Healthcare is a RIGHT

Healthcare is a RIGHT
>inb4 you don't have a right to the service of others
Explain libraries, police, fireman, and education then.

Go ahead I'm waiting.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/f82mHHAt6yI?t=6m5s
youtu.be/0IEQmuaJeew
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

None of those are inherently a right.

Too bad they are treated as such.

Who said they were?

Who said they weren't? Would you live in a community that didn't have them?

Would you not argue that a country has the right to defend it's people? If so then that necessitates a military, a literal service provided to the people and the country.

You just destroyed your own argument. Having "rights" to someone else is also called slavery.

Go be a commie elsewhere

I don't think you know what a right is.

A country has the right to defend its people. The people do not have the "right" to be defended. Services are not rights.
Constitutional rights are inalienable and exist with or without the government.

If that's the case is not the country made of a collective of people who are in turn giving their own rights to provide the right of being defended. If rights exist with or without the constitution then as a society we can deem with or without the constitution that the right to healthcare exists. Pursuit of LIFE, liberty and happiness not a right?

>tfw I'm a masters healthcare admin and policy

Bring it bitch.

An out of control fire affects more people than the one that started it. A dumb fatty dying of a heart attack only effects themselves.

"Life, liberty and happiness" are fairly vague terms.

People interpret them as they wish.

Pestilence, cancer, and hereditary diseases affect everyone.
>An out of control fire affects more people than the one that started it. A dumb fatty dying of a heart attack only effects themselves.
Using your argument why should I care when a fire burns down my neighbors house? Why should the cops solve a murder or a robbery? I'm not directly affected by it, why give a fuck?

Having a right to have a be someone's ward doesn't make sense. If there's a legitimate right, it's to MEDICAL SERVICES.

>Pursuit of LIFE, liberty and happiness not a right?

That's not even how that shit is worded you dingus.
Anyway, a right to life means than nobody can take your life. A right to liberty means that nobody can take your liberty. A right to the pursuit of happiness means that nobody can restrict you from that pursuit.

It does not mean that someone must provide for you so that you can live, it does not mean that someone must protect your liberty for you, or provide to you what makes you happy.

Those should all be privatized as well. Now what is your argument?

We don't have a right to libraries.

Firearms are a product that we are allowed to purchase as a right. No one is required to give them to us.

Education isn't a right either. You pay for it most of the time.

Police aren't actually legally obligated to help you by a supreme court ruling.

You're a moron and this is a slide thread.

LEAVE AND MOVE ON!

OBVIOUS BAIT!

I'VE DEALT WITH EVERYTHING THAT NEEDS TO BE DEALT WITH! MOVE ON

Lol I forgot about that part in the constitution that talks about libraries, police, firemen and education. Excellent thread Jew!

healthcare cannot be a right.

Right to free speech? Well you can say whatever you want, someone has to forcibly try to shut you up, that makes it a right.
Right to life? Same thing, someone ending your life is violating a state that exists without outside interference.
Right to religion? You can have your own religion. Nothing about religion means it requires anyone other than the individual believer.
Right to bear arms (i.e. right to self defense) again, someone would have to restrain you, or remove your surroundings (weapons) to stop that.
Right to equality. The only way to make one group have less rights than another is to actively have an outside force remove them. Without government involvement, all people have the same rights.

Your argument *could* be applied to the concept of civil liberties, i.e. actions within society that the government presides over and thus protects (marriage, voting, etc)
Some times people incorrectly refer to these as rights because the constitution elevates civil liberties to the same level of protections AS rights. But the difference is that civil liberties are NOT inalienable, meaning they can be removed.

Doing whatever you want to your own body in an attempt to heal yourself is a right.

Receiving healthcare is not a right, as it does not exist without government creating the system that allows for it.

Furthermore, it isn't even a civil liberty, as those are things, such as marriage, voting, identity protection, land ownership are all systems where the government is only stepping in to allow actions if all parties consent.

Healthcare being a "right" i.e. government guaranteeing that all people will be treated by doctors, means that doctors do not consent.

It can only be, at best, a social service. Police are a social service, because the criminal does not have to consent to being processed by police. Same with firefighters. The property owner does not have to consent to the actions of firefighters.

The Alt Right supports universal health care. We just don't want niggers and spics taking advantage of it.

cities are corporations that (you) choose to live in. if you don't like the services, maybe go live in some unincorporated area without those services.

socialistic libertarian
Government needs to not regulate my life, but they can tax the shit out of me to give me services.

That's not the alt-right.

That's the alt-left.

>socialistic libertarian

If anything, a 'socialist libertarian' would not support taxation. He would voluntarily engage in socialism with other voluntary participants, while leaving alone those who don't wish to take part in his asinine plays.

Alt right is not libertarian retard. We're fascist.

What part of "that's not the alt-right" did you not understand?
Fair enough, libertarian socialist.

There are no such things as rights. You don't matter and neither do I. There are no objective moral facts and rights don't exist. Some countries will grant rights in their constitutions, and those are the only rights that exist. However, they aren't objective facts and healthcare is not one of these (in the US at least).

dude, read the thread.
Rights are facets of existence.
Right to life exists because you are alive
Right to speech exists because humans can speak
Right to try and be happy exists because humans are capable of free will and emotion

Rights are a term to describe naturally available circumstances.

Rights aren't real things

You only have a right to those because you ended up paying for them.
I don't want to fucking pay for Boogie's weight loss surgery.

Is there such a thing as a right to have my dick sucked?

If you dare to watch it, the first video BTFO your world view in the first thirty minutes. You'll never be the same if you watch it.

part 1: youtu.be/f82mHHAt6yI?t=6m5s
part 2: youtu.be/0IEQmuaJeew

Read Locke, and you will understand why healthcare is NOT a right

Yes
But that doesn't mean someone has to do it, only that nobody can stop two or more consenting parties from doing it

It's in the preamble to the Constitution. It's sort of like a preface to a book. Liberals can't grasp that though.

> rights are facets of existence
Can you prove the existence of rights as objective facts? I didn't think so, so rights don't exist. The rest of what you wrote no longer follows (not that it ever really did, honestly), but I'll respond point by point.

> Right to life exists because you are alive
No it doesn't. Does that mean that ever living organism has a right to life? I'm not even talking about humans or even animals now, what about trees, fungi, and bacteria or viruses? Nobody has a fundamental right to anything.

> Right to speech exists because humans can speak
No, it exists (in the US) because it is enshrined in the constitution. Using your 'logic,' I have the right to murder people as I see fit because I have the capability to murder people.

> Rights are a term to describe naturally available circumstances
False. Rights are more than just existence, they are protected. The only way you can argue for the existence of objective rights is by changing the definition or rights to something trivial (and then shitily arguing it).

Rights are not the same as entitlements

A right is something you inherently have.
You have the right to carry arms
You have the right to speak freely
You have the right to not be searched without warrant

These are all things the government CAN'T do

An entitlement is something you get because of your action. IE TAXES

You are entitled to police and social services because you decided to pay taxes for it
The people decided they wanted public education and thus pay taxes for it

Well, it was originally "life, liberty, and property ownership," but "happiness" sounds better.

you dont have a right to any of those

those are just public services

if you built a cabin in the middle of nowhere, the government wont build all of those things by your cabin to provide you with that right

But if it is a right, then the government must step in and give everyone blowjobs, no?

Healthcare is a positive right, the Constitution is a charter of negative rights. Obama lamented this fact and tried to tip the balance of the supreme court; fortunately Trump will get 1-2 picks, that's about all he's good for.

>explain police

>Castle Rock v. Gonzales

>WASHINGTON – June, 2005 - The Supreme Court ruled that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

>The police didn’t respond to a woman’s pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnaping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed.

>Warren v. District of Columbia - 1981 – Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate’s screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived.

>When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: “For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers.” The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.’s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a “fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.” Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).

Eventually you'll probably get your way, not yet though.

>Libtards are bringing back all-but-extinct diseases by believing and pretending things like vaccinations are bad
>The long-term impacts of this shit and the lives that will be ruined could be considered straight-up evil
>But they feel they're an authority on healthcare

>Can you prove the existence of rights as objective facts?


Contrary to dead matter like stones, organisms require action to survive. If an organism fails to perform the required action, it dies. It's matter changes form and remains, but the life is gone.
Now, living organisms can be placed in more or less 3 categories of action. Plants and other primitive forms of life are limited in the actions they can perform, and they perform them automatically. They can not choose to act against their own interest, which is to survive (logically, because the alternative is death which can not be their interest).
Then come animals. They can perform a wider array of actions and can 'learn' some basic concepts, but are still ultimately guided by instinct. Their actions are not automatic, but an animal can not choose to act against its interest of survival. It can make mistakes and suffer for it, but it cant make conscious, self reflected decisions.

cont.

Healthcare should be provided to the citizens of a nation. They would pay in to it. Said nation would have to be racially homogeneous for it to work in the long term.

>Education is a RIGHT and needs to be as accessible as possible
Student debt blows out of control and literally no-one's qualified for a job
>Education is still a RIGHT and needs to be MORE accessible

(You)

> They can not choose to act against their own interest,
Source? You don't know that.

> but it cant make conscious, self reflected decisions.
Again, source? You don't know that. Ultimately, it's moot anyway because humans interact the same way as animals: it's all instinct, we just call it something different.

I hope part two is better than this because all you have done so far is make claims with no evidence or anything that lead nowhere.

Lol you already blew yourself tfo.
/thread

cont.

Humans, on the other hand, do not have instincts in the sense of animals. They do not know from birth how to survive.
That is the fundamental difference between humans and animals - humans are born a blank slate, but they can learn concepts and abstract them over and over. They are self conscious and very capable of acting against their self interest which, like for any organism, is ultimately their own survival.
For example, a man choosing not to learn a skill because he would rather be lazy, so basically a man choosing not to think, is acting against his RATIONAL self interest because he is not furthering his chances of survival. (Obviously, there are varying degrees to this)

So if we argue that mans most fundamental interest is his own survival, as is evident because man naturally does want to live, we can argue that it is morally right for man to act in this interest of survival. Acting contrary to it can not be morally right, as it will lead to his destruction. If it is morally right for man to survive, it is obviously morally wrong to restrict another mans actions of survival or to outright take his life.
Therefore we can conclude that there exists a human right to life, because it is evident by logical, rational thought that of which only man is capable.

Read some Ayn Rand or objectivist philosophy, they explain it better than I do.
But your personal feelings and conjecture are not a rational basis for determining the existence of rights, therefore your argument is invalid.

Just observe nature, this is self evident.

Your irrational refusal to admit the facts of nature is proof for what I'm typing. A dog would not sit down and refuse to eat because there is no proof that it needs food to survive. Only man can be so irrational.

no, that's a social service
a right exists OUTSIDE the government
The bill of rights is saying "we, the government, acknowledge that these rights exist outside of us, and thus we have no ability to take them away without due process"

Which is why sodomy laws are unconstitutional.
Rights are concepts.
Concepts exist.
Your confusing existence as a whole with mere physical existence.
>the rest of your points
See the point above. The constitution simply acknowledges that certain rights are protected BECAUSE they exist outside of the government. None of the rights exist BECAUSE of the government.

You are confusing the concept of protecting rights with the rights themselves.

A right (as applied to people, because that's the concept the term is addressing) is any circumstance, state, etc that occurs naturally, without the need for anyone else to participate.

If you are alone on an island
You can dress how you want, act how you want, and do whatever you want.
Nature has bestowed upon you those rights. No government exists, therefore those rights CANNOT be from the government.

>Source? You don't know that.
I don't think anyone wants to get into the whole "look, you have to have scientific evidence that existence even exists" argument.

asking for source on every single presumption of our reality is basically just derailing and distracts from the issue.

>Explain libraries, police, fireman, and education then.

They should be commercialized as well.

>Healthcare is a RIGHT

PAY MY HEALTHY!
ITS A RITE!

P A Y
M Y
H E A L T H Y

>Explain libraries, police, fireman, and education then.
You don't have a right to any of those and they aren't treated as such. You pay for them with your tax dollars, if you live in a locality that even has these services.

No it isn't. You know absolutely nothing about the consciousness (or lack thereof) of animals, plants, bacteria, etc. It's ok, I don't either, but I don't claim to know. It's not a fact of nature, it's gross speculation.

Concepts don't necessarily exist. It sounds like you're about to try and use the ontological argument for the existence of x (in this case objective rights). The problem with this argument is that it makes existence trivial. Objective rights exist only if you reduce the definition of existence to something that applies to anything the mind can concoct.

> Nature has bestowed upon you those rights.
That's not a right, it's just your capability. Nature hasn't bestowed shit on anybody.

> No government exists, therefore those rights CANNOT be from the government.
Oh, so that's where you draw the line? Literally any abstract concept one can dream up 'exists' to you, but the US government doesn't? Nice. The right doesn't actually exist on an objective level. It is simply a concept that is defended by the US government, so on US soil it's as if the right actually exists (though it does not).

> asking for source on every single presumption of our reality is basically just derailing and distracts from the issue.
No it isn't. Me asking you for evidence of this claim you pulled out of your ass as the foundation for your entire argument isn't distracting or derailing, it's me keeping you honest. I could say that rights don't exist because god tells me they don't and it would be just as powerful as your argument.

>It's not a fact of nature

Yes it is. Show me a plant or an animal acting against their self interest on purpose.

>Explain libraries, police, fireman, and education then.
Those are all local services, genius. If you don't like the police department in your shithole of a city, you can move a city over. You don't have that luxury with federal laws.

Of course healthcare is a right. I support free healthcare for all Serbs, for example. I mean, the quality of said healthcare isn't very good since our country is shoulders-deep in shit but we're going to recover soon, I hope.

>Constitution is a charter of negative rights.

Don't you have a right to an attorney?

>Warren v. District of Columbia

Now, I know I've been here too long because I gotta know: were they black?

>I could say that rights don't exist because god tells me they don't and it would be just as powerful as your argument

No, it wouldn't. The existence of God is not an objective fact. Nobody has been able to verify the existence of a mystical being like God.
The existence of humans and survival as their basic self interest however is an objective fact. That is the basis of logic from which the concept of rights is derived.

>thinks plants and animals have rights

thats some high-grade retardism

>some high-grade retardism

Your inability to read?
I have never claimed that plants or animals have rights. Quite the opposite.

rights are whatever the state says they are.

surprised people haven't figures this out yet.

If those were inherently rights, the failure of them to be provided would be the violation of your rights.

Live in a very remote place without reasonable access to a library? Rights status: Violated. Get expelled for being a raging autist from your cuckschool? Rights status: Violated like ur mum.

How exactly does one explain firemen or police as a right? Would it not exactly be the services they provide?

>Police don't come to my house in a reasonable amount of time
>Police don't come to my house because I called them for stupid bullshit
>Firefighters are on strike
>Firefighters refuse to rescue my cat from a tree

etc.

Animals sacrificing themselves for their offspring. That's a thing that happens. Also, you still have no proven that plants, animals, bacteria, etc. don't have consciousness as humans do. It doesn't matter, though, as all of these organisms are capable of performing actions that keep them alive, therefore, by your logic they also all have the right to life. And again, I have the capability of murdering someone, does that mean I have the right to do so?

You have no business talking about philosophy if your understanding of it is on the level of a 10 year old.

hold on to yer butt

>Show me a plant or an animal acting against their self interest on purpose.

>The existence of humans and survival as their basic self interest however is an objective fact. That is the basis of logic from which the concept of rights is derived.

so what is it Hans?

The logical assumption self-interest entails rights is false?

...or plants and cats have rights?

as a citizen, I decide what is or isn't a right

>10 year old

say that rights have some magical basis in feel-good philosophies

riddle me this dummy.


where did your learn of rights your from?

Man you're all retarded, the idea of having the government regulate and provide healthcare for all is that they won't have profits in mind when they negotiate with Pfizer and your CT Scanner manufacturor, they will burn their prices to the ground because they have a clientelle of 300,000 people. And they won't be looking to do any profit on it.

where did your learn of your rights from?

> The existence of God is not an objective fact.
Exactly, and the consciousness of animals, plants, etc. is also unknown/unable to be verified. That is my point exactly.

> That is the basis of logic from which the concept of rights is derived.

No it isn't. Human capabilities and human rights are not the same thing. Being capable of doing something doesn't mean that it is a right, it just means that you are physically capable of doing it. See my murder argument. Your logic is flawed because you have changed the definition of rights to suit your opinion. There are no objective rights just like there is no such thing as moral right/wrong. We're all just doing shit and facing the repercussions of our actions/the actions of organisms around us. Nobody has any rights.

>Pfizer and your CT Scanner manufacturor,
then they stop selling you stuff

lol

no

>first day at shareblue

sweetie you need better arguments

>definition of rights
Thats a good place to start

The Form of Rights: The Hohfeldian Analytical System

Liberties (Privileges): A has a privilege to φ if and only if A has no duty not to φ.

Claims: A has a claim that B φ if and only if B has a duty to A to φ.

Powers: A has a power if and only if A has the ability within a set of rules to alter his own or another's rights or duty.

Immunities: B has an immunity if and only if A lacks the ability within a set of rules to alter B's rights or duty.

Then someone else comes in and sells you the exact same drug for way way cheaper. You're retarded if you think that Pfizer is the only one who knows how to make Viagra.

There will always be somone who will find a way to make a reasonable profit on a clientelle of 3Million people

So your system creates an incentive to have the smallest number of suppliers possible.

wow what a great health care system

shortages and long wait times

>A right is something you inherently have.
>carry arms
>speak freely
>not be searched without warrant
>live
None of those are inherent right, but made up entitlements by pathetic humans.

How does it create that incentive? Most things in America are made by many different competitors, what makes drugs so special?

>but made up entitlements by pathetic humans.

claims are rights too

It depends on how loosely you define "right". Sure you can say a right to life means a right to healthcare if you define it loosely. But we also have the right to the pursuit of happiness, and if we defined that loosely we could say any recreational activities are a right.

>Most things in America are made by many different competitors

And those competitors go bye-bye when there isn't a profit incentive for people to enter the market and supply.

So if government is the sole purchaser of health care and drives prices below market value using purchaser power parity (PPP), then you have a price ceiling.

Prices ceiling result in shortages according to the law of supply and demand.

We are mostly able to serve the community needs of police, fire, an libraries without causing a shortage of service (mostly).

It can't meet the needs of education and expensive health care.

You just gave the actual definition of rights, which does not correspond to what you say in your previous arguments, then went right back to that same stupid argument. The issue here is that a set of rules is required for rights to exist (per the the definition). That's what differentiates capabilities and rights. Because there is no objective set of rules (right/wrong), there are no objective rights.

No.

My bad, I thought you were arguing for a single-payer system and protections of pharma companies

>Because there is no objective set of rules (right/wrong), there are no objective rights.

there's your flaw right there

You need an objective set of rules , just a set of rules.

Subjective rules do the same trick. Thats why your rights are not objective. The crux of my argument.

>Explain libraries, police, fireman, and education then.
You don't have a right to the service of others.

I could argue that carrying arms is a right, as it is in form of defending ones self. Being you can protect your own right to not be killed, I would say inherently that is a right.

I don;t like single payer because of that supply issues and becuase of the market structure it creates.

single-payer would force the health care market to work like the defense market, a Monopsony.

A monopsony is a reverse monopoly.

>Explain libraries, police, fireman, and education then.

None of these are rights.

Jesus tapdancing christ are people so stupid they no longer understand civil/human rights are different from public services?

Objectivity is neither required nor desired.

inb4 public food services

They're claims.

Do you not have a right to claims?

> You need an objective set of rules , just a set of rules.

No, we don't. There doesn't need to be moral rights or wrongs, people just have opinions and want to believe that reality agrees with them when it actually has no say in the matter. If you want to argue that objective morality exists, then you should have no problem proving it. It's like the existence of god, because there is no evidence of it's existence, therefore it doesn't by default.

> Thats why your rights are not objective.

That's what I've been arguing this whole time. That objective rights don't exist. People have opinions, but unless these 'rights' are enforced by a government, then it doesn't really matter.

And this has worked for ever other developed country why?

Just because you have the right to defend yourself doesn't entitle you to a publicly provided gun, you fucking moron.