Let's debunk one of liberals' belief — healthcare should be a fundamental right

Rights by force of government are not rights.

 

Then that applies to the military too - I live in a fairly small town which would not be in much danger if we went to war or were invaded - I don't want my tax money going to fund the US military, since people in large cities like NYC would be getting most of the protection, they have no right to have their freedoms protected on my dime. So there are exceptions to every rule.

"Rights" is a moot point in the modern word, what works is the only right I care about. If single-payer care coexisted with private care the system would be much more functional on both counts, so that's why I support it. Whether or not it's a "right" doesn't mean much to me, and the whole "rights" argument is pretty superfluous - we should be concerned with what actually benefits America on the whole, rather than having superfluous discussions about what is and isn't a 'right'.

So no I don't think or care if single-payer healthcare is a "right", I support it coexisting with private care for practical reasons which I've outlined in many threads.

 

It's not an exception. It's the exact same principle: You don't have the right to force others to provide for your personal protection or the protection of your property.

 

Serving in the military requires a contract that you abide by. Not the same thing.

You evidently think whatever you want, no matter how it tramples other's rights is your right. That is called tyranny, the ideological opposite of a rights based society.

 

america seems to be the only advanced nation that finds it all that complicated

 

Nope, under the current healthcare system, people already do have a "right" to treatment regardless of ability to pay - hospitals cannot legally deny treatment despite being private entities, and people cannot be forced to pay their bills (the cost of unpaid bills just gets tacked onto yours). So in practice, free healthcare does exist - sure people may not be able to get certain expensive procedures (like cancer treatment) without insurance, but I could walk into an ER right now with no money and insurance and they couldn't refuse to treat me.

If single payer healthcare existed then it would make private healthcare more autonomous, since the govt would be providing healthcare itself, rather than using the private sector as it's own healthcare plan like it is now.

And the same argument could be made about any taxpayer-funded entity, such as the military, the police, etc - so unless you can explain why single payer healthcare is any more 'tyranny' than any other taxpayer-funded entity the "taxation is theft" argument doesn't mean anything - unless you're 100% fiscal anarchist and believe military and police should be privatized.

 

I think that if one is going to make the argument that the "right" to health care is not a legitimate right, then one must be consistent and also argue that the "right" to personal/property protection is not a legitimate right. It would seem that these must both be considered positive rights, as they must be actively provided by others.

 

It's not any specific someone, just society in general.

Of course not. Stealing is a crime regardless of the reason.

Well, it depends on how you define "rights" and what constitutes violating them. If anything involving government and taxation violates people's rights to you, then nothing I say will not violate someone's rights.

 

Just because government forces you to do something does not automatically make it a right. Jeesh.

 

Yes, so this is the point. Someone's "right" to food, shelter, etc. depends upon the government violating the rights of others (by taking their property) in order to provide that right. That, I believe, was Hoosier8's point. This makes this class of rights significantly different than the negative rights to liberty and property. The necessarily require that the liberty/property of others be violated in order to be provided.

 

Healthcare is not a right. It's a good like anything else. Medical treatment or more specifically how we finance it, cannot be considered an unalienable right. It's a form of consumption. Your right to own a car does not assure that you can afford a car.

 

I agree with you.

 

That'd all be relevant if it wasn't, already, a right in practice - because private hospitals are required by law to provide treatment regardless of ability to pay. People cannot be forced to pay their medical bills. Likewise, people in prison receive universal healthcare on taxpayer dime, regardless of insurance or ability to pay - so law-abiding citizens have worse healthcare access than people serving time for felonies do, under our current system.

 

They are called "claim rights". Rights that involve other people having to provide something for you. Like military defense, or your right to a lawyer if you cannot afford one. Both of which are paid for by tax money even if the pople doing the work are on contract.

For some reason, Americans seem to find the notion of a criminal being given a lawyer on their dime for more palatable than the notion of a regular American having her life saved by health care.

Anyway, in this world, perfect freedom cannot exist. Your right to swing your fist must end where someone elses body begins. And we don't get to pick and choose which laws we follow. They are a package deal. We've invented a system called democracy, which allows us some voice in decisions. Its not to make better decisions, it is to let everyone have some influence in the laws that affect us. And it comes with the duty to follow laws we disagree with if we lose.

People who do not agree with this are free to leave. Not doing so is what is known as "Implicit agreement#.

 

A rights based government, what America was founded as, is an extension of the people. When it begins to break basic laws, then it moves toward tyranny.

For instance, if you went to your neighbors house and took their property and gave it to someone else because you believe they needed it more, you have broken a basic rights law and will end up in jail. If you forced someone to purchase a product you produce, committed illegal force, you have broken a basic rights law.

Government has been slowly moving toward tyranny by breaking those basic rights laws, the very laws that would send you to jail.

 

I'm not sure what your response has to do with what I said. I simply pointed out that, if one is consistent, one must consider both the "right" to healthcare and personal protection as the same sort of rights because they each must be actively provided by others.

 

Yes, I can see that "claim rights" and "positive rights" are similar, in that they both require that the liberty/property of other be violated in order for them to be provided.

I am not aware of anyone claiming the freedom to punch other people in the nose.

And, in a democracy, we each get to advocate for the laws we support, correct? We can still do that, right, without being exiled?

 

You can always trade places and give up your unalienable rights for healthcare. In a way, that is what people are doing now, trading rights for security. Using your logic, there were laws on the books previously that you would be touting now as rights, like the right to own slaves.

 

That's why the whole 'rights' based argument just doesn't work - it's pure dogmatism, and ignores practicality - obviously slavery is much more detrimental to society as a whole than single payer healthcare is, but by the hardline 'rights' logic both are equally as bad - this ideology will never work in a practical sense because its just a form of blind fundamentalism, it's also selective because it ignores contradictions.

 

It is mighty practical for totalitarian governments to oppress their citizens.

 

Actually it is not

for a "totalitarian government" to "oppress the citizens" you have to have a group for whom the oppression pays off in some way otherwise they will not do it. Think about it. Who would oppress whom?

 

No, it doesn't. I was just saying that seems to be your position.

 

Well good luck exercising your "right" to food without taking what belongs to someone else.

 

You seem to get more hung up on details than on the idea behind them. The point is that in any civilised and supposedly free country, people should not be forced to starve. If they are hungry and cannot afford sufficient nutrition to keep them and their families alive, they should be able to walk into a soup kitchen or something and eat.

And yes, evil taxes would be used to pay for such things, but you know the bright side to that? Everyone who pays into the system can take back from the system when they need it.

So really, all you're doing is putting money away to protect yourself and your family in the event you find yourself without food, water, shelter, and affordable healthcare.

 

I'm sorry that appears to be the case. Actually, I am interested in the underlying principles.

I happen to share your desire to help those in need. However, I don't consider it ethically legitimate for me to violate the property of others to do so.

Putting money away? I don't really consider people having their belongings confiscated from them as them "putting money away". It is being taken from them against their will. Let's not try to call it anything different than what it really is.