Jump to content

Healthcare as a 'right'


Recommended Posts

Most of the rights in Constitution were considered natural rights or unalienable rights from the Creator (sorry atheists).

 

Right to free speech, right to assemble, etc.

 

More and more healthcare is called 'a right'.

 

Is it a right like the right to free speech as endowed by the Creator? Or this is a lessor 'man-made' right?

 

Here is the philosophical question list. If there were no doctors, no nurses, no dentists, no surgeons.....would healthcare still be 'a right'? If so, who would be responsible to provide it? Is any other 'right' dependent on a certain number of practicing professionals and a certain professional to population ratio?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus is often referred to as the Great Healer.

 

"We are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights among these are LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

 

I would suggest that reasonable access to healthcare, given our society, is more than implied in this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the rights in Constitution were considered natural rights or unalienable rights from the Creator (sorry atheists).

 

Right to free speech, right to assemble, etc.

 

More and more healthcare is called 'a right'.

 

Is it a right like the right to free speech as endowed by the Creator? Or this is a lessor 'man-made' right?

 

Here is the philosophical question list. If there were no doctors, no nurses, no dentists, no surgeons.....would healthcare still be 'a right'? If so, who would be responsible to provide it? Is any other 'right' dependent on a certain number of practicing professionals and a certain professional to population ratio?

 

Might be surprised at what Deists thought of as "their Creator." Far from an orthodox view of a Christian understanding of God.

 

As to the thread, I agree with Acemona. If we looking for "rights" from the creator, then the God I see revealed in the Scriptures would consider the health care (or best care) of someone a "right." See Jesus' discourse about a certain Samaritan who finds a beaten Jew on the road to Jericho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest inalienable rights are intangible. So, if you take aces example, the RIGHT should be that one has a right to defend oneself. There shouldn't be a RIGHT to bear arms.

 

Extending based upon that example, one should have the right to health. The instrument to protect that is equal access to quality, affordable healthcare. Thus, if the right to own a gun is the amendment to ensure the inalienable right to defend oneself, then the right to quality, affordable healthcare should be the amendment added to achieve health

Edited by rockmom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it odd that the conservatives do not view health care as a "right" but they support all the "right to work" bills.
Apples and trumpets.

 

Healthcare is not a right. How can something be a right when it impedes on someone else? Right to bear arms requires nothing from a second party. It does not force anyone to give me the arms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apples and trumpets.

 

Healthcare is not a right. How can something be a right when it impedes on someone else? Right to bear arms requires nothing from a second party. It does not force anyone to give me the arms.

 

 

Just asking the question. If this logic is the case for understanding "the right ot bear arms," then how is it wrong for the government to suspend the sale of weapons?

 

Suppose restrictions were placed on the "sale" of weapons by the government. You can own or bear arms however you chose to do so but it's simply illegal for someone to have a gun shop to supply you with the material to "bear arms."

 

I'm not trying to be a problem, I'm just asking that a second party is involved in the right to bear arms, namely the gun sales man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just asking the question. If this logic is the case for understanding "the right ot bear arms," then how is it wrong for the government to suspend the sale of weapons?

 

Suppose restrictions were placed on the "sale" of weapons by the government. You can own or bear arms however you chose to do so but it's simply illegal for someone to have a gun shop to supply you with the material to "bear arms."

 

I'm not trying to be a problem, I'm just asking that a second party is involved in the right to bear arms, namely the gun sales man.

The government places restrictions today on the sale of weapons. And your correct that in most transactions today a second party is involved however they don't have to be. A person could build their own gun. However the right to bear arms does not force a second party to be involved. The right to health care would. Now if you want to say the right to health care however no one has to give it to you then I agree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The government places restrictions today on the sale of weapons. And your correct that in most transactions today a second party is involved however they don't have to be. A person could build their own gun. However the right to bear arms does not force a second party to be involved. The right to health care would. Now if you want to say the right to health care however no one has to give it to you then I agree.

 

 

Thanks for the response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it odd that the conservatives do not view health care as a "right" but they support all the "right to work" bills.

 

Right to work is an extension of the basic freedom of association. Forcing one to join a union before they can work violates this basic individual freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right to work is an extension of the basic freedom of association. Forcing one to join a union before they can work violates this basic individual freedom.

 

Exactly my point they have the right to associate with that job or not. No one is forcing them to take that job.

 

Just like no one should have a right to health care, no one should have a right to work. Conservatives also tend to be against smoking bans in private businesses/ restaurants. Their logic is that if you do not want to want to work or shop where smoking is permitted, then don't apply or patronize that establishment. But that logic is not applied to right to work.

Edited by doubledeuce
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly my point they have the right to associate with that job or not. No one is forcing them to take that job.

 

Just like no one should have a right to health care, no one should have right to work.

But right to work doesn't force an employer to hire you. Right to healthcare forces someone else to give you healthcare.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But right to work doesn't force an employer to hire you. Right to healthcare forces someone else to give you healthcare.

 

I think there is some twisted logic there.

 

On the other hand, if you are accused of committing a crime, you will have an attorney appointed if you can't afford one, however, if you are sick (but have done nothing wrong) you will not have a doctor appointed. Logic seems fairly poor there as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using the site you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Policies.