First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Post Reply Why do people have a problem with healthcare being a right?
28406 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Online
Posted 2/2/17 , edited 8/2/17
Where i live it is a right and i always find it funny when people say it shouldn't or can't be a right.

I get its to do with the whole Capatalism > Socialism thing but why do you care if some other country has healthcare as a right?

I see people like the thread that was just closed going on how its not a right anywhere ...well it is and if you don't like it why just not goto countries where it is a right and not force others to go along with "Healthcare can't be a right"

Sorry just wanted to say this as i am SICK of seeing people say it.
10938 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 2/2/17 , edited 7/27/17
We can probably just chalk it up to a lack of empathy. Loads of people just don't seem to care all that much about their fellow man. I'd love to know why but all I can offer is speculation, no facts so it's probably not a topic worth getting into.
Posted 2/2/17 , edited 7/25/17
To paraphrase most arguments against it:

"I work and I don't want my money going to someone who doesn't."
48108 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 2/2/17 , edited 7/21/17
The crux of your confusion, I think, is the different definitions of "right."

What you seem to be talking about is "legal right." In which case, yeah, some countries do have that right, and others don't. And then the conversation is "should healthcare be a legal right?"

The other position is a "natural right," in which case what we're talking about is something like "is access to healthcare a necessary condition to human well-being?" In which case this is very much a matter of debate.

When we talk about "the right to free speech," for instance, we could say "does the government guarantee this?" or we could say "does the human condition imply this as a good?" It's two definitions of a "right". The folks that say healthcare "can't be a right," I would bet, are talking more along the lines of "natural rights," and, I think, are discussing something helpful.
28406 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Online
Posted 2/2/17 , edited 7/27/17

ninjitsuko wrote:

To paraphrase most arguments against it:

"I work and I don't want my money going to someone who doesn't."


Which i think is a poor argument myself.
1840 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M
Offline
Posted 2/2/17 , edited 7/22/17
Yeah it's been a thing in Israel for a long while and people see it as a good thing here
Posted 2/2/17 , edited 7/25/17

Ryulightorb wrote:
Which i think is a poor argument myself.


Oh, I agree.
If I look at how much taxes I pay compared to most of the people on this forum, I'm sure that I'm throwing more into what could be a single-pay/unified healthcare system. It's just that most people are too fixated on the idea that money they pay to the government is "theirs". It no longer becomes "their money" the moment the government takes it out of your wages.
48108 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 2/2/17 , edited 7/24/17

ninjitsuko wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:
Which i think is a poor argument myself.


Oh, I agree.
If I look at how much taxes I pay compared to most of the people on this forum, I'm sure that I'm throwing more into what could be a single-pay/unified healthcare system. It's just that most people are too fixated on the idea that money they pay to the government is "theirs". It no longer becomes "their money" the moment the government takes it out of your wages.


You mean, just like how it's no longer "your television" the moment someone breaks into your house and takes it?
13424 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F
Offline
Posted 2/2/17 , edited 7/27/17

theYchromosome wrote:


ninjitsuko wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:
Which i think is a poor argument myself.


Oh, I agree.
If I look at how much taxes I pay compared to most of the people on this forum, I'm sure that I'm throwing more into what could be a single-pay/unified healthcare system. It's just that most people are too fixated on the idea that money they pay to the government is "theirs". It no longer becomes "their money" the moment the government takes it out of your wages.


You mean, just like how it's no longer "your television" the moment someone breaks into your house and takes it?


you can't compare a stolen TV with money the government takes from you in order to save people's life or give them the opportunity to live their life properly.
48108 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 2/2/17 , edited 7/24/17

srlan23 wrote:


theYchromosome wrote:


ninjitsuko wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:
Which i think is a poor argument myself.


Oh, I agree.
If I look at how much taxes I pay compared to most of the people on this forum, I'm sure that I'm throwing more into what could be a single-pay/unified healthcare system. It's just that most people are too fixated on the idea that money they pay to the government is "theirs". It no longer becomes "their money" the moment the government takes it out of your wages.


You mean, just like how it's no longer "your television" the moment someone breaks into your house and takes it?


you can't compare a stolen TV with money the government takes from you in order to save people's life or give them the opportunity to live their life properly.


Why not?
13424 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F
Offline
Posted 2/2/17 , edited 7/27/17

theYchromosome wrote:


srlan23 wrote:


theYchromosome wrote:


ninjitsuko wrote:

Oh, I agree.
If I look at how much taxes I pay compared to most of the people on this forum, I'm sure that I'm throwing more into what could be a single-pay/unified healthcare system. It's just that most people are too fixated on the idea that money they pay to the government is "theirs". It no longer becomes "their money" the moment the government takes it out of your wages.


You mean, just like how it's no longer "your television" the moment someone breaks into your house and takes it?


you can't compare a stolen TV with money the government takes from you in order to save people's life or give them the opportunity to live their life properly.


Why not?


Because you give that money to save people's lives. If someone steals your TV than another person has your TV. That's not the same. But if you think having a little bit more money is more important than the lives of others, well then, that's your opinion.
48108 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 2/2/17 , edited 7/24/17

srlan23 wrote:
Because you give that money to save people's lives. If someone steals your TV than another person has your TV. That's not the same. But if you think having a little bit more money is more important than the lives of others, well then, that's your opinion.


He made a statement on the determination of property rights. If you do not consent to 'giving' the government your money, then the only way it can end up in government coffers is if they 'take' it. You seem to be implying that a person's right to some given amount of money is determined by their intentions in spending the money. If the robber of the TV wanted to use it to show informational videos to drug addicts, and I wanted to use it for Netflix (edit: actually, even better, let's say instead that I don't use it at all, it just sits there), does that mean that it's no longer mine, because his intentions are 'better?'
13424 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F
Offline
Posted 2/2/17 , edited 7/24/17

theYchromosome wrote:


srlan23 wrote:
Because you give that money to save people's lives. If someone steals your TV than another person has your TV. That's not the same. But if you think having a little bit more money is more important than the lives of others, well then, that's your opinion.


He made a statement on the determination of property rights. If you do not consent to 'giving' the government your money, then the only way it can end up in government coffers is if they 'take' it. You seem to be implying that a person's right to some given amount of money is determined by their intentions in spending the money. If the robber of the TV wanted to use it to show informational videos to drug addicts, and I wanted to use it for Netflix (edit: actually, even better, let's say instead that I don't use it at all, it just sits there), does that mean that it's no longer mine, because his intentions are 'better?'


No because a TV isn't as much worth as a life and he didn't ask you to give him your TV.
You live in a country in which you have to pay taxes. You agree to do it by living and making money in that country. You can't do whatever you want just because you feel like it. You can't choose which taxes you pay and which not.
48108 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 2/2/17 , edited 7/24/17

srlan23 wrote:

No because a TV isn't as much worth as a life and he didn't ask you to give him your TV.
You live in a country in which you have to pay taxes. You agree to do it by living and making money in that country. You can't do whatever you want just because you feel like it. You can't choose which taxes you pay and which not.


He didn't ask me to give him my TV? I mean, you can argue that taxpayers are asked whether they want to pay for healthcare, but if someone's answer is "no," and everyone else's is yes, then that person is paying for something which they do not consent to. You say I agree to do it by living and making money in the country, but when the alternative to living and making money is dying, it hardly seems like a free choice. The fact that governments are too powerful to oppose does not seem to me to give them any more or less of a claim to the products of my labor.

Edit: Put differently, if the robber asks me for the TV, and still takes it when I say no, that still doesn't make the TV his. Obviously. Even if he saves a drug addict's life with it.
13424 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F
Offline
Posted 2/2/17 , edited 2/2/17

theYchromosome wrote:


srlan23 wrote:

No because a TV isn't as much worth as a life and he didn't ask you to give him your TV.
You live in a country in which you have to pay taxes. You agree to do it by living and making money in that country. You can't do whatever you want just because you feel like it. You can't choose which taxes you pay and which not.


He didn't ask me to give him my TV? I mean, you can argue that taxpayers are asked whether they want to pay for healthcare, but if someone's answer is "no," and everyone else's is yes, then that person is paying for something which they do not consent to. You say I agree to do it by living and making money in the country, but when the alternative to living and making money is dying, it hardly seems like a free choice. The fact that governments are too powerful to oppose does not seem to me to give them any more or less of a claim to the products of my labor.


Well that's called democracy. You can't always do what you want. You can't pick which taxes you pay for a very good reason(= because the country would collapse otherwise). Btw. the alternative to living and and making money in the USA isn't necessarily dying, you could also move.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.