they're paying for what could be free. 

The situation in the states is utter nonsense and there's no reason to have such an insanely expensive, ineffective system that is bad at keeping people in good health and alive, despite spending waaay more than any other country. The individualist, lawyer happy, selfish attitude is literally killing people.

It's unfair to overlook this detail though:  We Americans have an expensive, bloated medical system ... but we're also the ones who develop all the new drugs.  Countries with more streamlined health care don't develop nearly as many new treatments. 

I have the right to bear arms, who is going to give me my free gun?

Not a bad analogy.  We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... but we're also responsible for pursuing those things ourselves. 

Health care is a right, just like education is a right.

Education is a right that's enumerated in our laws, and the onus of the responsibility is placed upon states.  Is health care similarly mentioned in our laws?  I know it's not in the Constitution, but I really don't know if it's named as an official right.  I think not. 

However, we're not managing either one of these things particularly well.  Evidence?  Note the comma splice in the above quote.  Having a right to a free public education clearly doesn't assure us of basic grammar. 

But what if someone’s lifestyle choices are contributing to them becoming ill, as in eating a poor quality diet and becoming obese, or doing drugs or drinking too much?  Or having unprotected sex?  I definitely believe that people should not face a death sentence for these poor choices, but there definitely needs to be some sort of incentive to avoid these behaviors before they become so bad that there needs to be costly health interventions. 

Yeah, that's where we run into a rub:  Should we all be required to spend our limited resources (taxes) to help people who've opted for lifestyles that are certain to cause them health problems? 

We have a fair number of international exchange students at the high school where I teach, and I heard of a system that I thought made sense -- it's for dental, not health:  One of our students -- and I think he was German, but I'm not sure I remember correctly -- had a dental card, and he was required to visit the dentist 2Xs a year /have a check-up and get his card "punched".  If he was diligent in keeping these (free) appointments, then any dental care he needed was free (regardless of how complicated or expensive); however, if he was lax about his maintenance appointments, the government would not pay for his care.  I think that's fair.

This was a topic of conversation because he needed to visit the dentist during his stay in the US (he was trying to be responsible), and he had a hard time understanding why he had to pay for a maintenance appointment. 

The problem I have with this is that you then have to start judging people's choices based on incomplete and arbitrary information. How do you define "poor quality diet"? How do we determine if someone got an STD because of their choices, or bad luck? If I have unprotected sex with my partner because I trust them, then I get an STD because they cheated, do I still deserve care? If my parents smoke and I get lung cancer from the second hand smoke, do I deserve care? Do type 1 diabetics get care but not type 2? What if my cancer was due to air pollution? I can stop there, just wanted to point out that when you start trying to assign blame to health conditions, you will inevitably exclude people who got sick through no fault of their own, and condemn people to die based on judgement calls that are impossible to make fairly. Yes, people should take care of themselves, but it's incredibly cruel to deny them health care based on their lifestyles.

Yeah, if these were easy questions, we'd already have a better system in place. 

I am a physician, and I am honored to care for the military and their families. Given their voluntary sacrifice, I believe they have earned the RIGHT to quality healthcare.

I think that's a different topic.  Military folks signed on for a job, and a part of the compensation for that job is free medical care.  The civilian population has no equivalent. 

I have a similar question.

I deserve nutritious and healthy food.


-- Who should be responsible for ensuring that I get it?   Who defines what constitutes "nutritious and healthy"?  Who should pay for it?  In what manner should it be delivered / prepared / received?   Is it my responsibility to take actions to learn about how to care for my own food needs in a pre-planning sort of way?  If I chose to live 8 hours drive away from any town or village, is it my right that it is provided to me within a 20 minute walking distance?  etc.

In thinking this through, and living in a country that provides government provided health care, I think it is wrong to consider health care as a basic right and not think about health care as a commodity service.  I am a strong believer that  group insurance (or government regulated / provided) is needed to ensure everyone gets the basics.  BUT. There needs to be caps and limits on how much government provided anything one gets... and likewise, the government should not restrict people from being able to top up or buy what they want, by paying with their own money.

We each play a role in contributing to our own food needs and health care needs, alike.

Again, I have a negative reaction to the word "deserve" -- thanks, advertising.  I don't think you "deserve" nutritious and healthy food.  I think you ought to have the right to a variety of foods, and you should be able to choose the ones that fit your likes, needs, and budget.  But I don't see that anyone "owes you" nutritious and healthy foods, and that's essentially what you're saying when you say you "deserve" something. 

I've come to the same conclusion as well. Rights are natural and inherent, not "given" by some outside force. As Jefferson says "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights".

If this is so, then why haven't "rights" been equal across time and countries?  If "rights" are inherent, then everyone, everywhere would recognize them in a universal way.

[tipster350]

Even though I am a proponent of a UK NHS-style health system, I want to highlight an important point brought up in this thread. Every healthcare model comes with negative consequences.

Per Mrs Pete "It's unfair to overlook this detail though:  We Americans have an expensive, bloated medical system ... but we're also the ones who develop all of the new drugs.  Countries with more streamlined health care don't develop nearly as many new treatments. "

This is true. We fund most of the drug development through high drug prices the pharmaceutical companies can't charge in other countries. If we move to a UK-style model, a lot of the funds for drug development will dry up.

I'm still for the centralized model, but I understand with that, new drug therapies will be developed at a slower rate.

[SecretSquirrel]

I particularly liked this part of that article...

Look here: in America, you have the right to legal representation. If you’re accused of a crime and you cannot afford a lawyer, then one will be appointed to you by the court. Does that make you entitled to another’s labor? Yes. Yes it does. That’s what Public Defenders do. They’re not slaves, they chose to do that job and they’re paid for it. And just because you’re entitled to legal representation doesn’t rob lawyers of their rights.

This is not really a good analogy to healthcare. The state can charge you with a crime, and is the only entity that can legally take away your right to life and/or liberty. If you cannot afford legal representation, it means that state can take away your rights without a fair and due process. Since fair and due process is a right, the state therefore guarantees access to legal counsel, even if you cannot afford it.

[MrsPete]

Even though I am a proponent of a UK NHS-style health system, I want to highlight an important point brought up in this thread. Every healthcare model comes with negative consequences.

And maybe that's one reason that we don't seem to be able to move forward with a better system:  Everyone who discusses this topic genuinely wants to see something better, and we don't want to accept negatives -- even though, as you say, they're inevitable. 

[jjandjab]

Even though I am a proponent of a UK NHS-style health system, I want to highlight an important point brought up in this thread. Every healthcare model comes with negative consequences.

Per Mrs Pete "It's unfair to overlook this detail though:  We Americans have an expensive, bloated medical system ... but we're also the ones who develop all of the new drugs.  Countries with more streamlined health care don't develop nearly as many new treatments. "

This is true. We fund most of the drug development through high drug prices the pharmaceutical companies can't charge in other countries. If we move to a UK-style model, a lot of the funds for drug development will dry up.

I'm still for the centralized model, but I understand with that, new drug therapies will be developed at a slower rate.

I'd argue that this is the fear that is perpetuated by the drug companies. That somehow they (Pfizer, Merck, etc...) will slow/stop research if they can't charge the astronomical prices that are foisted on the US healthcare system. Sure, maybe it will be slower, but many times in the pharma world that is a good thing - so many meds many get to market with no actual proven benefit and are sold only because the are new or "may" have a benefit

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2017/03/07/rd-costs-for-pharmaceutical-companies-do-not-explain-elevated-us-drug-prices/

And not only that, our totally bizarre system currently allows for old drugs to be bought and marked up many times the actual cost... Or the other "new" profit maker is to combine two coexisting generic drugs and give it a new name and then charge a fortune.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/06/how-two-common-medications-became-one-455-million-specialty-pill/530808/

Much of the innovation these days comes from government funded research, i.e new Zika vaccine, which could still be funded. Just because you take away the insane profit margins doesn't mean all of the innovation will dry up. It may take out some of the weak companies, or, "gasp" tank their corporate profts and stock price, but they would eventually adapt.

[SecretSquirrel]

I think something worth trying would be to make the healthcare system in the US actually competitive. How many of us have shopped around for healthcare? Why not?

Imagine what would happen if our approach to healthcare would apply to automotive services. Your car's brakes are making a noise. You decide you're going to take the car in to get the brakes checked out, and replaced if needed. You call up the auto shop next door and go:

You: "Hey, what do you charge for a brake check-up on a 2005 Accord?"
Auto shop: "We'd have to bill your insurance to know"
You: "I just want to know what it costs"
Auto shop: "It depends on your insurance. Who is your auto insurance provider?"
You: "Geico."
Auto shop: "You'll have a co-copay of some kind most likely, check your insurance card. Then we'll bill Geico and they'll send you the remainder that's not covered, if any."
You: "What if I need new brakes? How much is a basic set?"
Auto shop: "We'll bill Geico and find out. You might want to talk to them about your covered benefits."

You get the idea. There is no genuine competition in the medical field. Why can't I call some doctors in the area for a health problem I am having, and pick the best one based on price, quality of service, speed, etc? If I need non-emergency surgery, why can't I call the surgeons in the area and ask them how much it would cost me? No one is competing for my healthcare.

How can we expect healthcare costs to be affordable (which is the root cause of the issue), when there is no real competition, there is an unhealthy population unwilling to make lifestyle modifications, and the expectation that insurance should cover nearly all medical expenses (which actually makes it a pre-paid healthcare plan and not insurance)?

[shenlong55]

I particularly liked this part of that article...

Look here: in America, you have the right to legal representation. If you’re accused of a crime and you cannot afford a lawyer, then one will be appointed to you by the court. Does that make you entitled to another’s labor? Yes. Yes it does. That’s what Public Defenders do. They’re not slaves, they chose to do that job and they’re paid for it. And just because you’re entitled to legal representation doesn’t rob lawyers of their rights.

This is not really a good analogy to healthcare. The state can charge you with a crime, and is the only entity that can legally take away your right to life and/or liberty. If you cannot afford legal representation, it means that state can take away your rights without a fair and due process. Since fair and due process is a right, the state therefore guarantees access to legal counsel, even if you cannot afford it.

I'm not understanding whatever it is your trying to say here.  Can you rephrase please?

[SecretSquirrel]

I particularly liked this part of that article...

Look here: in America, you have the right to legal representation. If you’re accused of a crime and you cannot afford a lawyer, then one will be appointed to you by the court. Does that make you entitled to another’s labor? Yes. Yes it does. That’s what Public Defenders do. They’re not slaves, they chose to do that job and they’re paid for it. And just because you’re entitled to legal representation doesn’t rob lawyers of their rights.

This is not really a good analogy to healthcare. The state can charge you with a crime, and is the only entity that can legally take away your right to life and/or liberty. If you cannot afford legal representation, it means that state can take away your rights without a fair and due process. Since fair and due process is a right, the state therefore guarantees access to legal counsel, even if you cannot afford it.

I'm not understanding whatever it is your trying to say here.  Can you rephrase please?

The government can take away your rights. For example, you can be imprisoned, or, depending on state, executed. Legally, they can only do so by bringing criminal charges against you. Our Constitution outlines numerous safeguards to ensure such charges, and the consequent legal proceedings, are done fairly and justly. The right to a lawyer is one of these safeguards. Without this right, you can lose your other rights (liberty in case of imprisonment, or life in case of execution) unfairly.

You don't lose any rights by not having a doctor. So, you are not guaranteed a doctor, even if you cannot afford one.

[Cowardly Toaster]

I'm just gonna throw some thoughts out, some of this is slightly off topic:

Isn't the (rather deep) philosophical question of whether people have the right to healthcare less important than actually getting the most people possible healthcare?

I have a family member with a fairly rare medical condition that required an operation performed only in one hospital in the country. Where I have a problem with systems like the NHS is that while they can deal excellently with routine stuff like broken arms or pneumonia, I think they'll fall short on the more obscure stuff.

Some sort of reform in malpractice law might help get these bills lower.

I really wish we would go after the unhealthy American lifestyle before worrying about what pills we need to take. The obesity, inactivity, exposure to carcinogens, and soy/corn agro diets are killing people.

A reform in the bureaucratic side of health care would help lower bills too.

I guess I just feel like a lot of the healthcare debate revolves around the question of "how can we prop up this shitty system?" rather than "how can we change the system to something more reasonable?"

[Inaya]

I particularly liked this part of that article...

Look here: in America, you have the right to legal representation. If you’re accused of a crime and you cannot afford a lawyer, then one will be appointed to you by the court. Does that make you entitled to another’s labor? Yes. Yes it does. That’s what Public Defenders do. They’re not slaves, they chose to do that job and they’re paid for it. And just because you’re entitled to legal representation doesn’t rob lawyers of their rights.

This is not really a good analogy to healthcare. The state can charge you with a crime, and is the only entity that can legally take away your right to life and/or liberty. If you cannot afford legal representation, it means that state can take away your rights without a fair and due process. Since fair and due process is a right, the state therefore guarantees access to legal counsel, even if you cannot afford it.

I'm not understanding whatever it is your trying to say here.  Can you rephrase please?

The government can take away your rights. For example, you can be imprisoned, or, depending on state, executed. Legally, they can only do so by bringing criminal charges against you. Our Constitution outlines numerous safeguards to ensure such charges, and the consequent legal proceedings, are done fairly and justly. The right to a lawyer is one of these safeguards. Without this right, you can lose your other rights (liberty in case of imprisonment, or life in case of execution) unfairly.

You don't lose any rights by not having a doctor. So, you are not guaranteed a doctor, even if you cannot afford one.

I believe the original point was that if you have a right to health care it requires forcing doctors to practice. In effect, the right to health care removes liberty from those doctors.


The article quoted addresses this by saying that Americans have the right to legal representation, yet nobody is taking the attorneys' liberties away. They choose their field of their own volition and are paid for their work. Nobody's clapping lawyers in chains and forcing them to work pro bono to ensure everyone who can't afford representation has it.

[SecretSquirrel]

I particularly liked this part of that article...

Look here: in America, you have the right to legal representation. If you’re accused of a crime and you cannot afford a lawyer, then one will be appointed to you by the court. Does that make you entitled to another’s labor? Yes. Yes it does. That’s what Public Defenders do. They’re not slaves, they chose to do that job and they’re paid for it. And just because you’re entitled to legal representation doesn’t rob lawyers of their rights.

This is not really a good analogy to healthcare. The state can charge you with a crime, and is the only entity that can legally take away your right to life and/or liberty. If you cannot afford legal representation, it means that state can take away your rights without a fair and due process. Since fair and due process is a right, the state therefore guarantees access to legal counsel, even if you cannot afford it.

I'm not understanding whatever it is your trying to say here.  Can you rephrase please?

The government can take away your rights. For example, you can be imprisoned, or, depending on state, executed. Legally, they can only do so by bringing criminal charges against you. Our Constitution outlines numerous safeguards to ensure such charges, and the consequent legal proceedings, are done fairly and justly. The right to a lawyer is one of these safeguards. Without this right, you can lose your other rights (liberty in case of imprisonment, or life in case of execution) unfairly.

You don't lose any rights by not having a doctor. So, you are not guaranteed a doctor, even if you cannot afford one.

I believe the original point was that if you have a right to health care it requires forcing doctors to practice. In effect, the right to health care removes liberty from those doctors.


The article quoted addresses this by saying that Americans have the right to legal representation, yet nobody is taking the attorneys' liberties away. They choose their field of their own volition and are paid for their work. Nobody's clapping lawyers in chains and forcing them to work pro bono to ensure everyone who can't afford representation has it.

I wasn't comparing doctors and lawyers from the standpoint of forced labor. My point was that having a lawyer represent you when the government is criminally prosecuting you is a right since it is necessary for a fair justice system. Having a doctor, however, is not a right. No one is taking anything away from you if you don't have a doctor.

[Geoduck]

It's not rocket surgery.  All other industrialize countries provide Heath care thru several different mechanisms- we can do it.  My choice would be Medicare for all and allow the Feds to bulk Barton drugs as the VA is allowed to do.   Obamacare was a half measure, time to get real.

[shenlong55]

I particularly liked this part of that article...

Look here: in America, you have the right to legal representation. If you’re accused of a crime and you cannot afford a lawyer, then one will be appointed to you by the court. Does that make you entitled to another’s labor? Yes. Yes it does. That’s what Public Defenders do. They’re not slaves, they chose to do that job and they’re paid for it. And just because you’re entitled to legal representation doesn’t rob lawyers of their rights.

This is not really a good analogy to healthcare. The state can charge you with a crime, and is the only entity that can legally take away your right to life and/or liberty. If you cannot afford legal representation, it means that state can take away your rights without a fair and due process. Since fair and due process is a right, the state therefore guarantees access to legal counsel, even if you cannot afford it.

I'm not understanding whatever it is your trying to say here.  Can you rephrase please?

The government can take away your rights. For example, you can be imprisoned, or, depending on state, executed. Legally, they can only do so by bringing criminal charges against you. Our Constitution outlines numerous safeguards to ensure such charges, and the consequent legal proceedings, are done fairly and justly. The right to a lawyer is one of these safeguards. Without this right, you can lose your other rights (liberty in case of imprisonment, or life in case of execution) unfairly.

You don't lose any rights by not having a doctor. So, you are not guaranteed a doctor, even if you cannot afford one.

I believe the original point was that if you have a right to health care it requires forcing doctors to practice. In effect, the right to health care removes liberty from those doctors.


The article quoted addresses this by saying that Americans have the right to legal representation, yet nobody is taking the attorneys' liberties away. They choose their field of their own volition and are paid for their work. Nobody's clapping lawyers in chains and forcing them to work pro bono to ensure everyone who can't afford representation has it.

I wasn't comparing doctors and lawyers from the standpoint of forced labor. My point was that having a lawyer represent you when the government is criminally prosecuting you is a right since it is necessary for a fair justice system. Having a doctor, however, is not a right. No one is taking anything away from you if you don't have a doctor.

You seem to be assuming that healthcare is not a right when the debate is about whether healthcare is a right or not.

That analogy was in response to the argument that healthcare can't be a right because we would have to "force" doctors to provide a service to others, similar to how we "force" public defender to provide a service to others.

Sent from my XT1031 using Tapatalk

[GuitarStv]

I think that healthcare access for all is a really nice thought. I'm hesitant to call it a "right" though because it involves compelling humans to provide it for you, which interferes with much more fundamental rights.

Thinking of it as a "right" is a bit pernicious anyway, because while many in the USA are supportive of some kind of medicare for all like solution, and would cite healthcare as a human right as the reason, comparatively fewer people would probably want to guarantee this so-called right for everyone else in the world. People receiving substandard care in developing nations are still human, and thus, no less deserving.

If I'm going to be less philosophical, and more pragmatic though, I think that the USA should guarantee something close to NHS standard of care for all Americans, regardless of what they can afford to pay. On top of that, I think that we should step up foreign aid contributions to help those in other countries.

I've come to the same conclusion as well. Rights are natural and inherent, not "given" by some outside force. As Jefferson says "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights".

This reasoning sounds nice on the surface but doesn't hold up to any kind of scrutiny.

'Natural right' is an oxymoron.  Nature has nothing to do with fairness or rights.  In nature, the strong kill the weak and benefit from their death.  We are part of a society specifically so that we don't have to deal with that nasty, brutish, and short lived shit.

Rights are a purely societal construct.  Literally every right that you have depends on the whim of society.  (If you don't believe me, ask native Americans about their natural rights to the property of Manhattan for example.)  We depend on society to provide a mechanism to reinforce those rights (which is why we've got a legal system, a police system, a military, etc.) and as a society we choose what those rights will be.

There is no interference with fundamental rights.  Compelling doctors to provide care to patients is no different than compelling police officers to provide protection, or compelling people in the military to die for their country.

[250kto1million]

I've always looked at it as an anti-revolutionary issue. When you look at revolutions throughout history it's usually due to an extreme injustice/inequality where people have been pushed beyond their tolerance point.

The fact is for every smoker or Big Mac gobbler, there is someone with a bona fide genetic issue or surprise medical condition that they couldn't have foreseen/prevented. For this purpose, it doesn't even matter. When you start singling people out and telling them they have to pay obscene amounts compared to others or, worse, simply go without healthcare...they get to the point where they have nothing left to lose except wage war.

As someone with a pre-existing condition that was 100% beyond my control, I'd be right there on the front lines.

[PoutineLover]

I particularly liked this part of that article...

Look here: in America, you have the right to legal representation. If you’re accused of a crime and you cannot afford a lawyer, then one will be appointed to you by the court. Does that make you entitled to another’s labor? Yes. Yes it does. That’s what Public Defenders do. They’re not slaves, they chose to do that job and they’re paid for it. And just because you’re entitled to legal representation doesn’t rob lawyers of their rights.

This is not really a good analogy to healthcare. The state can charge you with a crime, and is the only entity that can legally take away your right to life and/or liberty. If you cannot afford legal representation, it means that state can take away your rights without a fair and due process. Since fair and due process is a right, the state therefore guarantees access to legal counsel, even if you cannot afford it.

I'm not understanding whatever it is your trying to say here.  Can you rephrase please?

The government can take away your rights. For example, you can be imprisoned, or, depending on state, executed. Legally, they can only do so by bringing criminal charges against you. Our Constitution outlines numerous safeguards to ensure such charges, and the consequent legal proceedings, are done fairly and justly. The right to a lawyer is one of these safeguards. Without this right, you can lose your other rights (liberty in case of imprisonment, or life in case of execution) unfairly.

You don't lose any rights by not having a doctor. So, you are not guaranteed a doctor, even if you cannot afford one.

I believe the original point was that if you have a right to health care it requires forcing doctors to practice. In effect, the right to health care removes liberty from those doctors.


The article quoted addresses this by saying that Americans have the right to legal representation, yet nobody is taking the attorneys' liberties away. They choose their field of their own volition and are paid for their work. Nobody's clapping lawyers in chains and forcing them to work pro bono to ensure everyone who can't afford representation has it.

I wasn't comparing doctors and lawyers from the standpoint of forced labor. My point was that having a lawyer represent you when the government is criminally prosecuting you is a right since it is necessary for a fair justice system. Having a doctor, however, is not a right. No one is taking anything away from you if you don't have a doctor.

I mean.. You can lose your life if you don't have access to a doctor... In life liberty and pursuit of happiness, life comes first.

[BlueMR2]

I've given this a ton of thought, having worked alongside healthcare providers for many years as well as having many that are family and friends and will be drawing heavily on their thoughts. 

The USA provides too much healthcare.  We have too many specialists, who will attempt to move heaven and earth, emptying your bank accounts in the process to buy just a little extra time.  The efforts and drive are appreciated, but it's bankrupting us.  Too often the specialists only see their one tiny little detail, so don't realize the harm they are actually causing as now the individual struggles on longer in great pain, while hoping to be that one in a billion miracle.  The GPs get stuck with the end results over these over agressive specialists.  Someone that could have gone peacefully is now struggling 24/7 for months more, while racking up hundreds of thousands in debt (maybe they won't live to pay it, but the rest of us will in higher costs).

It's not just the classic "90 year old" end of life either.  Some of us will encounter those conditions much earlier.  50s, 40s, 30s?  Tough decisions have to be made there.  We simply can't afford to give every single person the full treatment of modern medicine.  The resources simply do not exist.  Should we bias it towards more effort on younger people?  I tend to think so, but with limits as well.  If your odds are next to zero and it's going to cost millions, we're not serving the greater good.  Those millions could do oh so much more for others in the world that can't even get the basics.  Million dollar babies.  Far too many.  The stats are not good.  Those are the cases we *most* want to work out as there's the most to gain.  Still, we need to apply sensible limits based on solid scientific/statistical principles instead of being pure emotion.  All MUCH easier said than done, but emotionalism driving HUGE excesses on extreme edge cases is killing our country and we need to get it under control.

Healthcare we can afford and deserve is fixing broken bones.  Treating common illnesses.  Education and preventative care.  Focus on the basics.  While you don't get to stand out as a hero for spending 10s of millions to save 1 of 9 people with a rare disease, you're really doing much more good overall...

[SecretSquirrel]

I particularly liked this part of that article...

Look here: in America, you have the right to legal representation. If you’re accused of a crime and you cannot afford a lawyer, then one will be appointed to you by the court. Does that make you entitled to another’s labor? Yes. Yes it does. That’s what Public Defenders do. They’re not slaves, they chose to do that job and they’re paid for it. And just because you’re entitled to legal representation doesn’t rob lawyers of their rights.

This is not really a good analogy to healthcare. The state can charge you with a crime, and is the only entity that can legally take away your right to life and/or liberty. If you cannot afford legal representation, it means that state can take away your rights without a fair and due process. Since fair and due process is a right, the state therefore guarantees access to legal counsel, even if you cannot afford it.

I'm not understanding whatever it is your trying to say here.  Can you rephrase please?

The government can take away your rights. For example, you can be imprisoned, or, depending on state, executed. Legally, they can only do so by bringing criminal charges against you. Our Constitution outlines numerous safeguards to ensure such charges, and the consequent legal proceedings, are done fairly and justly. The right to a lawyer is one of these safeguards. Without this right, you can lose your other rights (liberty in case of imprisonment, or life in case of execution) unfairly.

You don't lose any rights by not having a doctor. So, you are not guaranteed a doctor, even if you cannot afford one.

I believe the original point was that if you have a right to health care it requires forcing doctors to practice. In effect, the right to health care removes liberty from those doctors.


The article quoted addresses this by saying that Americans have the right to legal representation, yet nobody is taking the attorneys' liberties away. They choose their field of their own volition and are paid for their work. Nobody's clapping lawyers in chains and forcing them to work pro bono to ensure everyone who can't afford representation has it.

I wasn't comparing doctors and lawyers from the standpoint of forced labor. My point was that having a lawyer represent you when the government is criminally prosecuting you is a right since it is necessary for a fair justice system. Having a doctor, however, is not a right. No one is taking anything away from you if you don't have a doctor.

I mean.. You can lose your life if you don't have access to a doctor... In life liberty and pursuit of happiness, life comes first.

In response to this, as well as some other posters: we are talking about negative vs. positive rights. For those unfamiliar with the concept, a negative right is one that prevents others from infringing on you in some way, while a positive right requires you be provided with something. If we use the Second Amendment as an example, it essentially states that you have the right to firearms. It is a negative right, meaning, you can obtain and possess firearms, and others cannot prevent you from doing so. If the Second Amendment was a positive right, it would mean that if you don't have a firearm, one must be provided for you.

When we say we have a right to life, in my opinion, we are talking about a negative right. This means that no one can take away my life. It does not mean that someone should be forced to save my life, however, which would make it a positive right.

My concern is that positive rights have two sides. On the one hand, someone gets something, on the other, someone has to have something taken away. Negative rights, philosophically, are more just because they simply ensure we cannot infringe on each other's rights, without forcing us to do anything.

[seattlecyclone]

I guess my concern about calling health care a "right" is this: what happens when there aren't enough doctors and nurses for everyone to get the agreed-upon "right" standard of care? Can something really be a "right" if it's not possible for everyone to enjoy it?

[shenlong55]

I guess my concern about calling health care a "right" is this: what happens when there aren't enough doctors and nurses for everyone to get the agreed-upon "right" standard of care?

Increase incentives for people to go to medical school?

ETA:. And/or decrease barriers to entering medical school.

Sent from my XT1031 using Tapatalk

[GuitarStv]

In response to this, as well as some other posters: we are talking about negative vs. positive rights. For those unfamiliar with the concept, a negative right is one that prevents others from infringing on you in some way, while a positive right requires you be provided with something. If we use the Second Amendment as an example, it essentially states that you have the right to firearms. It is a negative right, meaning, you can obtain and possess firearms, and others cannot prevent you from doing so. If the Second Amendment was a positive right, it would mean that if you don't have a firearm, one must be provided for you.

When we say we have a right to life, in my opinion, we are talking about a negative right. This means that no one can take away my life. It does not mean that someone should be forced to save my life, however, which would make it a positive right.

My concern is that positive rights have two sides. On the one hand, someone gets something, on the other, someone has to have something taken away. Negative rights, philosophically, are more just because they simply ensure we cannot infringe on each other's rights, without forcing us to do anything.

I think that often people in the US believe that health care is somehow different from the many services that you currently enjoy based upon positive rights.

You have the right to be protected by officers, you have the right to have crimes committed against you investigated, and you have the right to report crimes to the police.  For you to have these rights, the police officers have their time and effort taken away.  Police services are therefore a positive right by your definition.

We're able to get this positive right without forcing anyone to do anything.  How?  Well, we've set up a system where if you want to be a police officer you must work for the government.  It's completely voluntary, and you're paid by the government if you choose to do so.  There is training necessary to become a police officer, which the people applying need to get on their own.  Why do you think that health care would be any different?  If someone wants to be a licensed doctor or nurse, they can get the education and work for the government for pay in a completely voluntary manner.

[250kto1million]

  Someone that could have gone peacefully is now struggling 24/7 for months more, while racking up hundreds of thousands in debt (maybe they won't live to pay it, but the rest of us will in higher costs).

It's not just the classic "90 year old" end of life either.  Some of us will encounter those conditions much earlier.  50s, 40s, 30s?  Tough decisions have to be made there.  We simply can't afford to give every single person the full treatment of modern medicine.  The resources simply do not exist.  Should we bias it towards more effort on younger people?  I tend to think so, but with limits as well.

 If your odds are next to zero and it's going to cost millions, we're not serving the greater good.  Those millions could do oh so much more for others in the world that can't even get the basics.  Million dollar babies.  Far too many.  The stats are not good.  Those are the cases we *most* want to work out as there's the most to gain.  Still, we need to apply sensible limits based on solid scientific/statistical principles instead of being pure emotion.  All MUCH easier said than done, but emotionalism driving HUGE excesses on extreme edge cases is killing our country and we need to get it under control.

Healthcare we can afford and deserve is fixing broken bones.  Treating common illnesses.  Education and preventative care.  Focus on the basics.  While you don't get to stand out as a hero for spending 10s of millions to save 1 of 9 people with a rare disease, you're really doing much more good overall...

You are right, MUCH easier said than done, and I have a feeling you may change your tune once you are on the wrong side of that line, should it come down to your solution written here. 

I for one would not mind my tax dollars, yes running even into the millions, spent on saving 1 in 9 people (which wouldn't be rare, frankly) rather than a PLETHORA of things our government spends on. Let's have an Industrial Health Complex instead of an Industrial Military Complex.  Frankly, we'd be safer.

The pure heartlessness here is...disappointing.

[scottish]

I guess my concern about calling health care a "right" is this: what happens when there aren't enough doctors and nurses for everyone to get the agreed-upon "right" standard of care?

Increase incentives for people to go to medical school?

ETA:. And/or decrease barriers to entering medical school.

Sent from my XT1031 using Tapatalk

For example, Ontario has been allowing nurse practitioners to do work formerly done by doctors.

[SecretSquirrel]

In response to this, as well as some other posters: we are talking about negative vs. positive rights. For those unfamiliar with the concept, a negative right is one that prevents others from infringing on you in some way, while a positive right requires you be provided with something. If we use the Second Amendment as an example, it essentially states that you have the right to firearms. It is a negative right, meaning, you can obtain and possess firearms, and others cannot prevent you from doing so. If the Second Amendment was a positive right, it would mean that if you don't have a firearm, one must be provided for you.

When we say we have a right to life, in my opinion, we are talking about a negative right. This means that no one can take away my life. It does not mean that someone should be forced to save my life, however, which would make it a positive right.

My concern is that positive rights have two sides. On the one hand, someone gets something, on the other, someone has to have something taken away. Negative rights, philosophically, are more just because they simply ensure we cannot infringe on each other's rights, without forcing us to do anything.

I think that often people in the US believe that health care is somehow different from the many services that you currently enjoy based upon positive rights.

You have the right to be protected by officers, you have the right to have crimes committed against you investigated, and you have the right to report crimes to the police.  For you to have these rights, the police officers have their time and effort taken away.  Police services are therefore a positive right by your definition.

We're able to get this positive right without forcing anyone to do anything.  How?  Well, we've set up a system where if you want to be a police officer you must work for the government.  It's completely voluntary, and you're paid by the government if you choose to do so.  There is training necessary to become a police officer, which the people applying need to get on their own.  Why do you think that health care would be any different?  If someone wants to be a licensed doctor or nurse, they can get the education and work for the government for pay in a completely voluntary manner.

The things you've listed, such as reporting crimes and getting things investigated by the police, are actually negative rights. The government's job, at its core, is to make sure that you can live free and have the opportunity to prosper. The only way to ensure that is to have public services like the military and the police. If I report my TV stolen to the police, and they investigate it, it is the government protecting my negative rights. I have the right to property, my property was stolen, i.e. my right was violated, the government, in this case via the police force, steps in. They do not give me a new TV, or give me money to replace it, they simply ensure the violator of my rights, the thief, is caught and prosecuted.

Services like the police are by definition public. They are necessary for the existence of a free state, and for the protection of negative rights. The police cannot be private because only the state can prosecute crimes.

Medicine can be public, and it is in many countries, but only by choice. Medicine does not have to be public, and in the US it is mostly private. If we fully get into the realm of positive rights, and make healthcare a positive right, it will essentially turn the medical field into a government-run industry.

If healthcare is a right, it means I can demand it. What is to stop me from intentionally not getting insurance, and not taking care of myself, and then demanding medical help for free when I need it? It is my right after all. If we say, well, it's life or death. Alright, how about food? If I don't eat I die. Can I just go to the grocery store and demand food? Why not? It's life or death.

I think healthcare is a privilege. We should strive our best to get costs low, and extend this privilege to everyone, but I cannot consciously label the labor of an entire industry, as my right.

[GuitarStv]

In response to this, as well as some other posters: we are talking about negative vs. positive rights. For those unfamiliar with the concept, a negative right is one that prevents others from infringing on you in some way, while a positive right requires you be provided with something. If we use the Second Amendment as an example, it essentially states that you have the right to firearms. It is a negative right, meaning, you can obtain and possess firearms, and others cannot prevent you from doing so. If the Second Amendment was a positive right, it would mean that if you don't have a firearm, one must be provided for you.

When we say we have a right to life, in my opinion, we are talking about a negative right. This means that no one can take away my life. It does not mean that someone should be forced to save my life, however, which would make it a positive right.

My concern is that positive rights have two sides. On the one hand, someone gets something, on the other, someone has to have something taken away. Negative rights, philosophically, are more just because they simply ensure we cannot infringe on each other's rights, without forcing us to do anything.

I think that often people in the US believe that health care is somehow different from the many services that you currently enjoy based upon positive rights.

You have the right to be protected by officers, you have the right to have crimes committed against you investigated, and you have the right to report crimes to the police.  For you to have these rights, the police officers have their time and effort taken away.  Police services are therefore a positive right by your definition.

We're able to get this positive right without forcing anyone to do anything.  How?  Well, we've set up a system where if you want to be a police officer you must work for the government.  It's completely voluntary, and you're paid by the government if you choose to do so.  There is training necessary to become a police officer, which the people applying need to get on their own.  Why do you think that health care would be any different?  If someone wants to be a licensed doctor or nurse, they can get the education and work for the government for pay in a completely voluntary manner.

The things you've listed, such as reporting crimes and getting things investigated by the police, are actually negative rights.

Negative rights do not require an action by another party.  You have a negative right not to have someone steal your bike.  Police investigating your bike theft, and taking your report is an example of a positive right.  I think you've conflated the two, which is causing some confusion here.

The government's job, at its core, is to make sure that you can live free and have the opportunity to prosper.

Agreed, keeping people alive and able to prosper is a core job of the government.  How alive/able to prosper is someone with a critical illness?  It therefore follows that health care is a core task of the government.

The only way to ensure that is to have public services like the military and the police.

 . . . and health care, because not everyone will be healthy all the time.  In the same way that not everyone will be lucky enough to avoid crime all their life.

If I report my TV stolen to the police, and they investigate it, it is the government protecting my negative rights. I have the right to property, my property was stolen, i.e. my right was violated, the government, in this case via the police force, steps in. They do not give me a new TV, or give me money to replace it, they simply ensure the violator of my rights, the thief, is caught and prosecuted.

If I contract a disease that will paralyze me without treatment and I go to the hospital to get it fixed, it is the government protecting my rights.  I have the right to live free and have the opportunity to prosper, don't I?  I mean, that's what you said . . . and that is taken away from me by the disease.

I'm not asking for money, I'm not asking for an upgrade in life.  The doctors and nurses simply ensure that I have the same chance to work hard and make my own way that those who were lucky enough to be born healthy get by default.

Services like the police are by definition public. They are necessary for the existence of a free state, and for the protection of negative rights.

The right to public service is by definition a positive right.  I agree, you cannot protect negative rights without implementing positive rights.

Medicine can be public, and it is in many countries, but only by choice. Medicine does not have to be public, and in the US it is mostly private. If we fully get into the realm of positive rights, and make healthcare a positive right, it will essentially turn the medical field into a government-run industry.

Sure. But as you indicated earlier . . .

The government's job, at its core, is to make sure that you can live free and have the opportunity to prosper.

Medical care is fundamental to living free and having the opportunity to prosper.  It is therefore a core part of the job of the government to provide it for citizens.

If healthcare is a right, it means I can demand it. What is to stop me from intentionally not getting insurance, and not taking care of myself, and then demanding medical help for free when I need it? It is my right after all.

Nothing.  It's no different than living in a city with a high crime rate and expecting to have the services of a police force to call upon should a crime happen to you.

If we say, well, it's life or death. Alright, how about food? If I don't eat I die. Can I just go to the grocery store and demand food? Why not? It's life or death.

You can't go to a grocery store and demand food because they are privately operated.  There are government programs to prevent people from starving to death though, and you can go to any one of those to demand food (or chits to trade for food) should the need arise.

I think healthcare is a privilege. We should strive our best to get costs low, and extend this privilege to everyone, but I cannot consciously label the labor of an entire industry, as my right.

This is not logically consistent reasoning.  You already have labelled the labor of entire industries your right.  The police industry, fire services, the military.  What you haven't done is shown that health care is any different than those.

[gaja]

Some people think that the socialist nanny state is kind, taking care of the weak and providing for everyone. In reality, it is all about socioeconomics and cost effectiveness. If you are sick, you are an expense for the state. If you are healthy, you are a source of tax revenue and/or voluntary work hours. This is the same in any country that has some sort of tax system and any level of social security system (including if you "donate" money to your church or an NGO to provide help to people), the difference is just that we have one system for everything.  Since everyone is in the system, we have good stats on what stuff costs, and how we can save money.

Free physical therapy for old people is very cost effective, since they can live at home and care for themselves for a longer time. Getting younger people to exercise and eat healthy could save us even more, but is much more difficult, since they have to agree. We are spending a bunch of money trying to convince people to do the right thing, but it is hard to see that it is making any difference. What is making a difference, is making unhealthy options more expensive and more difficult to get hold of.

In Norway, we have a committe responsible for approving new medicines and treatments. The cost is calculated compared to how many more good years you will get if the treatment works (QALE). Drugs or treatments costing more than $100 000/additional healthy year are rarely approved. It sounds horrible to put a price on a life this way, but it is a very good basis for debate: do we want to spend 500 millions more on cancer medications? Should we increase taxes, or reduce spending somewhere else? In addition, laying the costs out in the open exposes some of the less nice methods the pharmaceutical companies are using when they are negotiating prices, and we can have more levelheaded discussions about how long we should keep people alive, and when it is better for everyone to let them go.

I'm just gonna throw some thoughts out, some of this is slightly off topic:

Isn't the (rather deep) philosophical question of whether people have the right to healthcare less important than actually getting the most people possible healthcare?

I have a family member with a fairly rare medical condition that required an operation performed only in one hospital in the country. Where I have a problem with systems like the NHS is that while they can deal excellently with routine stuff like broken arms or pneumonia, I think they'll fall short on the more obscure stuff.
[...]

I don't understand the logic behind the bolded part. With a coordinated health system, it should be much easier to provide access to specialists. My two kids have both spent a lot of time in hospitals, I'll give a couple of examples from our side of the pond:

1. The youngest has Erb's palsy - not very common, but not terribly rare. Physcial therapy, x-rays, ordinary check-ups have been done locally. About once a year, we have travelled 450 km to a central hospital where her progess has been monitored by a team of experts from all over the country. On occasion they also brought in doctors from other European countries for quality control. When she turned 8, physical therapy and training wasn't enough anymore, and they booked a surgery. This took place at a different hospital than the check-ups, because that was where the best surgents for this issue were. None of this cost us anything (aside from taxes), all the travels were covered, and I got paid leave from work. This diagnosis covers a broad spectrum of damage, so two children with the same diagnosis can't necessarily be compared, but based on what I've seen in Facebook support grups and other places online where parents discuss these matters, it looks like it is much more difficult to get the US health system to cover good long term physical therapy, but easy to get surgery (if you have insurance). So children of the same age as my daughter, often have had 2, 3, or even more surgeries, but it looks to me like they still have more difficulties using their injured shoulder and arm.

2. The oldest kid is deaf, and we have no idea why. The routine stuff; hearing tests, checkups, hearing aid adaptions, etc, have been done at the nearest hospital. But whenever I have asked for something more, they have sent us to the experts. When she was 6 or 7, I was worried because the audiograms showed a lot of variation. It could be just difficulties getting a child to cooperate, but it could also be indications of other issues. No problem, we were sent to a hospital 4 hours drive to the north, because they were doing research on how to get the most reliable results from children on hearing tests. The doctors have been reluctant to do invasive tests just to find out why she is deaf, since that won't do any difference to how she should be treated, or how she should be educated. Both spoken and signed languages are good to know if she keeps the hearing she has left, or if she looses it. Because I asked, they checked for one of the more common gene abnormalities quite early on, but when that turned out to be normal, they stopped testing. Last year, I asked again, since it bothered me not to know the cause. No problem, we were sent to the national research center for genetic testing. So far, there are no results, but at least we have ruled out several (rather scary) syndroms).

[seattlecyclone]

I guess my concern about calling health care a "right" is this: what happens when there aren't enough doctors and nurses for everyone to get the agreed-upon "right" standard of care?

Increase incentives for people to go to medical school?

ETA:. And/or decrease barriers to entering medical school.

Yes, this may well be a fine long-term solution. But in the eight or so years before we push enough new medical students through residency, we might not have enough medical expertise to go around. By defining medical care as a "right" that means that for several years a bunch of peoples' rights are necessarily being violated because they don't have access to timely medical care. Who is violating those rights? Is it the doctors' fault for not working enough hours to take care of everyone? Is it the government's fault for not subsidizing enough medical students a decade or two ago? To me, if something is a "right" and someone is being denied that right, that's something that we need to fix right away, not eight years from now. If we're going to use that "right" word when describing medical care, we had better be prepared to guarantee medical care to everyone now and forever, whatever it might cost. What I'm seeing in Congress right now shows that there's far from a consensus on that point.

[GuitarStv]

But in the eight or so years before we push enough new medical students through residency, we might not have enough medical expertise to go around.

Implicit in this statement is the understanding that you do not currently have enough medical expertise to go around for everyone . . . and that it's OK, because the only people losing out on it are the poor.

Disturbing sentiment.

[seattlecyclone]

But in the eight or so years before we push enough new medical students through residency, we might not have enough medical expertise to go around.

Implicit in this statement is the understanding that you do not currently have enough medical expertise to go around for everyone . . . and that it's OK, because the only people losing out on it are the poor.

Disturbing sentiment.

I'm not saying it's okay that people are going without health care. I happen to think it's pretty terrible. I'm just saying that if the word "right" is to have any meaning, it has to be something that everyone can reasonably expect to have, and that they can expect to exercise some sort of legal remedy to get it right now if someone is standing between them and the things that they're rightfully entitled to have.

Should getting good health care to everyone be a goal? Sure! But I still can't really get behind calling it a "right" until we're certain that we're actually committed to following through on it through thick and thin. So far I don't see that sort of broad commitment.

[Drifterrider]

I have the right to bear arms, who is going to give me my free gun?

I agree with you in principle, the right to something does not automatically translate to the public financing of it. However the money involved is quite different between the purchase of a firearm and the cost of health care.  So for those who, for financial reasons, do not have access to health care, some discussion of how that might be accomplished is warranted. 

But then again, I'm just an underwriter.  I didn't have enough personality to be an actuary.

That is a false statement (In the US).  Here, everyone has access to "health care".  The real issue is the cost.  Medical companies usually bill at astronomical rates knowing they are never really going to collect that amount of money.  In January I got a bill for over $60,000.  Does anyone really think I will pay that much? 

In the US we need to take a careful look at the medical insurance systems used in Germany and Switzerland.  We also need to take a critical look at what is life saving, what is life prolonging, what is life enhancing medical care.  We are all in the same boat:  some have better seats but it is still only one boat.

[Bucksandreds]

I have the right to bear arms, who is going to give me my free gun?

I agree with you in principle, the right to something does not automatically translate to the public financing of it. However the money involved is quite different between the purchase of a firearm and the cost of health care.  So for those who, for financial reasons, do not have access to health care, some discussion of how that might be accomplished is warranted. 

But then again, I'm just an underwriter.  I didn't have enough personality to be an actuary.

That is a false statement (In the US).  Here, everyone has access to "health care". The real issue is the cost.  Medical companies usually bill at astronomical rates knowing they are never really going to collect that amount of money.  In January I got a bill for over $60,000.  Does anyone really think I will pay that much? 

In the US we need to take a careful look at the medical insurance systems used in Germany and Switzerland.  We also need to take a critical look at what is life saving, what is life prolonging, what is life enhancing medical care.  We are all in the same boat:  some have better seats but it is still only one boat.

That is a false statement. In the US everyone has access to emergency services. Big difference between emergency services and health care at large. Semantics very much do matter, in this discussion.

[Ocelot]

As a US resident who spent the first 34 years of his life in New Zealand under a universal healthcare system, the thing that confuses me the most about this debate - usually when it's US citizens arguing about US care - is this idea that UHC is somehow unworkable or too expensive or requires huge sacrifices, financially or from medical staff. There are dozens of countries that have UHC and it works and these doomsday scenarios don't eventuate. The staff get paid market rate, just like they would here, and the average individual healthcare spend, including the tax component, is lower than in the US. Yes, technically the rich are being forced to pay for the care of the poor, but they're paying less overall anyway so they're better off, as opposed to the current US system where the rich are effectively paying extra for the right to say they're not contributing to anyone else's healthcare. Doesn't make much sense to me!
The US already subsidises healthcare to a huge extent, through tax breaks etc for employer-provided schemes. It's not like it's not already a huge federal cost, it's just weighted to provide benefits only to the middle to upper classes.

As a sidenote, I expected lower taxes when I arrived here in the US than what I was paying in NZ, as it looked that way on paper. In reality, the combined weight of federal plus state plus sales has me paying more than I was in NZ. Additionally receiving healthcare involves so much more work for me here, even with an employer supplied plan. Navigating the admin alone is a total PITA, when I'm used to being able to see any doctor with a free appointment or stroll into any hospital and not have to worry about whether I am covered there and to what extent.

[Million2000]

I think that healthcare access for all is a really nice thought. I'm hesitant to call it a "right" though because it involves compelling humans to provide it for you, which interferes with much more fundamental rights.

Thinking of it as a "right" is a bit pernicious anyway, because while many in the USA are supportive of some kind of medicare for all like solution, and would cite healthcare as a human right as the reason, comparatively fewer people would probably want to guarantee this so-called right for everyone else in the world. People receiving substandard care in developing nations are still human, and thus, no less deserving.

If I'm going to be less philosophical, and more pragmatic though, I think that the USA should guarantee something close to NHS standard of care for all Americans, regardless of what they can afford to pay. On top of that, I think that we should step up foreign aid contributions to help those in other countries.

I've come to the same conclusion as well. Rights are natural and inherent, not "given" by some outside force. As Jefferson says "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights".

This reasoning sounds nice on the surface but doesn't hold up to any kind of scrutiny.

'Natural right' is an oxymoron.  Nature has nothing to do with fairness or rights.  In nature, the strong kill the weak and benefit from their death.  We are part of a society specifically so that we don't have to deal with that nasty, brutish, and short lived shit.

Rights are a purely societal construct.  Literally every right that you have depends on the whim of society.  (If you don't believe me, ask native Americans about their natural rights to the property of Manhattan for example.)  We depend on society to provide a mechanism to reinforce those rights (which is why we've got a legal system, a police system, a military, etc.) and as a society we choose what those rights will be.

There is no interference with fundamental rights.  Compelling doctors to provide care to patients is no different than compelling police officers to provide protection, or compelling people in the military to die for their country.

I fundamentally disagree. Natural rights are those you have simply by being human. They do not depend on governments or on men. You have them simply by existing as a human being. Admittedly we have failed pretty massively over long periods of time upholding those rights, but even so, the rights themselves existed. They were and are universal. You seem to hold that legal rights (aka the Social Contract) are the only rights, which as you stated depend wholly on the whim of the society. What a tyrannical system that would be (and through actions of governments all around the world-has been). Would you conclude you don't have a right to life if Congress or Parliament passed a law that GuitarSrv isn't human and can be legally killed? I would think not, no matter what the new law says. I see others in their posts are articulating similar points (positive vs negative rights).

As it relates to healthcare, I do not believe someone should be forced to provide healthcare. All the example careers you listed were by volunteers who signed contracts to work in those capacities (our military (USA) doesn't currently have a draft, but if it did it would be a good example of my point). They made the choice to do that, no one forced them. We shouldn't be conscripting doctors. More and more doctors don't take medicare anymore, forcing them to accept it and treat patients is another more subtle form of what I'm describing.

I made a mistake in my own post above not distinguishing natural rights from legal rights, I believe healthcare should be considered a legal right but not one inalienable, much like voting, education, etc. The government should take every effort to provide those services (or facilitate them) but that wouldn't mean it would use force to make doctors do it.

[GuitarStv]

I think that healthcare access for all is a really nice thought. I'm hesitant to call it a "right" though because it involves compelling humans to provide it for you, which interferes with much more fundamental rights.

Thinking of it as a "right" is a bit pernicious anyway, because while many in the USA are supportive of some kind of medicare for all like solution, and would cite healthcare as a human right as the reason, comparatively fewer people would probably want to guarantee this so-called right for everyone else in the world. People receiving substandard care in developing nations are still human, and thus, no less deserving.

If I'm going to be less philosophical, and more pragmatic though, I think that the USA should guarantee something close to NHS standard of care for all Americans, regardless of what they can afford to pay. On top of that, I think that we should step up foreign aid contributions to help those in other countries.

I've come to the same conclusion as well. Rights are natural and inherent, not "given" by some outside force. As Jefferson says "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights".

This reasoning sounds nice on the surface but doesn't hold up to any kind of scrutiny.

'Natural right' is an oxymoron.  Nature has nothing to do with fairness or rights.  In nature, the strong kill the weak and benefit from their death.  We are part of a society specifically so that we don't have to deal with that nasty, brutish, and short lived shit.

Rights are a purely societal construct.  Literally every right that you have depends on the whim of society.  (If you don't believe me, ask native Americans about their natural rights to the property of Manhattan for example.)  We depend on society to provide a mechanism to reinforce those rights (which is why we've got a legal system, a police system, a military, etc.) and as a society we choose what those rights will be.

There is no interference with fundamental rights.  Compelling doctors to provide care to patients is no different than compelling police officers to provide protection, or compelling people in the military to die for their country.

I fundamentally disagree. Natural rights are those you have simply by being human. They do not depend on governments or on men. You have them simply by existing as a human being. Admittedly we have failed pretty massively over long periods of time upholding those rights, but even so, the rights themselves existed. They were and are universal. You seem to hold that legal rights (aka the Social Contract) are the only rights, which as you stated depend wholly on the whim of the society. What a tyrannical system that would be (and through actions of governments all around the world-has been). Would you conclude you don't have a right to life if Congress or Parliament passed a law that GuitarSrv isn't human and can be legally killed? I would think not, no matter what the new law says. I see others in their posts are articulating similar points (positive vs negative rights).

As it relates to healthcare, I do not believe someone should be forced to provide healthcare. All the example careers you listed were by volunteers who signed contracts to work in those capacities (our military (USA) doesn't currently have a draft, but if it did it would be a good example of my point). They made the choice to do that, no one forced them. We shouldn't be conscripting doctors. More and more doctors don't take medicare anymore, forcing them to accept it and treat patients is another more subtle form of what I'm describing.

I made a mistake in my own post above not distinguishing natural rights from legal rights, I believe healthcare should be considered a legal right but not one inalienable, much like voting, education, etc. The government should take every effort to provide those services (or facilitate them) but that wouldn't mean it would use force to make doctors do it.

A right that is not protected by law is a purely abstract concept . . . it has utility in that it can guide a person's actions, but beyond philosophical naval gazing doesn't really impact someone.  If a tyrannical government says that I'm not human and can be legally killed, then (Red Dawn adolescent fantasies aside) I'm probably going to die . . . natural rights or not.

There's no need to conscript doctors any more than there's a need to conscript police officers.  Nobody has to force doctors to do anything they don't want to . . . just refuse to grant them a medical license without agreeing to take medicate patients.  This is no different that requiring police officers to agree to rules of conduct to get to wear the badge.

[SecretSquirrel]

The things you've listed, such as reporting crimes and getting things investigated by the police, are actually negative rights.

Negative rights do not require an action by another party.  You have a negative right not to have someone steal your bike.  Police investigating your bike theft, and taking your report is an example of a positive right.  I think you've conflated the two, which is causing some confusion here.

The things that are being conflated are negative rights vs their enforcement. I have the right to my bike. That's a negative right, i.e. I have the right to obtain and own a bicycle, but no one is obligated to provide one for me. My bike getting stolen is a violation of my right. The police step in not as a positive right, but as an enforcement of the negative right.

I am not entitled to police services, I am entitled to my own property, and the police are there to enforce that right, should someone violate it. Without my rights being violated, the police have zero obligation to provide me with anything. Even if my rights are violated, the police are there to catch/stop the offender, and not to help me per se. It is not the job of the police to provide me with a new bike, fix my house if it is broken into, or heal my wounds if the thief beats me up on the way out.

The government's job, at its core, is to make sure that you can live free and have the opportunity to prosper.

Agreed, keeping people alive and able to prosper is a core job of the government.  How alive/able to prosper is someone with a critical illness?  It therefore follows that health care is a core task of the government.

You are looking at it from a positive rights standpoint, which is not how our framework of government is set up.  It is not the government's job to keep you alive. It is their job to prevent your life from being taken away. The two concepts are quite different even though on the surface it is easy to conflate the two. I have no right to kill you, hurt you, or make you ill. However, if you get sick/hurt/are dying on your own, no one is forced to heal you.

The only way to ensure that is to have public services like the military and the police.

 . . . and health care, because not everyone will be healthy all the time.  In the same way that not everyone will be lucky enough to avoid crime all their life.

I don't agree. Some people will not have <blank>. It doesn't make <blank> a right. What about food/clothing/shelter/transportation/etc? Do I have the right to have all those? After all, I can't live/pursue happiness without those things. Can I just go to the grocery store and grab food if I don't have it? Can I move into a vacant house without the owner allowing me to do so if I don't have shelter?

If I report my TV stolen to the police, and they investigate it, it is the government protecting my negative rights. I have the right to property, my property was stolen, i.e. my right was violated, the government, in this case via the police force, steps in. They do not give me a new TV, or give me money to replace it, they simply ensure the violator of my rights, the thief, is caught and prosecuted.

If I contract a disease that will paralyze me without treatment and I go to the hospital to get it fixed, it is the government protecting my rights.  I have the right to live free and have the opportunity to prosper, don't I?  I mean, that's what you said . . . and that is taken away from me by the disease.

I'm not asking for money, I'm not asking for an upgrade in life.  The doctors and nurses simply ensure that I have the same chance to work hard and make my own way that those who were lucky enough to be born healthy get by default.

Like I mentioned earlier, you are talking about healthcare as a positive right. Unless someone is making you paralyzed, or someone inflicted you with this illness, it is not the government's job to treat you. You are free to pursue treatment, or to obtain medical services as you see fit, no one has the right to stop you. But, no one should be forced to treat you unless you think healthcare is a positive right.

When you say "I'm not asking for money", you actually are. There is a real financial cost to the treatment of your illness, that someone has to pay. The medical staff treating you are not working for free, the facilities that you visit have operating costs, the medical products you will use and receive all cost money. If you're demanding these things (which you are if you are calling them a right) and not personally paying for them, then someone else is. There is no such things as a free syringe.

Services like the police are by definition public. They are necessary for the existence of a free state, and for the protection of negative rights.

The right to public service is by definition a positive right.  I agree, you cannot protect negative rights without implementing positive rights.

See my first response to this post.

Medicine can be public, and it is in many countries, but only by choice. Medicine does not have to be public, and in the US it is mostly private. If we fully get into the realm of positive rights, and make healthcare a positive right, it will essentially turn the medical field into a government-run industry.

Sure. But as you indicated earlier . . .

The government's job, at its core, is to make sure that you can live free and have the opportunity to prosper.

Medical care is fundamental to living free and having the opportunity to prosper.  It is therefore a core part of the job of the government to provide it for citizens.

See above (food, shelter examples).

If healthcare is a right, it means I can demand it. What is to stop me from intentionally not getting insurance, and not taking care of myself, and then demanding medical help for free when I need it? It is my right after all.

Nothing.  It's no different than living in a city with a high crime rate and expecting to have the services of a police force to call upon should a crime happen to you.

You have the right to life and property no matter where you live. Your body is your responsibility.

If we say, well, it's life or death. Alright, how about food? If I don't eat I die. Can I just go to the grocery store and demand food? Why not? It's life or death.

You can't go to a grocery store and demand food because they are privately operated.  There are government programs to prevent people from starving to death though, and you can go to any one of those to demand food (or chits to trade for food) should the need arise.

If healthcare is a right, then I can go anywhere and demand it. Why does it matter if I go to a private doctor's office? It is my right to get medical help. I can demand it anywhere. I have the right to life regardless of public vs. private property. Are you saying I only have the right to medicine in a government medical facility? That's not much of a right.

I think healthcare is a privilege. We should strive our best to get costs low, and extend this privilege to everyone, but I cannot consciously label the labor of an entire industry, as my right.

This is not logically consistent reasoning.  You already have labelled the labor of entire industries your right.  The police industry, fire services, the military.  What you haven't done is shown that health care is any different than those.

I think I've explained exactly why those services are different. Rights needs enforcement, which is one of the core functions of government. The government does not give you your rights, they enforce them. What good is my right to life if you can shoot me in the head without consequences? What good is my right to property and liberty if a foreign army can invade us, take our houses, and put us in labor camps?

This is very different from a right to stuff. You might really, really need said stuff, but no one is violating your rights by not providing you with said stuff. You are free to get said stuff, and to own it, and if someone prevents you from doing either, the government should step in. However, whether you get said stuff, is up to you.

[SecretSquirrel]

I think that healthcare access for all is a really nice thought. I'm hesitant to call it a "right" though because it involves compelling humans to provide it for you, which interferes with much more fundamental rights.

Thinking of it as a "right" is a bit pernicious anyway, because while many in the USA are supportive of some kind of medicare for all like solution, and would cite healthcare as a human right as the reason, comparatively fewer people would probably want to guarantee this so-called right for everyone else in the world. People receiving substandard care in developing nations are still human, and thus, no less deserving.

If I'm going to be less philosophical, and more pragmatic though, I think that the USA should guarantee something close to NHS standard of care for all Americans, regardless of what they can afford to pay. On top of that, I think that we should step up foreign aid contributions to help those in other countries.

I've come to the same conclusion as well. Rights are natural and inherent, not "given" by some outside force. As Jefferson says "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights".

This reasoning sounds nice on the surface but doesn't hold up to any kind of scrutiny.

'Natural right' is an oxymoron.  Nature has nothing to do with fairness or rights.  In nature, the strong kill the weak and benefit from their death.  We are part of a society specifically so that we don't have to deal with that nasty, brutish, and short lived shit.

Rights are a purely societal construct.  Literally every right that you have depends on the whim of society.  (If you don't believe me, ask native Americans about their natural rights to the property of Manhattan for example.)  We depend on society to provide a mechanism to reinforce those rights (which is why we've got a legal system, a police system, a military, etc.) and as a society we choose what those rights will be.

There is no interference with fundamental rights.  Compelling doctors to provide care to patients is no different than compelling police officers to provide protection, or compelling people in the military to die for their country.

I fundamentally disagree. Natural rights are those you have simply by being human. They do not depend on governments or on men. You have them simply by existing as a human being. Admittedly we have failed pretty massively over long periods of time upholding those rights, but even so, the rights themselves existed. They were and are universal. You seem to hold that legal rights (aka the Social Contract) are the only rights, which as you stated depend wholly on the whim of the society. What a tyrannical system that would be (and through actions of governments all around the world-has been). Would you conclude you don't have a right to life if Congress or Parliament passed a law that GuitarSrv isn't human and can be legally killed? I would think not, no matter what the new law says. I see others in their posts are articulating similar points (positive vs negative rights).

As it relates to healthcare, I do not believe someone should be forced to provide healthcare. All the example careers you listed were by volunteers who signed contracts to work in those capacities (our military (USA) doesn't currently have a draft, but if it did it would be a good example of my point). They made the choice to do that, no one forced them. We shouldn't be conscripting doctors. More and more doctors don't take medicare anymore, forcing them to accept it and treat patients is another more subtle form of what I'm describing.

I made a mistake in my own post above not distinguishing natural rights from legal rights, I believe healthcare should be considered a legal right but not one inalienable, much like voting, education, etc. The government should take every effort to provide those services (or facilitate them) but that wouldn't mean it would use force to make doctors do it.

A right that is not protected by law is a purely abstract concept . . . it has utility in that it can guide a person's actions, but beyond philosophical naval gazing doesn't really impact someone.  If a tyrannical government says that I'm not human and can be legally killed, then (Red Dawn adolescent fantasies aside) I'm probably going to die . . . natural rights or not.

There's no need to conscript doctors any more than there's a need to conscript police officers.  Nobody has to force doctors to do anything they don't want to . . . just refuse to grant them a medical license without agreeing to take medicate patients.  This is no different that requiring police officers to agree to rules of conduct to get to wear the badge.

Should a plumber be forced to fix certain toilets? Should a restaurant owner be forced to serve meals to certain customers? Should an engineer be forced to write code for certain companies? I don't see how revoking/not granting a medical license to a doctor for not taking Medicare is any different.

[Tyson]

Our rights are whatever we, as a society, decide that they are.  "Natural rights" are not based on anything other than a 17th century fantasy. 

[Psychstache]

Getting back to the premise of the thread.

Given that we are saying healthcare is a right, I would imagine a model similar to the education system. You have a public system for all that is paid for with taxes that provides a specific floor of services that the addresses basic services alongside a private system that people can choose to opt in to if they wish. As far as what they floor of services looks like, we have several options both here (Medicare, Tricare) and abroad (NHS, Canada) to consider where to start.

[SecretSquirrel]

Our rights are whatever we, as a society, decide that they are.  "Natural rights" are not based on anything other than a 17th century fantasy.

I have the right to my life, regardless of what society decides. Call it "natural", "divine", "inalienable".

[PiobStache]

For me the question isn't whether or not there should be universal healthcare as it's obvious we should have it.  For me the effort exists in framing the argument properly.  Way too many people in the US think the only options are the current US status quo and a Canadian style system.  The last thing I want is Canada's system in the US.  Canada actually scores worse than the US in many metrics and overall is ranked 30th vs. the US's 37th spot.  My efforts are in educating people into the fact there are other delivery models, particularly the Bismarck and Bismarck hybrid models, used in the world's large economies that receive the highest rankings.

France, Germany, Japan and others.  This is important as how an argument gets framed determines the only possible outcomes.  People need to come to terms with the fact Canada's single payer system isn't all that and better systems are out there.  Let's look into that.

[mm1970]

This is a tough one.

I am a physician, and I am honored to care for the military and their families. Given their voluntary sacrifice, I believe they have earned the RIGHT to quality healthcare. My salary is fixed regardless of how many procedures I do or patients I see. So, I will do the best job that I can. Medical school was free and I was reimbursed very well throughout my entire training.

However, if I was a civilian doc, who had to go to school for 13+ years, come out of medical school with $250K in debt, earning a barely livable salary as a resident, gave up my entire 20s to be able to do this, do the patients' then have a RIGHT to healthcare? Maybe, but the reimbursement has to be appropriate for the level of sacrifice, training, and risk. The question is, who then is responsible to pay? I'll leave that one to you guys as I have no interest in politics ;)

Well, yes.

You aren't a slave, you will be getting paid.  Presumably, you won't be forced to work 20 hours a day either.  I understand that sometimes people wait for services in other countries.

Education is a right.  So what do we do there?  People decide they want to be teachers.  They go to college.  They get their teaching credentials.  Some of them go on to get master's degrees and PhDs.  And then they become teachers - elementary, middle, high school.

I don't really see the difference - same idea - different length of time, cost, work to get there - but also different salaries.

And again, there would be options - teachers can work for a public school district or a private school.  I assume docs could do the same.

[SecretSquirrel]

I am surprised how many of you fellas have no problem with the government forcing people to provide services. Imagine at your own job, the government came in and said:

"Citizen, you are now required to provide services for person X, if you do not comply, you are prohibited from working in your profession. Remember, we are not forcing you to do anything. Feel free to quit your current career and switch to another one. That is, until we mandate something for that other profession and you quit that one too. But, you can quit as many times as you want. Freedom and all."

I mean, really?

And, sorry, but the police/military are not the same. Public sector jobs are, or at least, should be, for the essential functions of government, which is, or again, should be, the protection of negative, "natural" rights. They are not there to provide you with stuff you need/want, they are there to go after violators so you remain free to pursue said stuff.

[shenlong55]

I think I've explained exactly why those services are different. Rights needs enforcement, which is one of the core functions of government. The government does not give you your rights, they enforce them. What good is my right to life if you can shoot me in the head without consequences? What good is my right to property and liberty if a foreign army can invade us, take our houses, and put us in labor camps?

This is very different from a right to stuff. You might really, really need said stuff, but no one is violating your rights by not providing you with said stuff. You are free to get said stuff, and to own it, and if someone prevents you from doing either, the government should step in. However, whether you get said stuff, is up to you.

So, let me see if I understand this...  Some rights are negative rights because they do not require the action of another party.  However, they do require enforcement and enforcement requires the action of another party.  So, is the only actual difference between positive and negative rights that we can state one in such a way as to make it seem like it doesn't require the action of another party?

[SecretSquirrel]

I think I've explained exactly why those services are different. Rights needs enforcement, which is one of the core functions of government. The government does not give you your rights, they enforce them. What good is my right to life if you can shoot me in the head without consequences? What good is my right to property and liberty if a foreign army can invade us, take our houses, and put us in labor camps?

This is very different from a right to stuff. You might really, really need said stuff, but no one is violating your rights by not providing you with said stuff. You are free to get said stuff, and to own it, and if someone prevents you from doing either, the government should step in. However, whether you get said stuff, is up to you.

So, let me see if I understand this...  Some rights are negative rights because they do not require the action of another party.  However, they do require enforcement and enforcement requires the action of another party.  So, is the only actual difference between positive and negative rights that we can state one in such a way as to make it seem like it doesn't require the action of another party?

I am not sure why it is difficult to understand but yes, no action is required for negative rights, while action is required for positive rights. Correct. Let's try to exemplify it again:

The Second Amendment guarantees my right to firearms. It is a negative right. Nobody is forced to do anything for me. I can exercise this right without anyone being involuntarily involved. No one is forced to build, distribute, purchase, own, or provide firearms for me. If it would be a positive right, it would force someone to provide me with a firearm. The government, in the context of this right, only exists to ensure no one can prevent me from getting a firearm. The government is not required to build, distribute, purchase, or provide me with a firearm. The government is only needed to ensure that if I try to obtain a firearm, no one is preventing me from exercising my right. Negative right.

There is no positive right to firearms. The police going after a firearm thief does not make it a positive right. The government ensuring I can own a firearm does not make it a positive right. The government does this by hiring people to protect this right from infringement. Is this honestly not clear?

[Tyson]

Our rights are whatever we, as a society, decide that they are.  "Natural rights" are not based on anything other than a 17th century fantasy.

I have the right to my life, regardless of what society decides. Call it "natural", "divine", "inalienable".

Really, so you don't support the death penalty?

[shenlong55]

I am not sure why it is difficult to understand but yes, no action is required for negative rights, while action is required for positive rights. Correct. Let's try to exemplify it again:

The Second Amendment guarantees my right to firearms. It is a negative right. Nobody is forced to do anything for me. I can exercise this right without anyone being involuntarily involved. No one is forced to build, distribute, purchase, own, or provide firearms for me. If it would be a positive right, it would force someone to provide me with a firearm. The government, in the context of this right, only exists to ensure no one can prevent me from getting a firearm. The government is not required to build, distribute, purchase, or provide me with a firearm. The government is only needed to ensure that if I try to obtain a firearm, no one is preventing me from exercising my right. Negative right.

There is no positive right to firearms. The police going after a firearm thief does not make it a positive right. The government ensuring I can own a firearm does not make it a positive right. The government does this by hiring people to protect this right from infringement. Is this honestly not clear?

Well, hold on.  What was the initial objection to positive rights?  That they necessarily infringe on others negative rights, correct?  Is it honestly not clear to you that your negative rights are still infringing on my negative rights through their enforcement?  I guess we could stop enforcing our negative rights to avoid infringing on others negative rights, but...

What good is my right to life if you can shoot me in the head without consequences? What good is my right to property and liberty if a foreign army can invade us, take our houses, and put us in labor camps?

If negative rights can't exist without enforcement then they also necessarily infringe on others negative rights.

[SecretSquirrel]

I am not sure why it is difficult to understand but yes, no action is required for negative rights, while action is required for positive rights. Correct. Let's try to exemplify it again:

The Second Amendment guarantees my right to firearms. It is a negative right. Nobody is forced to do anything for me. I can exercise this right without anyone being involuntarily involved. No one is forced to build, distribute, purchase, own, or provide firearms for me. If it would be a positive right, it would force someone to provide me with a firearm. The government, in the context of this right, only exists to ensure no one can prevent me from getting a firearm. The government is not required to build, distribute, purchase, or provide me with a firearm. The government is only needed to ensure that if I try to obtain a firearm, no one is preventing me from exercising my right. Negative right.

There is no positive right to firearms. The police going after a firearm thief does not make it a positive right. The government ensuring I can own a firearm does not make it a positive right. The government does this by hiring people to protect this right from infringement. Is this honestly not clear?

Well, hold on.  What was the initial objection to positive rights?  That they necessarily infringe on others negative rights, correct?  Is it honestly not clear to you that your negative rights are still infringing on my negative rights (property rights in this case) through their enforcement?  I guess we could stop enforcing our negative rights to avoid infringing on others negative rights, but...

What good is my right to life if you can shoot me in the head without consequences? What good is my right to property and liberty if a foreign army can invade us, take our houses, and put us in labor camps?

If negative rights can't exist without enforcement then they also necessarily infringe on others negative rights.

I'm not sure what you mean. How do my negative rights infringe on your negative rights?

Our rights are whatever we, as a society, decide that they are.  "Natural rights" are not based on anything other than a 17th century fantasy.

I have the right to my life, regardless of what society decides. Call it "natural", "divine", "inalienable".

Really, so you don't support the death penalty?

I am sure you're trying to say "aha! so life is NOT inalienable if there's the death penalty, therefore no such thing as inalienable rights!". I made a simple point, and you made a simple counterpoint. Let's expand a little...

If you infringe on the rights of others, your own rights can be infringed upon. I have the right to my life. If you try to take it away by attempting to kill me, I can fight back, and potentially kill you instead. What good is my right to life if I cannot defend it?

Since we live in a civilization, we often don't have to fight for our own rights because we as a society agreed that it is easier to have an elected government body do most of the dirty work for us. So, the government, most of the time, is the one fighting back against the violators of our rights. We don't need the government to do this, since we can all be responsible for our own defense, but it's just not very effective in this day and age, especially in regards to threats like foreign invasions.

[Tyson]

Our rights are whatever we, as a society, decide that they are.  "Natural rights" are not based on anything other than a 17th century fantasy.

I have the right to my life, regardless of what society decides. Call it "natural", "divine", "inalienable".

Really, so you don't support the death penalty?

I am sure you're trying to say "aha! so life is NOT inalienable if there's the death penalty, therefore no such thing as inalienable rights!". I made a simple point, and you made a simple counterpoint. Let's expand a little...

If you infringe on the rights of others, your own rights can be infringed upon. I have the right to my life. If you try to take it away by attempting to kill me, I can fight back, and potentially kill you instead. What good is my right to life if I cannot defend it?

Since we live in a civilization, we often don't have to fight for our own rights because we as a society agreed that it is easier to have an elected government body do most of the dirty work for us. So, the government, most of the time, is the one fighting back against the violators of our rights. We don't need the government to do this, since we can all be responsible for our own defense, but it's just not very effective in this day and age, especially in regards to threats like foreign invasions.

Simple points are often best.  Yes, if a right is inalienable, it cannot be forfeited or taken away.  So a supporter of natural rights cannot support the death penalty. 

I'm not saying you can't shoot someone breaking into your home or otherwise threatening your life.  I am saying that a person who committed a crime cannot be deprived of their life by the state.  Especially since the foundation of said state is based on the principle of inalienable rights like life. 

Of course I think that's all crap.  The laws can be made to say what ever we want them to say.  Things that were illegal a century ago are now legal (like, gay sex).  Things that weren't illegal a century ago, are now (like the entire war on drugs). Rights are just something we all agree that we get and laws are just something we all agree we will follow. 

Unless you don't live in a democracy.  In that case, the laws are whatever the king/dictator say they are.  And you get whatever rights they give you.