Miss USA: Health Care Is a Privilege, Not a Right...

[guacamole]

now you are talking necessity and power to compel. Sure the government CAN do all that. They CAN take your blood or force you into labor camps, or into becoming a doctor, but that doesn't make it moral, or even that they have a moral authority to do so. It is just might makes right.

I think if the government has the power to do significant moral good, and the choose not to do so, then that constitutes a serious moral hazard. We cannot be policeman of the world but I don't think you could build a moral case that we should have not taken in more Jews during the thirties or not done more to stop the Rwandan genocides. I think God (or the people, if we want to be secular about it) gives the moral authority to right and proper government to do good and that they therefore have the moral authority to do so. It isn't that might makes right, but that might allows right.

fwiw,
guacamole

[Carrikature]

I think if the government has the power to do significant moral good, and the choose not to do so, then that constitutes a serious moral hazard. We cannot be policeman of the world but I don't think you could build a moral case that we should have not taken in more Jews during the thirties or not done more to stop the Rwandan genocides. I think God (or the people, if we want to be secular about it) gives the moral authority to right and proper government to do good and that they therefore have the moral authority to do so. It isn't that might makes right, but that might allows right.

fwiw,
guacamole

The government isn't a moral authority.

[seer]

The government isn't a moral authority.

Well in a sense it is, it enforces moral view points; rape, murder, fraud, theft, etc... are wrong, so it institutes and enforces laws prohibiting those things.

[Carrikature]

Well in a sense it is, it enforces moral view points; rape, murder, fraud, theft, etc... are wrong, so it institutes and enforces laws prohibiting those things.

It may create and enforce laws based on moral views, but that doesn't make it a moral authority. It can't define 'right' and 'wrong'. It can only define 'allowed' and 'not allowed'.

[seer]

It may create and enforce laws based on moral views, but that doesn't make it a moral authority. It can't define 'right' and 'wrong'. It can only define 'allowed' and 'not allowed'.

Well in a totalitarian culture it would be the moral authority. What else would be a moral authority? What else is defining right and wrong?

[Mountain Man]

The extent of compulsion equals the extent of the existential threat to society. If there were some nightmare sci-fi scenario where tens of millions would die, then the compulsion should be extensive. If it's standard health care and the compulsion is economic, that'll do.


We can play this game with any of the rights we enjoy: A right to property? Can I kill some sucker who's trying to steal my car? It's a basic human right equal to the right to life after all! A right to free expression? Can I murder someone who censors my internetz posts? It's a basic human right!

We have many rights, and it isn't the case that we defend all of them to the same extent. We don't need to defend them all to the same extent.


No--the pro-life position puts the lie to this. Are you out killing abortionists right now? No? Then you must not believe that fetuses have a fundamental right to human life, because if you did you'd be obligated to push it all the way. Is that really what you want to argue?


One doesn't actually need to refute reductio ad absurdum.

Sorry, who is equating the right to property with the right to life?

At any rate, it wasn't you that explicitly equated healthcare with basic human rights like the right to life, etc. That was Dimbulb:

Well the Declaration of Independence's view that the government had obligations to ensure and enable "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" would seem to imply healthcare.

But since you seem to be defending this position, I'm going to assume you agree that a right to healthcare is equivalent to a right to life, and if that's the case, what's wrong with defending it to the same extent that we defend the right to life?

Of course the problem with trying to draw equivalence here is that nobody has to do anything to grant me basic human rights. For instance, I have the right to free speech. Nobody has to grant it to me. It is an intrinsic part of simply being alive. You could call them passive rights. If I were stranded on a desert island, I would still possess those rights in full.

Healthcare, on the other hand, is a service (at least as far as this thread is concerned) that must be provided by someone else. How can something that depends on the actions of another be considered a basic right? That's where your argument falls apart.

As for your pro-life argument, you and I don't have the right to dispense justice. That's the prerogative of the state, and it's the state we are talking about here.

[Joel]

Yes. Force people into it if you have no alternative because if you can take care of people, you have a moral obligation to.

I appreciate the honesty, that you'd condone slavery (and forced blood transfusions, etc.), for what you see as a greater good.
But frankly that's frightening. The largest injustices in history, including the largest mass murders were done in the name of a greater good, with the approval of their consciences.

"Forcing" encompasses a lot of things before pistol whipping. Societies "force" all sorts of moral actions without resorting to torture. Usually, we try to hit people in the pocketbook first before we resort to the iron maiden or the rack.

All laws are ultimately backed up by the threat of shooting you dead. When the person you condone enslaving refuses and engages in self defense to avoid being enslaved, the agents of the state open fire. The same is ultimately true for the person you choose to "hit...in the pocketbook".

[Joel]

Regarding whether health care is a privilege or a right:

People mean different things by these terms. By "right" some mean an inherent human right, while some just mean something provided to everyone by statute and the force of the state.

If the latter, and we are talking only about whether the law provides something or not, then I'm not sure how a privilege is different. Seems like it could just as easily be called a privilege that is granted to everyone by the state. The state could repeal the law and stop providing it. Or the state could fail to have the means to provide it.


If the former (inherent human right), then I'd say that being provided with medical services is obviously not a right.
If it were, it would imply that it would be okay to enslave people to perform the services. I'd think that would settle matters, but I guess some, like guac, are okay with that.
Another implication is that if any human requires medical services and isn't provided them, then their right is being violated. But by whom? Before the existence of any given medical knowledge, procedure, or device, no one who required it was provided it, so their right was being violated. But by whom? The same for a person stranded on an island, or the last person alive. Their rights are being violated. But by whom? The answer is, of course: by nobody. Thus there is no such right.
Yet another way to look at it is dialysis machines are not inherent to a human being. Thus obviously there cannot be an inherent human right to be provided with one (or its services).

[Starlight]

my last bill for my medication was $1200.

My last bill for my medication was $2 US for a 3-month supply. That's because teh eViL Gubberment has a tiny department (80 staff) that bulk-buys over 2000 types of medication that the country needs, and negotiates 80-90% discounts on the labelled price, and then subsidizes the rest of the cost with taxpayer funds, so that all drugs cost $3 US to the end user. My local supermarket now has an in-store prescription-drug service and to encourage usage of that they discount it further to $2 US per prescription filled.

So the difference between your $1200 bill and my $2 bill was basically the fact that we have a government run healthcare system.

So where should I send the bill?

The bill is a punishment for your own idiocy for living in a country that doesn't care for its citizens, and for your ongoing support of such barbaric and immoral political policies. If you lived in any other Western country the bill would be near-zero.

Maybe for short periods, but they've been proven to be unsustainable on their own over the long-term...

You say the dumbest things. My country was the first Western country to institute universal healthcare, ~76 years ago. It's been perfectly sustainable.

So if someone needs a blood transfusion the government can take my blood?

Well since we have government run healthcare here, and lots of government-provided medical treatment requires blood transfusions (I've benefited from a few of those myself), let me explain to you how the government taking your blood works... there are donation centers where you can voluntarily go in and give blood. If they have a need for more blood they might ring up their donor list, or take their mobile equipment down to a university and do some advertising for voluntary donors there. I guess if they were really desperate they could start offering money, but I've never seem that happen. What tyranny.

It seems to me the ultimate government tyranny would be conscription into the army - forcing you to fight to the death for a cause you don't necessarily believe in seems to me like the height of oppression. I'm glad that is not a thing here. Apparently you still have the Draft in the US though? That's tyranny.

[JimL]

So if it's a right then please answer my question:

Should the government force people to become doctors to ensure adequate services for anybody who wants to exercise their "right" to healthcare?

And why would you ask that, do you have reason to believe that people would need be forced to become doctors. In countries with universal healthcare systems, i.e. most countries, I'm not aware of people in those countries having to be forced into being doctors. Are you?

[Starlight]

And why would you ask that, do you have reason to believe that people would need be forced to become doctors. In countries with universal healthcare systems, i.e. most countries, I'm not aware of people in those countries having to be forced into being doctors. Are you?

It's truly terrible. They kidnap people off the streets at random and then brainwash and indoctrinate them into becoming doctors. [/MM's imagination]

Being a doctor is one of the highest paid professions here. Naturally the healthcare system employs a lot of doctors. I have a sister who is a doctor and a couple of my friends are also. Not sure how MM gets in his 'mind' from the government employing people via job adverts... to 'forcing' people to be doctors. In his mind it's probably the same group who kidnaps people to drain them of their blood to supply the blood transfusions. I guess he's competing with DE, Jed, Bill, and seer for the Dumbest TWebber prize.

[Zymologist]

And why would you ask that, do you have reason to believe that people would need be forced to become doctors. In countries with universal healthcare systems, i.e. most countries, I'm not aware of people in those countries having to be forced into being doctors. Are you?

Do you guys remember all the ranting about thought experiments?

[JimL]

Do you guys remember all the ranting about thought experiments?

No!

[Starlight]

Do you guys remember all the ranting about thought experiments?

When you ask questions about universal healthcare - something that has existed across the Western world for decades - it's not really a thought experiment, it's more a question about what actually happens in practice in other countries.

For example, England has had single-payer government-provided universal healthcare since 1948. Does England force people to become doctors? That's not a thought experiment, it's a simple question about what happens in practice. And the answer to the question is "no".

[Zymologist]

When you ask questions about universal healthcare - something that has existed across the Western world for decades - it's not really a thought experiment, it's more a question about what actually happens in practice in other countries.

For example, England has had single-payer government-provided universal healthcare since 1948. Does England force people to become doctors? That's not a thought experiment, it's a simple question about what happens in practice. And the answer to the question is "no".

He was asking a hypothetical (which would seem to be pretty much the same thing as a thought experiment). You didn't treat it like a hypothetical.

I'm remembering you and others talking about how utterly stupid everybody else around here was for not "getting" your thought experiment (i.e., your hypothetical) in some thread about pedophilia a while back. That's all I was referring to.