Why do YOU think Healthcare is a Right and not a Privilege?

[apeiron1234]

I think it's all about the delivery.

[kail]

No power on earth can stop me talking.
They can only punish me for talking.

Yeaahh...that's how right's work. No one can stop you from killing someone, but you will be punished for homicide because you don't have the right to commit such acts. A government body can easily deny you rights of speech, you're capable of speaking w/e you want it would just be illegal.

Right's are not what you are capable of doing, it's what you are allowed to do. There is a massive difference.

- - - Updated - - -

And that line of logic is ignorant and infantile. Person-hood comes with inherent, inalienable rights (life, liberty, etc). That you believe differently is irrelevant.

Can you prove the existence of inalienable rights? Not every society provides all of their citizens with the rights of life, liberty, etc. Life? Not even in the U.S., that right can be stripped if you committed a heinous enough crime or if a pregnant mother wants to abort. Speech? No, we limit some forms of speech in the U.S. as well, other less fortunate countries have heavy restrictions of speech. Good luck trying to find an example.

[hrugner]

Health care isn't a right exactly, but it's necessary for government to be responsible for health care as a means of ensuring that they don't make decisions that are bad for national health. If the gov has the ability to make laws that poison people and has no responsibility toward the health of those it's poisoning, then they have no natural barrier to prevent them from poisoning people.

Frankly the gov should be on the hook for most things that are "insurance" now. For example, if law enforcement can't prevent theft, then they should be responsible for replacing stolen items.

I don't know why this is a "right or privilege" discussion.

[Deleted]

I don't know why this is a "right or privilege" discussion.

because if it's a right, Certain people have what they love most, a debate "ending" screech to bash the other guys with.

[Deleted]

Personally I think Healthcare is a privilege and not a right.

Thats because you are American.

You will be hard-pressed to find anyone outside of the USA in a first-world country who think its a privilege.

[Mistame]

Yeaahh...that's how right's work. No one can stop you from killing someone, but you will be punished for homicide because you don't have the right to commit such acts.

Not exactly. Committing murder is a violation of someone else's right to life. You get "punished" because it's government's responsibility to protect your rights.

A government body can easily deny you rights of speech, you're capable of speaking w/e you want it would just be illegal.

No, they can't. They can theoretically "punish" you for something you say, but that's violating your right to speak freely, not taking it away and defies the very nature of government.

Right's are not what you are capable of doing, it's what you are allowed to do. There is a massive difference.

Um, no they're not. Rights are the sovereignty to act freely without the permission of others, especially government. In fact, some rights are expressed protections against government intervention (eg, speech).

Can you prove the existence of inalienable rights?

That most civilized nations recognize them is evidence enough that they exist.

Life? Not even in the U.S., that right can be stripped if you committed a heinous enough crime

Your rights stop whether the rights of others start and laws exist to enforce that.

or if a pregnant mother wants to abort.

Rights are an extension of person-hood. A fetus is not a person and even if it was, its rights would stop at the mother's right to bodily integrity.

Speech? No, we limit some forms of speech in the U.S. as well, other less fortunate countries have heavy restrictions of speech.

"Limits" on free speech, at least in the US, are to protect the rights of others. Heavy restrictions are a violation of that right.

You will be hard-pressed to find anyone outside of the USA in a first-world country who think its a privilege.

That's a pretty bold statement, as it implies that most people outside of the US don't understand the difference between a right and privilege. A right does not require permission to act upon, a privilege does. If you need the approval of the people, implementation of government and/or the resources of others, it is by definition a privilege.

[kail]

That most civilized nations recognize them is evidence enough that they exist.

That explains your confusion. 1st world countries have developed very protectionist rights to keep everyone from harming one another, while trying to allow as much freedom as possible. Key word here is "developed". The rights are not inalienable by any means, we created them or took some out.

If a society does not have the freedom of speech, their rights are not being violated it just simply doesn't exist. Once they come to a shared agreement on freedom of speech and adjust their laws accordingly, then they have acquired their right to free speech.

Rights are the sovereignty to act freely without the permission of others, especially government.

Only if you lived by yourself in the woods. If a government takes a right away from you, you no longer have that right. You may think you do and protest your way inside a prison, but that would all be inside your head.

[Mistame]

That explains your confusion. 1st world countries have developed very protectionist rights to keep everyone from harming one another, while trying to allow as much freedom as possible. Key word here is "developed". The rights are not inalienable by any means, we created them or took some out.

Except they are inalienable. First-world nations merely acknowledge them as such.

If a society does not have the freedom of speech, their rights are not being violated it just simply doesn't exist. Once they come to a shared agreement on freedom of speech and adjust their laws accordingly, then they have acquired their right to free speech.

Wrong. Person-hood entitles you to certain rights, they are not "granted" by society or governments, merely acknowledged. This is your confusion. If a society does not recognize freedom of speech, they are violating the rights of their citizens.

Only if you lived by yourself in the woods. If a government takes a right away from you, you no longer have that right. You may think you do and protest your way inside a prison, but that would all be inside your head.

Again, wrong. Governments exist by the consent of the people. Their primary purpose is to protect the rights of the people. They do not "grant" or "revoke" them, as anything that can be granted or revoked is by definition a privilege, not a right. I've the right life. Any person, society or government that tries to take my life is in violation of that right. Period. The same goes for liberty. As far as speech is concerned, it's an explicit protection against government restriction and thus cannot be "violated" by individuals.

You're entitled to your own opinion, as I am to mine. That is all.

[kail]

Except they are inalienable. First-world nations merely acknowledge them as such.

So they're only inalienable in first-world nations? They must be recent as well, our history has a bad rep of denying what we consider basic human rights. Did they exist back then but nobody knew?

Wrong. Person-hood entitles you to certain rights, they are not "granted" by society or governments, merely acknowledged. This is your confusion. If a society does not recognize freedom of speech, they are violating the rights of their citizens.

They are not violating anything if that is their law. The law may be shit and what many of us consider immoral, but no rights are violated if they don't exist in the society.

Again, wrong. Governments exist by the consent of the people. Their primary purpose is to protect the rights of the people. They do not "grant" or "revoke" them, as anything that can be granted or revoked is by definition a privilege, not a right. I've the right life. Any person, society or government that tries to take my life is in violation of that right. Period. The same goes for liberty. As far as speech is concerned, it's an explicit protection against government restriction and thus cannot be "violated" by individuals.

You're entitled to your own opinion, as I am to mine. That is all.

That's how our government is set up, and yes it is composed of people; people that are designated to listen to the people they govern. Our country and just about every other 1st world country granted its citizens many rights and freedoms. To think you have rights just for being human can easily be proven false by looking at history and even our current events that happen amongst other humans. Inalienable rights are very much an opinion, not a fact.

[Zan15]

According to the latest CBO score out today, 23 million people lose the right and privilege of healthcare

[Easo]

And this has reached page 41. I am impressed.
Overall this seems to be USA's problem, because no one else is really discussing something like that. Make your conclusions.

[Deleted]

Are you are vegan ??

[Mistame]

So they're only inalienable in first-world nations?

This statement has nothing to do with what I said. First-world nations tend to acknowledge that inalienable rights are a part of any civilized society. Whether or not someone knows or believes they exist is irrelevant.

They are not violating anything if that is their law. The law may be shit and what many of us consider immoral, but no rights are violated if they don't exist in the society.

You're missing the point. Basic human rights exist outside the scope of any government, society or laws. Any society that fails to recognize those rights or worse, acts against them is in violation of them, regardless of their "laws".

Our country and just about every other 1st world country granted its citizens many rights and freedoms.

Sigh. Governments do not "grant" rights, they acknowledge them. I've explained this before. Anything that government can "grant" and thus revoke is by definition a privilege, not a right.

To think you have rights just for being human can easily be proven false by looking at history and even our current events that happen amongst other humans.

That bad shit happens or happened has no relevance whatsoever on whether or not inalienable rights exist.

Inalienable rights are very much an opinion, not a fact.

Inalienable rights are a basic tenet of any civilized society.

[meathead]

no one is entitled to anything. if you want something, get off your ass and work for it.

or go to prison where everyone has free health care because its inhuman to lock someone up and not give them free health care, wrid how that works right?in prison people have free health care yet companies are making billions off the inmates think of soap clothing food ect,the stat buys if from a company.

yet every day hard working people dont get free health care,hmmmm pay up sucker..... its all about that $$$$$

- - - Updated - - -

Health care isn't a right exactly, but it's necessary for government to be responsible for health care as a means of ensuring that they don't make decisions that are bad for national health. If the gov has the ability to make laws that poison people and has no responsibility toward the health of those it's poisoning, then they have no natural barrier to prevent them from poisoning people.

Frankly the gov should be on the hook for most things that are "insurance" now. For example, if law enforcement can't prevent theft, then they should be responsible for replacing stolen items.

I don't know why this is a "right or privilege" discussion.

then why do people in jail and prison have free health care? = it is a right without it its inhuman

[hrugner]

then why do people in jail and prison have free health care? = it is a right without it its inhuman

As I said. If the government is in a position to negatively influence the health of a population, then they also need to be on the hook for their medical bill. Prisons are an on the nose example of what I'm talking about.

[kail]

Le Snip!

You have gone a long way to simply claim that inalienable rights exist, without providing a shred of evidence that they do exist. Where are these rights? Is there an all knowing list of rights every person is born with? Is it in our DNA? Do we know what rights we have without others telling us? What about other animals? Or is it just people?

You might as well try to prove God's existence (sorry had to go there), trying to prove something intangible that is ultimately created by society. The best explanation that you can provide is "they exist". You'll have to do better than that.

- - - Updated - - -

Sigh. Governments do not "grant" rights, they acknowledge them. I've explained this before. Anything that government can "grant" and thus revoke is by definition a privilege, not a right.

Rights are granted by the government, privileges are granted by others. A parent can grant privileges to a child for good behavior, a boss can grant privileges to specific employees (pay raise, promotions, etc.), your friend can give you the privilege to borrow their car. Privileges extend beyond rights, they can be earned or simply granted for being you. Hope we cleared that up.

[Phlegethon]

You can ask just about anywhere you like, but I don't know of anywhere that people are legally obligated to give you water simply because you've asked.

- - - Updated - - -


Are you claiming that there isn't any healthcare spending that stems from misuse and/or overconsumption?

No, and that's not what that was about.

- - - Updated - - -

Have you heard of socialism?

Oh boy.
Thanks for participating though, now please, go outside, sit in your sandbox and play with your plastic shovel. It's about the best you can do.
With some luck there is a social system that pays for your shelter, if not, you can work in a sheltered workshop (if that's the translation for it). People will help cut your apple for you. It'll be ok.

Oh yeah, in short: don't say stupid things.

- - - Updated - - -

The bolded is a terrible idea. If no one can profit from improving treatments, do you figure that maybe some people that currently work hard to improve treatments might be inclined to go do something else they can profit from? It's pretty hard to draw venture capital if you're forbidden from profiting at all.

For that matter, when you say that not anyone should "profit", surely you're not claiming that medical professionals, researchers, and entrepreneurs shouldn't be paid, right?

Oh honey. It's not about that, you seem to be completely missing the point.
The fact that you can or can not get treatment, that is not something anyone should profit from. If you are sick, you should be able to get treated. End. Of. Story.
Your for profit health insurances has been proven to be just about the worst and most expensive system in the world. Fix it.
Oh and yes, I know, socialism is communist dictatorship and we should all duck and cover underneath our desk because the red army is on it's way.
Love thy neighbour, it was one of the rules of them "good christians", but when they are sick and in need they can just fuck off and die. Just pray for them, that'll do fuck all.

[Deleted]

Oh boy.
Thanks for participating though, now please, go outside, sit in your sandbox and play with your plastic shovel. It's about the best you can do.

Oh my, what a cutting reply.

With some luck there is a social system that pays for your shelter, if not, you can work in a sheltered workshop (if that's the translation for it). People will help cut your apple for you. It'll be ok.
Oh yeah, in short: don't say stupid things.

But an apple a day keeps me away.


"Your health is not something anyone should profit from. You should be helped. It's not a hard concept to grasp"
"Your need to eat is not something anyone should profit from. You should be helped. It's not a hard concept to grasp"
"Your need to water is not something anyone should profit from. You should be helped. It's not a hard concept to grasp"
"Your need for housing is not something anyone should profit from. You should be helped. It's not a hard concept to grasp"

I cant believe that's not been tried before...

[Mistame]

Rights are granted by the government, privileges are granted by others. A parent can grant privileges to a child for good behavior, a boss can grant privileges to specific employees (pay raise, promotions, etc.), your friend can give you the privilege to borrow their car. Privileges extend beyond rights, they can be earned or simply granted for being you. Hope we cleared that up.

Wrong. This really is a basic concept and it's that not difficult to understand. A right does not require permission to exercise. A privilege does. Thus, anything that is "granted" by government and can be revoked is, by definition, a privilege, not a right. If you're still confused or not getting it, try a book or something.

[wheresmywoft]

Wrong. This really is a basic concept and it's that not difficult to understand. A right does not require permission to exercise. A privilege does. Thus, anything that is "granted" by government and can be revoked is, by definition, a privilege, not a right. If you're still confused or not getting it, try a book or something.

But those very rights that you claim cannot be taken away are being taken away by governments.