Before we get into it, I'm going into first year nursing... but I'm not some young kid. I'm 34, married with a family, studied philosophy in my early 20's, and lived well below the poverty line for my entire life. I'm saying this to avoid any fallacious arguments stemming from status or authority.
Now that's out of the way...
Why is health care not a right?
It's not a right because it requires others to fund your health care costs. You do not have a right to the money of other people.
What about those in need of health care?
We all love helping people, and that's important. Which is why there are countless organizations, churches, synagogues, companies, online charitable organizations, and other opportunities for your access.
If health care is a right, it's immoral.
A socialist view of health care requires the theft of citizens money through taxation to fund your health care needs. Just because I need health care does not mean I can take money of others, even when done through governmental force.
What's the difference between access to things like fire services, and health care services? They're all services aren't they?
The difference is that citizens who pay for services should receive services. Taxation pays for fire services, people are therefore owed that service.Consider, outside of municipalities where services aren't paid for, firefighting is volunteer, or paid for out of pocket. At least that's how it works in Canada...
When is health care a right then?
When you pay for it, however, it's a contractual right. Not a human right. I'm owed the service because I paid for it, that's it.
Who's responsible to take care of me then?
You are. Crazy idea right?
Are there exceptions?
Obviously, those with zero capacity to care for themselves.
I suspect heading into a Canadian nursing program with my views will be an interesting experience.
Tetra, I think you're trying to define moral and immoral based on a taxonomic classification of types of rights, which really doesn't work. What is considered a right in not based in fact, it's not something that's observed the same from one observer to another, instead it's a complex values assessment.
Take for instance, you seem to feel that a positive right, one that requires some sort of action on your part, is immoral. So you're driving along, and a pedestrian has fallen in front of you down the road, to expect you to change lanes or even stop your car requires action on your part, yet do you really think it would be moral to just run them over?
I honestly was expecting something presented a little better from a student of philosophy. I studied it as well and dude, these are not logical arguments.
Please establish your definition of a "right" and "healthcare" first. If you're going to write an article making these points you should let us know your definition of these words because it differs vastly between many people.
Your response to "what about those who need healthcare" isn't an argument at all. This is also an example of why you should define healthcare. You simply say helping people is good, and that resources exist for people. Your examples of those resources are churches, synagogues, organizations, etc. Last time I checked I can't emergently have my appendix out at church. I also can't go get a wellness exam at a synagogue. Sounds like your equating helping the poor and homeless with quality healthcare. Are you?
Then the "if healthcare is a right, then it's immoral" argument is begging the question. You simply assume we all agree socialism is immoral because stealing is immoral. The countries that are socialist and have single payer healthcare systems actually TAX the people for those services. So to use your argument a little differently, government is immoral because they tax us and taxes are immoral because they steal from the people? We should all sue the government for stealing our money to build roads!!!
Then you sort of say the same thing again when you talk about how the services should only be rendered if they've been paid for via taxation. So, first it's theft to take taxes for healthcare but in the next paragraph it's expected to have to pay for things like firefighters.
Then you say healthcare should only go to those who pay for it. You have already established that taxation would pay for it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your basic point is healthcare is not a right because you don't want to be taxed for it. I remain unconvinced.
Perhaps you mean to discuss why healthcare is not a human right? As in the classic human rights listed in the US Constitution to "life, liberty, and happiness". If that's the angle you're going for why are you talking about taxes? You give the impression that you don't consider it a human right, but your arguments simply attempt to demonstrate why we shouldn't be taxed for it.
I'm actually not necessarily a supporter of the single payer system, I'm not sure it would work in the US. I do however feel the need to speak up when someone talks up their philosophy game and life experiences so much and then delivers an "argument" like this. I feel like it may be a troll topic to get people fighting and in that case it's probably succeeded.
Specializes in Critical care, tele, Medical-Surgical.
I think some of us are debating philosophy while others are discussing ideas on provision of healthcare to people who need it.
With choosing whether to buy insurance too many young healthy people are in denial so think they won't need healthcare.
I cared for a young person with a high income, two expensive cars and a fine apartment who chose not to pay for health insurance. He was in a MVA and stayed in out ICU until well enough and then to County.
I'm pretty sure we taxpayers paid millions for his hospital and rehab care.
It isn't always a choice.
I think unless there is a workable alternative to government healthcare or the search for same, then it the discussion is just entertainment.
We once admitted a young person from another city. The neurologist on call looked at the chart and said, "No insurance." and refused to do the lumbar puncture.
Thankfully a Family Practice physician agreed to do it. Our medical technician looked under the microscope and reported strep. The patient was started on antibiotics and recovered without a deficit. That patient did not die of meningitis.
The neurologist's hospital privileges were taken away.
I honestly was expecting something presented a little better from a student of philosophy. I studied it as well and dude, these are not logical arguments.
Please establish your definition of a "right" and "healthcare" first. If you're going to write an article making these points you should let us know your definition of these words because it differs vastly between many people.
Your response to "what about those who need healthcare" isn't an argument at all. This is also an example of why you should define healthcare. You simply say helping people is good, and that resources exist for people. Your examples of those resources are churches, synagogues, organizations, etc. Last time I checked I can't emergently have my appendix out at church. I also can't go get a wellness exam at a synagogue. Sounds like your equating helping the poor and homeless with quality healthcare. Are you?
Then the "if healthcare is a right, then it's immoral" argument is begging the question. You simply assume we all agree socialism is immoral because stealing is immoral. The countries that are socialist and have single payer healthcare systems actually TAX the people for those services. So to use your argument a little differently, government is immoral because they tax us and taxes are immoral because they steal from the people? We should all sue the government for stealing our money to build roads!!!
Then you sort of say the same thing again when you talk about how the services should only be rendered if they've been paid for via taxation. So, first it's theft to take taxes for healthcare but in the next paragraph it's expected to have to pay for things like firefighters.
Then you say healthcare should only go to those who pay for it. You have already established that taxation would pay for it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your basic point is healthcare is not a right because you don't want to be taxed for it. I remain unconvinced.
You're misunderstanding, it's taking peoples money through taxation for services which they may not desire to fund which makes it immoral. That is separate from the discussion of if it is a right though.
I already established my argument in regards to health care as a right in this thread earlier, and it's as follows:
1) Fundamental human rights are not dependent on the actions of others.
2) Health care is dependent on the actions of others.
3) Therefore, health care is not a fundamental human right.
If you agree with the initial premise, the conclusion logically follows. I understand some don't agree with the initial premise, but I suspect that stems from a lack of understanding regarding positive and negative rights. Either way, that's my argument.
I think you're conflating the issues of taxation and rights, I actually intended to discuss those separately. It's possible though that I just didn't explain it well.
Socialist political beliefs are not necessary for compassion. Nurses need be able to work with and care for people of all beliefs.
I agree with you, yet anytime I attack socialism in anyway on this forum, I get accused of not being emphatic, compassionate, loving, respectful etc...
I think some of us are debating philosophy while others are discussing ideas on provision of healthcare to people who need it.
With choosing whether to buy insurance too many young healthy people are in denial so think they won't need healthcare.
I cared for a young person with a high income, two expensive cars and a fine apartment who chose not to pay for health insurance. He was in a MVA and stayed in out ICU until well enough and then to County.
I'm pretty sure we taxpayers paid millions for his hospital and rehab care.
It isn't always a choice.
I think unless there is a workable alternative to government healthcare or the search for same, then it the discussion is just entertainment.
We once admitted a young person from another city. The neurologist on call looked at the chart and said, "No insurance." and refused to do the lumbar puncture.
Thankfully a Family Practice physician agreed to do it. Our medical technician looked under the microscope and reported strep. The patient was started on antibiotics and recovered without a deficit. That patient did not die of meningitis.
The neurologist's hospital privileges were taken away.
I could never turn anyone away. You'd have to have a heart of stone to do that. I don't have the answers, and never said I did... but I still think a socialist health care system isn't right too.
You're misunderstanding, it's taking peoples money through taxation for services which they may not desire to fund which makes it immoral. That is separate from the discussion of if it is a right though.
I already established my argument in regards to health care as a right in this thread earlier, and it's as follows:
1) Fundamental human rights are not dependent on the actions of others.
2) Health care is dependent on the actions of others.
3) Therefore, health care is not a fundamental human right.
If you agree with the initial premise, the conclusion logically follows. I understand some don't agree with the initial premise, but I suspect that stems from a lack of understanding regarding positive and negative rights. Either way, that's my argument.
I think you're conflating the issues of taxation and rights, I actually intended to discuss those separately. It's possible though that I just didn't explain it well.
Thanks for the thoughtful response, I do love a good debate. After reading more into this thread and seeing your explanations for things I think you might be more well versed than your original post displayed. I appreciate that you aren't reacting emotionally to some of the responses you've gotten. Some people take offense to someone having a different opinion.
So, with that being said, can you break a few things down for me? I've sludged through a lot of this thread and either I missed some things or they weren't explained.
As far as the tax thing goes, I really don't see how theoretically taxing for health is different than taxing for police, fire, etc. I hope I never have to use these services, but I might, so I'm taxed. Can't you apply the same principle to healthcare? I hope I don't need it, but I might, so I'm taxed. Setting aside the very rural areas that rely on volunteers, how is it different? I read your adecdote about your rich friend who has enough money to pay his own way and doesn't want the universal health system Canada has. In the same vein your friend should also want to opt out of fire and police and hire his own fireman and security guards (just in case) right? Like I said before I'm not 100% behind universal healthcare but I don't think being taxed for it is any different in theory than being taxed for the firefighters and cops in my city.
Second question. On what are you basing your assertion that a fundamental human right does not rely on others? Why are fundamental human rights the "moral" ones.
This isn't a question really, just a significant problem with your theory that I think you haven't considered, probably because you haven't seen it first hand like many US nurses. You say people who come to a hospital who cannot pay should be billed, fine, that's fair. What if they never pay? They keep coming back and never pay? They present with emergent conditions that rank them a level 2 acuity or higher every time. I work in an ER in the middle of a huge city and this happens EVERY SINGLE DAY. Do we turn them away? You've said previously that it is their right not to pay. Do we, the hospital, go after the pt for collections? We do actually, and they still dont pay, they file bankruptcy sometimes. The hospital is never paid for services rendered.
Lastly, although I said theoretically that fire/police tax would be the same as healthcare tax it's really not in practice. The economics behind healthcare are not like anything on Earth. This is the only service where you don't know how much things will cost when you go in, where prices for things vary greatly from vendor to vendor, where things completely out of your control can literally bankrupt you. I think healthcare needs to be looked at through a lens very different than conservative/ liberal/ libertarian. It's a stand alone issue and we do it a disservice to attempt to break it down into such simple terms. I recently saw a bill for a standard abd pain workup (labs, meds, X-ray, CT) and it was over $7,000. Those prices are ludicrously inflated and it would break any middle class person to attempt to pay that off at a decent pace.
Thanks for the thoughtful response, I do love a good debate. After reading more into this thread and seeing your explanations for things I think you might be more well versed than your original post displayed. I appreciate that you aren't reacting emotionally to some of the responses you've gotten. Some people take offense to someone having a different opinion.
Thank you, I'm also aware I can sound like a jerk in text too. So some might be taking offence to how I'm presenting myself, I'm actually trying not to be though. I realize I have things to work on though! :)
As far as the tax thing goes, I really don't see how theoretically taxing for health is different than taxing for police, fire, etc. I hope I never have to use these services, but I might, so I'm taxed. Can't you apply the same principle to healthcare? I hope I don't need it, but I might, so I'm taxed. Setting aside the very rural areas that rely on volunteers, how is it different? I read your adecdote about your rich friend who has enough money to pay his own way and doesn't want the universal health system Canada has. In the same vein your friend should also want to opt out of fire and police and hire his own fireman and security guards (just in case) right? Like I said before I'm not 100% behind universal healthcare but I don't think being taxed for it is any different in theory than being taxed for the firefighters and cops in my city.
So to deal with the firefighter thing because I really only mentioned it since it comes up often as an argument... here's the thing. When we compare firefighting, police, etc to health care, we are also saying those services are fundamental human rights as well. That's silly when you think about it, no? So it's truly my fundamental human right to have a team of fireman service me, roll up with their 1 million dollar trucks, put out my fire, and then tell them to leave? Is that actually a right I'm imparted simply by being born? Of course not, at least I don't think so. When I'm born, I don't have inherent rights to others, time, money, or energy... I'm owed nothing from others. Unless I pay for it, then obviously I'm owed service, making it a contractual right. Which was my argument in the OP.
Of course if people want to pool their money together to share resources, and to pay for things like firefighting, police, and health care, rock on! That's awesome, and in that sense it would be the same. However, that's not that system now. Our system is so big, it's now dependent upon taking the resources from people who might not have any interest in paying. It's like if my wife and I have a child and our combined resources cannot pay for his health care, we now have a right to Jane's money down the street? and if Jane doesn't want anything to do with it, we just threaten her with jail time unless she pays? That might be the biggest over simplification of our system sure, but it is how our system fundamentally works. I guess we also promise to take care of Jane too, and we really know what's best for her in the long run. This system is nuts to me, it just doesn't seem right.
Second question. On what are you basing your assertion that a fundamental human right does not rely on others? Why are fundamental human rights the "moral" ones.
This isn't a question really, just a significant problem with your theory that I think you haven't considered, probably because you haven't seen it first hand like many US nurses. You say people who come to a hospital who cannot pay should be billed, fine, that's fair. What if they never pay? They keep coming back and never pay? They present with emergent conditions that rank them a level 2 acuity or higher every time. I work in an ER in the middle of a huge city and this happens EVERY SINGLE DAY. Do we turn them away? You've said previously that it is their right not to pay. Do we, the hospital, go after the pt for collections? We do actually, and they still dont pay, they file bankruptcy sometimes. The hospital is never paid for services rendered.
I don't have the answers. I'm not avoiding, it's simply the nature of moral dilemmas. I don't think saying I have a right to others money, to the time, energy, and resources of nurses and doctors is the answer though. I might have a right to obtain those things through mutual consent, but those things are not owed to me simply because I'm a human. You asked the question what about children, obviously there are exceptions. I'm not worried about the exceptions though. In Ontario the pendulum has swung into insanity... I wasn't joking when I said earlier kids get their ears pinned back, and how my wife's aunt had 2 gastric bypasses and plastic surgery covered by OHIP.
Of course if people want to pool their money together to share resources, and to pay for things like firefighting, police, and health care, rock on! That's awesome, and in that sense it would be the same. However, that's not that system now.
That is the system now -- it's called "civilization" or "society." The money that people choose to pool together is called "taxes." If some people don't want to participate, they are more than welcome to go live in the woods or desert, off the grid, and not use any public services. People who are offended by the idea of their taxes being spent on other people's healthcare can move to a country where that doesn't happen (although that eliminates all the developed countries ...) This entire "debate" is simply going around in circles.
That is the system now -- it's called "civilization" or "society." The money that people choose to pool together is called "taxes." If some people don't want to participate, they are more than welcome to go live in the woods or desert, off the grid, and not use any public services. People who are offended by the idea of their taxes being spent on other people's healthcare can move to a country where that doesn't happen (although that eliminates all the developed countries ...) This entire "debate" is simply going around in circles.
Alternatively we can lobby for change... vote, and support things like privatized health care. I would agree its going around in circles.
Alternatively we can lobby for change... vote, and support things like privatized health care. I would agree its going around in circles.
The US has a largely privatized healthcare system (the most privatized of any developed country), and we pay twice as much per capita as the next most expensive country on the planet, and have poorer outcomes (as measured by morbidity and mortality statistics) than other developed countries to show for it. Are you sure that's really what you want??
MunoRN, RN
8,058 Posts
PST and GST are sales taxes in Canada, I've lived in places where I've made frequent trips to Canada.