Is healthcare a right or a responsibility?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Walk-worthy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I wasn’t misbehaving. I just gave up. There was no use in challenging the same arguments earlier with the same rebuttals I already made. Either you’re reading my posts carefully or you’re not. 😒 Good night.
 
StudentMI said:
If you believe that then you agree with Rothbard. That was my point in citing him.
Click to expand...
you are projecting again and incorrectly
StudentMI said:
If there are only negative rights you can’t force a mother to feed her child.
Click to expand...
one would think this is a conflict between the rights of the child and that of the mother.

I would argue this isn’t the right of the mother because she may not initiate violence against others. obviously not feeding the child would kill it.

so why would the mother be obligated to feed the child?

because, this is a duty of her trusteeship with God. it is part of the procreative process and the moral duty of a mother and father, a duty that she chooses (most of the time).
From [Adam] the world is peopled with his descendants, who are all born infants, weak and helpless, without knowledge or understanding. But to supply the defects of this imperfect state, till the improvement of growth and age hath removed them, Adam and Eve, and after them all parents, were by the law of nature under an obligation to preserve, nourish, and educate the children they had begotten, not as their own workmanship, but the workmanship of their own maker, the Almighty, to whom they were to be accountable for them (John Locke, Second Treatise of
Government, para. 56)
Click to expand...
how can your positive rights make her feed the child? you can’t make someone do what they don’t want to or can’t do. unfortunately, your scenario happens all too frequently, people put the child up for adoption because they don’t want to or more importantly can’t care for the child.

tell me how positive rights work if no one wants to or can’t perform an action to guarantee the right?
 
Don’t worry, you make a very tenacious debate adversary and I have great respect for what you wrote - I just respectfully disagree.I’ll smile and call it a draw.
 
I don’t believe I need to say anything in response. Your post misunderstands negative and positive rights. Your beliefs are in line with Rothbard, and your beliefs go against the Church’s clear teaching on rights. What else is there to say?

Look, I’m not trying to personally attack you. I’m sorry if you take offense. But as a fellow Catholic, I’m urging you to accept the Church’s teaching. God bless.
 
Last edited:
VonDerTann said:
You’re just being disagreeable to anything I say.
Click to expand...
Seems more you think because you pay it’s better.
I pay I just pay it in taxes where hospitals can’t hide the charge master from the equivalent of insurance here. Your bureaucracy has cause countless issues and inflated costs.

Does that mean if I had the cash it’s bad? No, it’s bad because my choices are live in pain instead of getting treatment or saddled with a bill I’ll never be able to pay off because hospitals gouge.

Yes you have great tech, congrats. Too bad most people can’t afford it so it may as well not exist.
 
StudentMI said:
I don’t believe I need to say anything in response. Your post misunderstands negative and positive rights. Your beliefs are in line with Rothbard, and your beliefs go against the Church’s clear teaching on rights. What else is there to say?
Click to expand...
what didn’t you understand? I can help you with it

negative rights are inalienable, you retain them no matter what happens.
positive rights (if they can be called rights) are created by the state and have only been around for a short period of time and can be revoked
there is no legitimate authority to provide or ensure positive rights as they necessarily violate negative rights.
StudentMI said:
Look, I’m not trying to personally attack you. I’m sorry if you take offense.
Click to expand...
I don’t take offense, this is the internet.

however, you are personally attacking me by trying to pigeonhole me into a specific libertarian camp when I told you I don’t subscribe to it. you accuse but make no attempt to discern the difference.

you haven’t defended your position at all, just posted a piece from a compendium and say my opinion is against church teaching. the Commandments that speak to negative rights are V, VI, VII, and VII: thou shall not kill, commit adultery, steal, or bear false witness. are these valid church teachings?
StudentMI said:
I’m urging you to accept the Church’s teaching
Click to expand...
as I showed above I do follow church teaching.
 
upant said:
however, you are personally attacking me by trying to pigeonhole me into a specific libertarian camp when I told you I don’t subscribe to it. you accuse but make no attempt to discern the difference.
Click to expand...
Okay. I’m sorry it came across that way.
 
Perhaps, you could take a child away from a mother who is starving the child?
 
jeannetherese said:
Perhaps, you could take a child away from a mother who is starving the child?
Click to expand...
But whose job would that be? In Rothbard’s formulation (and apparently that of many modern day “libertarians”) it is no one’s job. Since rights create no corresponding responsibilities, the child could be merely abandoned. As I recall, Rothbard also believed parents should be allowed to sell their children. A society full of rights with no corresponding responsibilities would not be a pleasant place to live.
 
VonDerTann said:
Great healthcare may not be cheap, but quality of anything is usually expensive,
And saddling taxpayers with anyone’s desired healthcare is IMHO not a good response.
Click to expand...
The keyword is “desired”. Reasonable proposals for universal health care do not promise everyone will get any health care they desire for free. But if you replace the word “desired” by the word “needed”, I would have to disagree.
 
Countries with universal healthcare would see it as a right for the government to provide cover for it’s citizens…universal cover is not free…taxpayers still pay for it…some have a two tier system…we see it as a right for our government to use our taxes to provide security for all of us through the armed forces…at least most of us would.
 
But everyone thinks their own heathcare is needed. And you know as well as I do that every bit of healthcare becomes “needed” when the patient says, “I’m depressed and I’ll take my life unless I get the healthcare I want.”

This already happens in abortion: “abortion for the health of the mother” is interpreted as for her “mental health.”
 
We already have that. You’re arguing circularly for the same system we have.
 
VonDerTann said:
But everyone thinks their own heathcare is needed. And you know as well as I do that every bit of healthcare becomes “needed” when the patient says, “I’m depressed and I’ll take my life unless I get the healthcare I want.”
Click to expand...
What about someone who really is depressed and suicidal?
 
That’s a problem, isn’t it? And I’m not being flippant: If someone really is suicidal because they can’t get a free nose job, do they get the nose job courtesy of the taxpayers? What if they want their eyes to look like cat’s eyes? Or want tattoo removal when they got “I Love Jane” tattooed across their chest and now they love Mary? See, when “real depression” is the standard for deciding who gets what treatment, everyone will say, “my depression is the real thing!”
 
But what about someone who is simply depressed and suicidal? Should the taxpayers pay?
 
Not for their desired treatment. If a person is depressed and suicidal, they have a mental illness. I’m not a doctor, but I suspect the proper treatment for mental illness/depression isn’t “give the person whatever they want by way of medical procedures.” I use “procedures” instead of care, because the procedures in that case are no longer “care” so much as they are enabling the sick, just as much as giving a drink to an alcoholic.

By example, there are people who desperately want to get their own limbs amputated - it’s an illness. The proper response to that is NOT to amputate their limbs - it’s to get them therapy or whatever else, not to cut their limbs off.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top