Assuming healthcare is a right......

For those of you that claim it is a right, one avenue that is never explored in the debate is the responsibilities that are inferred upon you when you excercise that right. For example, we have the right to bear arms(in most places anyway), but that infers upon the user responsible use of that right. You cannot drive around firing off rounds into the air downtown, just because you have the right to bear arms. Free speech, you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater.

So what are the personal responsibilities that should be inferred upon the individuals who believe healthcare is a right?

I really do not know that there are any rights. I think a healthy community can lead to better things. Some times we all have to give a little to improve our lives. Maybe the notion of rights are an outdated concept of improving our own lives.

winston53660 said:

I really do not know that there are any rights. I think a healthy community can lead to better things. Some times we all have to give a little to improve our lives. Maybe the notion of rights are an outdated concept of improving our own lives.

Click to expand...

The notion that "a healthy community can lead to better things. Some times we all have to give a little to improve our lives" is far older than the notion of natural rights... you might not want to use the term "outdated" as a reason they should no longer be considered valid.

WI Crippler said:

For those of you that claim it is a right, one avenue that is never explored in the debate is the responsibilities that are inferred upon you when you excercise that right. For example, we have the right to bear arms(in most places anyway), but that infers upon the user responsible use of that right. You cannot drive around firing off rounds into the air downtown, just because you have the right to bear arms. Free speech, you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater.

So what are the personal responsibilities that should be inferred upon the individuals who believe healthcare is a right?

Click to expand...

This is a great question. I have been thinking about it, and I'm not sure exactly what the answer is.

Certainly one would be responsible for elective care beyond basic care. But what about lifestyle choices that impact health care? What about paying, should it be free, or free if you cannot afford it? There are alot of questions.

I googled around trying to find some stuff to use for a starting point, but all I came up with were discussions about the basis for healthcare as a right.

Just in case any are interested in that, here's some clicks:


UN Declaration of Human Rights

US Constitution

Health care IS a right!

Health Care is a right contained within the US Constitution. [eternalhope.blog-city.com]

other said:

The notion that "a healthy community can lead to better things. Some times we all have to give a little to improve our lives" is far older than the notion of natural rights... you might not want to use the term "outdated" as a reason they should no longer be considered valid.

Click to expand...

Okay fine convince me so far you have not.

winston53660 said:

Okay fine convince me so far you have not.

Click to expand...

Convince you of what?

I just pointed out that your idea was older than the idea of natural rights, so if they are "outdated" then so is your idea that "a healthy community can lead to better things. Some times we all have to give a little to improve our lives."

other said:

Convince you of what?

I just pointed out that your idea was older than the idea of natural rights, so if they are "outdated" then so is your idea that "a healthy community can lead to better things. Some times we all have to give a little to improve our lives."

Click to expand...

You did not convince me of your supposition of natural rights vs no rights being elder to one or another .

WI Crippler said:

For those of you that claim it is a right, one avenue that is never explored in the debate is the responsibilities that are inferred upon you when you excercise that right. For example, we have the right to bear arms(in most places anyway), but that infers upon the user responsible use of that right. You cannot drive around firing off rounds into the air downtown, just because you have the right to bear arms. Free speech, you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater.

So what are the personal responsibilities that should be inferred upon the individuals who believe healthcare is a right?

Click to expand...

The number one issue involving responsibility for one's health is proper weight control and a diet heavy on fruits and veggies. The question that always surfaces in my mind, is- why on earth would anyone choose to be unhealthy if they have a choice? Part of the problem is that many things are beyond a person's control and many people are not well educated about diet/ health.

Lets consider corporate responsibility:

Corporate Ag businesses have succeeded in maintaining ongoing taxpayer subsidies that make high fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated oils ubiquitous , cheap - and very unhealthy.

Corporate food companies make misleading and/or fraudulent health claims about their products.

Estrogen mimicking plastics- also ubiquitous- may be responsible for the epidemic levels of obese children and infants.

All children are born with a couple of hundred carcinogens coursing through their veins at the moment of birth.

Can you blame kids who were brought up on chips and soda if they are unhealthy by the age of 20?

Cassandra said:

The number one issue involving responsibility for one's health is proper weight control and a diet heavy on fruits and veggies. The question that always surfaces in my mind, is- why on earth would anyone choose to be unhealthy if they have a choice? Part of the problem is that many things are beyond a person's control and many people are not well educated about diet/ health.

Lets consider corporate responsibility:

Corporate Ag businesses have succeeded in maintaining ongoing taxpayer subsidies that make high fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated oils ubiquitous , cheap - and very unhealthy.

Corporate food companies make misleading and/or fraudulent health claims about their products.

Estrogen mimicking plastics- also ubiquitous- may be responsible for the epidemic levels of obese children and infants.

All children are born with a couple of hundred carcinogens coursing through their veins at the moment of birth.

Can you blame kids who were brought up on chips and soda if they are unhealthy by the age of 20?

Click to expand...

So how does having healthcare be a right, solve those issues?

winston53660 said:

You did not convince me of your supposition of natural rights vs no rights being elder to one or another .

Click to expand...

John Locke & other enlightenment thinkers (natural rights) -- c. 17th century AD


Aristotle (believed that individuals were designed to be a constituent part of the state, a "political animal" by nature responsible to the state) --quote from Politics "the city [his version of state] exists by nature and...it has priority over the individual" section 1253a18 -- 300s BC


There you go, just one example

WI Crippler said:

So how does having healthcare be a right, solve those issues?

Click to expand...

You said rights conferred responsibilities; why would rights solve those issues? They are still issues.

jackalope said:

You said rights conferred responsibilities; why would rights solve those issues? They are still issues.

Click to expand...

Right!
For one thing, U.S. citizens already have a presumed right to critical care.

What really occurs, here, is that we allow corporations to harvest our assets like cultured pearls from an oyster bed and allow people with chronic illnesses to become critically ill before the inability to pay is thrown out the window and they receive necessary treatment.

I always wonder why people who are fixated on the "personal responsibility" mantra, ignore corporate responsibility.?!

WI Crippler said:

For those of you that claim it is a right, one avenue that is never explored in the debate is the responsibilities that are inferred upon you when you excercise that right. For example, we have the right to bear arms(in most places anyway), but that infers upon the user responsible use of that right. You cannot drive around firing off rounds into the air downtown, just because you have the right to bear arms. Free speech, you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater.

So what are the personal responsibilities that should be inferred upon the individuals who believe healthcare is a right?

Click to expand...

great question. but as opposed to your examples of what i can't do, how some examples of what i should do?

annual physicals
avoid emergency room visits for non-emergencies
take medication as prescribed
attempt a healthy lifestyle

In regards to the obesity epidemic here in the US:



This really says something.

we have better programs here. ;-)

liblady said:

great question. but as opposed to your examples of what i can't do, how some examples of what i should do?

annual physicals
avoid emergency room visits for non-emergencies
take medication as prescribed
attempt a healthy lifestyle

Click to expand...

So do you agree that if people did not adhere to those responsibilities, how would you enforce that?

There are punishments for people that do not responsibly excercise their other rights such as the right to bear arms, or freedom of speech. How do you punish people who cross that line, either as I inferred or as you spelled out in regards to healthcare? If you have a public healthcare option, are you going to put some teeth into the enforcement of responsible healthcare activities/lifestyles?

jackalope said:

You said rights conferred responsibilities; why would rights solve those issues? They are still issues.

Click to expand...

Because when you cross the line or act irresponsibly with regards to that right, there are legal consequences. What legal consequences should ensure from irresponsible management of your own health?

WI Crippler said:

Because when you cross the line or act irresponsibly with regards to that right, there are legal consequences. What legal consequences should ensure from irresponsible management of your own health?

Click to expand...

That's a different question than the one you posed to Cassandra. What you said to Cassandra was:

Originally Posted by WI Crippler View Post
So how does having healthcare be a right, solve those issues?


The question is nonsensical.

Your first question is still interesting, but the discussion of what responsibilities exist doesn't negate the fact that health care is a right. Neither does health care being a right solve any issues raised by responsibilities, or failure to address responsibilities.

There are very few "positive" rights, if any, and they all deal with extreme situations: right to free exit if your plane crashes on someone else's property, right to a fair trial, and so on. There is no rational basis for "right to healthcare", absolutely zilch, just irrational government violence for the sake of strengthening its power over a nation.

Alex Libman said:

There is no rational basis for "right to healthcare", absolutely zilch, just irrational government violence for the sake of strengthening its power over a nation.

Click to expand...

That would be true IF the US government were elected for life, were not a direct representation of the people and were not from among the people whom it is serving. People get the government they deserve and their government is a direct reflection of who they are.
If our government at this time seems or is ****ed up it is a direct result of the people wishing it to be so or not caring or not being intelligent enough to know better.

WI Crippler said:

Because when you cross the line or act irresponsibly with regards to that right, there are legal consequences. What legal consequences should ensure from irresponsible management of your own health?

Click to expand...

Lets recap; You started out with the hypothetical that health care is a right and asked about responsibilities. I pointed out that people can not be held responsible for things that are beyond their control, such as:


Corporate Ag businesses have succeeded in maintaining ongoing taxpayer subsidies that make high fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated oils ubiquitous , cheap - and very unhealthy.

Corporate food companies make misleading and/or fraudulent health claims about their products.

Estrogen mimicking plastics- also ubiquitous- may be responsible for the epidemic levels of obese children and infants.

All children are born with a couple of hundred carcinogens coursing through their veins at the moment of birth.

Can you blame kids who were brought up on chips and soda if they are unhealthy by the age of 20?

How does your question (in red) make any sense in this context? How does personal responsibility enter in when the bigger problem is the absence of corporate responsibility?

So how does having healthcare be a right, solve those issues?

__________________

WI Crippler said:

So do you agree that if people did not adhere to those responsibilities, how would you enforce that?

There are punishments for people that do not responsibly excercise their other rights such as the right to bear arms, or freedom of speech. How do you punish people who cross that line, either as I inferred or as you spelled out in regards to healthcare? If you have a public healthcare option, are you going to put some teeth into the enforcement of responsible healthcare activities/lifestyles?

Click to expand...

you can enforce the first two for those who choose a public option, the last two not so much.

i have no answer, other than working to increase awareness and education. which could be a little easier with a public option. many people really DON'T know what they need to do to live a healthy lifestyle.

prometeus said:

That would be true IF the US government were elected for life, were not a direct representation of the people and were not from among the people whom it is serving. People get the government they deserve and their government is a direct reflection of who they are.
If our government at this time seems or is ****ed up it is a direct result of the people wishing it to be so or not caring or not being intelligent enough to know better.

Click to expand...

Government does not give or take away rights, it may only recognize or fail to recognize them to some degree. Rights come from nature.

Alex Libman said:

Government does not give or take away rights, it may only recognize or fail to recognize them to some degree.

Click to expand...

True, I did not say otherwise, well assuming we are still talking about the US government.

Rights come from nature.

Click to expand...

The very notion of rights and the right themselves are man made, a concept that clearly is not mandated or possibly enforced by nature. Rights are meaningless if they are not recognized, promoted and violations of them enforced.

prometeus said:

[...] The very notion of rights and the right themselves are man made, a concept that clearly is not mandated or possibly enforced by nature. Rights are meaningless if they are not recognized, promoted and violations of them enforced.

Click to expand...

That's kind of like saying the laws of mathematics are man-made. Sure, without man there'd be no one on Earth to consciously recognize that A squared plus B squared equals C squared, but that fact would nonetheless remain. Natural laws are based on empirical observations of how self-interested "rational economic actors" interact with each-other (ex. econometrics, game theory, etc), under the single axiom of "evolutionary pragmatism" - that civilization is desirable, and thus the societal ruleset that produces the greatest total materialistic benefit is the most desirable.

All natural rights constitute a competitive advantage: the society that violates them the least has the edge over others that violate them more. For example, societies that outright fail to recognize the negative right to life (i.e. toleration of murder) never make it out of the hunter-gatherer stage of human development. Societies that erroneously attribute rights that don't exist in nature are also at a disadvantage, one example being enforcing "animal rights" at the expense of human property rights - Buddhists who fear hurting earthworms aren't very productive when it comes to agricultural work, mining, etc.

The same applies to healthcare as well. Medical products and services don't just magically materialize from the benevolent gods of socialism, they are a part of the human economy - doctors need to be educated, chemicals need to be extracted from nature and refined, equipment needs to be manufactured, and so on. When an individual must pull his or her own economic weight, s\he is incentivized to work harder / smarter to attain a greater reward, as well as to make rational choices on how to spend one's money. When this natural balance is interfered with through violence (whether institutionalized by the state or not), the incentive to be productive and economical fades away, with everyone instead having the incentive to cheat the system in any way they can.