Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Just as the title says. I was having a discussion with a coworker about this. Is healthcare part of our inalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?

No its not.
If you want treatment then pay the money.
if you cant to bad. hospitals are a business above all else.

Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 25.

* (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(NB. This isn't the constitution of the USA.)

It should be noted that 'rights' are in many cases an ideal which is not practical but should be aspired to.

How does an "inalienable right to life" not include healthcare then ?

Or do "rights" now only apply to the wealthy ?

No I don't believe it is. If it was there would be a lot less hungry and dying people in the world (at least according to the UN's UDoHR).

@reds8n: Is your comment about the wealthy being applied to garrett's comment, or in more general terms?

Everyone has ACCESS to healthcare and cant be refused if they can pay. If they want healthcare they should pay.
Also barlio please do not us 2 t's in my name.
Everyone thinks its spelt like that but it is not and it get annoying.

There's no such thing as rights:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E#t=4m20s

garret wrote:Everyone has ACCESS to healthcare and cant be refused if they can pay. If they want healthcare they should pay.
Also barlio please do not us 2 t's in my name.
Everyone thinks its spelt like that but it is not and it get annoying.

So resolve your rather disgusting sentiment of 'can't pay? Feth off and die scum!' with a Doctor's Hippocratic oath.

What about children? Is it the childs fault their parents cannot afford to pay for treatment? Seemingly not, but under your ideal it sure becomes the kids problem.

reds8n wrote:How does an "inalienable right to life" not include healthcare then ?

You're misusing the phrase. The concept of "inalienable rights" is the concept that humankind's rights to freedom and liberty are something we are born with, not something we are granted by any government, to wit life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You are born with the inalienable rights to live, to be free, and to use your life and your freedom to pursue a course that will make you happy.

No one has the "right" to health care. The OP is flawed from the get-go. The better question would be "Do human beings have a moral obligation to provide health care for those who cannot provide it for themselves?"

At this point all the Christians and Buddhists in the room should just post "Yes" without further ado and leave the conversation to everyone else whose creed doesn't explicitly say.

Everyone has access to mansions and diamonds.. if they can pay.

So to clarify : people should just be left to, for example, give birth alone or unaided then ? Or is the actual discussion more what level of care should be provided by/for people regardless of income.

I don't see how the basic care and provision of its people can be anything other than the duty and responsibility of the Govt/nation if it is to serve any purpose whatsoever.

Does amuse me no end all the people shouting about "they should pay for it" who don't actually have to pay for it themselves.

hospitals are a business above all else.

Rubbish. Medical, indeed basic human ethics would strongly suggest otherwise.


@ Mr. Cairnius : you miss the point I'm making. Without some form of "health" care, be it as simple as eating, being kept warm or having your nappy changed, you will die. Thusly.....you see ?

I think any human being with even a shred of decency should be in favour of access-for-all to Healthcare.

Sure, some things should have a line drawn. Obesity, Alcohol related diseases, smoking related diseases. You know, stuff that makes you ill through your own stupidity. But common cold etc should be freely and easily available. This is where the NHS has gone wrong. Why should the countries Tax money be spent, and Theatre time be taken up by some selfish knobend who has almost eaten/drank/smoked themselves to death. And yes, I am a smoker and a drinker myself.

::grabs some popcorn and sits down for another healthcare ( callous & privileged anti-pragmatists vs. unfortunate-souls-with-empathy ) slap-fight::
It doesn't before someone breaks a wrist or.... In Before LOCK!

Sorry, but I do feel anyone who thinks healthcare should be an entirely paid for affair is a selfish arse.

Think about it. Think about how the economy would be affected by a limited Social Health Service.

If you cover mundane things, like broken bones etc, and leave self inflicted diseases be, then it can benefit your economy enormously.

How many people who have the will to work, find themselves unable to because they can't get their bad hip fixed, or their back sorted out? How much more productive would their family be with them working. It is reasonable to assume someone without access to free support also drags another would be worker into the mire, as they need constant care and attention for their condition.

Going forward, this means any children they have are unlikely to attend College unless on a Scholarship, dooming yet another generation of that family to the same mire they were unfortunate enough to be born into.

Sure, in Britain, the NHS is creaky and overwhelmed with demand, some of which I really don't think should be offered (as I said buggered your Liver with booze, despite repeated warnings from your Doctor, and the consequences of heavy drinking being pretty well known by the general populace, then why should the Tax Payer cough up for your treatment? It's your own fault!)

But also going further than that. You can get psychotherapy and Rehab on the NHS in Britain, which helps to reduce the number of people with essentially lethal addictions. Is it foolproof and 100% effective? Nope. No more so than the same treatment if you'd paid for it.

So your saying that since we have beliefs were selfish?

Ban cigarettes or tax them to a point where they no longer serve as a overpriced self-destructive crutch for the lower classes (oh, you better believe it is for them) because of the inability to buy them anymore. Sure you can buy them, but the fact is you should not be smoking them, and on the same note you shouldn't be drinking yourself silly. I actually like this idea a lot, because no one cares about the rich people that could afford the overpriced 100$ cigarettes anyway, , a joke, a joke.

Does the government stop this? Of course not, they profit too much from in it more ways than I can count. If you are able to blame someone for making a decision that is wholly endorsed by a multi-billion dollar industry with the power to change votes and contribute to worthy causes for simple game-day one tactics, you need to think about who the government represents in the grand scheme of things.

If you think that everyone that smokes cigarettes chose to kill themselves by not listening you are clearly wrong. I highly doubt my Grandfather wanted to die from smoking after growing up in a pro-smoking era where people commonly smoke a pack a day.

If cigarettes and other illnesses like alcohol are entirely up to the person that uses them, my name is bingobongo jango whim wham, and it most definitely is not. Companies spend ludicrous amounts of money to keep their industry afloat, and if anyone is responsible for letting this happen it is the government, ESPECIALLY the U.K. government that is so religiously "health" orientated. Sounds more like elitism to me.

If they were really pro health cigarettes would be banned PERIOD, and alcohol would be up for debate, although I would really hat to see England lose their pubs, gotta love a nice pint or two!

No I think condeming someone to a life of disability or even death because you think they should pay for it is selfish.

But hey, wait until you bust up your hip, can't work and then can't pay for healthcare. I'll be the first to play Dialysis Machine (standing at the side of your bed and taking the piss out of you all day).

I utterly fail to see how saying 'pay or die' has any role in an allegedly civilised society.

As for smoking, the Government does indeed Tax my fags to buggery, and every penny of that Tax is pumped into the NHS. Same with booze. Every budget, the amount of Tax goes up (and right now, it's at the point where Britain is losing 52 pubs a WEEK). So they are indeed doing what you said.

Smoking is also banned in any public building and any workplace. In Scotland, they are looking at introducing a minimum price per unit of alcohol, and they have already banned the open display of Ciggies in shops. Actual ciggarette advertising (and indeed any tobacco product) has been banned for a long old while now.

But it has to be done in stages. Limit the exposure of the young to the industry, and you cut the number of teenagers taking up smoking (this is working, slowly but surely) then when their generation is older you have fewer people with lung disease to treat, which means the theory is that the loss of Tax revenue from the Deathsticks is balanced out by the lessening of demand for Deathstick related diseases.

garret: So your saying that since we have beliefs were selfish?

If those beliefs are inherently self-serving at the cost of the well-being of others... then yes.

You havent even realised have you.
HUMANS ARE SELFISH BY NATURE.
An attempt to change that would be as futile as giving you psychic powers.

garret wrote:Also barlio please do not us 2 t's in my name.
Everyone thinks its spelt like that but it is not and it get annoying.

Mr. Garret, with all due respect, and remember I'm sayin' it with all due respect, that idea ain't worth a velvet painting of a whale and a dolphin gettin' it on.

garret wrote:You havent even realised have you.
HUMANS ARE SELFISH BY NATURE.
An attempt to change that would be as futile as giving you psychic powers.

Wrong I'm afraid. We're Pack Animals. We work best in a Pack, and beyond the natural tussle to become Alpha Male/Female, we work much better together. The more you work together, the more you achieve and the faster you achieve it. And indeed, you only remain Alpha as long as you continue to lead the Pack to success. Fail to do so, their is a challenge and you are either usurped or stamp your dominance until the next inevitable challenge for the status.

garret wrote:You havent even realised have you.
HUMANS ARE SELFISH BY NATURE.
An attempt to change that would be as futile as giving you psychic powers.

You seem to lack the understanding that Humans are selfish by nature in groups, and the big group is definitely not the side your on mate. Make sure you know that before you talk of not caring about more than half the world's population. I really hope you are not a teacher... but I thank god I could never force myself to put any child of mine in a classroom with you.

Saying that one person is selfish is like saying that a rock doesn't move, one person will do practically anything they need to do in order to survive unless they have established boundaries (of any nature) that they simply will not cross. You really do not want to know what a pack of humans is like, we are the scourge of the planet my friend, and as I said before most of us are on pretty much the same page when it comes to this issue. Press it if you like but it doesn't even matter anymore, changes are coming, although they may or may not be effective.

But seriously though, the current system is just BAD, just bad, and we need to see something happen.

Oh, and giving me Psychic Powers would hardly be futile. I'd never have to buy a pint again. Just plant suggestion in the minds of others that it's either their round, or I'd paid for my drink already.

That'd be awesome!

reds8n wrote:@ Mr. Cairnius : you miss the point I'm making. Without some form of "health" care, be it as simple as eating, being kept warm or having your nappy changed, you will die. Thusly.....you see ?

My feedback was only that you were misusing the phrase, which is true. I was not, in any way, shape, or form, discussing the merits or demerits of either side of this debate, simply stating that health care is not eligible to be referred to as an "inalienable right," because that is a phrase born out of the Enlightenment and which has an extremely distinct and well-defined meaning. It would likewise be inappropraite to refer to health care as a "natural right." Same principle, different verbiage.

If I have to weigh into the actual discussion, I would argue that a society has the moral obligation to provide health care for its citizens as long as its citizens have a moral obligation to provide some sort of productive labor or activity to the society, i.e. TANSTAAFL.

Well to bad for you wrexasaur i am going to be a teacher.

Holy crap. I'm sticking to my underground bunker in the Mid-West. jk

garret: You havent even realised have you.
HUMANS ARE SELFISH BY NATURE.
An attempt to change that would be as futile as giving you psychic powers.

Sweet, so that gives me permission to take as much of your resources as I legally can a redistribute (by influence or unpunished theft) them as I see fit (with the inclusion of a state health care system).
With absolutely no moral obligation to your financial, mental or emotional well being.
It also grants me the ability to write off any frustration or pain you may suffer, since your setting the rules by declaring human nature.
I wouldn't want to indicate that your world view could be wrong, by exception or by whole.


oooh, especially if you'll be enforcing on small children or young adults

barlio wrote:No I don't believe it is. If it was there would be a lot less hungry and dying people in the world (at least according to the UN's UDoHR).

@reds8n: Is your comment about the wealthy being applied to garrett's comment, or in more general terms?

You have a right to life. Is it negated if someone kills you?

Don't panic. I'm planing on being a Teacher as well. I'll balance out his nonsense.

Belphegor wrote:

garret: You havent even realised have you.
HUMANS ARE SELFISH BY NATURE.
An attempt to change that would be as futile as giving you psychic powers.

Sweet, so that gives me permission to take as much of your resources as I legally can a redistribute (by influence or unpunished theft) them as I see fit (with the inclusion of a state health care system).
With absolutely no moral obligation to your financial, mental or emotional well being.
It also grants me the ability to write of any frustration or pain you may suffer, since your setting the rules by declaring human nature.
and I wouldn't want to indicate that your world view could be wrong, by exception or by whole.

Ah I see we have a US Congressman on the board today...

garret wrote:Everyone has ACCESS to healthcare and cant be refused if they can pay. If they want healthcare they should pay.
Also barlio please do not us 2 t's in my name.
Everyone thinks its spelt like that but it is not and it get annoying.

If you had bothered to read the text of Article 25 you would have seen that the right to medical care is not based on the ability to pay for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

garret wrote:You havent even realised have you.
HUMANS ARE SELFISH BY NATURE.
An attempt to change that would be as futile as giving you psychic powers.

Then how do you explain the behaviour of parents, lifeboatmen and mountain rescue workers?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

garret wrote:So your saying that since we have beliefs were selfish?

According to one of your other posts, you are selfish.