[Aspiringlawstudent]

I was talking to someone earlier about healthcare and if it should be considered a right or not.

My opinion is that everyone has the negative right to healthcare; that is to say that nobody should interfere with someone wishing to seek healthcare, but that nobody should be dutybound to provide healthcare or to pay for someone else to have it.

What do you think? Is healthcare a right, and if it is, is it a negative right (like I think) or is it a positive right (meaning that a duty exists to 'provide' healthcare or otherwise to pay for it through taxation)?

The NHS budget for the current financial year is £106,000,000,000 (http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/thenhs/.../overview.aspx) - I feel this could be better spent in a free market by people that have earnt it. A genuine free market in healthcare could allow for competition in pricing and in quality, and most of those that could not afford basic healthcare would be able to benefit from charitable institutions - there's no reason to expect anyone would contribute less to charity, and if they had more money from a tax cut it's quite possible that charitable donations could increase.

So, you know where I stand - where do you?

[123maz]

So basically you want to get health care on the black market?

[TimHuak]

I agree with you pretty much

I don't feel like I get a good deal on healthcare here. I feel like the system is abused and people don't care about the cost of things because it is "free". I pay for more than I use so I end up paying for other peoples stuff. This isn't a problem, I would actually like to help others out as Ive been pretty successful in my own life. However the money gets spent on things which I don't want it to. The government decides where that extra money is spent. I would much rather have control over where that money goes. For example I do not want to pay for other peoples fertility treatment. I would rather help others who I consider are more in need of the money.

Expect alot of disagreement though and maybe even some hostility. From my experience here in the UK if you make even the smallest criticism of the NHS you can get people very emotional.

[in_jeopardy]

(Original post by TimHuak)
I agree with you pretty much

I don't feel like I get a good deal on healthcare here. I feel like the system is abused and people don't care about the cost of things because it is "free". I pay for more than I use so I end up paying for other peoples stuff. This isn't a problem, I would actually like to help others out as Ive been pretty successful in my own life. However the money gets spent on things which I don't want it to. The government decides where that extra money is spent. I would much rather have control over where that money goes. For example I do not want to pay for other peoples fertility treatment. I would rather help others who I consider are more in need of the money.

Expect alot of disagreement though and maybe even some hostility. From my experience here in the UK if you make even the smallest criticism of the NHS you can get people very emotional.

So if you needed expensive life-saving treatment, you think that treatment should be withheld from you on the basis of your social status?

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by 123maz)
So basically you want to get health care on the black market?

... what?

I'm saying there should be a 'free market'.

You know, like there is for automobiles or telephones or clothing or food or drink or hospitality or housing or furniture or computers or entertainment or video games or practically anything you can name.

When you are FORCED to pay for one system of healthcare, how on earth can people have a free choice in healthcare?

In a market dominated by a state institution, people are less free to make their own choices. It's harder to get custom if people balk at being a customer because they're already paying once for healthcare that they may not even use.

Think about it - if you had to pay £x a year for one system of healthcare, would you want to pay more money on top of that for healthcare where you want, when you want, for whatever treatment you want? You might not be able to afford it.

However, if you're not paying for healthcare already, you're more able to make a free choice about how much healthcare you want, where you want it, what you want to have done and when you want to be treated.

[Agenda Suicide]

Of course it is.

Why when we have the capability, money and resources should it not be and why should we allow lives to be lost unnecessarily?

[123maz]

so do you think our national health service should be like in America...

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by in_jeopardy)
So if you needed expensive life-saving treatment, you think that treatment should be withheld from you on the basis of your social status?

I don't think it's legitimate for the state to force anyone to support someone else.

It doesn't matter that someone needs healthcare, what matters is that if a positive right to healthcare exists, someone else is dutybound to provide it - and that requires someone to be required to pay for it. It just seems patently unfair to me that someone ought be required to pay for someone else to benefit. It seems wholly wrong to me.

After all, if person A is getting the benefit of something, surely they should be expected to meet the burden of cost? It seems unfair to make someone else pay for it simply because person A cannot.

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by 123maz)
so do you think our national health service should be like in America...
Im struggling to see what you mean from this thread

I'm not sure you know very much about the healthcare system in the US.

Have you ever heard of medicare, medicaid, and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act?

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by Agenda Suicide)
Of course it is.

Why when we have the capability, money and resources should it not be and why should we allow lives to be lost unnecessarily?

Is it negative or positive though?

We have the capability to do all sorts of things - but that doesn't mean we should.

I don't think in any event any 'right to healthcare' should trump the right to own your own property and money and dispose of it as you wish.

In short, I don't think that if person A has a right to healthcare, person B should be required to pay for it. That's why I think it's a negative right.

[When you see it...]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
I feel this could be better spent in a free market by people that have earnt it.

Do you mean on medical equipment and staff? If so, why would a private company spend it better than the government?
Or do you mean on fancy cars for the profiteers that will inevitably benefit from a privatisation?

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by When you see it...)
Do you mean on medical equipment and staff? If so, why would a private company spend it better than the government?
Or do you mean on fancy cars for the profiteers that will inevitably benefit from a privatisation?

I mean that people should be free to spend their money on whatever they want.

[in_jeopardy]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
I don't think it's legitimate for the state to force anyone to support someone else.

It doesn't matter that someone needs healthcare, what matters is that if a positive right to healthcare exists, someone else is dutybound to provide it - and that requires someone to be required to pay for it. It just seems patently unfair to me that someone ought be required to pay for someone else to benefit. It seems wholly wrong to me.

After all, if person A is getting the benefit of something, surely they should be expected to meet the burden of cost? It seems unfair to make someone else pay for it simply because person A cannot.

This is the conflict that the current system trys to resolve, your point against the 'sanctity' of human life, and the fact that we are able to provide these life saving of life enhancing services to people.

No one is forced to directly support any other person, we simply pay into a system that treats everyone as equals regardles of their ability to pay, the same way we pay for policing, etc, etc.

It is something we allow the state to do because we accept that treating it this way is inherantly fairer to everyone.

In principle, I agree with you, there is something incredibly wrong with being born into a system that forces you to observe laws / pay taxes / etc without your consent. But in this case wer have a fairer system than might otherwise be present. That's not to say of course that there arent problems with the current implimentation.

[Fusion]

The UK spends ~8% of GDP on healthcare and covers everyone

America spends ~15% of GDP on healthcare and doesn't cover everyone

God save the NHS

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by in_jeopardy)
This is the conflict that the current system trys to resolve, your point against the 'sanctity' of human life, and the fact that we are able to provide these life saving of life enhancing services to people.

No one is forced to directly support any other person, we simply pay into a system that treats everyone as equals regardles of their ability to pay, the same way we pay for policing, etc, etc.

It is something we allow the state to do because we accept that treating it this way is inherantly fairer to everyone.

In principle, I agree with you, there is something incredibly wrong with being born into a system that forces you to observe laws / pay taxes / etc without your consent. But in this case wer have a fairer system than might otherwise be present. That's not to say of course that there arent problems with the current implimentation.

I don't accept that it is inherently fairer in any sense.

I don't believe forcing someone to pay for something that they don't want to pay for is fair. Forcing someone to pay for something is no different to theft, in my eyes. I cannot comprehend how people believe it is legitimate.

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by Fusion)
The UK spends ~8% of GDP on healthcare and covers everyone

America spends ~15% of GDP on healthcare and doesn't cover everyone

I don't see how that is in any way a reason to have it.

I don't think 'my neighbour has a car that costs £1m, that means I should get one that costs £750k'.

That doesn't make sense.

The fact it's cheaper than another country doesn't mean it is 'good'. It just means it's cheaper. It's certainly not a reason to have it.

[in_jeopardy]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
I don't accept that it is inherently fairer in any sense.

I don't believe forcing someone to pay for something that they don't want to pay for is fair. Forcing someone to pay for something is no different to theft, in my eyes. I cannot comprehend how people believe it is legitimate.

Then do poor people not deserve healthcare?

That is the crux of the argument.

[Aramiss18]

Gah I hate libertarians...

You are so in love with the concept of the free market all morality goes out of the window. Healthcare is provided by the state because private healthcare is not affordable to everyone because of the economic system you people swear by which always creates an abundance of near impoverished people. The free-market healthcare system you are advocating wouldn't work because it would toss a load of people into health-poverty and then to prevent riot the state would have to intervene. You guys need the proles remember, so at least have the ****ing decency to let them have their health.

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by in_jeopardy)
Then do poor people not deserve healthcare?

That is the crux of the argument.

Nobody deserves anything that requires someone else to have a positive duty that they have not entered into voluntarily.

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by Aramiss18)
Gah I hate libertarians...

You are so in love with the concept of the free market all morality goes out of the window. Healthcare is provided by the state because private healthcare is not affordable to everyone because of the economic system you people swear by which always creates an abundance of near impoverished people. The free-market healthcare system you are advocating wouldn't work because it would toss a load of people into health-poverty and then to prevent riot the state would have to intervene. You guys need the proles remember, so at least have the ****ing decency to let them have their health.

Morality is not compatible with the state using force to extract money from people, in my view.