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

[Elegiac]

Pretty rich citing the UDHR coming from you. It also enshrines the right to life and I’ve debated that subject to death with you.

I really don't think anyone is interested in seeing you failing to differentiate between the right to life and the right to bodily autonomy for an hour and a half. Sorry.

[D3thray]

"Basic life necessities" don't cost any money, apparently.

Medical care is a basic life necessity, miss with that "let's turn ourselves into a developing country" bullshit.

They do cost money. I said that earlier in the thread and literally in the post you quoted. Please read.

[Elegiac]

They do cost money. I said that earlier in the thread and literally in the post you quoted. Please read.

"Intrinsic rights have no cost". It was a bullshit statement when it was uttered and continues to be drivel now, because positive rights are a thing.

Screeching how it's your money doesn't change that reality.

[D3thray]

hmf...Survey: 20 million Americans have crowdfunded to help pay medical bills

“As annual out-of-pocket costs continue to rise, more Americans are struggling to pay their medical bills, and millions are turning to their social networks and crowdfunding sites to fund medical treatments and pay medical bills,” said Mollie Hertel, a senior research scientist at NORC, in a press release.

“Although about a quarter of Americans report having sponsored or donated to a campaign, this share is likely to increase in the face of rising premiums and out-of-pocket costs,” Hertel added.

GoFundMe casts itself as the "leader in online medical fundraising," with 250,000 medical campaigns launched on its website each year.

"I would love nothing more than for 'medical' to not be a category on GoFundMe," the website's CEO, Rob Solomon, told Kaiser Health News last year.

"The reality is, though, that access to health care is connected to the ability to pay for it. If you can’t do that, people die. People suffer. We feel good that our platform is there when people need it," he added.

The NORC survey found 85 percent of respondents thought the government should be responsible for providing help when medical care is unaffordable.

Eighty-three percent said the same of hospitals or clinics.

And clearly many millions more were willing to help of their own accord which is amazing. But shifting it to government funded still doesn’t make it free and people will still pay so I don’t see how that makes any difference overall. A targeted approach for those in need is what is necessary.

- - - Updated - - -

"Intrinsic rights have no cost". It was a bullshit statement when it was uttered and continues to be drivel now, because positive rights are a thing.

Screeching how it's your money doesn't change that reality.

Your statement read as referring to basic necessities and if you meant to refer to intrinsic rights then I misunderstood and apologize.

[Elegiac]

Your statement read as referring to basic necessities and if you meant to refer to intrinsic rights then I misunderstood and apologize.

No. I hold basic necessities as intrinsic rights by virtue of being human. Not being taxed is a luxury.

[D3thray]

No. I hold basic necessities as intrinsic rights by virtue of being human. Not being taxed is a luxury.

I hold intrinsic rights to be a construct of human society which is partially if not wholly divorced from the basic necessities for life. A right to an attorney has been mentioned but I don’t see how I need one to live without the existence of a human legal system necessitating it.

[Elegiac]

I hold intrinsic rights to be a construct of human society which is partially if not wholly divorced from the basic necessities for life. A right to an attorney has been mentioned but I don’t see how I need one to live without the existence of a human legal system necessitating it.

Congratulations, you appear to have stumbled upon the entire point of developed society being that we have uplifted ourselves from a basic existence.

Christ and Allah.

[Huntingbear_grimbatol]

I know this site is basically a liberal echo chamber, but i don't see why someone who practices a healthy lifestyle and rarely uses their health insurance, would support universal healthcare which would incur a tax increase for them.

A country invests in it's people in many different ways.
Good public schools and cheap education = the people becomes smarter and gets jobs that pay more = the people can pay more in taxes.
Good healthcare system = people don't have to stress about medical bills and can get treated quicker = people live longer and happier = people pay more in taxes (and are happy, which is nice).
Good infrastructure (roads, hospitals etc.) and a happy people = people want to live in that country and are happy to pay taxes = more taxes for the country.

The social-economic democracies of Europe run on this idea, particularly in the Nordic countries where you're almost paid by the government to be alive. We run on the idea that every person has a unmeassurable value to their family and communities, lets say someone is disabled or have a condition that makes them unable to work more than 10 hours per week. If the government can help them live a happy life then that person could help around his/her community, they could babysit for people, they could be the person that helps out at school bake sales or whatever. We have this word in Norway "dugnad", poorly translated it means Communal Work, it's where people work for eachother without pay- very similar to how the Amish help eachother. This is something that a lot of people that have time will do because it's part of our (Norwegians) spirit and culture.

[D3thray]

Congratulations, you appear to have stumbled upon the entire point of developed society being that we have uplifted ourselves from a basic existence.

Christ and Allah.

Which means what? That you’re owed food, shelter, an attorney, and the latest and greatest Xbox by virtue of existing? Human society demands you contribute even if only companionably. That’s my point. It’s. Not. Free.

[Shadowferal]

I hold intrinsic rights to be a construct of human society which is partially if not wholly divorced from the basic necessities for life. A right to an attorney has been mentioned but I don’t see how I need one to live without the existence of a human legal system necessitating it.

Without such constructs society wouldn't exist.
For that matter, neither would civilization as we currently know it.

[Elegiac]

Which means what? That you’re owed food, shelter, an attorney

Yes. Absolutely. You are owed the basic necessities to live and the opportunities to succeed in developed society as a matter of right.

and the latest and greatest Xbox

What a dumb fuckin' strawman.

by virtue of existing? Human society demands you contribute even if only companionably. That’s my point. It’s. Not. Free.

Exactly how are people supposed to contribute when they're starving, homeless, or sick.

[D3thray]

Yes. Absolutely. You are owed the basic necessities to live and the opportunities to succeed in developed society as a matter of right.



What a dumb fuckin' strawman.



Exactly how are people supposed to contribute when they're starving, homeless, or sick.

I mean again, it’s literally in the quote. You’re not reading.

companionably

[Very Tired]

Which means what? That you’re owed food, shelter, an attorney, and the latest and greatest Xbox by virtue of existing? Human society demands you contribute even if only companionably. That’s my point. It’s. Not. Free.

Pretty much this point is what they'll never get around. I've basically gotten tired of arguing from before. This entire argument is people construding "human rights" with "things that would totally be cool if everyone in the world had"

[Elegiac]

I mean again, it’s literally in the quote. You’re not reading.

And I ignored it because it's a worthless qualifier that means whatever the speaker wants it to mean, and still doesn't fundamentally address the indignity in access to assistance being locked behind a perception of virtue.

Moreover, it ties into the idea that assistance means people don't work, when the exact opposite has been the case in every implementation of a UBI-style system.

"Laziness", as it turns out, is code for "unwilling to participate in an exploitative and dehumanising economic system that is not reflective of how humans live 'in nature'".

- - - Updated - - -

Pretty much this point is what they'll never get around. I've basically gotten tired of arguing from before. This entire argument is people construding "human rights" with "things that would totally be cool if everyone in the world had"

Why is our fault that y'all can't distinguish between is and ought arguments, and also the fact that countries besides the US exist.

[Very Tired]

And I ignored it because it's a worthless qualifier that means whatever the speaker wants it to mean, and still doesn't fundamentally address the indignity in access to assistance being locked behind a perception of virtue.

Moreover, it ties into the idea that assistance means people don't work, when the exact opposite has been the case in every implementation of a UBI-style system.

"Laziness", as it turns out, is code for "unwilling to participate in an exploitative and dehumanising economic system that is not reflective of how humans live 'in nature'".

- - - Updated - - -
Why is our fault that y'all can't distinguish between is and ought arguments

Probably because you guys don't understand the difference between "is" and "should be"

and also the fact that countries besides the US exist.

That's the tidbit you guys are trouble grasping. Nice try trying to project it.

[Elegiac]

Probably because you guys don't understand the difference between "is" and "should be"

So...literally "is" versus "ought".

Did you actually read anything of what I said, lol?

That's the tidbit you guys are trouble grasping. Nice try trying to project it.

We're having difficulty grasping something we keep pointing out as evidence for American style "muh property" ethical systems not being the default?

Again, reading comprehension s'il te plait.

[D3thray]

And I ignored it because it's a worthless qualifier that means whatever the speaker wants it to mean, and still doesn't fundamentally address the indignity in access to assistance being locked behind a perception of virtue.

Moreover, it ties into the idea that assistance means people don't work, when the exact opposite has been the case in every implementation of a UBI-style system.

"Laziness", as it turns out, is code for "unwilling to participate in an exploitative and dehumanising economic system that is not reflective of how humans live 'in nature'".

- - - Updated - - -



Why is our fault that y'all can't distinguish between is and ought arguments, and also the fact that countries besides the US exist.

Way to inject absolutely nothing I claimed into my statements. Companionably is in fact a word with a definition however although yes that application is as subjective as your viewpoints. But essentially it’s not being a dick. Apologies that I’m primarily focused on how healthcare ‘rights’ relate to the US, I’m a bit of a politics junky and we’re full into our presidential primary season.

[Elegiac]

Way to inject absolutely nothing I claimed into my statements. Companionably is in fact a word with a definition however although yes that application is as subjective as your viewpoints. But essentially it’s not being a dick. Apologies that I’m primarily focused on how healthcare ‘rights’ relate to the US, I’m a bit of a politics junky and we’re full into our presidential primary season.

I literally live in Seattle and still think US-centric arguments on healthcare are absolutely full of shit, so that's not a defense.

[Endus]

Pretty rich citing the UDHR coming from you. It also enshrines the right to life and I’ve debated that subject to death with you.

Clearly the UDHR isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.

If you're trying to refer to abortion, that doesn't touch on right to life in any way whatsoever to begin with, and even if you wanted to argue fetal personhood, that's just an argument that the fetus should be removed intact and every effort made to save it, not an argument against abortion rights.

Opposition to abortion rights requires creating exceptions to fundamental rights and freedoms. It is in no way a defense of human rights.

So yeah; I'll stick comfortably with the internationally-recognized basis of human rights, while you can continue to make up stuff that does not apply, I guess.

- - - Updated - - -

So...literally "is" versus "ought".

Did you actually read anything of what I said, lol?

It bears pointing out, here, that the "is/ought" debate boils down not to "is this a human right?", but instead, "does this particular country respect this particular human right?"

Freedom of speech is a human right, even if the DPRK has harsh restrictions on speech within its borders. It just means the DPRK does not respect human rights. The DPRK's stance doesn't mean freedom of speech is not a human right anywhere in the world, which is the same argument that these folks are trying to make regarding health care.

[Very Tired]

It bears pointing out, here, that the "is/ought" debate boils down not to "is this a human right?", but instead, "does this particular country respect this particular human right?"

Freedom of speech is a human right, even if the DPRK has harsh restrictions on speech within its borders. It just means the DPRK does not respect human rights. The DPRK's stance doesn't mean freedom of speech is not a human right anywhere in the world, which is the same argument that these folks are trying to make regarding health care.

You can't just point out North Korea's shortcomings as a single example. For health care, half of the entire world lacks access to essential health services. The same lack of coverage applies to the right to counsel as mentioned before. The UN signed that thing in 1948 but where is the enforcement to make it an actual right? Who is actually going to give everyone in the world health care because it's something humans deserve?
All we have are a select few countries providing health care to their own people, because they live there, not because they are humans. Else that coverage wouldn't end so strictly at country lines.

Hence my original point that human rights shouldn't just be something cool that everyone had. That does not mean countries shouldn't strive to give their people health care and other such benefits. Just that's it's not something magical we are owed by a powerless world government of some sort.