I would say that healthcare is not a "right" in the sense of a "right" being a service or agency which you are owed as a citizen/human being.
That said, I believe that a civilized society recognizes the responsibility of ensuring that its citizens have healthcare.
One can argue the merits of provision of healthcare as being a
responsibility of society. That's a perfectly valid discussion with points on both sides. But as you say, even if society has decided it has a responsibility, that doesn't make health care a right.
No, it's just sad watching you pull garbage out of your ass.
There it is again, the default position of so many on the left.
"Whether my opinions have merit or not, and whether or not I can provide logical backup for them, is irrelevant. If you do not agree with us, you will SHUT UP. But we welcome debate on the matter, really."
I'm surprised we've gone this far without DarkAudit demanding (yet again) that I be banned.
Health care isn't a right... but it serves the basic public interest to ensure that all of it's members are in good health. As such, it makes good sense to have a free health care option, even if it's standards aren't as high as the private field.
That being said, I don't see how we can afford a public health care option in this country without excluding a large portion of the population from it or making the standards so low as to be ineffective.
And Gas... seriously, stop parroting charity. If Charity was nearly as prevalent as you claim it to be, the US wouldn't be ethically challenged as it's become.
It
is prevalent, though not among all political persuasions, and of course not entirely in the narrow confines of what you mean (and what you thought I meant) by "charity." I meant it as a concept of human interaction, not as a specific tax-exempt entity for humanitarian purposes.
The Founding Fathers declared that we are "endowed with unalienable rights, among them are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." There is no question that in order to have life we must have health. Yet there has been only limited constitutional language specific to this right.
To have life we must also have food. Why don't we have a right to food? To have life we must also have shelter. Why isn't there a right to shelter?
The rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is not about letting YOU demand things from others, it's about preventing GOVERNMENT from TAKING things from YOU. The government cannot DEPRIVE you of life by shooting you for your political or religious beliefs, for example.
The "cruel and unusual punishment" clause of the 8th Amendment to the Constitution has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to require prisoners, as part of their humane treatment during detention, to be guaranteed the right to health care.
That's because by imprisoning someone, the government has prevented their ability to seek medical care on their own and pay for it on their own, so they are obliged to provide and pay for it.
I know how much Gas loves to slobber all over the 2nd Amendment. I love how he tactically likes to avoid the others.
You were the one avoiding me when you just started telling me to "shut up" instead of responding to my posts. I've responded to every one you've made, without telling YOU to "shut up" even though I consider your opinions to be beyond naive and poisonous to the country, the civilization and the species. But here I am debating with you in a civil manner, while you tell me to "shut up."
To get back to the electricity thing, too - just because the government has ruled that the electric company can't turn off your electricity when it might kill you doesn't mean you have a right to electricity. Neither one of us can just march right down to the utility company and demand they start service to us, because of our "right" to electricity, with no regard to whether or not we intend to pay them for it. It only means that we have the right not to be killed.
(back issues)
