• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is health care in the US a right?

Is health care a right?


  • Total voters
    53
  • Poll closed .
You are saying one is capitalist and the other socialist. I say both are the same, regardless if you call them socialist or capitalist.

Well have fun with that. :mrgreen:
 
Simply put it is the right thing to do. This does not make it a right.

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Sounds like the founders may have had that in mind when they said humans have certain unalienable rights.
 
Simply put it is the right thing to do. This does not make it a right.

That's a flawed argument you are making though. For example, giving to charity is the right thing to do, but I am not legally compelled to give to charity because charities do not have a "right" to contributions.

In contrast, hospitals are legally compelled to provide life saving care to individuals even if they cannot pay. Why? Because its considered to be a human right. Which is my point, obviously life saving health care is a human right, otherwise, hospitals would not be legally compelled to provide it.
 
"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Sounds like the founders may have had that in mind when they said humans have certain unalienable rights.

And what does that have to do with anything? They also believed in a little thing called personal responsibility. Something most liberals have forgotten. They did not expect people to be given food, shelter etc for free either.
 
And what does that have to do with anything? They also believed in a little thing called personal responsibility. Something most liberals have forgotten. They did not expect people to be given food, shelter etc for free either.

Southern Democrat is right and you know it. If there were millions homeless and jobless, unable to eat, you would consider that a crisis.
 
That's a flawed argument you are making though. For example, giving to charity is the right thing to do, but I am not legally compelled to give to charity because charities do not have a "right" to contributions.

I think your argument is flawed as I showed earlier.

Just because the government forces someone to do something does not make it a right.

In contrast, hospitals are legally compelled to provide life saving care to individuals even if they cannot pay. Why? Because its considered to be a human right. Which is my point, obviously life saving health care is a human right, otherwise, hospitals would not be legally compelled to provide it.

No it is not considered a human right. As I said just because the government forces you to do something does not make it a right. So I guess since the government forces me to pay taxes, it is a right?
 
Southern Democrat is right and you know it. If there were millions homeless and jobless, unable to eat, you would consider that a crisis.

That does not make it a right. :roll:

That makes it a crises.
 
I think your argument is flawed as I showed earlier.

Just because the government forces someone to do something does not make it a right.



No it is not considered a human right. As I said just because the government forces you to do something does not make it a right. So I guess since the government forces me to pay taxes, it is a right?

According to the Consititution you have to pay taxes.
 
No and I have shown already that is just an opinion. Many more learned than you or I disagree.

You presented two partisan speeches. How does that translate to a majority that is learned?
 
Since rights are human constructs, it's a right if humans decide it's a right. It's not if we decide it's not. I'm disappointed by the lack of an "other" option in the poll.
 
You presented two partisan speeches. How does that translate to a majority that is learned?

And he presented an opinion?

Now please point out where I said anything about a majority? And they have Ph d's, that qualifies as learned.

Please read what I am saying and stop attributing things to me I did not say.
 
Since rights are human constructs, it's a right if humans decide it's a right. It's not if we decide it's not. I'm disappointed by the lack of an "other" option in the poll.

I agree, wish I had thought of that. Can a mod change it and add other?
 
No it is not considered a human right. As I said just because the government forces you to do something does not make it a right. So I guess since the government forces me to pay taxes, it is a right?

Your mixing apples and oranges here. Taxes to pay for services provided by the government result from the positive rights, in this case the rights of others to petition their government and elect representatives to vote on their behalf, of others. For example, say I would like to have a better state park system in my state. I get together with others and build enough support among voters to enact a 1/8 cent sales tax to fund my state's department of conservation. Thus, I along with the majority of the voters in the state exercised our positive right to enact a tax to fund conservation in the state. Since you don't have a right to not pay taxes, as part of the implied social contract you have as a resident of the state, you are required to pay the tax.

However, if the majority of the citizens of a state attempted to pass a law that put significant restrictions on the freedom of expression, that law would be successfully challenged in court because you do have a right to freedom of expression as an individual, thus even if the majority of the citizens of your state wished to restrict that right, the constitution protects you against that tyranny of the majority. In this case, your negative rights are always given precedence over the positive rights of others.

The reason why a hospital cannot deny life saving care to an individual even if they cannot pay is the individual's human right to life saving care is given precedence over the self ownership rights of the hospital owner. The only reason why that is possible is you have a recognized human right to life saving health care.
 
Do you think food is a right?

Do you think shelter is a right?

Do you think a job is a right?

No, I'd prefer that people should die of starvation and freeze to death in the snow. And no, people shouldn't have a right to a job because then they would be able to feed themselves and put a roof over their heads... and we can't have that.

In fact, I think all three are rights. That's MY ideology. People die of starvation all over the world. The fact that food is not being provided to all the starving, dying of our world speaks for how stupid our world is. But you and others can just keep raving about taxes and the guns at your head. Cos YOUR lives are under such serious diabolical threat, lol.
 
It's not a right. It's merely good policy.
 
Depends on how we characterize a right.
 
Morally, yeah, it is. By virtue of our own humanity, you deserve health cae. No-one in this day and age should be dying due to lack of coverage, or because their insurer wouldn't cover the treatment they needed, or because just going to see a doctor cost so much that one has to put off seeking evalation until it's too late, and what would've been a managable condition becomes a killer. If your government feels entitled to tax you, ask you to follow the law and be a funcioning member of society, then tryin to help you stay healthy and alive is the damn well least they can do. You deserve no less.

According to US law? Don't know, don't give a damn. Law's aren't the ultimate arbitar of right and wrong.
 
I voted yes, but with a caveat. I don't think we can afford to have a broad range of services for free. I think the U.S., as a society, should provide a modicum of care for its citizens. I'm not saying that single payer is the way to go, or the current HR3200 proposal is appropriate for that matter. However, having people use emergency services and never paying a dime isn't working out well for any of us either.

A system where people can get basic health care at low cost would be ideal, but I have no idea how to make that happen.
 
At any given time, 47 million Americans do not have insurance. 25 Million Americans are under-insured. 43 Million Americans are on Medicare. Millions more are on either SCHIP or Medicaid.

To clarify, that 47 million figure includes 10-12 million illegal immigrants and several million more who have health care available to them whether through a family member or a government program.

If tens of millions of Americans could not afford food, would you consider it to be a crisis?

If tens of millions of Americans could not afford housing, would you consider it to be a crisis?

If tens of millions of Americans could not find work, would you consider it to be a crisis?

Of course - that still wouldn't make them "rights."

If health care is not a human right, then why can't you be denied life saving care if you cannot afford it?

Because we as a society have decided that that's a good policy.

I just don't think the question as to whether health care is a right or not is nearly as cut and dry as you are trying to make it.

I really do though. I don't think there's an argument that would withstand scrutiny that healthcare (or food or shelter) are rights.

No, I'd prefer that people should die of starvation and freeze to death in the snow. And no, people shouldn't have a right to a job because then they would be able to feed themselves and put a roof over their heads... and we can't have that.

In fact, I think all three are rights. That's MY ideology. People die of starvation all over the world. The fact that food is not being provided to all the starving, dying of our world speaks for how stupid our world is. But you and others can just keep raving about taxes and the guns at your head. Cos YOUR lives are under such serious diabolical threat, lol.

If you feel this way, then why don't you donate $100 to this:

Feed The Children: Will you help feed a hungry child?

Hey, I mean, **** $100, why don't you donate everything other than what you need to survive? Do you know why you won't? Because you don't actually believe what you're saying, you simply think that others should take care of this problem.

If you actually believed that food/shelter/healthcare was a right, then you would not stand for it not being provided to others while you sit in relative luxury.
 
You know, it kinda comes down to this . . .

Real freedom is not just the freedom for people to do what you want them to do.

If you actually believe in the idea of freedom, then you believe in the freedom of people to be selfish bast*rds if they choose to be.

If you don't, then you don't really believe in freedom.

It really is that simple.

I do know that many, many, many of you have a big problem separating that statement from the idea that I'm declaring my desire to be a selfish bast*rd, but let me assure you that this problem lies with you.

As matter of experience, though, I do find that the people who DO have this problem tend to be the ones most likely to want to force you to do what they consider "the right thing."
 
No.

Nor anywhere else.

It may be provided by a given government to some or all of it's population, but that does not make it a "right".

A government's place is to ensure a right, as defined in it's rules and laws, protecting it's citizens from infringement upon those rights.

For example, if someone militarily invaded the US, our military would protect us from death and/or forced agreement with the invading entities wishes, ensuring our "right to life" and our "right to liberty".
 
No.

Nor anywhere else.

It may be provided by a given government to some or all of it's population, but that does not make it a "right".

A government's place is to ensure a right, as defined in it's rules and laws, protecting it's citizens from infringement upon those rights.

For example, if someone militarily invaded the US, our military would protect us from death and/or forced agreement with the invading entities wishes, ensuring our "right to life" and our "right to liberty".

Best post of the thread in my opinion. :bravo:
 
Back
Top Bottom