Is healthcare a right?

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 70

--> @ethang5
Personal tastes etc.
Exactly.

And I think also exactly the point that secularmerlin and myself  were attempting to put across.

Morality is personal, therefore abstract, therefore subjective, therefore not concrete, so collective morality is only a collection thereof.


But it is not sourced in Men?

--> @zedvictor4
And I think also exactly the point that secularmerlin and myself  were attempting to put across.
You guys always miss (ignore) the point. I'm not just telling you that your morality is simply your personal tastes. If it is, so what? I'm telling you, because your morality is just your personal tastes, any moral judgement you make of someone's else's behavior is illogical nonsense.

No one can be immoral because they do what you personally find distasteful. Telling us that a certain behavior is not to your personal tastes carries no useful information. We are talking morality, why are you telling us your personal tastes?

And before you start babbling that my morality is this or that too, accept or deny my charge about your morality.

How can you call anyone moral or immoral when for you, those terms can only mean, "I personally like" and "I personally don't like"? How is what you personally like relevant to a discussion of morality?
--> @ethang5
You guys etc.
Et tu Brute.


And so, because of the abstract nature of morality it is therefore my contention that morality and personal taste when regarded within an applicable context can be accepted as one and the same thing. It really is just a case of call it what you will, when you will.

And as far as I am aware, I have never babbled as stated.

My morality within the context of British social requirements is probably what might be regarded as standard.

And morality does rather appear to be your hang up and not mine.

Generally, I would regard the phrase "personal taste" as something like preference of tea rather than coffee or classical music rather than rap etc.

Nonetheless morality is still a personal decision or personal requirement....Or personal taste if you will.


--> @zedvictor4
When you get past your tea time, and are ready to face the moral implications of your belief, we'll talk.
--> @zedvictor4
Morality? Which one? There are as many expressions of morality among humans than there are climates.
--> @ethang5 @WaterPhoenix
Inalienable - Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.

I reckon it is possible to take away a persons life, though I think in most cases it is something that should not be done.

Would you disagree that it is possible to take away someone's life? Would you disagree that in most cases such should not be done?
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
Inalienable - Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.
With the right to life, the above refers to the right, not the life. Even someone's life is taken, their right to life remains intact. That is what makes taking their life immoral, the violation of their right to that life.
--> @fauxlaw
The problem with healthcare is that it is a flawed concept, in that we can't make people immortal with infinite resources. So when you say health care is a right, you have to define a certain level of flawed healthcare as a right. Is Tylenol a right? Are infinite organ transplants at age 95 a right? 

Maybe something in between? It has to be defined since healthcare is flawed.
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
My logic is that you can't have rights when your dead, so the moment your consciousness dies, is the moment when rights don't apply to you anymore.
--> @Greyparrot
I split the definition. We currently have access to healthcare; everyone will typically be seen by a doctor in the US even if unable to pay. However, it is the access to outcome that is not a right. Ongoing treatment with a desired outcome is not a right; that condition is a privilege. This is why I use the example of a person who is in a fatal condition but for the availability of an organ transplant. There are no organ warehouses by which such a patient is guaranteed survival. Not to mention that, according to CDC, roughly 60% of cancer patients, and 70% of heart disease and diabetes patients would not have their diseases but for poor choices by the patients to consume a proper diet, exercise, and live prudent lifestyles [not like an MYV jackarse, for example.] All of us have the right to choose to engage these activities, but a percentage of use will acquire these diseases regardless. So, even by choice, healthcare outcome is not fully a right.
--> @fauxlaw
more than 15% of the population of the US, a pop of 330M people, is 65 and older. Within ten years, that number is expected to rise to at least 20%.
<br>
Similar numbers exist in Europe and they have it.

I'll make it real simple for you. I know you're young. I worked a forty-year career. In all forty years, I paid FICA taxes, and also had the benefit of my employers paying into FICA. Those taxes were continuous installment payments into my SS and medicare funding. Before retiring, over 90% of FICA contributions paid for those retirement benefits.
I'd fund UHC differently than Sanders.  I'd want to abolish FICA and the Income tax and replace it with a sales tax and a capitol gains tax to pay for it.

The countries that your dedicated teaching staff tell you are thriving on a similar health care system as you propose are in the 20, 30, 50M population arena. Fewer people; lower costs.
Fewer people, less tax dollars to fund these smaller expenses.  Even though we may have 6x the population of the UK for example, we have 9x the GDP.  If they can afford it, so can we, especially since the private taxes under UHC are abolished; co pays, deductibles, premiums; it's all abolished and replaced with a smaller government tax, saving americans money.
--> @Alec
Similar numbers exist in Europe
True, but which country in Europe is as populated with 330M people? 20% of Russia is 29M. of Germany, 16M. These are the two most populated of Europe. 20% of USA? 66M, right now. In 10 years? 

I'd fund UHC differently
Make FICA another sales tax, etc, you lose a handle on what's for retirement and what's for the general fund, let alone the interest earned.

we have 9x the GDP.
Sure, but 3/4 of GDP is driven by private money, and we ought to not penalize the people who create it by taxing them more. The engine that is most efficient, and beneficial for all is that engine that is more self-sufficient in use of energy supplied to it. You create more energy by encouraging more people to be more self-sufficient,  than those who weigh down the engine by just adding greater weight to the vehicle it moves. Better to have a greater self-sufficient class than an equivalent, or greater entitlement class.
--> @fauxlaw
True, but which country in Europe is as populated with 330M people? 20% of Russia is 29M. of Germany, 16M. These are the two most populated of Europe. 20% of USA? 66M, right now. In 10 years? 

What would population have to do with it?  As you get more people, you gain more expenses, but you also gain a proportional amount of tax revenue, so it evens out.

Make FICA another sales tax, etc, you lose a handle on what's for retirement and what's for the general fund, let alone the interest earned.

and we ought to not penalize the people who create it by taxing them more.
I'd want to abolish the income tax and replace it with a sales tax and a capitol gains tax to pay for this.  You can choose how much you buy, and as an investor, it's easier to generate revenue from investing than it is to work, so a capitol gains tax won't discourage the stock market unless the tax is very high, like 80%, and I wouldn't make the capitol gains tax this high. 

With half this nation being investors, a capitol gains tax also contributes significant revenue anytime someone sells stock.  Roughly the same number of shares would be sold, so the stock market would go up as usual from this, but with no income tax, people have more money to put into the stock market, making the demand for stock higher and as a result, the stock market rises, as well as the capitol gains revenue that would have been received.
--> @Alec
As you get more people, you gain more expenses
By that argument, both China and India should have a greater economy, and, therefore, more tax revenue than ours. Neither do. So, there's something else involved, isn't there. Think it through further. You'll find the answer.

I'd want to abolish the income tax 
You've completely ignored my comment that a sales tax could replace income tax. You claim only half the country invests. I'll wager that it's less. The answer is not to devise another tax method. The answer is to encourage more people to stop buying so much and invest in themselves instead. Not completely, just a percentage. That's not not buying stuff, that's buying a future. What's wrong with that?
--> @Greyparrot
you do have a right to party, but you have to fight for it.
--> @fauxlaw @secularmerlin
@fauxlaw:

Because, if healthcare is not a right, why should it be free?
"Should be free" depends on the provider. But health care is not a right. It's a good/service. In order for health care to be a right, one would have to train and educate physicians and nurses and conscript them to service, compelling them under a legal framework. The question isn't really "who's entitled?" but "who's indebted?" particularly to a collective finance scheme.

Morality? Which one? There are as many expressions of morality among humans than there are climates.

But there's only one consistent moral framework.

@secularmerlin:

I still argue that all rights are merely popularly held opinions about what we are entitled to.
All legal rights dictated by a democracy? Yes. Legal rights dictated by a dictator? No. Normative arguments posited within a moral framework? No.

I would like to. It just doesn't seem that there are. There are rights that many people agree ought to be self evident and inalienable.

Rights are abstract concepts. Without humans to grant them they would not exist. As such they are neither self evident nor inalienable.
That is the meaning of neither the term "self-evident" nor the term "inalienable." Self-evident means to establish or accept a proposition's "truth" without the need for proof. This is particularly functional for abstract concepts. "Inalienable" means unable to be transferred, and this too is particularly functional for abstract concepts. Here's an abstract concept that is self-evident: "Everyone has self-interest." Good luck rebutting it. There are self-evident and inalienable rights, e.g. the right to one's person, and they're not trivial because it involves human thought and validation. I challenge anyone to name a single of aspect of existence that doesn't human thought and validation.

Also, "seem" is not an argument.




--> @Athias
But there's only one consistent moral framework.
<br>
Which one is that? I know of several. And I do not argue that healthcare is a right. There are rights, and there are privileges. And the two elements of healthcare are access to it, and outcome. Neither are equal in their application, therefore, healthcare, in either case, is a right.
--> @fauxlaw
Which one is that?
Individualism.

I know of several.
May you provide a name and description to these several?

And I do not argue that healthcare is a right.
I know.

There are rights, and there are privileges.
I understand the conclusion you're attempting to draw, but health care isn't a privilege either. That would imply that there's no exchange. It would become a privilege if it were made available to a select few. As long as both patient and physician mutually agree on the terms of service, then entitlements can justifiably be established.

--> @Athias
May you provide a name and description to these several?
As this may ultimately be a debate topic, I'm not into firing all my guns into space, so to speak.

Regarding right, or privilege, I distinguish between access to healthcare and outcome of healthcare as two separate concerns. In that respect, I consider a right as being ubiquitous in both. By that definition, outcome is most certainly NOT a right, and therefore, by my definition, not at all a right.
--> @fauxlaw
As this may ultimately be a debate topic, I'm not into firing all my guns into space, so to speak.
Fair enough.