Is healthcare a right or a responsibility?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Walk-worthy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
upant said:
the right to healthcare is the issue, the right to work was the start of the quote provided.
Click to expand...
I think that “the necessities of life” includes health care, but if you have a different opinion then I don’t know what to make of that.
 
StudentMI said:
Health care can be a right without necessitating that the state supply it.
Click to expand...
can a service ever be a right? how do you have that right if the service isn’t available? is healthcare universal?
neophyte said:
I think that “the necessities of life” includes health care, but if you have a different opinion then I don’t know what to make of that.
Click to expand...
it may be a necessity but, healthcare is still a service.

is the right to healthcare limited? what level is necessary and what level isn’t? can it ever be denied?

under socialized healthcare, why do people get denied certain procedures, etc. if it is a right? who placed the limits on this right?
 
upant said:
can a service ever be a right? how do you have that right if the service isn’t available? is healthcare universal?
Click to expand...
I think of it like this: working is a right, freedom in economic affairs is a right, but we don’t look to the state entirely for either one. Sure the state provides a juridical framework for the advancement of both, which is just, but the state isn’t the only employer just because working is a right.
 
Last edited:
upant said:
40.png
StudentMI:
Health care can be a right without necessitating that the state supply it.
Click to expand...
can a service ever be a right? how do you have that right if the service isn’t available? is healthcare universal?
neophyte said:
I think that “the necessities of life” includes health care, but if you have a different opinion then I don’t know what to make of that.
Click to expand...
it may be a necessity but, healthcare is still a service.

is the right to healthcare limited? what level is necessary and what level isn’t? can it ever be denied?
Click to expand...
Your definition a right is too restrictive. A right is anything that should be provided.
under socialized healthcare, why do people get denied certain procedures, etc. if it is a right? who placed the limits on this right?
Click to expand...
A right need not be absolute. It can be qualified. Healthcare that is necessary for staying alive is more likely to be considered a right than health care that isn’t.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Your definition a right is too restrictive. A right is anything that should be provided.
Click to expand...
Your definition is too expansive. The right to marry is a natural right. Surely you’re not saying that we have the right to be provided a spouse.
 
upant said:
under socialized healthcare, why do people get denied certain procedures, etc. if it is a right? who placed the limits on this right?
Click to expand...
The rights under socialized health care are entirely granted by the state, and people are denied procedures because, in effect, the state says that they don’t have a right to those procedures.
 
upant said:
is the right to healthcare limited?
Click to expand...
Even a natural right can have natural limitations, certainly. I have the natural right to purchase whatever available health care procedure I can afford; that doesn’t mean that I have the right to have someone else provide it to me.
 
neophyte said:
Your definition is too expansive. The right to marry is a natural right. Surely you’re not saying that we have the right to be provided a spouse.
Click to expand...
The “right to marry” is too simplistic a description of the right. A more accurate description would be the right of a couple who are not disqualified from marrying for natural law reasons and who desire such a marriage should be allowed to do so. What “should be provided” is the freedom to do that.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The “right to marry” is too simplistic a description of the right. A more accurate description would be the right of a couple who are not disqualified from marrying for natural law reasons and who desire such a marriage should be allowed to do so. What “should be provided” is the freedom to do that.
Click to expand...
Our right to get married does not exist apart from my right to get married, which is prior to it. And the fact that I have a right to get married doesn’t in any way imply that I must be provided with someone else who will agree to marry me.
 
Last edited:
neophyte said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
The “right to marry” is too simplistic a description of the right. A more accurate description would be the right of a couple who are not disqualified from marrying for natural law reasons and who desire such a marriage should be allowed to do so. What “should be provided” is the freedom to do that.
Click to expand...
Our right to get married does not exist apart from my right to get married, which is prior to it.
Click to expand...
I would rather say one individual’s right to marry does not exist in an absolute sense apart from having a qualified wife candidate. But to get back to health care, a person’s access to life-saving health care should not be conditioned on his ability to pay for it.
 
upant said:
can a service ever be a right? how do you have that right if the service isn’t available? is healthcare universal?
Click to expand...
The distinction between a service and goods seems completely artificial to me. Do you agree that people have a right to food, water and shelter? If so, how is that different than a right to healthcare?
 
Interestingly in the Compendium I just came across a quote from St John Paul II which spoke of “the right to food and drinkable water.”
 
LeafByNiggle said:
But to get back to health care, a person’s access to life-saving health care should not be conditioned on his ability to pay for it.
Click to expand...
Is life saving health care the same thing as the basic health care you were advocating for upthread?
What are its parameters? How does one define it?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
…a person’s access to life-saving health care should not be conditioned on his ability to pay for it.
Click to expand...
Like it or not: cost is a factor, and it’s not possible to provide any and all existing health care protocols to anyone and everyone who might need it.

Earlier in my life I made decisions that severely harmed my ability to provide for myself; it would have been horribly unjust for me to think that I had the right to force other people to give me what I was unwilling to work for, and it would have done me great spiritual harm if people had given it to me.

There are many people who made better decisions and who can now afford care far better than I can, and it would be horribly unjust to deprive them of that ability merely because I want better than I have. That’s what socialist systems invariably end up doing, and they do it because of a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature.
 
Last edited:
neophyte said:
Like it or not: cost is a factor, and it’s not possible to provide any and all existing health care protocols to anyone and everyone who might need it.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
neophyte said:
Earlier in my life I made decisions that severely harmed my ability to provide for myself; it would have been horribly unjust for me to think that I had the right to force other people to give me what I was unwilling to work for, and it would have done me great spiritual harm if people had given it to me.
Click to expand...
I disagree that it does spiritual harm to save someone"s life despite the fact that the person made foolish decisions earlier in life.
 
Yes, everyone should have access to good affordable healthcare… especially in the USA.

The private sector has proven that it is not interested in making healthcare affordable - profits take priority over the health of the people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top