Regardless to where you are from is healthcare a human right? Universal Healthcare

[Endus]

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.

Again, this is a distinction without meaning. You have a lot of rights to various services. Calling it such doesn't change a damned thing.

[Mistame]

This is really inaccurate.

For the sake of clarification:

"Human rights" are, by default, negative rights. Eg, the "right to life" means that no one has the right to take your life, it does not mean that anyone is obligated to protect you from death.

Prisoners of the State are obliged to be given food, because of their human rights.

Prisoners are provided with food, etc, because they've been forcibly imprisoned and actively prevented from societal interaction that would allow them to procure them of their own volition. If they weren't provided, it would be as if they were being directly denied those things, ie, the state violating a negative right.

Welfare programs exist, to ensure the poor can get food, in part (right to shelter is another).

Sure, because it's beneficial to society/communities. It has nothing to with "rights".

There are food banks and homeless shelters and the like, for the same reason.

Run by private citizens/organizations. Not relevant.

I also don't expect you to take my word alone on things, so here's the UDHR;

The UDHR is not a legal or binding document. It is, at best, an idealistic goal.

[NineSpine]

For the sake of clarification:

"Human rights" are, by default, negative rights. Eg, the "right to life" means that no one has the right to take your life, it does not mean that anyone is obligated to protect you from death.



Prisoners are provided with food, etc, because they've been forcibly imprisoned and actively prevented from societal interaction that would allow them to procure them of their own volition. If they weren't provided, it would be as if they were being directly denied those things, ie, the state violating a negative right.



Sure, because it's beneficial to society/communities. It has nothing to with "rights".



Run by private citizens/organizations. Not relevant.



The UDHR is not a legal or binding document. It is, at best, an idealistic goal.

The right to legal representation is absolutely a fundamental human right, and it is not a negative right.

[Endus]

For the sake of clarification:

"Human rights" are, by default, negative rights. Eg, the "right to life" means that no one has the right to take your life, it does not mean that anyone is obligated to protect you from death.

This is flat-out incorrect.

There are positive and negative rights. Positive rights aren't somehow "not rights". The right to counsel, the right to an education, the right to legal protection, and, yes, rights to food, shelter, and healthcare and so forth.

These are still human rights. I already quoted the UDHR on this. That they're "positive rights" rather than negative does not in any respect whatsoever change this.

It's a claim that has no basis in any body of theory whatsoever.

Prisoners are provided with food, etc, because they've been forcibly imprisoned and actively prevented from societal interaction that would allow them to procure them of their own volition. If they weren't provided, it would be as if they were being directly denied those things, ie, the state violating a negative right.

This is backwards. You acknowledge there's a positive right in play, and then try to incorrectly frame it in such a way that denying that positive right somehow makes it a negative right.

Which is nonsense. And even if it were true, completely negates your entire position, to boot.

Sure, because it's beneficial to society/communities. It has nothing to with "rights".

I literally cited a document proving otherwise. You're just wrong about this.

The UDHR is not a legal or binding document. It is, at best, an idealistic goal.

It's still the single most-referenced baseline understanding of the concept of human rights in the world.

That many nations don't respect a particular right does not make them not rights. It means that nation doesn't respect them.

Hell, we could even go with the treaty documents that were built off the UDHR, and which are internationally enforceable for signatory nations;
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Professiona...ges/CESCR.aspx

Article 11
1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions.

Worded slightly differently (and in particular, excluding health care, in large part due to the USA's opposition), but there's certainly plenty of positive rights included in there.

[Freighter]

Human rights doesn't actually exist. You have the rights your government enforces. If they don't enforce something you think is a right, it isn't a right.

[Mistame]

The right to legal representation is absolutely a fundamental human right, and it is not a negative right.

In the US, the right to counsel is a Constitutional right. As far as it being a negative or positive right, I'd say it's somewhere in the middle. The state does not have provide or pay for counsel of your choice, it only has to provide a designated, public defender in the event that you either can't provide your own or aren't representing yourself. The public defender gets paid regardless of the counsel you choose. It's kind of akin to the aforementioned prisoner food scenario. You cannot be tried or convicted without legal counsel so in order for the case to move forward, the state can either provide counsel or dismiss the case.

This is flat-out incorrect.

Stop framing your opinion as fact.

There are positive and negative rights.

Yes, there are. I didn't say human rights couldn't be positive rights, only that human rights are negative rights by default. Unless it's worded in such a way that states that the state has to provide it (eg, counsel), it is a negative right.

Positive rights aren't somehow "not rights".

I didn't say they weren't.

and, yes, rights to food, shelter, and healthcare and so forth.

No one is entitled to the resources of another.

This is backwards. You acknowledge there's a positive right in play, and then try to incorrectly frame it in such a way that denying that positive right somehow makes it a negative right.

Which is nonsense. And even if it were true, completely negates your entire position, to boot.

No, I didn't and no, it wouldn't. Denying prisoners access to food, etc, would be a violation of a negative right. The state is not obligated to provide food, shelter, etc, but is restricted from denying them.

I literally cited a document proving otherwise.

You literally just quoted an idealistic list of "nice-to-haves", not a valid, binding source.

That many nations don't respect a particular right does not make them not rights. It means that nation doesn't respect them.

The rights of a nation are dictated by the nation, not the UDHR.

[NineSpine]

You are finding a lot of ways to try to weasel out of a quite obvious fact: You have plenty of positive rights, and the right to counsel is obviously one of them. It’s a service, and the government literally forces lawyers to do it for you.

[Zan15]

Benefits they earned from serving.

.

Does not change the fact they are govt run healthcare programs (Medicare/VA) regardless of where you got them from.

Also you will "earn" Medicare for All by paying taxes instead of premiums the same way you "earn" Medicare today.

And run poorly.

Only the VA is, because the VA is trying to also do the actual health care...instead of just managing it. They should shut down the care part and just move to the same type of system Medicare is where the private sector does all the actual healthcare.

they are way over their heads and are too thick headed to really make changes since most Vets don't care to understand how much better it will be for them, they just think they are going to lose "something"....

[Jehct]

Look at the words he uses “government take over” proper Fox News buzz words to say “big government is going to kill you!!!”

Have you heard of Harbor UCLA? This is a government funded hospital. I work for a company that works with them and helps with their patient care. They are horrible. The CT techs for instance over scan the patients ( way too much radiation ). The techs are low skilled and don't really know what they are doing too much. It seems they are unable to follow protocols ( The scanner has protocols to get the proper scan with proper amount of radiation given ).

The Nurses don't really want to help you. They are lazy. They don't want to take the calls. They just transfer you to another person ( correct person or not ) when answering calls. I've even reported Stroke alerts to some of these nurses and they don't care and still will just transfer instead of helping.

CT techs and Nurses - those are great paying jobs lol.

The VA ( veteran affairs healthcare ) Government funded.

I have worked with a few VA's around the country.

Higher quality Techs and Nurses but still low quality service. I've heard many horror stories about VA's and can understand and believe them based on my work experience with some VA's.

This is literally government healthcare fucking you lol.

[Endus]

Stop framing your opinion as fact.

I'm citing internationally-recognized standards and definitions. Not "my opinion".

Yes, there are. I didn't say human rights couldn't be positive rights, only that human rights are negative rights by default. Unless it's worded in such a way that states that the state has to provide it (eg, counsel), it is a negative right.

Again, this is simply incorrect. I have no idea where you made up this idea from, but it isn't based on anything.

No one is entitled to the resources of another.

Again, demonstrably, objectively false.

You can't claim that this is wrong when I've cited multiple extant, actual examples of it being true.

No, I didn't and no, it wouldn't. Denying prisoners access to food, etc, would be a violation of a negative right. The state is not obligated to provide food, shelter, etc, but is restricted from denying them.

You think the State can lock you in prison and then just not feed you, and let you slowly starve to death, unless someone on the outside sends you food?

I shouldn't have to go into detail about how wrong that is.

You literally just quoted an idealistic list of "nice-to-haves", not a valid, binding source.

That's a misrepresentation of the UDHR.

I also cited some international treaties on human rights, derived from the UDHR. Which are absolutely binding.

The rights of a nation are dictated by the nation, not the UDHR.

Are you unfamiliar with international human rights treaties, or something?

They don't stop existing just because you won't look at them.

[Zan15]

Have you heard of Harbor UCLA? This is a government funded hospital. I work for a company that works with them and helps with their patient care. They are horrible. The CT techs for instance over scan the patients ( way too much radiation ). The techs are low skilled and don't really know what they are doing too much. It seems they are unable to follow protocols ( The scanner has protocols to get the proper scan with proper amount of radiation given ).

The Nurses don't really want to help you. They are lazy. They don't want to take the calls. They just transfer you to another person ( correct person or not ) when answering calls. I've even reported Stroke alerts to some of these nurses and they don't care and still will just transfer instead of helping.

CT techs and Nurses - those are great paying jobs lol.

The VA ( veteran affairs healthcare ) Government funded.

I have worked with a few VA's around the country.

Higher quality Techs and Nurses but still low quality service. I've heard many horror stories about VA's and can understand and believe them based on my work experience with some VA's.

This is literally government healthcare fucking you lol.

LOL, I can give you a dozen NYC hospitals waaaaaaaaaaay worse than Harbor. I can also give you about two dozen in the northeast without even straining. So your anecdotal evidence is just that anecdotal

Sure sounds like a piss poor run hospital, not the govt fucking you.
The county just funds it, more so for the Level 1 Trauma Center and psych ward since there are so few in the county. They don't run it. So again you are wrong, its not the govt fucking you.....


And we come to yet another person whom does not understand Medicare for All / universal healthcare.

The VA is govt funded and govt run healthcare. They manage and perform the health services from start to finish.

Medicare/Medicare for all would be/is govt managed healthcare, where the actual healthcare is done by the private sector and most of the management after you sign up done by the private sector.

Hell even Medicare the govt does not even manage the patients and benefits, this is done by the private sector.
Only thing Medicare does is manage the system and rules. They don't even collect premiums, the IRS does.

[NineSpine]

no... they pay a lawyer to do it for you... very different from forcing them...

I hate to break this to you, but often serving as a court appointed attorney is not an option. In districts where there aren’t enough public defenders, courts can basically draft licensed attorneys in the area to represent people.

[Mistame]

You have plenty of positive rights, and the right to counsel is obviously one of them. It’s a service, and the government literally forces lawyers to do it for you.

The right to counsel could be considered a positive right. Something being a service does not make it a right. The government literally does not force lawyers to represent someone. A public defender is someone who chooses the position and gets paid a salary, regardless of if they represent anyone.

Edit: After some research, it seems a dated law allows some federal courts to assign a lawyer to indigent defendants without compensation.

Does not change the fact they are govt run healthcare programs (Medicare/VA) regardless of where you got them from.

Sure, but there's a difference between earning a benefit from an employer (the government) and just expecting it.

Only the VA is, because the VA is trying to also do the actual health care...instead of just managing it. They should shut down the care part and just move to the same type of system Medicare is where the private sector does all the actual healthcare.

Agreed.

I'm citing internationally-recognized standards and definitions. Not "my opinion".

You've yet to "cite" anything showing me to be "flat-out incorrect".

Again, this is simply incorrect. I have no idea where you made up this idea from, but it isn't based on anything.

There can be no obligation by another party without a declaration indicating that party is responsible. It's the reason why Miranda warning includes the phrase, "... one will be provided for you".

Again, demonstrably, objectively false.

You can't claim that this is wrong when I've cited multiple extant, actual examples of it being true.

No, you haven't.

You think the State can lock you in prison and then just not feed you, and let you slowly starve to death, unless someone on the outside sends you food?

I shouldn't have to go into detail about how wrong that is.

I shouldn't have to explain what I typed, but here we are. The state cannot prevent you from seeking food, shelter, etc, of your own volition. That is how a negative right works. Prisoners are unable to obtain food, shelter, etc, of their own volition and thus, it is provided for them, therein cancelling out that violation.

The distinction here is that the "right to food, water, shelter", etc, is the right to have access to these things, not have them provided for you. Municipalities, states, etc, try to provide adequate potable water, promote grocery stores and restaurants and promote the building of residential structures adequate for the population. You have to pay for water, food and shelter. If these items were positive rights, you would not have to pay for them.

That's a misrepresentation of the UDHR.

That's your opinion.

Are you unfamiliar with international human rights treaties, or something?

Are you unfamiliar with sovereignty? A nation dictates what it recognizes and in what context.

https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03...right-to-food/

"Domestically, the United States pursues policies that promote access to food, and it is our objective to achieve a world where everyone has adequate access to food, but we do not treat the right to food as an enforceable obligation."

[NineSpine]

Wrong. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...lawyer/494453/

[Spectral]

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.

This doesn't address what I wrote. In fact, it's almost a restatement of the fundamental problem with international declarations of rights - who exactly is it that's responsible for providing the supposed rights?

The concept is much more coherent in the context of a nation that can actually implement policies. In that context, as you've correctly pointed out, there's the threat of force demanding that laws be followed. Since there's a body that can exercise such force, it can also exercise force to extract sufficient resources to provide for enumerated positive rights, provided there are sufficient resources. In the context of sufficiently rich nations, ideas like "Americans are owed the right to not die of easily treatable medical conditions" is coherent and even sensible. This doesn't get us home on how it becomes an international right.

[crewskater]

LOL, I can give you a dozen NYC hospitals waaaaaaaaaaay worse than Harbor. I can also give you about two dozen in the northeast without even straining. So your anecdotal evidence is just that anecdotal

Sure sounds like a piss poor run hospital, not the govt fucking you.
The county just funds it, more so for the Level 1 Trauma Center and psych ward since there are so few in the county. They don't run it. So again you are wrong, its not the govt fucking you.....


And we come to yet another person whom does not understand Medicare for All / universal healthcare.

The VA is govt funded and govt run healthcare. They manage and perform the health services from start to finish.

Medicare/Medicare for all would be/is govt managed healthcare, where the actual healthcare is done by the private sector and most of the management after you sign up done by the private sector.

Hell even Medicare the govt does not even manage the patients and benefits, this is done by the private sector.
Only thing Medicare does is manage the system and rules. They don't even collect premiums, the IRS does.

Do you not see the irony in how the VA is garbage because it is government run and how you want to have Medicare for all run by the government. Sometimes it's just better left to private businesses. Make it illegal to deny someone with a pre-existing condition and you solve a few problems right there. Why not cut out insurance companies and work directly with the hospital? I feel like that would be a better place to start than Medicare for all.

[Spectral]

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.

Just to be clear since this chain directly pertains to me - I have (as near as I can tell) always stated plainly and openly that I support universal basic healthcare coverage, free at point of service, in the United States. I do not think I've deviated from that position and I don't deviate from it here. In the event that the nation isn't able to pass legislation handling this, I support my state implementing it at the state level. I am perfectly fine with paying the required amount of taxes to cover that.

Being specific about what we mean when we say something is a "right" is still important. To use your example above, the right to arm oneself is a negative right - it doesn't imply that the government or any other body is required to arm individuals, merely that they may not remove such a right. This is similar to freedom of speech or the press - the government isn't required to provide anything, merely to not deny anything to its citizens.

I don't think positive rights in a national context are exactly incoherent, but they're very different. Having a right to legal defense is a great example that most agree on. This is a good right, as healthcare may be domestically, but stops making sense when considered outside of domestic policy.

[Shadowferal]

If the VA is garbage...blame the cuts in funding.

[breadisfunny]

Human rights doesn't actually exist. You have the rights your government enforces. If they don't enforce something you think is a right, it isn't a right.

so then following that line of thought your perfectly fine with all those genocides because at the time the governments in power didn't think human rights for certain people were a right? are we REALLY gonna go down this path? because that's basically where your logic leads.
(of course i think we all REALLY know why your taking this stance.)

[derpkitteh]

so then following that line of thought your perfectly fine with all those genocides because at the time the governments in power didn't think human rights for certain people were a right? are we REALLY gonna go down this path? because that's basically where your logic leads.
(of course i think we all REALLY know why your taking this stance.)

that is the true nature of the world, though.

you're only guaranteed the rights that you're given by those that keep you safe, and even then someone can come and take those rights from you at any moment. without a government to enforce those rights, there's only yourself and what you can protect. ideally, we wouldn't need a government of any kind. but without one, there's only suffering.

we would truly be better off if we hadn't come into existence, if people didn't perpetuate human existence by breeding.