Warning! You are now in the Formal Debate area, which means you must abide by the rules.

A Quick Start for New Commers of This Forum!!!

The topic is: Is Health Care a Human Right?

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

This is a pretty hard question to answer, as you have to first define what a human right is. For the sake of my response, I define it as something a group or individual agrees in consensus to be a human right. This means that there are no human rights ordained by god, or that exist outside of one humans belief that they exist. In the US, these rights are listed in the consititution and other legal documents.

My opinion is that health care is not a legal right, nor is it a human right to be provided by govt. Rather, legally, the constitution does not prohibit an individual from maintaining their health and therefore by the 10th amendment in the Bill of Rights, this is a power reserved to the states or the people, and not a right.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

This is certainly a deep question, but it seems to me that your definitions and terms in this second post (if we are to accept them for the purposes of this debate) pretty much nullify all discussion from the get go.
Let me show you what I mean:

If we accept this definition, then you have just completely and totally answered the question and no farther debate is necessary. If we accept that a "human right" is whatever "a group or individual agrees in consensus to be a human right", then there's no point in discussing it, we should just take a poll and that will answer the question.


And here you've made a switch from "human rights" (which according to your statement above are defined by popular consensus) and "legal rights" were are defined in the wording of documents.
Based on the way you've defined the terms, if enough people decided that health care was a human right then, by definition, it would be, regardless of what relation it had to any legal rights.

The problem, as I see it, is that you've defined "human right" in purely subjective terms such that it changes meanings based on which individual person or group of people you're talking to. If the term has no fixed, objective meaning (at least for the purposes of this discussion) then we can no more debate over whether health care is a human right than we can debate over our favorite ice-cream flavors.

Since I'm being somewhat critical here, I'll also suggest a potential solution to this problem, though of course you're free to reject it. I will define "human rights" as "The liberties and privileges all humans are morally entitled to; I.E. those things to which they have a just claim."
Using this definition, I would say that "life" is a basic human right. This means that, baring conflict with other moral imperatives, humans are morally entitled to live and depriving them of life is unjust.
Now, as far as health care goes, it fails to be a human right (IMO) because, since health care is not freely and universally available, you cannot have a "right to have health care" without, necessarily, placing an obligation to provide health care on someone else. So the question is not merely, "Do people have a moral claim on health care?", but "Are people morally obligated to provide health care for all others?" And I don't consider that claim of obligation to be just. Therefore, since all humans are not morally entitled to receive health care, it is not a human right.

To farther clarify my position as regards politics, which I suspect may be the source of this question, even though I don't consider health care to be a "human right", I would be quite willing to support a program that provided health care to those who could not afford it. While I don't think doing so is a moral obligation, it would none-the-less be a worthy and noble cause, IMO, depending on how carefully it was done.

You actually stated exactly what I meant, which is that there are no rights other than those we make for ourselves. This is different however from what a personal philosophy might bring you. For example, I personally beleive that all humans should have the freedom to join and leave social groupings as they see fit, countries for example. I also beleive they should have constant ability to change the leadership of a group. But these are MY human rights, and I accept that others may not have the same opinion.

BUt, back to healthcare, as it regards the US, yes, the real question is Should health care be guarunteed to all american citizens. My answer is of course, no. This is something people can do for themselves, and do not need govt for.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

Would it not make sense to simply say that you believe humans have an innate right to "join and leave social groupings as they see fit"?
Defining "rights" as what people should be allowed to do seems to be the most rational use of the term (IMO), and seems to be how it is commonly used.
Of course, that doesn't mean that people will necessarily agree on what those rights are. Saying "I believe X to be a human right" doesn't mean that no one can disagree with you.

I don't think that's completely accurate. Not everyone can obtain the health care they need. That doesn't necessarily mean that the government should be providing it, but it isn't fair to say that everyone has the ability to get all of their own health care for themselves.

What Im getting at is that in my view, rights do not exist outside of an individuals belief in them. So, the rights that I beleive in are not innate, they dont exist without someone supporting them. This is to differentiate from the idea that god gives us our rights. But to get back to the topic, the real question is do you think that all Americans have a right to have a certain level of health care, meaning that the govt must enforce access to that right. To compare it to the right to bear arms, for example, that is a specific right, which the govt must enforce. If I want to own a weapon, the govt has to make sure that no one can deny me that. Should healthcare be the same way?

My answer is of course, no. I think the constitution does and should limit the federal govt very narrowly to protection of life and freedom of choice.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

From an altruistic standpoint I would say sure, it’s a right , but regards reality, to me at least it’s a right incumbent upon a nation to provide as so far as it does not inhibit or de-structure a care mechanism in place for the many, through other means in favor of what appears given to the majority..... plainly spoken, to create a right, that may in the end, disservice 80% of the pop. to serve all, to me defeats a point in democracy that must be realized...the needs of the many, not the one, for the few must be addressed...

__________________
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)

That question presupposes the existence of human rights themselves and that leads immediately to the question of the definition of these human rights.

Upon taking a survey of the field of human rights in actual human history, it becomes pretty obvious that these things don't actually exist of and in themselves as absolutes - they vary from place to place, in both content and validity. Real world examples of this phenomena are too numerous and commonplace to bother with examples.

Certainly, in some cases, some people in some states have enacted some statutes asserting that some rights have some legal standing and that these same rights may sometimes be impinged under some circumstances and/or some conditions. That's the reality of the legal status of human rights generally. Nowhere in the world is there an authorative listing of human rights, nor is there any examples of any such human rights standing inviolate before the power and authority of the law and/or human expediency (and/or caprice). For every right one can name, be it a 'human right' or any other type of 'right' and I will show you the general case where that right does not apply (or is legally excepted, often on a large scale).

The most widely cited assertion of the existence of human rights would be the UN Charter on Human Rights. It is to be noted that this UN Charter is legally non-actionable among the signatory nations. Enough said.

On this basis, I think it should be pretty clear that human rights, of and in themselves, don't actually exist in any absolute legal sense. Such rights as do exist in any common usage of the term are rather arbitrary in their granting and selective in their application (such as a right of legal counsel, or the right of habeas corpus). Lots of people on this planet don't have those rights at all - and yet lots of people do claim to have those rights. And some American citizens may have just lost these recently.

Ergo, human rights are human artifice. Old rights can fade away and new rights can come to be. Humans may enact them in statutes and charters and humans may abjure them - that's all there is to it.

And thus, if human rights don't actually exist, then it logically follows that healthcare cannot be a human right. One may certainly believe it ought to be, or argue that it should be, but one cannot state that it is.

Is Health Care a Human Right?

Firstly, you have to define your terms i.e. “Health Care” and “Human Right”.

1) What is health care?

The supply of an aspirin if one has a headache? Or is it the requirement that the patient can afford to pay for whatever treatment is required?

2) What is a human right?

The right to starve or be murdered? The right to potable water? The right to live and prosper?

Once these questions have been dealt with satisfactorily, we come back to the original question. “Is health care a human right?”

To quote from a very important piece of American history, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. “

The rights to life and the pursuit of happiness, and by extension health, are directly applicable to this passage.

Having said that, health care, in the civilised world is not, free as it is the fashion to claim in the USA. In the civilised world, provision of health care, free at the point of need, is a duty which is incumbent on the government.

It's not free, we pay for it through our taxes. This does not however, mean that we cannot take out private health insurance. It does mean that we have no need to purchase health insurance from profit-based organisations.

__________________
Saorsainn agus cha robh cho-bhann

Ok, after all these years of being a member this is my first time posting in the formal debate section (I think I've always been a little scared to be honest, but it's time to take the plunge). I followed the link in Jviehe's first post and did a quick refresher of the rules, but let me know if I get out of line at all.

In relation to the question, I think it needs to be broken down and analysed in two parts: what is a human right, and what is health care? If we were to look at human rights on their own, I'm quite sure that we wouldn't list health care among them. However, if we were to look at health care in the context of annual national budgets, then health care would certainly be listed as a priority for spending, along side education, agricultural services, justice, etc.

It is this latter context that I will focus on. From one perspective I understand the reluctance of some to have their tax dollars subsidise another's health care. I'll digress for a moment to explain that although Australia has a universal health care system (and has arguably the worlds best public health care system - Medicare - where every person is covered), I still opt to pay for private health insurance. This is due to two reasons: the first is simply that I can afford it (and private health insurance in Australia is not cheap); and the second reason is that I want the peace of mind of having the option of a higher standard of service (both hospital and extras, such as optical, dental, etc) than the public system. However, if I had no health insurance at all and was sick or in an accident, no hospital or doctor in the country would not admit me, or treat me.

Now after my digression, back to the point - not every person can afford health care. This might be through their own doing, or not. Should that person therefore not receive medical attention if they are sick or injured? I say no. What is interesting is that the issue of health care is a very polarising one in that it is one the few, and most vocal areas where people argue that their tax dollars should not have to subside others; yet there are many, many other areas where our tax dollars subsidise people or programs which we might never use, yet rarely, if ever say anything about those.

Should therefore, every public program be a user-pays system? Should the tax system be completely overhauled to take a pro-rata amount of a person's income and then disbursed as per their usage of public avenues in the financial year, and then returned to them, or sent a bill for the remainder? Eg, I don't have children, so should my tax dollars be used to subsidise education, child-care centres? I have never committed a crime or been arrested, so should my tax dollars be used to subsidise a police force? Should only people who have families have to pay for family-related things? Should criminals be subject to higher tax rates, etc to subsidise a police force which results from their actions?

What I usually find most upsetting in relation to the subsidisation of health care is that usually in the same breath as people argue against such funding they support massive public increases to areas such as defense. In the US budget for example, when non-war time Defence Department budgets sit around 400 billion, would it really make that much difference to reduce it by $10 billion and feed this to health care subsidies?

In essence, I do not believe that health care is a fundamental human right as such, but it is also within our realm of responsibility to ensure that society is able to provide measures to assist everyone, where possible and appropriate.

Certainly, as prescribed earlier, definitions are in order. Here are mine:

1) A Right is basically access to something without condition. (Of course that something to be accessesed must be made available.. in other words, it must be possible for the right to be fulfilled.)

2) Health Care in my world, means that no matter what problem I have with my body, I can at least get it assessed by a medical expert or professional. And if there is a standard treatment, to get that treatment.


So basically under those two definitions, I think it is impossible for every human in the world (all 6.6 Billion of us) to receive health care with the current facilities in place.

- Therefore the demand cannot be supplied adequately.

- This negates my definition of a right because it is not something that can be made accessible to all humans.

- You can further say that because some procedures are very expensive that not everyone can receive adequate health care either due to their limited personal funds or the limited funds of the nation that they belong to.

To sum it up, I do NOT think that Health Care is a Human Right. It's feasible that it COULD be in the future if the conditions on earth make it so that Health care is much more readily accessible and there are enough doctors and medical professionals to dispense it.

__________________

Congratulations President-Elect Obama

That is an interesting way that you phrased which is that for something to be a right, it has to be available. Im not sure I agree with that definition. I would say instead that a right is something that can not be denied if it is available. This of course does not mean that anyone has to provide it for you, or enable access for you.

Lets take two people coming across a water hole. If water is a right, then others should not stop you from drinking. But this does does not mean one person has to bring you the water or make sure there is water in the hole.

This is how you might view healthcare. I dont think anyone should stop you from taking care of your health, but I also dont think we should be forced into making it available and providing it.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

This is an important point. Healthcare is a service that is provided by others. In that regard it is impossible that receiving healthcare is a human right because it would mean that others must be coerced into providing it. What is a right is that no person should be barred from seeking healthcare if they are able to.

We haven't adequately defined what a human right is and from where they stem, but I think we can reach a consensus that no human right can precede the rights of other individuals. As an analogy we can examine the freedom of expression (I believe there is a consensus that this is a human right). We have the right to expresses ourselves as we please, but we don’t have the right to possess presses, transmission equipment, or anything else that may be used to spread our voices. We cannot be barred from obtaining them, but they are not provided for us simply because we have that right.

Ok. With your water example, .... Water is a right and it costs $200 per bucket. Three rich men and two poor men walk to the well. The three rich men each walk away from the well with water and the two poor men are turned away and walk away thirsty.

In this case, because water costs some money (just like healthcare) the people who didn't have the means were denied access to something that should otherwise be accessible.

By the way, this is a general question about whether or not it should be a human right...at least that's the way it was framed. If we focus on what healthcare system America should/should not implement we would be ignoring the rest of the human race that does not live in America.

The main problem I have with making it a right is that it's just not practical or feasible to make it accessible to all the world's citizens. It's not cheap enough, some countries could not financially support a public system, and there arent enough doctors.

__________________

Congratulations President-Elect Obama

Hmmm. I read the thread and I will throw my in my 2 cents.

A human right is, in my opinion, something which prevents others from harming you in any way.

You do not have a right to water, or food, only the right not to be prevented from them. You have a right to "not" be murdered. You have a right to speedy trial, as well as all the rights in the Bill of Rights. It basically boils down to that we should all have the freedom to do anything, as long as it doesn't violate someone else's rights.

Jefferson once said....

Still one thing more, fellow-citizens -- A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities. -- Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, 1801

Human rights are to protect us from others, not to let us live off our nanny government. This is what I consider "human rights." Healthcare is not a human right, in my opinion.