Author Topic: "The health care you deserve"  (Read 26459 times)

Tyson

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2430
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #150 on: August 02, 2017, 02:22:30 PM »
A right has no meaning without enforcement.

Why is that? A right can be violated, but its presence is not predicated upon enforcement. Again, if the government acts tyrannical, does it mean we have no rights, or does it mean that our rights are being violated? If the government sensors me, does it mean I have no right to free speech?

Because a right that is routinely violated is no longer a right.  If the government censors you, you have lost the right to free speech because you can no longer exercise that right.  Surely you can concede that telling people they only theoretically have the right to free speech doesn't do them any good.

Why is a right that is routinely violated no longer a right? Do North Koreans have no rights, considering how often their rights are violated? North Koreans have the same rights as you and I, but they live in a terrible, oppressive place.

If you believe the government gives you rights, then yes, the government can take the rights away. And, this is precisely the problem with thinking rights come from governments. This is why people such as myself believe in inalienable rights, which every human has, regardless of government.

Rights cannot be taken away (exceptions exist in case of crime and such). This is the key difference between rights and privileges. If your right goes away because you cannot exercise it, then you don't believe it is a right to begin with. Free societies fight for their rights, and demand they be upheld by their governments.

Wrong.  Rights can absolutely be taken away.  People in North Korea have no rights.  Why?  Because those rights have been taken away.

SecretSquirrel

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #151 on: August 02, 2017, 02:23:56 PM »
This whole discussion has gone off the rails.
There is plenty of precedent for governments regulating professions, and not in a fascist way. As an engineer, my profession is regulated, as it should be, to prevent my work from killing people. Same goes for doctors, and anyone else who's work impacts the health and safety of others. It doesn't mean that for health care to be a right people are forced to be doctors at gunpoint, as some seem to be suggesting.
Health care will always be needed, someone will always do it for a fee, anyone pretending otherwise is living in a fantasy world. Health care does not need to be as expensive as it is in the states, mostly because plenty of that money goes to things other than health care (insurance, bureaucracy, lawsuits, etc.) The point of this discussion shouldn't be to imagine some alternate fantasy world where rich people have their own hospitals and armies while poor people starve on the streets (or on the grass, since there'd probably be no publicly funded infrastructure like roads in this fantasy world). We have plenty of examples of countries where access to health care is a right, and those society have not imploded yet. And their measures of health and life expectancy are often far better than those of the US.

Regulating engineering, and making engineering a right are two very different things. The medical field is regulated as is, but is not, at least for now, a right in the US.

The discussion about health care as a right should be more along the lines of what level of care should be provided to everyone, how do we ensure access, where should the money for that come from, who should contribute and how much, etc.

I completely agree. And, all that is possible without making healthcare a right, which my point of contention here.

PiobStache

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 204
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #152 on: August 02, 2017, 02:28:21 PM »

Making healthcare a right means that you are entitled to the labor of medical professionals. Stated differently, if you are a medical professional, you can be forced to provide your labor. I find this notion immoral. I would find it wrong and offensive if the government told me tomorrow that my labor is now a public service, and I am obligated to provide it. Your rational self-interest to get medical services is in direct conflict with my rational self-interest to provide them voluntarily, i.e. you're making it a positive right.

No, that's not what it means.  The positive right means society has an obligation, not any one individual. Do teachers work for free?  Last time I checked they're getting paid and society has declared a K-12 education as a positive right.

I am not sure what you mean. If I am sick, and I have the right to healthcare, where does this healthcare come from? What does "society has an obligation" mean when we get down to the details? No matter how you slice it, healthcare means the labor of medical professionals. If I need medical help, it means I need medical goods and/or services. Individuals make those goods, and provide those services. If I have the right to healthcare, it means medical professionals are obligated to make those goods for me, and/or provide their services.

The problem with making positive rights isn't always immediate. No one is suggesting that if you make healthcare a right, our medical system will implode overnight. Yes, people can opt out of being doctors, or teachers. They can even opt out of simply working in the public sector. But, if their service is a right, it must be provided by the government. What happens if doctor pay is low enough, or burden too high, and not enough people go into medicine, or quit it? What happens if people don't become teachers? Remember, if it is a right, it *must* be provided. In the Soviet Union, you could not choose what profession you wanted easily. You might want to become an engineer, but the government might tell you that you'll be a teacher instead, because more teachers are needed. What's to stop the government from doing the same here?

For someone that thought I was just dismissing things..see?  I tried.

SecretSquirrel

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #153 on: August 02, 2017, 02:46:00 PM »
A right has no meaning without enforcement.

Why is that? A right can be violated, but its presence is not predicated upon enforcement. Again, if the government acts tyrannical, does it mean we have no rights, or does it mean that our rights are being violated? If the government sensors me, does it mean I have no right to free speech?

Because a right that is routinely violated is no longer a right.  If the government censors you, you have lost the right to free speech because you can no longer exercise that right.  Surely you can concede that telling people they only theoretically have the right to free speech doesn't do them any good.

Why is a right that is routinely violated no longer a right? Do North Koreans have no rights, considering how often their rights are violated? North Koreans have the same rights as you and I, but they live in a terrible, oppressive place.

If you believe the government gives you rights, then yes, the government can take the rights away. And, this is precisely the problem with thinking rights come from governments. This is why people such as myself believe in inalienable rights, which every human has, regardless of government.

Rights cannot be taken away (exceptions exist in case of crime and such). This is the key difference between rights and privileges. If your right goes away because you cannot exercise it, then you don't believe it is a right to begin with. Free societies fight for their rights, and demand they be upheld by their governments.

Wrong.  Rights can absolutely be taken away.  People in North Korea have no rights.  Why?  Because those rights have been taken away.

If you believe rights are given, i.e. a legal entitlement, then they can be taken away. I believe rights are a moral entitlement, not a legal one. It doesn't matter what the law says, or what the government does, I do not lose my rights. If I cannot exercise my rights because the government is immoral, then the government must be changed by the people, by force, if necessary, to one that acknowledges (not gives) their rights.

Tyson

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2430
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #154 on: August 02, 2017, 03:05:30 PM »
A right has no meaning without enforcement.

Why is that? A right can be violated, but its presence is not predicated upon enforcement. Again, if the government acts tyrannical, does it mean we have no rights, or does it mean that our rights are being violated? If the government sensors me, does it mean I have no right to free speech?

Because a right that is routinely violated is no longer a right.  If the government censors you, you have lost the right to free speech because you can no longer exercise that right.  Surely you can concede that telling people they only theoretically have the right to free speech doesn't do them any good.

Why is a right that is routinely violated no longer a right? Do North Koreans have no rights, considering how often their rights are violated? North Koreans have the same rights as you and I, but they live in a terrible, oppressive place.

If you believe the government gives you rights, then yes, the government can take the rights away. And, this is precisely the problem with thinking rights come from governments. This is why people such as myself believe in inalienable rights, which every human has, regardless of government.

Rights cannot be taken away (exceptions exist in case of crime and such). This is the key difference between rights and privileges. If your right goes away because you cannot exercise it, then you don't believe it is a right to begin with. Free societies fight for their rights, and demand they be upheld by their governments.

Wrong.  Rights can absolutely be taken away.  People in North Korea have no rights.  Why?  Because those rights have been taken away.

If you believe rights are given, i.e. a legal entitlement, then they can be taken away. I believe rights are a moral entitlement, not a legal one. It doesn't matter what the law says, or what the government does, I do not lose my rights. If I cannot exercise my rights because the government is immoral, then the government must be changed by the people, by force, if necessary, to one that acknowledges (not gives) their rights.

The morality doesn't matter, only the law and it's enforcement.

Jouer

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #155 on: August 02, 2017, 03:38:18 PM »
Quote

So, if a bunch of would-be doctors think "hey, I don't want to pay $500,00 for a med school degree if I have to go into public service and only make $150k per year" - how do you make it worth their while?
- Aim to open the pool of potential doctors (H1B's?  I see similarities with foreign-born doctors being willing to work for less, much like former poor kids)
- Aim to lessen the pain of med school bills
- What do other countries do?  I mean, Canada, UK, Australia, etc...these countries all have doctors.

Doctors in Canada get paid a hell of a lot more than $150k a year. Certainly for specialists.

SecretSquirrel

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #156 on: August 02, 2017, 04:40:27 PM »
A right has no meaning without enforcement.

Why is that? A right can be violated, but its presence is not predicated upon enforcement. Again, if the government acts tyrannical, does it mean we have no rights, or does it mean that our rights are being violated? If the government sensors me, does it mean I have no right to free speech?

Because a right that is routinely violated is no longer a right.  If the government censors you, you have lost the right to free speech because you can no longer exercise that right.  Surely you can concede that telling people they only theoretically have the right to free speech doesn't do them any good.

Why is a right that is routinely violated no longer a right? Do North Koreans have no rights, considering how often their rights are violated? North Koreans have the same rights as you and I, but they live in a terrible, oppressive place.

If you believe the government gives you rights, then yes, the government can take the rights away. And, this is precisely the problem with thinking rights come from governments. This is why people such as myself believe in inalienable rights, which every human has, regardless of government.

Rights cannot be taken away (exceptions exist in case of crime and such). This is the key difference between rights and privileges. If your right goes away because you cannot exercise it, then you don't believe it is a right to begin with. Free societies fight for their rights, and demand they be upheld by their governments.

Wrong.  Rights can absolutely be taken away.  People in North Korea have no rights.  Why?  Because those rights have been taken away.

If you believe rights are given, i.e. a legal entitlement, then they can be taken away. I believe rights are a moral entitlement, not a legal one. It doesn't matter what the law says, or what the government does, I do not lose my rights. If I cannot exercise my rights because the government is immoral, then the government must be changed by the people, by force, if necessary, to one that acknowledges (not gives) their rights.

The morality doesn't matter, only the law and it's enforcement.

Without morality, how do you determine what the laws should be?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14316
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #157 on: August 02, 2017, 06:27:22 PM »
A right has no meaning without enforcement.

Why is that? A right can be violated, but its presence is not predicated upon enforcement. Again, if the government acts tyrannical, does it mean we have no rights, or does it mean that our rights are being violated? If the government sensors me, does it mean I have no right to free speech?

Because a right that is routinely violated is no longer a right.  If the government censors you, you have lost the right to free speech because you can no longer exercise that right.  Surely you can concede that telling people they only theoretically have the right to free speech doesn't do them any good.

Why is a right that is routinely violated no longer a right?

Because then the 'right' only exists in your mind.


Do North Koreans have no rights, considering how often their rights are violated?

That's correct.  The rights of North Koreans are severely restricted by their government.




If you believe the government gives you rights, then yes, the government can take the rights away.

I don't believe that the government gives you rights.  I believe that your rights are determined by your circumstances.  The government is able to act as a bulwark against other people who are often eager to take away your rights.



If you believe rights are given, i.e. a legal entitlement, then they can be taken away. I believe rights are a moral entitlement, not a legal one. It doesn't matter what the law says, or what the government does, I do not lose my rights. If I cannot exercise my rights because the government is immoral, then the government must be changed by the people, by force, if necessary, to one that acknowledges (not gives) their rights.

I tend to think of morality as being relative, since historically that has been the case.  What is considered moral in one time period is not considered moral in another.  It seems full of hubris to assume that we currently have a definition of morality that will still hold true a couple hundred years from now.

The problem with basing your definition of rights on morality is that you're building a house upon the sand.

Tyson

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2430
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #158 on: August 02, 2017, 06:30:23 PM »

I tend to think of morality as being relative, since historically that has been the case.  What is considered moral in one time period is not considered moral in another.  It seems full of hubris to assume that we currently have a definition of morality that will still hold true a couple hundred years from now.

The problem with basing your definition of rights on morality is that you're building a house upon the sand.

Agreed.  If you read enough history, this conclusion becomes inescapable.

human

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 791
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #159 on: August 02, 2017, 06:31:41 PM »
Forget all this nonsense about rights. Universal health care is simply cheaper than the ridiculous mess the US has going on. Just switch already.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2017, 11:57:02 PM by human »

2Cent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 652
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #160 on: August 02, 2017, 10:05:18 PM »
Forget all this nonsense about rights. Universal health care is simply cheaper than the ridiculous mess the US has going on. Just switch already.
Actually, universal care only means that everyone shares the bill. The size of the bill is another matter. It may be smaller due to collective bargaining, but that is not guaranteed. Somehow in the US the cost of healthcare is more than twice that of other nations. Why is that never addressed? It's not twice as good for sure.

human

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 791
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #161 on: August 03, 2017, 12:05:13 AM »
Forget all this nonsense about rights. Universal health care is simply cheaper than the ridiculous mess the US has going on. Just switch already.
Actually, universal care only means that everyone shares the bill. The size of the bill is another matter. It may be smaller due to collective bargaining, but that is not guaranteed. Somehow in the US the cost of healthcare is more than twice that of other nations. Why is that never addressed? It's not twice as good for sure.

Huh? Not guaranteed? Not making any sense, is this why people don't want to switch in the good ol USA? Of course group buying is more cheaper! That's why health care is crazy expensive in the us because they allow.it.to.be!

Hey you would rather complain about about high cost of insurance or game aca than complain about high taxes? Go for it!

2Cent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 652
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #162 on: August 03, 2017, 02:14:31 AM »
Forget all this nonsense about rights. Universal health care is simply cheaper than the ridiculous mess the US has going on. Just switch already.
Actually, universal care only means that everyone shares the bill. The size of the bill is another matter. It may be smaller due to collective bargaining, but that is not guaranteed. Somehow in the US the cost of healthcare is more than twice that of other nations. Why is that never addressed? It's not twice as good for sure.

Huh? Not guaranteed? Not making any sense, is this why people don't want to switch in the good ol USA? Of course group buying is more cheaper! That's why health care is crazy expensive in the us because they allow.it.to.be!

Hey you would rather complain about about high cost of insurance or game aca than complain about high taxes? Go for it!
You are already group buying if you have insurance. There are always side effects to large scale government programs, like more abuse and paperwork. Reduced competition will also reduce efficiency. But I don't think this is where the large overhead comes from. The main difference is that in most other countries healthcare is regulated, so the doctors are obliged by law to charge a certain amount. The benefit is lower prices. That combined with a separation between diagnosing and treating would fix a large part of what is wrong in the US where commercial care makes it's business on billing as much as possible to people who don't really have any choice but to pay.

kei te pai

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 357
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #163 on: August 03, 2017, 02:33:59 AM »
There are a variety of ways health care is funded and provided in developed nations. I would be surprised if there are any other countries entangled in such obscure and bewildering debate as the US.
I wonder why such fervent partisan politics can over ride pragmatic solutions to your expensive problem.

human

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 791
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #164 on: August 03, 2017, 04:31:34 AM »
2cent all the universal negatives you list are already happening in the us. My point is that the usual arguments against a universal system from the us are big fat rotting stinking red herrings. Keep your private insurance and millions uninsured if you like, the result is big bux down tbe drain for everyone.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2017, 02:35:54 PM by human »

Inaya

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1621
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Chicago, IL
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #165 on: August 03, 2017, 07:20:41 AM »
We have plenty of examples of countries where access to health care is a right, and those society have not imploded yet. And their measures of health and life expectancy are often far better than those of the US.

These 2 things are directly related, actually. 

But the "TAXES ARE THEFT!" crowd will never acknowledge that any system other than vulture capitalism can possibly be successful.  So rather than observing and trying to model the successes of other countries, you see them spend all their time arguing about irrelevant stuff like negative/positive rights.

Who are you to say what is and isn't relevant to this discussion? Is continuously acting in a condescending manner towards those who do not share your views relevant here?
Actually, this whole discussion isn't relevant to this thread, which is based on the assumption that health care is a right. It's pretty clear that some posters have just jumped into this discussion without reading the OP. But I'm not going try to kill an active discussion, even if it is more or less off topic.

shelivesthedream

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4890
  • Location: London, UK
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #166 on: August 03, 2017, 07:51:38 AM »
I'm a snuggly-wuggly socialist who supports high taxation to provide citizens with public services. However, I would define two different kinds of "right" (sort of negative and positive rights but not absolutely):
1. Human rights. The kind of things that any individual human being anywhere in the world can expect from any other individual human being. Things like not being enslaved, not being murdered, being allowed to worship how they like... absolute basic stuff. These are the kinds of rights they can expect from other human beings as individuals, but the government has a role to play in forcing citizens to respect other citizens' rights (through the police and the law courts).
2. What I would call something like civil or citizen's or societal rights. Things that the government promises to provide for all citizens and can tax citizens to pay for. The government (by which I break the representatives of the citizens) can decide how many of these rights it can commit to granting/and can afford. The government OUGHT to grant as many of these rights as possible, and presumably at the back of my mind there is some hierarchy, but these rights depends on people gathering together as groups and instituting a kind of social contract. In my privileged elite mind, it is astonishing that a country as well-developed as the US has not decreed healthcare to be a right for its citizens as it has education, but there you go. It is my expectation that at some point in the future, the UK will grant a right to an income (UBI).

SecretSquirrel

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #167 on: August 03, 2017, 10:05:40 AM »
A right has no meaning without enforcement.

Why is that? A right can be violated, but its presence is not predicated upon enforcement. Again, if the government acts tyrannical, does it mean we have no rights, or does it mean that our rights are being violated? If the government sensors me, does it mean I have no right to free speech?

Because a right that is routinely violated is no longer a right.  If the government censors you, you have lost the right to free speech because you can no longer exercise that right.  Surely you can concede that telling people they only theoretically have the right to free speech doesn't do them any good.

Why is a right that is routinely violated no longer a right?

Because then the 'right' only exists in your mind.

How do you define a right?

I would define a right to be a moral entitlement. You can have a government that defends your rights, or you can have a government that violates them. The difference between the two governments is not the existence of moral entitlements, they always exist, but whether the citizenry have the ability to exercise them. Just because an immoral government might throw me in a gulag for speaking my mind, does not mean I am not morally entitled to speak my mind.

If you believe rights are given, i.e. a legal entitlement, then they can be taken away. I believe rights are a moral entitlement, not a legal one. It doesn't matter what the law says, or what the government does, I do not lose my rights. If I cannot exercise my rights because the government is immoral, then the government must be changed by the people, by force, if necessary, to one that acknowledges (not gives) their rights.

I tend to think of morality as being relative, since historically that has been the case.  What is considered moral in one time period is not considered moral in another.  It seems full of hubris to assume that we currently have a definition of morality that will still hold true a couple hundred years from now.

The problem with basing your definition of rights on morality is that you're building a house upon the sand.

I don't think fundamental rights can ever be considered immoral. By fundamental rights, I mean life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Will we think these are outdated concepts at some point? Has there been a time in human history when these rights would not have improved people's lives? The majority of human history has been a violation of these rights. Sorry, but I don't see them as relative at all.

Positive rights are relative, however, and can and do change. But, I don't think positive rights are moral entitlements, just entitlements.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14316
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #168 on: August 03, 2017, 02:29:07 PM »
I don't think fundamental rights can ever be considered immoral. By fundamental rights, I mean life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Will we think these are outdated concepts at some point? Has there been a time in human history when these rights would not have improved people's lives? The majority of human history has been a violation of these rights. Sorry, but I don't see them as relative at all.

Positive rights are relative, however, and can and do change. But, I don't think positive rights are moral entitlements, just entitlements.

Yes.  At our current point in time, the morality we've generally accepted seems to be correct to our point of view.  I suspect strongly that this would hold true for someone answering the question during every other time in history as well though.

One area where negative rights give no guidance is in conflicts and conflict resolution.  A simple example:  I want the freedom to drive my car (a negative right).  Every time that someone drives a car it negatively impacts other people, as it causes thousands of deaths each year due to the impact of the pollution generated (impacting their negative right).

Who is in the right?  The person suffering from asthma who wants to remove the negative rights of the car driver to get around, or the car driver who wants to get around and doesn't care if a few people might die because of his actions?  One fundamental right needs to lose out to allow the exercise of the other.

shelivesthedream

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4890
  • Location: London, UK
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #169 on: August 03, 2017, 02:43:51 PM »
Some of you are using negative and positive rights differently to how I learned them. I learned that generally a negative right is a freedom FROM something (e.g. Persecution, starvation, being murdered) and a positive right is having the right TO something (healthcare, education, driving your car).

PiobStache

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 204
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #170 on: August 03, 2017, 02:58:03 PM »
I don't think fundamental rights can ever be considered immoral. By fundamental rights, I mean life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Will we think these are outdated concepts at some point? Has there been a time in human history when these rights would not have improved people's lives? The majority of human history has been a violation of these rights. Sorry, but I don't see them as relative at all.

Positive rights are relative, however, and can and do change. But, I don't think positive rights are moral entitlements, just entitlements.

Others would differ with you and present more compelling arguments than you have. 
« Last Edit: August 03, 2017, 03:28:10 PM by PiobStache »

SecretSquirrel

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #171 on: August 03, 2017, 03:35:05 PM »
For someone that thought I was just dismissing things..see?  I tried.
Others would differ with you and present more compelling arguments than you have. 

Others would differ with you and present more compelling arguments than you have.

Do you find these types of posts productive?

SecretSquirrel

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #172 on: August 03, 2017, 03:46:40 PM »
One area where negative rights give no guidance is in conflicts and conflict resolution.  A simple example:  I want the freedom to drive my car (a negative right).  Every time that someone drives a car it negatively impacts other people, as it causes thousands of deaths each year due to the impact of the pollution generated (impacting their negative right).

Who is in the right?  The person suffering from asthma who wants to remove the negative rights of the car driver to get around, or the car driver who wants to get around and doesn't care if a few people might die because of his actions?  One fundamental right needs to lose out to allow the exercise of the other.

This is actually a very good point. There is no one simple answer to it. What I would say in this case is that if the pollution is a serious enough problem, then society will reject the products causing it, i.e. the free market will speak and better alternatives will come into play. If it is not serious enough to prompt society into demanding other products, but is serious enough for a smaller group of individuals, then government could step in to come up with a fair compromise. Essentially, what you are talking about is negative externalities from car consumption.

There will always be some friction of rights in a society, and in my mind it is perfectly valid for government to step in and come up with solutions that result in the minimal infringement of rights in respect to the parties involved.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14316
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #173 on: August 03, 2017, 04:30:19 PM »
One area where negative rights give no guidance is in conflicts and conflict resolution.  A simple example:  I want the freedom to drive my car (a negative right).  Every time that someone drives a car it negatively impacts other people, as it causes thousands of deaths each year due to the impact of the pollution generated (impacting their negative right).

Who is in the right?  The person suffering from asthma who wants to remove the negative rights of the car driver to get around, or the car driver who wants to get around and doesn't care if a few people might die because of his actions?  One fundamental right needs to lose out to allow the exercise of the other.

This is actually a very good point. There is no one simple answer to it. What I would say in this case is that if the pollution is a serious enough problem, then society will reject the products causing it, i.e. the free market will speak and better alternatives will come into play. If it is not serious enough to prompt society into demanding other products, but is serious enough for a smaller group of individuals, then government could step in to come up with a fair compromise. Essentially, what you are talking about is negative externalities from car consumption.

The free market has a poor history with negative externalities.  It will usually choose easy convenience over long term pain (tragedy of the commons is the classic example).  That's a giant problem with our world today, and I think a reasonable example of how your preferred handling of negative rights could easily be considered immoral in the future.


There will always be some friction of rights in a society, and in my mind it is perfectly valid for government to step in and come up with solutions that result in the minimal infringement of rights in respect to the parties involved.

Agreed, that's a very important part of what government does.

SecretSquirrel

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #174 on: August 03, 2017, 05:06:06 PM »
One area where negative rights give no guidance is in conflicts and conflict resolution.  A simple example:  I want the freedom to drive my car (a negative right).  Every time that someone drives a car it negatively impacts other people, as it causes thousands of deaths each year due to the impact of the pollution generated (impacting their negative right).

Who is in the right?  The person suffering from asthma who wants to remove the negative rights of the car driver to get around, or the car driver who wants to get around and doesn't care if a few people might die because of his actions?  One fundamental right needs to lose out to allow the exercise of the other.

This is actually a very good point. There is no one simple answer to it. What I would say in this case is that if the pollution is a serious enough problem, then society will reject the products causing it, i.e. the free market will speak and better alternatives will come into play. If it is not serious enough to prompt society into demanding other products, but is serious enough for a smaller group of individuals, then government could step in to come up with a fair compromise. Essentially, what you are talking about is negative externalities from car consumption.

The free market has a poor history with negative externalities.  It will usually choose easy convenience over long term pain (tragedy of the commons is the classic example).  That's a giant problem with our world today

Agreed. Human nature generally chooses the easy and quick instead of more difficult but better long term solutions.

...and I think a reasonable example of how your preferred handling of negative rights could easily be considered immoral in the future.

I don't agree with this part. I don't see how the fundamental rights I spoke of can ever be considered immoral. I think society can come into more friction with these rights, and more compromises might need to be established, but that has nothing to do with morality. In fact, the only way the compromises will be fair is in the context of said rights. In other words, what solution to right A causing friction with right B results in the minimal infringement on right A and right B.

johndoe

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 80
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #175 on: August 04, 2017, 05:36:20 AM »
interesting thread.
An awful lot of social disagreements boil down to different opinions on the definition & application of 'rights'. Good to discuss.

I didn't read every word of the thread, and I've not given this topic as much thought as many of you, but it does seem that the term "right" is the sticking point. 

Does it matter if healthcare is a "right"?  Governments provide funding for plenty of things that I doubt anyone would call "rights"  (tax finance for builders, sports stadiums, etc).  Whether you agree with it or not, the general population wants the government to control such things.  I feel the conversation (and the political climate) would be benefited from avoiding using the term "right" .

Snow

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 88
  • Location: Norway
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #176 on: August 04, 2017, 06:26:56 AM »
You are already group buying if you have insurance. There are always side effects to large scale government programs, like more abuse and paperwork. Reduced competition will also reduce efficiency. But I don't think this is where the large overhead comes from. The main difference is that in most other countries healthcare is regulated, so the doctors are obliged by law to charge a certain amount. The benefit is lower prices. That combined with a separation between diagnosing and treating would fix a large part of what is wrong in the US where commercial care makes it's business on billing as much as possible to people who don't really have any choice but to pay.

Wait, you are? I thought the American system of insane insurances paid to line the pockets of the insurance companies, a fraction of which actually goes to the actual health care. Isn't that how all insurance companies work? Statistics, likelihoods and commissions? Surely it would be cheaper to send the money straight to the government/health care budget where they split the bill for the actual health care with much less in terms of administration costs, commission and most likely a bunch of other factors I am not thinking about?

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.

That is not necessarily true. Over here, if you have a rare condition with only one specialized hospital, you will get reimbursed for your travel costs and treated anywhere in the country. This is a very common occurrence, as it is considered more efficient for a small country such as ours to have a few good specialists rather than many who know a little, but not enough.

Yes, over here, even drug addicts and other social outcasts who do not necessarily contribute have the basic right to healthcare, and I will happily pay my taxes to finance "even" their treatment. I know this is because I was raised and socialized in this way, but I believe that this is one of the costs of living peacefully with other people. I can contribute more because I am able bodied and healthy, but everyone is human and deserves a chance at a decent life.

As an example, I have a friend with two special-needs children. It is unlikely that either of them will contribute to society in a large way in terms of taxes. Is it fair of the government to tell her to foot the entire bill of their entire life, just because she got "unlucky" with the statistics and had not just one but two children with different conditions? What about when she dies? Should her children live in the gutter because they are not good, little productive working ants? I know this has historically been the case, but it doesn't have to be that way.

We get privileges for living in a society, just like we get responsibilities.

But health care is a different animal. Many in this forum believe that health care is a basic human right. That is, everyone deserves health care. But my question is this: To what extent does any one person "deserve" health care? Is it limited to life saving care? Basic preventative care? End of life care? What about elective surgery that affects quality of life (my own example: I had foot surgery so that I could walk without pain, but it wasn't life threatening)? Cosmetic surgery for burn victims? Hand/face transplants? Transition surgery and medications for transgender individuals? What about mental health care?

Yes, yes, yes and yes. I believe all those easily deserve to be part of a free health care package. Here you would only pay out of pocket for non-health related procedures such as cosmetic surgery (not related to burn victims but purely for aesthetics), dental care is only partly government covered (for some odd reason), and mental care/prescription medicine is self-paid up to the first ~$300 a year.

SecretSquirrel

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #177 on: August 04, 2017, 10:04:38 AM »
interesting thread.
An awful lot of social disagreements boil down to different opinions on the definition & application of 'rights'. Good to discuss.

I didn't read every word of the thread, and I've not given this topic as much thought as many of you, but it does seem that the term "right" is the sticking point. 

Does it matter if healthcare is a "right"?  Governments provide funding for plenty of things that I doubt anyone would call "rights"  (tax finance for builders, sports stadiums, etc).  Whether you agree with it or not, the general population wants the government to control such things.  I feel the conversation (and the political climate) would be benefited from avoiding using the term "right" .

Language is a powerful construct, and words can have profound meanings. A "right" is a special word that carries with it serious consequences. It is a word that started wars, revolutions, and even created countries. It is a privileged word, reserved for very special things, that affects society profoundly.

I think it is wrong to call the work of an entire industry a "right".

Jouer

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #178 on: August 04, 2017, 11:59:58 AM »
I would like to thanks Squirrel, Guitar and (maybe) others for ruining what could have been an interesting thread.

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1544
  • Location: MA
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #179 on: August 04, 2017, 12:46:19 PM »
Quote
I don't agree with this part. I don't see how the fundamental rights I spoke of can ever be considered immoral.

They totally can be immoral without the flip side of responsibility. 

Right to life:

A mother is going to die if she decides to continue a pregnancy.  Therefore she decides to terminate.  If you believe that the fetus has human rights, and many people do, then you have a persons right to life being violated no matter what you do.  You can’t make a moral choice in this situation.  One persons right to life conflicts with the other persons right to life. 

Right to liberty: 

I have the freedom to purchase and own a gun.  I decide to go out on the freeway and start shooting at cars because I am a free woman who can do whatever I want.  I also have the freedom to drink alcohol, and drive a car.  Let’s go do them at the same time.

Pursuit of happiness: 

Some people get happy by having sex with children, or killing people.  That seems pretty immoral.

We put limits on all of these so called “natural rights”, precisely because they aren’t purely moral.  There is no such thing as a “natural right” without a corresponding responsibility. 

yuka

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 376
  • Location: East coast for now
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #180 on: August 04, 2017, 01:09:11 PM »
I have the right to bear arms, who is going to give me my free gun?
The military will be happy to. Also, I don't think anyone is asking for free health care. I feel like this isn't the thread for you. If you can't contribute meaningfully to the discussion at hand, please find a thread more suited to your beliefs.

Ironically, the military actually is very stingy with their firearms, but force you to use their healthcare on a regular basis.

SecretSquirrel

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #181 on: August 04, 2017, 01:53:53 PM »
Quote
I don't agree with this part. I don't see how the fundamental rights I spoke of can ever be considered immoral.

They totally can be immoral without the flip side of responsibility. 

Right to life:

A mother is going to die if she decides to continue a pregnancy.  Therefore she decides to terminate.  If you believe that the fetus has human rights, and many people do, then you have a persons right to life being violated no matter what you do.  You can’t make a moral choice in this situation.  One persons right to life conflicts with the other persons right to life. 

Right to liberty: 

I have the freedom to purchase and own a gun.  I decide to go out on the freeway and start shooting at cars because I am a free woman who can do whatever I want.  I also have the freedom to drink alcohol, and drive a car.  Let’s go do them at the same time.

Pursuit of happiness: 

Some people get happy by having sex with children, or killing people.  That seems pretty immoral.

We put limits on all of these so called “natural rights”, precisely because they aren’t purely moral.  There is no such thing as a “natural right” without a corresponding responsibility.

Fundamental rights cannot be immoral. People can be immoral. The morality of one's actions does not determine the morality of the right.

How do you determine whether an action is right or wrong, and in turn, whether it should be legal or not? Without establishing core values, anything can be legal, or illegal, on a whim. Free societies have established that the core values center on moral entitlements, otherwise known as rights, to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To determine whether an action is right or wrong, in a free society, you can check if it violates any fundamental rights.

Murder, rape, crashing into people drunk, all violate rights, and are thus illegal. Killing a fetus to save a mother is legal because the fetus is violating the mother's right to life. In a way, it is essentially self defense, which is a valid exception to the right to life.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14316
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #182 on: August 04, 2017, 02:14:58 PM »
Free societies have established that the core values center on moral entitlements, otherwise known as rights, to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

An awful lot of free societies have decided that their core values center on things not defined by the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Like publicly funded health care.


To determine whether an action is right or wrong, in a free society, you can check if it violates any fundamental rights.

We know that the pollution caused by driving will cause deaths.  So (for example) every person who drives a car in a free society is morally wrong.  Given that everyone living in a society does something that violates fundamental rights every day, I'm not sure what utility this really holds.


Murder, rape, crashing into people drunk, all violate rights, and are thus illegal.

We already established that driving at all violates rights, but it's not illegal.  Murder is a legal construct, and changes fluidly.  One person might see something as self defense while another sees the same case as murder.  In one case it's considered OK, and in the other not.


Killing a fetus to save a mother is legal because the fetus is violating the mother's right to life. In a way, it is essentially self defense, which is a valid exception to the right to life.

See, I've pretty far into the pro-choice side of things . . . but even I have to acknowledge that there are many difficult scenarios that simply don't work with the response you've laid out.  What about a fetus that is one day before the delivery date?  Why is the mother's life in that scenario more valuable than the child's life?  What about the child that was born yesterday?  Does the mother's right to life allow her to kill the child?  It's still dependent upon her to live.


Things are not as black and white as you keep trying to make them out to be.

PiobStache

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 204
Re: "The health care you deserve"
« Reply #183 on: August 07, 2017, 03:30:44 PM »
For someone that thought I was just dismissing things..see?  I tried.
Others would differ with you and present more compelling arguments than you have. 

Others would differ with you and present more compelling arguments than you have.

Do you find these types of posts productive?

I put out there some points to lead you into a fuller understanding of concepts you're attempting to discuss in a relative vacuum in regards to the fuller philosophical history of the ideas and understanding.  You rejected them outright, so yeah, I find posts like this product in the sense I can point out to other interested readers the salient issues being overlooked.

I will say I was impressed you were accepting of negative externalities as I often find folks employing arguments like you are not willing to acknowledge government has a role in dealing with them.  For that I give you sincere kudos.