Howcome people don't want it?

...

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=OzeTZSEesXY
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Because it's not a human right.

It's not a right because you don't have access to other people's labor.

It's expensive and bearueacratic.

>free healthcare

Nothing's free user.

At least be honest, it's taxpayer funded health care.

And if Medicare/Medicaid and the VA are any indication of what universal healthcare would be like, it's no wonder the public doesn't support it.

Hell, people on Medicare have to buy supplemental private insurance plans because there's so much shit it doesn't cover.

There are no other rights than what are given to you by your state.
If healthcare is deemed a right, then it is a right.

Yeah, that too.

You have it backwards.

You have inherent rights. The state should only exist to protect those. Even if the state oppresses those rights, you natural 'right' doesnt go away, just your ability to exercise it does.

The state cannot mandate or create new human rights. They can only enforce new rules.

What is the source of these inherent rights?

I know you're going to say God, so i'm going to laugh at you now

>the state gives you your rights
>being this bluepilled

that's not how rights work retard

Med student here: we are by oath (do no harm) required to give you access to our labor.

Not providing healthcare to an individual who requests it because they can not afford it is doing harm. Learn some empathy you fucking losers

Property is just a social agreement to recognize a state of exclusion around something, arrange for the willing transfer of that state of exclusion, and to broadly respect that state of exclusion.
All rights are as real as the community consensus they rest on. There is no inherent anything about it. If you haven't got a cite, I'll accept a reasoned rebuttal.

If you don't know the difference between positive and negative rights then look it up.

If you aren't smart enough to see how treating positive rights such as healthcare as a real right, rather than a privilege, after some reflection PLEASE stop posting.

>What is the source of these inherent rights?

Biological fact.
Existence and self-awareness.
No God or State required.

What if I want an elective surgery? Well shit dude looks like my bills are going to be free from now on because I have an owie.

Are you fucking high?

I work in the healthcare insurance industry, I basically just want things to remain exactly as they are because any change to the law could disrupt the market and put my job in danger.

Your health is not my obligation.

Yes, but doing it because you voluntarily subscribe to the hypocratic oath is one thing.

Stealing my money to support your programs is bullshit

>Doctors are forced to take care of me because it is my right!

Homogeneous countries do not seem to mind paying extra taxes for universal healthcare, and I would not mind either.

However, living in mongrel country, we do not want our tax money to pay for Shaniqua and Pedro (even though our tax money already pays for them while we get nothing).

Owning property isn't a right. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are.

>1 post by this ID

its not black and white since healthcare is vague term. Should the victims of the boston bomber have been refused trauma care because they couldn't pay for it?

They should have been helped by their friends and family. If they were such cunts that nobody wanted to help them voluntarily, yes, they should have been refused treatment

You're conflating two unrelated things.

Should the victims receive urgent care? Yes.

Do they have a RIGHT to the care? No.

Should the doctors, nurses, janitors, receptionists at the hospital be compensated? Yes.

black man pulls AR15 on Trump supporter

youtube.com/watch?v=OzeTZSEesXY

Here's the thing, medicine is like any other industry. Compare it to construction.

We'd all love to live in a sprawling mansion, but most of us will be lucky to live in a modest three bedroom house/apartment. An analogy could be the difference between cutting edge experimental treatment and getting clean and safe treatment when giving birth.

Obviously then you ration resources to those that can't afford to pay (government system) or you take out insurance (private). Problem is nobody likes the idea of palative care decisions (death panels) or premiums going up and up.

The amount of resources "wasted" on mental illness is incredible.

This is the core of the totalitarian worldview.

>do no harm
access to medical attention is a negative right and you, a larper, should neck yourself, because med school actually requires literacy to enter

Thanks for your response. But if victims SHOULD receive urgent care is that not simultaneously granting them the right to care?

>Homogeneous countries do not seem to mind paying extra taxes for universal healthcare, and I would not mind either.
The countries don't, but the citizens of those countries do. The only portion that don't are the free loaders or the people paying very little. You seem to think the "contributions" are the same. Many of those people pay nothing.

If 1 person requires a $1 trillion operation to survive, is it still their right to have it done?

No. This is where the whole compassion thing comes in.

After the treatment is administered, friends, family or private insurance should foot the bill. Because there was labor there and there is a bill which needs to be paid to all the people involved. No free lunch etc.

It's not your intrinsic right to have other people do this, therefore you should get billed afterwards for other people's labor.

This is one of the many reasons people are upset with illegals being in the country - they use this social safety net and then fuck right off back to their job which is sending money to Mexico, abusing the compassion.

Conceptually though, nobody has a RIGHT to healthcare, for the same reason I don't have a right to housing or a right to transportation or a right to massages.

Is food a human right? Should we hand over control and distribution of all food production to the government? Oh wait that always results in millions of people starving to death.

You are aware neither the Declaration of Independence and the Birch Society are binding on that point?

You simply choose to blame the starved instead, like the Mexican farmers who didn't care to, never asked to, and never wanted to compete against the USA's test tube food. Care to guess where the failed farmers went?

It's true though. See below.
Ok so let's assume there is some kind of universal code, due to God or Nature or whatever, that bestows "rights." Whether this is true or not is debatable, so we'll assume it is.
Even if this code exists, it will have no meaning whatsoever without some kind of action on the part of the society which expects said "rights."

For example, one right might be that of life, i.e. to not be randomly murdered. If so, then the real "right" is not a right at all, but a commandment: "thou shalt not kill," to put it Biblically. Same goes for "free speech" or property rights. These "rights" are really orders or expectations: you shouldn't inhibit someone's speech because you disagree with them, you shouldn't steal or vandalize another's property. If you believe in the universality of these principals, they should be truly described as "morals," not rights, because they require a certain behavioral standard to actually work.

In any case, it is the State which enforces these rights. If there was no government to stop people from killing each other, then you would have no "right" to not be murdered at all. If the state didn't have laws against it, people could steal or squat on your property whenever they wanted, as long as they had enough force to stop you from removing them.

The State's monopoly of force, therefore, is the practical source of all laws and as such of all rights. There could be some "universal standard" out there, but it would have no effect without a State to enforce it.

Well then maybe the totalitarian worldview is the correct one.

>Well then maybe the totalitarian worldview is the correct one.

Except almost every totalitarian worldview has been shitty, genocidal and invariably seems to fail.

Come try to take my life, my liberty, or my happiness.

Bill of Rights is pretty binding.

Every successful, stable society in the history of the human race has basically been totalitarian.
>Inb4 muh early United States
The early US was not stable by any means; among other problems, it had a brutal civil war only 80 years after its founding, which is frankly pathetic.

In any case my main point (rights come from the state) would still apply to the US.

In other words, the rights one has are exactly the rights one can defend, and likewise for any association of more than one person.
inb4 basement arsenal inventory lists

>Well then maybe the totalitarian worldview is the correct one.
Probably not. A totalizing ideology just has a truth for every insignificant question. In other words, lifestylism. Totalitarianism is the political system based on the idea that all truth comes from a single source which conveniently happens to coincide with the state. Totalitarianism is for babby's power level, especially when the source of all truth is muh constitution.

OMG SOMEONE'S DROPPING SICK KNOWLEDGE BOMBS

You have no right to happiness. Only to chase it and never reach it.
Watch out for sneks.

>In other words, the rights one has are exactly the rights one can defend, and likewise for any association of more than one person.
That's a really good way of putting it. If your capacity to defend yourself exceeds the State's capacity to defend you, then you have effectively formed your own "State" and as such can guarantee your own rights. However in practical terms this is pretty rare.

Close. The State is an adversary to most people, and communities have spirits and standards of their own, so pissing off city hall is ill-advised. Likewise pissing off large portions of the townsfolk. They, likewise, have such rights as their numerical superiority can guarantee for themselves. If those rights happen to override yours, your response to that conflict is another test of your vs. their strength, whoever "they" the adversary might be in this second move. It's all about the bigger gorilla until the other gorillas can come to a durable arrangement. Then shit just gets all complicated. Autarky 4 lyfe