View Poll Results: Regardless to where you are from is healthcare a human right? Universal Healthcare

Voters
106. This poll is closed
  • No, Healthcare is not a right, in the wild wolves ate the weak

    19 17.92%
  • Yes, I support Universal Healthcare, Healthcare is a Human right.

    84 79.25%
  • Yes, I support subsidized tier insurance, no excluding conditions

    3 2.83%
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
5
... LastLast
  1. #41
    Stood in the Fire
    5+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    430
    It's not a human right, but a goverments duty.

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Very Tired View Post
    Can we stop saying "X is a human right" as a different way to say "X would be really kewl to have!"
    Can we stop using pedantic descriptions of human rights? We know what they are and we know they're provided by governments because their citizens want them. If one government provides effective healthcare because they feel its a "human right" then don't be too shocked when citizens of other countries want the same thing because of the same reason.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    If all we mean is "basic healthcare is a thing we want all humans to have access to and we should take steps to further that goal", we should say it plainly.
    The plain way of saying it is "healthcare is a human right". There might be a faster way to say it but I haven't had coffee yet.

  3. #43
    Can a Brazilian confirm something i heard a streamer on twitch tv say?

    I heard him say in Brazil you are not allowed to see a doctor unless in cases of emergency.
    You can only go to the pharmacy and ask for pills or something.

    How is this allowed?
    Last edited by Roanda; 2020-02-14 at 02:06 PM.

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivanstone View Post
    The plain way of saying it is "healthcare is a human right". There might be a faster way to say it but I haven't had coffee yet.
    I think pedantry is important here because phrasing it the way you are (even if you're doing it unintentionally) muddles the line between rights and privileges (or things that would be neat to have). You're either diluting what it means to have a right, or you start increasing the number of things we're now obligated to provide.

    For a right to be, it has to be enforced. Take free speech; the way to enforce it is to make sure you're not being silenced by the government, at least in the most pedantic, legal sense.

    But what about food? You don't have a right to food. If you're stuck at home with nothing in your fridge, you can't simply stomp your feet and demand that you get food. You certainly have a right to access it, but not have it handed to you.
    Last edited by pionock; 2020-02-14 at 02:46 PM.

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by pionock View Post
    I think pedantry is important here because phrasing it the way you are (even if you're doing it unintentionally) muddles the line between rights and privileges (or things that would be neat to have). You're either diluting what it means to have a right, or you start increasing the number of things we're now obligated to provide.

    For a right to be, it has to be enforced. Take free speech; the way to enforce it is to make sure you're not being silenced by the government, at least in the most pedantic, legal sense.

    But what about food? You don't have a right to food. If you're stuck at home with nothing in your fridge, you can't simply stomp your feet and demand that you get food. You certainly have a right to access it, but not have it handed to you.
    Pedantry isn't important here. Its just a way certain people use to derail the conversation. And by certain people I mean conservatives who think they're covered because their employer gives them insurance but will probably get fucked anyways. These same people will constantly whine about their gun rights even though their gun rights are just as arbitrary as someone else's healthcare rights.

    There are things that are covered by laws and things that aren't. One might argue that potentially forcing people into bankruptcy because they involuntarily used the healthcare marketplace is a bad thing. Saying that healthcare is a human right is a convenience that may eventually create certain laws that actually help people.

    Whining about rights detracts from the actual point: providing effective healthcare. The for profit system doesn't work and can't work. Its overpriced and filled with thieves and murderers.

  6. #46
    If healthcare is a human right, then so is housing, food, clothing, etc.

    I'm going to support housing for everyone before healthcare, for obvious reasons.

  7. #47
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,895
    Quote Originally Posted by pionock View Post
    But what about food? You don't have a right to food. If you're stuck at home with nothing in your fridge, you can't simply stomp your feet and demand that you get food. You certainly have a right to access it, but not have it handed to you.
    This is really inaccurate.

    Prisoners of the State are obliged to be given food, because of their human rights.
    Welfare programs exist, to ensure the poor can get food, in part (right to shelter is another).
    There are food banks and homeless shelters and the like, for the same reason.

    You absolutely have this right.

    And no, it's not comparable to the USA's 2nd Amendment rights. First, that's a civil right, not a human right. Second, the wording is clear that it only covers the right to bear arms; it is not a right to have armament, just the right to carry arms, should you have them. I know you didn't make this argument, but it often comes up, so I'm being pre-emptive.

    I also don't expect you to take my word alone on things, so here's the UDHR;
    https://www.un.org/en/universal-decl...-human-rights/

    And here's Article 25 of the UDHR (the first part; the second isn't relevant);

    Article 25.
    (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

    Right to a standard of living, including food and shelter and, to bring us back to the topic, medical care.

    This isn't some crazy newfangled idea. The UDHR was written 70 years ago.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by crewskater View Post
    If healthcare is a human right, then so is housing, food, clothing, etc.

    I'm going to support housing for everyone before healthcare, for obvious reasons.
    I mean, see above. Yes, those are human rights.


  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    This is really inaccurate.

    Prisoners of the State are obliged to be given food, because of their human rights.
    Welfare programs exist, to ensure the poor can get food, in part (right to shelter is another).
    There are food banks and homeless shelters and the like, for the same reason.

    You absolutely have this right.

    And no, it's not comparable to the USA's 2nd Amendment rights. First, that's a civil right, not a human right. Second, the wording is clear that it only covers the right to bear arms; it is not a right to have armament, just the right to carry arms, should you have them. I know you didn't make this argument, but it often comes up, so I'm being pre-emptive.

    I also don't expect you to take my word alone on things, so here's the UDHR;
    https://www.un.org/en/universal-decl...-human-rights/

    And here's Article 25 of the UDHR (the first part; the second isn't relevant);

    Article 25.
    (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

    Right to a standard of living, including food and shelter and, to bring us back to the topic, medical care.

    This isn't some crazy newfangled idea. The UDHR was written 70 years ago.

    - - - Updated - - -



    I mean, see above. Yes, those are human rights.
    Sure they might be human rights, but that doesn't mean the govt has to provide it.

  9. #49
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,895
    Quote Originally Posted by crewskater View Post
    Sure they might be human rights, but that doesn't mean the govt has to provide it.
    In the same way that the DPRK doesn't have to respect its citizens' human right to freedom of expression. And doesn't.

    Sure, countries can choose to trample on their people's human rights. That makes them bad actors, acting with malicious and misanthropic intent.


  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    This is a crucial point - if something is a "right" and someone is obligated to provide it, who's on the hook if it's not provided? If a man in Mali isn't receiving the appropriate level of medical care for a condition he has, who exactly is responsible for providing that care? If it's a right, presumably someone is responsible, someone must be held accountable for not providing what rightfully belongs to that man. Is it the local government? Probably not, they likely aren't in a position to do that. Their federal government? Probably about the same. Perhaps the "international community" is at fault and thus needs to provide recompense for denying the man his rights. The concept doesn't even really make sense.

    If all we mean is "basic healthcare is a thing we want all humans to have access to and we should take steps to further that goal", we should say it plainly.
    Human rights are a pretty fundamental concept to 20th and 21st-century society. They aren't this amorphous, undefined concept like you seem to think they are. They are the basics that a person within a society is owed for being regulated by the monopoly of force the government wields over them. They are the things we decide people are entitled to if you are going to put a gun to their head and force them to follow your laws.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by crewskater View Post
    If healthcare is a human right, then so is housing, food, clothing, etc.

    I'm going to support housing for everyone before healthcare, for obvious reasons.
    In most developed nations, those things are treated as human rights. The United States is the outlier in this case.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Naramag View Post
    It's not a human right, but a goverments duty.
    Those are the same thing.
    "stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
    -ynnady

  11. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    In the same way that the DPRK doesn't have to respect its citizens' human right to freedom of expression. And doesn't.

    Sure, countries can choose to trample on their people's human rights. That makes them bad actors, acting with malicious and misanthropic intent.
    IDK about Canadia, but in the US, everyone has the right to healthcare. I don't believe there's any laws stating otherwise.

    You have the right to drive a car, that doesn't mean the government is going to give you one. Are you really comparing the rest of the world with Korea? Apples and oranges.

  12. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by crewskater View Post
    IDK about Canadia, but in the US, everyone has the right to healthcare. I don't believe there's any laws stating otherwise.

    You have the right to drive a car, that doesn't mean the government is going to give you one. Are you really comparing the rest of the world with Korea? Apples and oranges.
    In the United States, if you are a five year old with cancer and your parents don't have insurance, you die. That's not what a right to healthcare looks like.

    You are, intentionally or not, muddying the definition of the word "right" because you don't have a coherent case to make.
    "stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
    -ynnady

  13. #53
    Titan I Push Buttons's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    11,244
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    In the United States, if you are a five year old with cancer and your parents don't have insurance, you die.
    I was a one year old with cancer (got my first chemo on my first birthday) and my parents didn't have insurance. I am 28 now.

  14. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    In the United States, if you are a five year old with cancer and your parents don't have insurance, you die. That's not what a right to healthcare looks like.

    You are, intentionally or not, muddying the definition of the word "right" because you don't have a coherent case to make.
    There's a huge difference in having a right, and a service provided to you. By definition, healthcare is already a human right. Maybe try using service instead of right because by definition, you're wrong.

    The parents have the opportunity to have insurance but they can't afford it for whatever reason. That doesn't take away their right to having insurance.

  15. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by crewskater View Post
    There's a huge difference in having a right, and a service provided to you. By definition, healthcare is already a human right. Maybe try using service instead of right because by definition, you're wrong.

    The parents have the opportunity to have insurance but they can't afford it for whatever reason. That doesn't take away their right to having insurance.
    No, that's not how rights work. You have the right to an attorney. That means the court has to provide you one, not that you have to hire one yourself. This is basic, level one shit man.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by I Push Buttons View Post
    I was a one year old with cancer (got my first chemo on my first birthday) and my parents didn't have insurance. I am 28 now.
    Thank you for the constructive comment. Are you done wasting my time now?
    "stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
    -ynnady

  16. #56
    Titan I Push Buttons's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    11,244
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    Thank you for the constructive comment. Are you done wasting my time now?
    Lol ok, kiddo.

  17. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    In the United States, if you are a five year old with cancer and your parents don't have insurance, you die. That's not what a right to healthcare looks like.
    Fortunately there is CHIP for children up to a certain age if your parents don't make a lot of money, so they are covered even though their parents aren't though I am not sure when the program started.

  18. #58
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,895
    Quote Originally Posted by crewskater View Post
    IDK about Canadia, but in the US, everyone has the right to healthcare. I don't believe there's any laws stating otherwise.

    You have the right to drive a car, that doesn't mean the government is going to give you one. Are you really comparing the rest of the world with Korea? Apples and oranges.
    In fact, you do not have anything guaranteeing you a "right" to drive a car. It's a privilege you need to ask for.

    Your position is like saying everyone has the freedom to speak, but has to pay thousands of dollars before anyone is allowed to hear you. That's not "freedom of speech", that's controlled and restricted speech.

    Quote Originally Posted by crewskater View Post
    There's a huge difference in having a right, and a service provided to you. By definition, healthcare is already a human right. Maybe try using service instead of right because by definition, you're wrong.
    As NineSpine said, you've got a right to an attorney, meaning the government will pay one for you if you don't retain one yourself.

    You have a right to a trial in the courts, and you don't have to pay their salaries, either.

    Same for police; do you think the police ask for a price up front before intervening when there's an active shooter? Same deal with fire departments and the like.

    Public education is another service, provided by the government, because it's your right to be educated.

    I could keep going; we're not even done. Your distinction is just blatantly, deeply incorrect.


  19. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    No, that's not how rights work. You have the right to an attorney. That means the court has to provide you one, not that you have to hire one yourself. This is basic, level one shit man.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Thank you for the constructive comment. Are you done wasting my time now?
    You also have the right to pursuit happiness but the government doesn't provide that. Stop conflating terms and call it a service, because that's exactly what it is.

  20. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by crewskater View Post
    You also have the right to pursuit happiness but the government doesn't provide that. Stop conflating terms and call it a service, because that's exactly what it is.
    I'd tell you to stop while you are ahead, but you are already way behind. Do you think you have to pay for a court appointed attorney? Do you think you have to pay the jury at your trial?
    "stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
    -ynnady

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •