• 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 healthcare a right?

Is access to healthcare a right?

  • Yes healthcare is a right

    Votes: 37 44.6%
  • No healthcare is not a right

    Votes: 46 55.4%

  • Total voters
    83
  • Poll closed .

gipperv

New member
Joined
Sep 23, 2017
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Question 1: Is access to healthcare an individual right?

Question 2: If access to healthcare is an individual right, does the government have to must provide a reasonable level of healthcare to its citizens if a citizen can not afford healthcare?
 
Question 1: Is access to healthcare an individual right?

Question 2: If access to healthcare is an individual right, does the government have to must provide a reasonable level of healthcare to its citizens if a citizen can not afford healthcare?

what Are your thoughts on your questions?
 
j9ehpbE.jpg
 
Question 1: Is access to healthcare an individual right?

Question 2: If access to healthcare is an individual right, does the government have to must provide a reasonable level of healthcare to its citizens if a citizen can not afford healthcare?

Legally? I see nothing in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution....but that can be fixed with a willing citizenry pushing for a Constitutional Amendment.

Morally? Eh, each person will have to dig deep inside and answer that for themselves.
 
Question 1: Is access to healthcare an individual right?

Question 2: If access to healthcare is an individual right, does the government have to must provide a reasonable level of healthcare to its citizens if a citizen can not afford healthcare?

I voted no just before I realized you are asking three different questions.

1. Is healthcare a right? No. It's something you buy...or not. Your choice.

2. Is access to healthcare a right? No. Access to healthcare solely depends upon whether you can purchase it or not.

3. Must the government provide healthcare if a citizen cannot afford to buy it? No, but government can chose to provide it.
 
I figure good health is beneficial to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and if a government is based on those values, they should see to a healthy society...all of society should be the concern.
 
Legally? I see nothing in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution....but that can be fixed with a willing citizenry pushing for a Constitutional Amendment.

Morally? Eh, each person will have to dig deep inside and answer that for themselves.

A right, no. A moral obligation, absolutely. The government is supposed to be a tool to deliver an agenda. Our governments agenda is supposed to be conceived from its citizens via representatives. No citizen, or representative would prefer to remain sick if it were possible to become well with government assistance. If health care received the same lack of provisions as our military "defense" we would likely have far less illnesses in our country. We are a perpetual war country tho. Our governments agenda is to be a war profiteer first and citizen aid second.
 
The government has no right to prevent you from seeking healthcare, but they also have no obligation to provide it.
 
A right, no. A moral obligation, absolutely. The government is supposed to be a tool to deliver an agenda. Our governments agenda is supposed to be conceived from its citizens via representatives. No citizen, or representative would prefer to remain sick if it were possible to become well with government assistance. If health care received the same lack of provisions as our military "defense" we would likely have far less illnesses in our country. We are a perpetual war country tho. Our governments agenda is to be a war profiteer first and citizen aid second.

Unfortunately, our government appears to have swapped out the citizens interests for cash donor interests.
 
No, it is not a "right," unless you are thinking of one's own ability to take care of themselves and try to maintain a healthy lifestyle.

It can be an entitlement (i.e. a "civil right"), if and only if the society you live in determines it should be so.

Even then you do not have a right to someone else's servitude, or their work product; you only have a right to try to negotiate with them for their assistance and/or the fruits of their labor without fear (at least in the USA) of certain class-based discrimination prohibited by law.
 
Last edited:
Healthcare is no more a right than a gun is a right. You have "access to" a good/service so long as the government does not stand in your way but that does not mean if one wants a good/service that they cannot afford to pay for that the government must provide it for them. I have 2A rights but that "access to" guns does not include the government providing me guns. We seem to be in weird territory on this issue, perhaps because of the EMTALA unfunded mandate.
 
Question 1: Is access to healthcare an individual right?

It should be. In most countries it is. Just not in one of the wealthiest, strongest countries in the world. Here we leave people to die because they can't afford medical care.

Question 2: If access to healthcare is an individual right, does the government have to must provide a reasonable level of healthcare to its citizens if a citizen can not afford healthcare?

Yes. Of course. Otherwise, we'd be monsters. Oh wait...
 
If you take the position that healthcare is a right, where is this right specified? In the constitution? In the law?

If you take the position that healthcare is a right, then by which right is it to be able to demand healthcare services from another person?

This is much different to the situation where healthcare services are given by the free will of the services provider. That's charity, empathy, and being noble.

Is there somewhere written that someone has the right demand charity, empathy, and nobility from another?
 
No, it is not a "right," unless you are thinking of one's own ability to take care of themselves and try to maintain a healthy lifestyle.

It can be an entitlement, if and only if the society you live in determines it should be so.

You do not have a right to someone else's servitude, or their work product; you only have a right to try to negotiate with them for their assistance.

Except for EMTALA which muddies the water on that issue. Perhaps we should replace SNAP with a similar mandate that a food provider must serve the meal and then if the previously hungry diner is unable to pay simply accept no payment.
 
Hypothetical scenario:

There is a small town in the middle of miles and miles of farmland. All of the nearest towns have populations in the low hundreds. There is a single doctor serving the entire community that is huge in distance but tiny in population.

One night, one of the townsfolk has a heart attack and needs medical attention from a doctor, immediately, or he will surely die.

Does the government have the moral authority to force the single doctor out of bed at 3:00am and force him to save the patient? Should the government have the legal authority to do so? What if it's a black doctor who has been harassed by the police, and the patient is a cop? What if its a gay doctor and the patient once beat up the doctor for "bein' queer"? What if the doctor is a Muslim man and the patient is a female pig farmer?
 
Except for EMTALA which muddies the water on that issue. Perhaps we should replace SNAP with a similar mandate that a food provider must serve the meal and then if the previously hungry diner is unable to pay simply accept no payment.

EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act) only applies to hospitals with an emergency medical treatment department, not all medical practices.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act

The problem I have with that law is that it does not reimburse facilities for such services, which in turn drives up costs for all of us who do have the ability to pay in order to allow hospital's to cover such costs.

It still remains an entitlement program as a condition of receiving any Medicare or Medicaid reimbursements for other patients; which means IMO that the government should pay if they make it a requirement.
 
Last edited:
EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act) only applies to hospitals with an emergency medical treatment department, not all medical practices.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act

The problem I have with that law is that it does not reimburse facilities for such services, which in turn drives up costs for all of us who do have the ability to pay in order to allow hospital's to cover such costs.

It still remains an entitlement program as a condition of receiving any Medicare or Medicaid reimbursements for other patients; which means IMO that the government should pay if they make it a requirement.

That was my point with the analogy of government mandating that restaurants (as opposed to grocery stores) must serve all of the hungry and then only demand payment from those that could afford the meal. After all, if you can't afford a meal then it stands to reason you can't afford the supplies, equipment and energy to prepare a meal from scratch for yourself. ;)
 
I think people are confused on what a Right is. Rights are not something provided by the government, but are to be protected from the government. This country was ultimately founded on John Locke's concept of natural rights in that they are inalienable and thus not to be repealed nor restrained by human law.

Even if you did say that Healthcare was a legal right rather than a natural one, it would be in conflict with an individual's natural right to property. It is the same reason so many are so against the concept of wealth distribution. It is an injustice to take property of someone to provide to another.

It is rather odd that it is illegal for several people to gang up and rob someone of their property, but perfectly acceptable for those people to vote to have the government do it for them.
 
It should be. In most countries it is. Just not in one of the wealthiest, strongest countries in the world. Here we leave people to die because they can't afford medical care.

Yes. Of course. Otherwise, we'd be monsters. Oh wait...

When there is not enough money to pay for these services, what happens? When there are no doctors to perform these requested tasks, what happens?

Just because you put something on a piece of paper. Doesn’t make it a right. See, I have the right to speak. Nothing is required to support that right. Should the entire government just vanish tomorrow, I can speak. Someone has to act to stop me. This right to healthcare, it’s pure fabrication. If there is no money, you don’t get your healthcare. If there are no available doctors, you don’t get your healthcare. That’s not a right. It’s an entitlement.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Question 1: Is access to healthcare an individual right?

Question 2: If access to healthcare is an individual right, does the government have to must provide a reasonable level of healthcare to its citizens if a citizen can not afford healthcare?

My thought process is as follows:

It is unjust to deny treatment to people if they can't pay.
It is unjust for an absolute necessity like health care to be so expensive that people often make the decision not to seek it because the bills will cause problems for them or those they support.

Thus, healthcare either needs to be cheaper, or people need to have enough money the cost doesn't negatively effect them beyond perhaps the very short term.

Option one requires price control, heavy subsidies, or single-payer - probably a combo of all 3, plus some other stuff I haven't thought of.

Option two requires massive minimum wage increases (probably $20-25/hr at least, if not more, some of the medical costs are ****ing insane), heavy subsidies, or some kind of insane sea change in how companies work so that they provide healthcare to all employees, and that doesn't even cover the unemployed, that means partial single payer as well.

Basically, my conclusion is that's all bandages on something that needs stitches.


My further conclusion is that we must ensure everyone gets healthcare that they need, in a time frame that keeps them healthy and alive, and without putting them so far in debt they have to change their entire life because of it.

ACA didn't do that. Hell, I'm not sure medicare and/or medicaid did that. Something else is required.

I like the idea of a single-payer system, because it potentially means a fix for a multitude of problems.
 
When there is not enough money to pay for these services, what happens? When there are no doctors to perform these requested tasks, what happens?

Just because you put something on a piece of paper. Doesn’t make it a right. See, I have the right to speak. Nothing is required to support that right. Should the entire government just vanish tomorrow, I can speak. Someone has to act to stop me. This right to healthcare, it’s pure fabrication. If there is no money, you don’t get your healthcare. If there are no available doctors, you don’t get your healthcare. That’s not a right. It’s an entitlement.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

1. The National Science Foundation distributed $1.5 million to studying a fish on a treadmill.

2. The National Institutes of Health issued a $5 million grant to Brown University to study fraternities and sororities and came to the shocking conclusion that fraternities and sororities consume more alcohol than other college students.

3. The National Institutes of Health provided $3.4 million to Northeastern University in Boston to have hamsters fight each other in cage matches to examine their "aggression and anxiety."

4. A study on which gender spends more time playing with Barbie dolls. The study came to the obvious conclusion that girls tended to play with Barbie dolls more often than boys do, as the latter preferred playing with Transformers. The National Institutes of Health spent $300,000 on this kind of research.

5. The famous Jaws music causes people to view sharks in a negative manner. The National Science Foundation spent $3 million on a study that concluded this.

6. NASA is spending money on a flying monkey. $206,000.

7. The federal government is subsidizing cheese. The government spent $21.8 million purchasing surplus cheese and providing incentives for companies to enter the cheese industry.


Just a small handful of wasteful government spending, which could easily help others with medical care.

And don't even get me started on the politicians who are spending tax dollars going on honeymoons, etc.


So yes. There is money to be spent on medical care. It just has to be used there instead of stupid programs that have no real redeeming value.
 
Healthcare is not a right, you do not have a right to someone else's services.... Should we have a universal crisis care insurance? Sure, maybe, but that doesn't mean it is a right.
 
A right, no. A moral obligation, absolutely. The government is supposed to be a tool to deliver an agenda. Our governments agenda is supposed to be conceived from its citizens via representatives. No citizen, or representative would prefer to remain sick if it were possible to become well with government assistance. If health care received the same lack of provisions as our military "defense" we would likely have far less illnesses in our country. We are a perpetual war country tho. Our governments agenda is to be a war profiteer first and citizen aid second.
The gov spends much more on healthcare than it does on our military.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
1. The National Science Foundation distributed $1.5 million to studying a fish on a treadmill.

2. The National Institutes of Health issued a $5 million grant to Brown University to study fraternities and sororities and came to the shocking conclusion that fraternities and sororities consume more alcohol than other college students.

3. The National Institutes of Health provided $3.4 million to Northeastern University in Boston to have hamsters fight each other in cage matches to examine their "aggression and anxiety."

4. A study on which gender spends more time playing with Barbie dolls. The study came to the obvious conclusion that girls tended to play with Barbie dolls more often than boys do, as the latter preferred playing with Transformers. The National Institutes of Health spent $300,000 on this kind of research.

5. The famous Jaws music causes people to view sharks in a negative manner. The National Science Foundation spent $3 million on a study that concluded this.

6. NASA is spending money on a flying monkey. $206,000.

7. The federal government is subsidizing cheese. The government spent $21.8 million purchasing surplus cheese and providing incentives for companies to enter the cheese industry.


Just a small handful of wasteful government spending, which could easily help others with medical care.

And don't even get me started on the politicians who are spending tax dollars going on honeymoons, etc.


So yes. There is money to be spent on medical care. It just has to be used there instead of stupid programs that have no real redeeming value.
More money that we dont have. We already spend more money on healthcare than everything else except SS which is about the same. So how much more do we need to spend to make you feel better about yourself and who you want your gov to take it from for you?

I would really like an answer to those 2 questions.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Question 1: Is access to healthcare an individual right?

Question 2: If access to healthcare is an individual right, does the government have to must provide a reasonable level of healthcare to its citizens if a citizen can not afford healthcare?

No -- healthcare is not a right, but it is a amenity that the citizens can offer if they so choose.

Many nations choose to offer it -- to some extent -- and the citizens have the right to decide. In the US, it appears as though the majority wants to offer that amenity, as so it should be possible, but to do so, economically, they'll have to get rid of the insurance industry completely. Supporting one industry is feasible. Supporting two is not possible.
 
Back
Top Bottom