Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RtGOAT)
    I'm sick of people saying healthcare is a right. It isn't.

    Medical advances are the result of human invention in the same way that other technolgies are. People don't claim to have a right to own the latest sports car or the latest gadget, they have to earn the ability to buy them, the same should be true with medicine.

    Discuss.
    the UN disagrees.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scumbaggio)
    x
    No he's not. He's saying that nobody has the right to demand healthcare, whether they're rich or poor.

    If the poor are poor because they're being stepped on by The Man that is a problem that of course needs isolating and rectifying, but poverty alone doesn't bless someone with the right to start making demands on his neighbour.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    You're (deliberately?) confusing positive and negative rights.

    You have a right to life to the extent that nobody else should be free to kill you unjustly (a negative right), but that doesn't equate to free healthcare which amounts to a financial burden on other people.

    A right to life and a right to bandages aren't the same thing.
    Semantics. You would allow a vulnerable child die of preventable causes for the sake of not placing a financial burden on people in your libertarian utopia? Where's your justification for that? We just punish the child for the financial failings of their parents who can't afford healthcare. It disgusts me.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    You have a right to life to the extent that nobody else should be free to kill you unjustly (a negative right),
    Who decided that you have that right?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DK_Tipp)
    Semantics. You would allow a vulnerable child die of preventable causes for the sake of not placing a financial burden on people in your libertarian utopia? Where's your justification for that? We just punish the child for the financial failings of their parents who can't afford healthcare. It disgusts me.
    You've prevented a stark choice here: socialism or the widespread death of vulnerable children. I can't help but feel that there's a middle way...

    In general though the presence of need doesn't automatically give someone the right to steal. If a child in your street developed cancer, a cancer that could only be cured with enormously costly medical treatment, would it be ok for the child's parents to forcefully auction off your posessions to help cover their costs?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Too many right-wing ***** on this forum.

    Maybe you should emigrate to the U.S, yeah? Where you can effectively become homeless because you developed cancer...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Socktor)
    Who decided that you have that right?
    I don't know really, the right not be killed in the street just seems like a sensible idea. As always though it's up for debate.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RtGOAT)
    I'm sick of people saying healthcare is a right. It isn't.

    Medical advances are the result of human invention in the same way that other technolgies are. People don't claim to have a right to own the latest sports car or the latest gadget, they have to earn the ability to buy them, the same should be true with medicine.

    Discuss.
    That could be argued with education, security and safety. Imagine calling the police for help and they start talking about your credit ratings and bank details.

    Certain services need to be social otherwise the vast majority of society would suffer if everything was made to be a privilege.

    But then again, the pharmaceutical industry is not giving any drugs out for free. They always receive their due payments. Just because some countries have a social health care system it does not minus anything from the bank accounts of corporations. They receive their payments via the government.

    For countries that have provided social health care, after providing it for so long, you cannot just take it away. As the people do begin to see it as a right, as they've had it for so long. And I tend to agree. The last thing I would want to imagine living in a society where trauma patients need to make sure they can financially cover the services or else left untreated.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    You've prevented a stark choice here: socialism or the widespread death of vulnerable children. I can't help but feel that there's a middle way...

    In general though the presence of need doesn't automatically give someone the right to steal. If a child in your street developed cancer, a cancer that could only be cured with enormously costly medical treatment, would it be ok for the child's parents to forcefully auction off your posessions to help cover their costs?

    Where do I start...

    First of all refer to my earlier post about Libertarians screaming socialism every time somebody suggests that they might have a responsibility to society. Socialism is the belief that the workers should own the means of production, that is neither what I have suggested or been mentioned anywhere on this thread. I suppose you think Mr. Obama is a socialist too?

    Secondly this magical "middle way". Please explain how this is going to work- I've presented the scenario where we can have a progressive tax system and a health care service or we can let the vulnerable suffer and die. Present your alternative.

    Lastly that is a frankly ridiculous analogy. It is the sort dreamed up by Tea Party activists to fuel the fear of a big brother state taking everything you own. Almost every democratic political movement in Europe with any popular support advocates some form of progressive tax system to fund things like health care and cancer care for sick kids. That some of your neo-liberal cousins also like to blow inordinate amounts of this money on rather costly machinery of death while advocating low taxes and cut backs is a bit strange but hey, I'm a democrat and people vote for them so...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    I don't know really, the right not be killed in the street just seems like a sensible idea. As always though it's up for debate.
    Well, I think the right to healthcare is a sensible idea too... that's just me, though.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by midnightice)
    Too many right-wing ***** on this forum.

    Maybe you should emigrate to the U.S, yeah? Where you can effectively become homeless because you developed cancer...
    Theres not that many of them actually, just a few very dedicated posters.
    I think the NHS has done good for society and holds a special sense of national pride along with it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Socktor)
    Well, I think the right to healthcare is a sensible idea too... that's just me, though.
    It's not the right to healthcare that's the problem though, it's the associated financial burden that falls on the rest of society to help fund this so called right.

    As the OP says why stop there? Why not demand a right to free clothing, heating and food too if the economic model you're proposing is so wondrous? It's because nobody will get out of bed in the morning if the state threatens to confiscate their income for the benefit of somebody they've never even met. Socialism does not work.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RtGOAT)
    I'm sick of people saying healthcare is a right. It isn't.

    Medical advances are the result of human invention in the same way that other technolgies are. People don't claim to have a right to own the latest sports car or the latest gadget, they have to earn the ability to buy them, the same should be true with medicine.

    Discuss.
    Bit of an arbitrary comparison between a sports car and gadget, which does not save a life, and medical advances, which do. One's utility is petty pleasure, the others' is quite serious.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OedipusTheKing)
    Bit of an arbitrary comparison between a sports car and gadget, which does not save a life, and medical advances, which do. One's utility is petty pleasure, the others' is quite serious.
    They are both the result of human innovation. Why should anyone be entitled to someone else's work?

    The only real human right should be freedom of movement, something the governments try to prevent.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DK_Tipp)
    Where do I start...

    First of all refer to my earlier post about Libertarians screaming socialism every time somebody suggests that they might have a responsibility to society. Socialism is the belief that the workers should own the means of production, that is neither what I have suggested or been mentioned anywhere on this thread. I suppose you think Mr. Obama is a socialist too?

    Secondly this magical "middle way". Please explain how this is going to work- I've presented the scenario where we can have a progressive tax system and a health care service or we can let the vulnerable suffer and die. Present your alternative.

    Lastly that is a frankly ridiculous analogy. It is the sort dreamed up by Tea Party activists to fuel the fear of a big brother state taking everything you own. Almost every democratic political movement in Europe with any popular support advocates some form of progressive tax system to fund things like health care and cancer care for sick kids. That some of your neo-liberal cousins also like to blow inordinate amounts of this money on rather costly machinery of death while advocating low taxes and cut backs is a bit strange but hey, I'm a democrat and people vote for them so...
    Libertarians aren't attempting to shirk their societal responsibilities. What we're asking for, not unreasonably btw, is a different relationship with the state so everybody's clear on when and where collective action is appropriate. Collectivism can sometimes be a good thing (i.e the courts etc) but there's room for debate on this and it doesn't help when you shout "TEA-PARTIER" at anyone who takes a different view.

    The middle way is fairly straightforward. If healthcare is prohibitively expensive and socialism is unpalatable then we should consider making healthcare cheaper. That's my preferred route anyway. We could achieve this with lower taxes, less regulation or a more cautious approach to drug patents, pretty much anything that lifts these arbitrary barriers and gives people the opportunity to solve the healthcare issue for themselves. When a service like health becomes so tied in with the state inevitably corruption takes hold, those who are supposed to be putting patients first end up lining their their own pockets because they're in a position to do so. One consequence is an incredibly poor level of service, i.e the NHS. Libertarians are accutely aware of the corrupting effect of this concentration of power however it's something that 'democrats' are only too keen to ignore.

    Throwing the word progressive around doesn't sanitise an unjust tax system. Theft is theft is theft. There's nothing progressive about it.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RtGOAT)
    They are both the result of human innovation. Why should anyone be entitled to someone else's work?

    The only real human right should be freedom of movement, something the governments try to prevent.
    Everything that has been created by humans is often the result of individual innovation, but it becomes ridiculous when you try to atomise racial achievement. I walk into a skyscraper, should I suddenly be asked to pay levies to the individuals who created steel frames? Similarly to those who created the steel frames, should they be asked to pay levies to those who perfected iron production - from which their product ultimately derives? The same fallacy exists with medicine. Alexander Fleming is now dead and it is therefore reasonable that penicillin should become public property for the good of humankind. Why are we entitled to his work? Becaue it is a good and an end in itself; millions depend it on it. It is simply not a sufficient excuse to say 'individual rights of property trump every consideration' - they don't. Society doesn't function on this basis; cohesion and utility have their place and unfortunately thousands dying on the street due to poor health care doesn't make a particularly great place to live.

    Your lack of compasion astounds me.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OedipusTheKing)
    Everything that has been created by humans is often the result of individual innovation, but it becomes ridiculous when you try to atomise racial achievement. I walk into a skyscraper, should I suddenly be asked to pay levies to the individuals who created steel frames? Similarly to those who created the steel frames, should they be asked to pay levies to those who perfected iron production - from which their product ultimately derives? The same fallacy exists with medicine. Alexander Fleming is now dead and it is therefore reasonable that penicillin should become public property for the good of humankind. Why are we entitled to his work? Becaue it is a good and an end in itself; millions depend it on it. It is simply not a sufficient excuse to say 'individual rights of property trump every consideration' - they don't. Society doesn't function on this basis; cohesion and utility have their place and unfortunately thousands dying on the street due to poor health care doesn't make a particularly great place to live.

    Your lack of compasion astounds me.
    Just seen a really nice house. I have a right to squat there do I?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    Libertarians aren't attempting to shirk their societal responsibilities. What we're asking for, not unreasonably btw, is a different relationship with the state so everybody's clear on when and where collective action is appropriate. Collectivism can sometimes be a good thing (i.e the courts etc) but there's room for debate on this and it doesn't help when you shout "TEA-PARTIER" at anyone who takes a different view.

    The middle way is fairly straightforward. If healthcare is prohibitively expensive and socialism is unpalatable then we should consider making healthcare cheaper. That's my preferred route anyway. We could achieve this with lower taxes, less regulation or a more cautious approach to drug patents, pretty much anything that lifts these arbitrary barriers and gives people the opportunity to solve the healthcare issue for themselves. When a service like health becomes so tied in with the state inevitably corruption takes hold, those who are supposed to be putting patients first end up lining their their own pockets because they're in a position to do so. One consequence is an incredibly poor level of service, i.e the NHS. Libertarians are accutely aware of the corrupting effect of this concentration of power however it's something that 'democrats' are only too keen to ignore.

    Throwing the word progressive around doesn't sanitise an unjust tax system. Theft is theft is theft. There's nothing progressive about it.


    I wouldn't consider that a concrete proposal. Although I see you acknowledge that some level of taxation is required.

    Also are you casting aspersions on the entire medical profession? And you're assertion that those put in a position to line their own pockets will necessarily do so is based in the belief that people are inherently greedy- I don't buy in to that.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RtGOAT)
    Just seen a really nice house. I have a right to squat there do I?
    Don't try and side track the issue. The person who owns the house is alive and has rights; Fleming is not. If everyone claimed someone else's house the definition of a home would become redunant; since one can not universalise squatting it does not contribute to the general utility. The same however cannot be said for health care. Providing everyone with a base level of services helps to improve life for vast quantities of people.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DK_Tipp)
    I wouldn't consider that a concrete proposal. Although I see you acknowledge that some level of taxation is required.

    Also are you casting aspersions on the entire medical profession? And you're assertion that those put in a position to line their own pockets will necessarily do so is based in the belief that people are inherently greedy- I don't buy in to that.
    The idea that service X won't be provided if the state doesn't step in to provide it for us has no substance. Think about how many good restaurants there are in your local area, is this abundance of the food the result of government dictat? No. It's a natural consequence of a market system that encourages producers to compete with one another for custom. Little kiddies aren't starving on the street due to a lack of government interference, indeed, the West -thanks to it's market model in food- produces so much that the majority have trouble keeping their weight down.

    My model is simple - let the people identify their needs and keep the state out the way so those needs can be tended to efficiently. Yes the market is scary. But it's no more scary than having David Cameron or Barack Obama in charge of the nation's health service. Politicians have no business running hospitals, I wouldn't even put them in charge of a fish'n'chip shop.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.