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.
When did I say I don't receive benefits? When did I say I don't pay into the Canadian system? You're hilarious, your whole argument is that if someone is Canadian, they can't critique the system they're in. What nonsense is this!?
No, the argument isn't that Canadians aren't allowed to critique the Canadian system -- the argument is that it's incredibly hypocrital to blather on about how immoral the system is while choosing to continue to benefit from it. As I said several pages back, if you had any self-respect whatsoever, you would have already moved to some place that was more in line with your views. You could be a rugged individualist here in the US, and pay your own way, as you seem to want everyone else to do, instead of feeding from the public teat in Canada. But, no, you're still sucking up public resources in Canada, and letting everyone else chip in for your education and healthcare.
I suspect heading into a Canadian nursing program with my views will be an interesting experience.
I suspect that you are correct.
OP, last time you started a thread on the same topic as this one, you admitted that you were trolling. Has that changed?
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.
If you've lived well below the poverty line for your entire life, I guess that you're thanking your lucky stars that you were born in Canada instead of for example; Sierra Leone or Somalia? If one is unfortunate enough to live below the poverty line, it's much more pleasant to do it in a relatively wealthy nation with a bleadingheart "socialist" system in place, don't you think?
When it comes to taxes vs benefits, have you up to this point in your life been a net donor or a recipient?
Fallacious argument, argumentum ad populum.
If you do have evidence health care is a right, please provide. :)
Since it's impossible to put something under a microscope or run a GC-MS analysis to determine if that something is a human right, isn't ad populum actually the only way we have to decide what our human rights are/should be? Human rights are defined by human beings. We as a society decide which laws and policies should guide us and we base those laws/policies, on our values/ethics/morals.
Correct, I am making a truth claim, and I thought my argument was clear.
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 first two premises, the conclusion logically follows.
You first premise isn't correct. How do you figure that the right of one individual can exist in a vacuum, completely independent of other people and their actions?
I think one of my human rights is that I don't get murdered when I go grocery shopping. I'm convinced that you realize that means that the rights of a homicidal nutjob are somewhat infringed, as we meet in the cereal aisle... My right definitely affects how s/he can (legally) act. The only reason that the homicidal nutjob won't get away with killing me without facing consequences, is that we as a society have decided that it isn't an okay thing to do. It's not some law of nature.
You've failed to prove that healthcare isn't a fundamental human right. I can't prove that it is. That's because human rights are what members of a society agree that they are, not some tangible thing with a distinct and observable molecular structure.
Yes, the WHO states it's a right... and?
And what? Are you saying that your personal definition of human rights somehow trumps or is more valid than the World Health Organization's definition? I don't understand your comment.
I love helping people... always have, always will. :) There seems to be this view on here that I can't be a nurse unless I'm a socialist, at least when it comes to how I view health care. I find that odd.
This urge to stick lables on people makes me think that you're still on your trolling mission. I'm a Scandinavian conservative. I believe that healthcare is a human right. I definitely believe in altruism.
I think we both know I don't believe in altruism.
You're a person who loves helping people but who doesn't believe in altruism? What does that mean? You love helping people for selfish reasons?
I think many of us are not aware of why we have it in the first place.
A friend of mine told me of a trip she took to a third world country. While there, her group got sick enough that they HAD to go to the hospital. In the waiting room was a person setting there, bleeding to death. Her arm was nearly hacked off. She just sat there, bleeding out. The receptionist was just a few feet away, ignoring the situation.
When her group was seen, they had to pay upfront. Then was given a list of supplies they had to go get themselves, before being treated. Again, everything had to be paid up front.
This place is exactly how you wish it to be. No one gets freebies. Everyone pays... or just dies. I am not being drama queen, just the facts of life for some places.
The reality is, WE don't want to see that person setting there dying Maybe they could do it behind doors, someplace else, we would be all right with that. Just like no one wants to see homeless folks, or dirty streets. We PAY to prevent seeing nasty.
So we pay. And because we do, we have hospitals that are well stocked with what we need, when we need it.
If you feel that strongly about it, and you're planning to come to the US anyway, why not come to the US and pay unsubsidized foreign student tuition at some school in the US? (Not that I'm encouraging you to come here ... ) That way, you could avoid benefiting from the corrupt, immoral, socialized Canadian system, which would be the only moral and ethical action for you to take, given your stated values.
You truly don't know me... I've considered leaving countless times. You wouldn't be asking that question if you knew the answer though. I love how much flack I get for advocating against socialism here. Is every nurse a bloody socialist.
Way to deflect. If you can't answer the question, please admit that your so-called morality is provisional and based solely on whether or not the beneficiary of social services is yourself or someone else.
I believe in the collective good, which is why I believe in paying my fair share of taxes so that we can all enjoy the benefits of paved roads (even when Canadians visit the US), public education, public transportation, government-back student loans, libraries, etc.
And really, the discussion doesn't require a long, drawn-out, boring, semi-philosophical back and forth. It just boils down to one simple question: Do you believe in the collective good? The answer to that question explains everything that follows.
You have no concept of how interdependent you are. The reason you have anything is because you are part of a group, society, which has provided for you everything and every tool that you have had since you were conceived. The over individualistic perspective you have is purely an illusion by inability to perceive your complete dependency on the whole.
OP, last time you started a thread on the same topic as this one, you admitted that you were trolling. Has that changed?
That was clearly sarcasm. However, it seems if you hold an unpopular view, everyone thinks you're trolling on here.
If you've lived well below the poverty line for your entire life, I guess that you're thanking your lucky stars that you were born in Canada instead of for example; Sierra Leone or Somalia? If one is unfortunate enough to live below the poverty line, it's much more pleasant to do it in a relatively wealthy nation with a bleadingheart "socialist" system in place, don't you think?
Of course I'm thankful to be born in Canada, doesn't mean I don't disagree with our system. 'm glad you know me and my life so well... jeepers, a complete stranger on the internet. I guess assuming things about others is one of those traits that makes a great nurse? lol
You first premise isn't correct. How do you figure that the right of one individual can exist in a vacuum, completely independent of other people and their actions?
You have rights inherent to your existence. They're known as "negative rights", and they only require that others do not try and stop you from acting as you wish. That's different than "positive rights" which require the actions of others to provide a service. Fundamental human rights are negative rights, while positive rights are contractual rights. This isn't stuff I'm inventing, feel free to look it up if you don't know the difference.
And what? Are you saying that your personal definition of human rights somehow trumps or is more valid than the World Health Organization's definition? I don't understand your comment.
No, it's a fallacy known as the argument from authority. It's invalid because it doesn't negate the argument.
This urge to stick lables on people makes me think that you're still on your trolling mission. I'm a Scandinavian conservative. I believe that healthcare is a human right. I definitely believe in altruism.
I'm confused, I'm labeling it what it appears to be. If it's not socialist to have state regulated health care, whereby the means of finance is derived through taxation, please fill me in on what it's called?
You're a person who loves helping people but who doesn't believe in altruism? What does that mean? You love helping people for selfish reasons?
I would argue everyone does in some way or another, yes. The nurse on this forum that tells me otherwise, I don't believe them for a second.
I feel the same way. As I understand it though, someone here would know more (maybe you?), but isn't the current US health care system highly regulated? I mean, you can't call up a company to get a quote on what the cheapest xray is... or am I wrong here? In a true free market, this would be possible, and would drive down costs as competition increased.
You're free to shop around for a cheaper price, pricing of services exists in two main categories; those utilize a larger system to negotiate prices on their behalf (insurance companies, medicare, etc) and those who negotiate on their own, between the two negotiating prices on your own is far more expensive than what a larger negotiating group can obtain. Plus, this isn't an option for most of our costs, which occur in situations where shopping around isn't feasible.
You're right, I couldn't stomach turning someone away either, that's why billing after services rendered in necessary. Obviously some don't pay their bills, which sucks.
As I understand it though, the capitalist system of the US is also producing the most drug patents? If that's true, the Canadian system is riding on the benefits that the US system is generating. You know what I mean?
Most of the recent advances in pharmaceuticals have come out of the UK, France, and Sweden, advances in interventional technology have come from France and Japan.
Way to deflect. If you can't answer the question, please admit that your so-called morality is provisional and based solely on whether or not the beneficiary of social services is yourself or someone else.
What is with this forum... if you read the entire thread, you'll notice I've said several times I get benefits. Where is the world did I say that I don't? If you're Canadian, you do. I've also said, I have always worked, and have always paid into the system that I benefit from. Just because I benefit from a system, doesn't mean I can't critique the system. That's nonsense. I also have no clue how that would prove health care is a right.
You don't seem to completely agree yourself that healthcare is not a right, you do seem to believe that at some point society has an obligation to alleviate unnecessary suffering, you stated in your first post that those unable to care for themselves need to be cared for. If you want evidence that we as a society generally believe that healthcare is a right, there are a number of laws in both your country and mine that establish this right through law.
If you want to look at it as a purely what-benefits-you libertarian point of view, then consider that if you're willing to help pay for those who can't care for themselves then why wouldn't you pay less to keep them from getting to the point where they can't care for themselves?
Most of the recent advances in pharmaceuticals have come out of the UK, France, and Sweden, advances in interventional technology have come from France and Japan.
) That way, you could avoid benefiting from the corrupt, immoral, socialized Canadian system, which would be the only moral and ethical action for you to take, given your stated values.
elkpark
14,633 Posts
No, the argument isn't that Canadians aren't allowed to critique the Canadian system -- the argument is that it's incredibly hypocrital to blather on about how immoral the system is while choosing to continue to benefit from it. As I said several pages back, if you had any self-respect whatsoever, you would have already moved to some place that was more in line with your views. You could be a rugged individualist here in the US, and pay your own way, as you seem to want everyone else to do, instead of feeding from the public teat in Canada. But, no, you're still sucking up public resources in Canada, and letting everyone else chip in for your education and healthcare.