[in_jeopardy]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
Nobody deserves anything that requires someone else to have a positive duty that they have not entered into voluntarily.

Then we have a fundamental moral disagreement.

Why is it that you believe you do not have a duty to your fellow humans?

[Cable]

(Original post by 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?

I wholeheartedly agree with you. At first, when I saw your thread title, I instantly said no, as in healthcare isn't a right. But when I saw what you meant by negative right, then I thought I could agree with that and so, I voted for "negative right".

[Agenda Suicide]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
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.

I disagree. How can it be negative that people's lives are being saved by person A?

It all comes down to this what rights do you have to force me to pay for others. Personally, it's never been an issue for me because I've never been overly money motivated and I don't mind paying that bit extra to help others.

I just don't understand how you can justify not helping others because it's 'your' property, 'your' things. What you have to remember is that if you were the person needing the healthcare, you'd be wishing it was that way too.

It's a safety net, you can put a price on your own property and having them few extra luxuries, but you can't put a price on saving the life of another human being, born into this world as you were.

For me it is a positive right.

[blu tack]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
Nobody deserves anything that requires someone else to have a positive duty that they have not entered into voluntarily.

So do you think no one should pay taxes? You could make this argument for anything - 'Why should I have a duty to pay for education (through my taxes) when I dont have kids', 'Why should I have a duty to pay for the military when I don't support the war'.

I find it gross that people would deny others the right to healthcare based on ability to pay, when no one is going bankrupt over paying for others' healthcare and it just comes out of our taxes.

[Aramiss18]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
Morality is not compatible with the state using force to extract money from people, in my view.

And morality isn't compatible with the economic situation you advocate where the poor are always subjugated by virtue of an unequal playing field that starts in the cradle.

You should be happy with the current situation where the poor are just content enough to not riot whilst your ilk continue to acquire more and more wealth. One of these days you guys are going to push your luck.

[Astronomical]

(Original post by 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?

I agree with you, I think.

I feel everyone should have healthcare available, but that they should have to pay for it themselves. Whether that means people buying one-off treatments or getting health insurance (I'd suggest the latter) would be up to them, and all bills would be issued after the surgery so that no lives are lost due to paperwork.

I very much dislike our current system whereby I could contribute to the NHS my entire life, costing me tens, maybe thousands of pounds or more(depending on my career, successes, and so on) and only ever go to the doctors 3 times with a saw throat or the flu or something pretty trivial, at the same time as somebody who may well contribute far less to the NHS pot getting lots of complicated surgery and expensive medicines and so on. Essentially the current system allows people to abuse their bodies and get away with it at the cost of the tax payer.

[Strawberrycayk]

I don't have a problem with my money going towards health care.

However, I do have a problem with it going towards the bunch of unemployed teens (or anyone else who falls into this category) who went and had kids with no intention on completing their education, or aiming towards a decent career to help meet their costs. Instead they rely on other people's money to live in their homes and provide for the kids they now have. These people need a backhand slap, not benefits. ¬____¬

[in_jeopardy]

(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.

You can't "brand" him as a libertarian and throw all that baseless rhetoric at him because he holds one position that is considered a mostly libertarian position.

(Original post by Aramiss18)
And morality isn't compatible with the economic situation you advocate where the poor are always subjugated by virtue of an unequal playing field that starts in the cradle.

You should be happy with the current situation where the poor are just content enough to not riot whilst your ilk continue to acquire more and more wealth. One of these days you guys are going to push your luck.

But I completely agree here.

[coastbeats]

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

At the end of the day, in a capitalist free-market state, each person aims to live the best possible way for him/herself before anyone else. It is contradictory if you then allow certain exceptions whereby people of a capitalist society think about the lives of others before their own. I know it sounds like a very ugly society but that's what you get if you stick to principles.

However there are some things the government has to provide for its population - safety e.g. a budget for the armed forces. a police force and law courts. Healthcare doesn't fit into the 'duty' category.

[Aramiss18]

(Original post by in_jeopardy)
You can't "brand" him as a libertarian and throw all that baseless rhetoric at him because he holds one position that is considered a mostly libertarian position.

I'm familiar with the user. He's a libertarian. Hates the state, bums the free market.

[Fusion]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
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.

We're discussing the allocation of healthcare so I'm making a comparison between two different systems in developed and fairly culturally similar nations.

Who would support a system that cost nearly double for LESS? (assuming similar performance indicators which isn't true). That's blind idealism over pragmatism. Obama was voted in to change their healthcare system.

[LETSJaM]

Despite the pitfalls of the NHS, I'd take it any day over the American system of cough up the money pre-op.

<3 x

[in_jeopardy]

(Original post by coastbeats)
At the end of the day, in a capitalist free-market state, each person aims to live the best possible way for him/herself before anyone else. It is contradictory if you then allow certain exceptions whereby people of a capitalist society think about the lives of others before their own. I know it sounds like a very ugly society but that's what you get if you stick to principles.

However there are some things the government has to provide for its population - safety e.g. a budget for the armed forces. a police force and law courts. Healthcare doesn't fit into the 'duty' category.

And at what point did we establish that a "capitalist free-market state" is the best possible way for people to live?

And what distingishes the armed forces and safety from healthcare that makes the former a duty and the latter not?

[Aramiss18]

(Original post by coastbeats)
At the end of the day, in a capitalist free-market state, each person aims to live the best possible way for him/herself before anyone else. It is contradictory if you then allow certain exceptions whereby people of a capitalist society think about the lives of others before their own. I know it sounds like a very ugly society but that's what you get if you stick to principles.

However there are some things the government has to provide for its population - safety e.g. a budget for the armed forces. a police force and law courts. Healthcare doesn't fit into the 'duty' category.

According to whom? Most of Europe and all developed nations provide healthcare for their citizens. Except the US which prefers to keep good company with the likes of Libya, Brazil and Russia.

source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Un...ealth_care.svg

[TimHuak]

(Original post by Fusion)
We're discussing the allocation of healthcare so I'm making a comparison between two different systems in developed and fairly culturally similar nations.

Who would support a system that cost nearly double for LESS? (assuming similar performance indicators which isn't true). That's blind idealism over pragmatism. Obama was voted in to change their healthcare system.

but America doesnt have a free market system.

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by in_jeopardy)
Then we have a fundamental moral disagreement.

Why is it that you believe you do not have a duty to your fellow humans?

I do - but I believe this is only a duty of non-interference. A duty to leave people to their own devices. A duty to allow people to make their own choices about what they buy, what they do and what they want in life.

This is incompatible with taxation spent on things like healthcare, in my view.

[Cable]

(Original post by LETSJaM)
Despite the pitfalls of the NHS, I'd take it any day over the American system of cough up the money pre-op.

<3 x

But the US healthcare isn't free market or close to free market. I has huge amounts of gov't interference (e.g. Medicare and Medicaid). These are paid by taxes.

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by Agenda Suicide)
I disagree. How can it be negative that people's lives are being saved by person A?

It all comes down to this what rights do you have to force me to pay for others. Personally, it's never been an issue for me because I've never been overly money motivated and I don't mind paying that bit extra to help others.

I just don't understand how you can justify not helping others because it's 'your' property, 'your' things. What you have to remember is that if you were the person needing the healthcare, you'd be wishing it was that way too.

It's a safety net, you can put a price on your own property and having them few extra luxuries, but you can't put a price on saving the life of another human being, born into this world as you were.

For me it is a positive right.

Hold up a second.

Google 'negative and positive rights'. It's important that you understand that there's nothing evaluative or qualatative about the terms 'negative' or 'positive'; they're technical terms in political philosophy.

[Cable]

(Original post by TimHuak)
but America doesnt have a free market system.

Exactly. I'm tired of people using the US healthcare as an example of the free market system. It just screams ignorance.

[coastbeats]

(Original post by in_jeopardy)
And at what point did we establish that a "capitalist free-market state" is the best possible way for people to live?

And what distingishes the armed forces and safety from healthcare that makes the former a duty and the latter not?

You hit the nail on the head. Firstly I was discussing this matter with my brother last night, why is capitalism deemed to be the best way of governing people? How has America had the right to fight wars in the name of capitalism? It's not the best way, and we can see this because of its unequal distribution of wealth, poverty, unemployment etc. But is there a better way so far? Can you tell me another way whereby we can govern a society and create better results? No.

Winston Churchill famously said Capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all the others.

Regarding your second point, I believe they are duties by government because a lone civillian cannot provide these for him/herself. If you leave the safety of a country for the free market mechanism, immediately institutions can profit off them. No one should have the power to be responsible for the protection of a country because sooner or later, it will forget the country's needs and start profiting off them.