Asian Fever

Is Health Care a 'Right'?

Purrr VertIcal

New member
Oct 4, 2008
571
4
0
Mistress Matisse writes for The Stranger, a Seattle paper equivalent to Vancouver's Georgia Straight. She also writes a regular blog for other subjects, more involved or personal. (I have no personal comnnection to her, she doesn't know me - lol - but I wouldn't mind!).
Many interesting reads within. She's a Pro Domme, and fomer SP. Recently she posted an interesting entry about the US debate over health care.

http://mistressmatisse.blogspot.com/

This latest entry of hers will make for good subject matter for discussion on hthis board.

==========

Pasted Copy of entry:

Friday, October 10, 2008

Just For Some Political Balance…

This is why I don’t think I’m ever going to be a really gold-star liberal. I sorta kinda agree a little bit with this article in the National Review.

I know, the National freakin’ Review, bastion of hard-right-wingers everywhere. Don’t ask how I got to the link, I read way too much political stuff, and I’m not sure it’s entirely good for me. I was ranting about the general idiocy of Lou Dobbs to Traveler yesterday. He stared at me thoughtfully and said, “You should really not be allowed to watch TV or read the newspapers until after the election.” I think he feared for my blood pressure or something.

(Hah, like you could keep me from reading. Good luck with that. So, anyway, I somehow clicked through some link or other and wound up reading the article. This post will make no sense to you unless you do, too, but the article is pretty short, so you can click over there and then come back.)

It’s about health care, and the question author Bill Whittle poses is: is health care a right? He’s springboarding off the answer Obama gave in the last debate – which was “Yes.” Mr. Whittle, you will not be astonished to learn, disagrees.

Now understand, I have not spent any more time studying the problem of health care than the average healthy person. That means: not much. But it’s true that when people say “health care is a right”, I think to myself, really?

I mean, a right. Seriously? I don’t understand that. I can see, as any reasonable person can, that everyone having all the health care they need is by far the most desirable state of affairs, and that it’s a worthy goal for us to strive for as compassionate human beings. I can understand the idea that we should all make some contribution to the world and be kind to people who are less fortunate than ourselves. I have no argument with that.

But a right? I think of rights as pretty basic things: life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, the right to free speech and free association – those are examples of rights, in my mind. I don’t know if having health care, as needful as it is, is in that category to me. I generally dislike “slippery slope” arguments, because they don’t really address the issue. But Whittle’s extension of the idea to food and shelter has a certain punch: you will die without food, so why is food not “a right”?

Of course, many people would say that being fed and housed is a right. I’m not saying that it’s wrong to want to care for other people, and to work towards that goal, I’m simply saying I don’t understand how those things are rights. Those types of statements feel to me like they’re watering down the idea of what a right really is. When I think of rights, I think of things that I have, inside me, which should not be taken away from me by any outside force. They are things that are integral to me being a human being. I don’t inherently have health care, or food or shelter. I must create some situation in which I get them. Or someone else must create it. But it doesn't just happen.

It may well be that I just have a blind spot about this. I’ve almost never been legally employed by anyone, and I have definitely never been employed anywhere that had health care benefits. Thus, I’ve always had to provide my own health care insurance. That’s just…what you do, in my head. In fact, I’ve never even entertained the idea of getting any form of government assistance, like unemployment, welfare, food stamps, student loans/grants, or anything like that. I don’t think those programs are bad, I just haven’t participated in them. The whole concept of anyone else being involved in providing my health care is foreign to me. I suppose when I’m old I’ll make use of Medicare, if it’s still there. And if I try, I can certainly construct a scenario in my head – an extremely unpleasant one- which would end with me applying for government aid. So I'm not saying "oh, I'm too good for that, I'd never do it."

I can see that there’s some disconnect between my ideas that “It’s okay that taxes fund some food/shelter/medical care for people who need it” and “But it’s not a right”. If it’s not a right, then why is it acceptable for the government to pay for it? I don’t know. That’s a gap in my reasoning that I can’t explain. But my point is not that the government shouldn’t help people. It’s just that the idea of my having a right to some external thing I didn’t work for/pay for is puzzling to me. Unlike the author, I’m not unwilling to be persuaded to another point of view. If someone makes a clear and cogent argument to me about how health care really qualifies as a right, then I’ll change my mind. I haven’t heard that yet, though.
 

Purrr VertIcal

New member
Oct 4, 2008
571
4
0
Obviously we Canadians don't need to think about whether health care is a 'right', so this thread doesn't provoke/evoke passionate feelings like the above Seattle article might.

I personally know of a couple of doctors who prefer to work down there, as the pay is better for them.

Anyone ever experience a need to go south of the border for urgent care, surgery, etc? Or know anyone who has?
 

Krustee

Banned
Nov 9, 2007
1,567
11
0
Funny how this thread just got ignored?


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fYIkmUX7mrw&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fYIkmUX7mrw&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
 

Oldfart

Long Standing Member
Mar 31, 2003
4,645
2,869
113
Still lost in the '60s
Health care is an important part of human rights

Every Canadian has the right to life, liberty and security of the person.

In the USA, everyone has the unalienable rights of life, liberty and TPOH.

How can one have life, security and happiness without health care?
 

chilli

Member
Jul 25, 2005
993
12
18
I challenge the writer of that article or anyone else for that matter to get cancer and then answer the question.

It's easy when you are healthy to ask questions like this, but when you are sick and getting treatment WIPES out your entire savings and puts you hopelessly in debt.

You sing a much different toon.

People by and large are such hypocrites.
 

whoisjohngalt

Member
Aug 4, 2009
147
1
18
Vancouver area
My two cents

The tyranny of the status quo is so powerful when it comes to health care that most Canadians seem unable to imagine an alternative to our current publicly funded universal health care system, other than the dreaded, supposedly free-market American system.

The argument I often hear supporting a government funded universal health care system from people who are not otherwise doctrinaire socialist types is that health care is somehow different from other goods and services because it is a necessity of life, and therefore should not be thought of in terms of crude economic terms such as supply and demand.

But health care is not the only necessity of life. Surely far more fundamental necessities are food, clothing and shelter. So if the argument re health care is valid, then should we not also have universal government funded provision of food, clothing and shelter? Think for a minute how it would be if we treated food production and distribution the way we treat health care. Do people really think it would be an improvement? How many people are currently dying of starvation in Canada?

I think most people, myself included, would agree that it is desirable to use a portion of our tax dollars to provide for the poor and disadvantaged, including ensuring access to health care. But this could be accomplished without having a government monopoly on funding and prohibiting the vast majority of Canadians who are perfectly able to provide for their own health care from doing so on their own terms. Consider that the only nations on the planet that I am aware of that by law do not permit citizens from purchasing private primary health insurance are North Korea, Cuba and Canada. Even the socialist utopias of Scandinavia and Western Europe all have private parallel health care systems running alongside their government systems.
 

HankQuinlan

I dont re Member
Sep 7, 2002
1,744
6
0
victoria
We also have rights to food and shelter. As a libertarian and fiscal conservative I've often had issues with welfare and other social "freebies'. However, as I get older I view the waste in the system and the laziness and criminality of system abusers as a price we have to pay to support those who cannot help themselves.

A just society is judged on how it looks after those who cannot help themselves. It kills me to know that we could double or triple the services to children, the elderly, the handicapped and the mentally ill if we got rid of wasters and cheaters. Unfortunately, to deter the lazy we have to keep welfare barely palatable. It's a shame.
I am NOT a Libertarian, but I completely agree with this analysis. Any rich nation such as ours that does not take care of the needy should be ashamed of itself. This includes access to food, clean water, shelter, and health care. Why we (and worse, the US) would not even pay lip service to these rights is beyond my comprehension.

How that system is organized is a different matter, so long as it provides access to everyone without crippling debts.
 
Ashley Madison
Vancouver Escorts