Do People Have a Right to Healthcare

Correct. I think we discussed this several weeks ago when I changed my view based on what a Right should be classified as. However, now as then, I will say it is a moral imperative to make sure every citizen of the United States has access to affordable healthcare.

And I am just not sure this is possible in the modern world without a single payer and/or cost regulations.

 

Merge please. We aren't paying you to sit around and do nothing.

 

No, I get paid to make sure that NYY doesn't get the site into too much trouble. Full time job.

 

And I would argue that "moral imperative" translates to "rights". Sadly, nobody engaged in my idea that rights don't naturally exist; rather, they're agreed upon asa social construct for a stable society.

So here I am tossing the bait right back out there.

 

"Is health care a right in America?

In a word, no. Rights are either natural immunities -- existing in areas of human behavior that, because of our nature, must be free from government regulation, such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as well as speech, the press, religion, travel, self-defense and what remains of privacy -- or legal claims that we qualify or bargain for, such as the right to vote, which the Constitution presumes, and the right to use your property to the exclusion of all others and the right to purchase a good that you can afford." - Judge Napolitano makes the case

Healthcare is a commodity aka a good.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/03/30/is-health-care-right-or-good.html

 

It seems like arguing life is a right but healthcare absolutely isn't is a narrow, slippery path to tread.

Seems to have implications for what constitutes neglect as well.

 

Doesn't seem that slippery. Life is a biological function of nature and healthcare is a service.

 

Not at all.

 

Doesn't neglect just refer to dependents? Just like we'd be outraged if a parent let her 7 year old starve, we'd not be too happy if she let a fever get out of control and kill him. Once the kid leaves the nest, it's not going to be the parent's fault if he starves.

 

And if the parent can't afford healthcare for the child? Is it neglect ? Is the state obligated to step in?

 

I fully understand your copy/paste skills are on point, but that quote doesn't actually address what I'm asserting.

His position is that there are "natural immunities" or "rights" in life. I say: Prove it. Where does a natural immunity to anything we state as a "right" exist? Since when have the rights of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, speech, the press, religion, travel, self-defense, or privacy not been infringed upon? The very nature of natural rights implies that these rights cannot be forfeited nor taken away in any context, yet these basic rights haven't existed throughout most of man's history, nor have they been fully present in the past 50 years of American culture. The history of black people in America throws this idea of intrinsic rights into oblivion, and mandates a better, more modern definition of the word "right".

 

A person has a permanent disorder and is hooked up to a machine to live. They have no family and no way to pay anything for their care. Is it completely just to pull the plug as they protest that they want to live?

 

Natural immunity. There are no such things. Anyone can infringe your your Rights and Liberties. That doesn't mean they do not exist.

 

But that also means Napolitano's argument is circular. The first category he asserts doesn't exist, as you said, and the second is in no way defining. Anyone could be presented as a legal claim.

 

Yes.

 

Yes.

 

They're just like every other abstract idea: They exist because we agree it exists -- not because it's inherent/intrinsic/natural/adjective-of-choice.

That's why I quoted you when you likened healthcare to a moral imperative. I'd argue that's what these "natural rights" are in reality*. Which leaves room for interpretation for healthcare as being just as much a "natural right" as life, liberty, etc.

*For clarification, I think natural rights should be redefined as moral imperatives for a more accurate description.

 

So the child has a right healthcare, unless they're hooked up to a machine to live and then they don't?

 

Interesting & thought provoking, imo.

 

I didn't say that.

The child has a different set of rights than an adult. That's pretty well-established and necessary. The guy on life support isn't anyone else's responsibility. If he didn't make arrangements to take care of himself then I don't think anyone should be forced to do it for him. Thus, one could say it would be just to let him go. I think, like had been discussed earlier, the moral decision might be something different, but no one is obligated to save him.