Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Paying the healthcare costs of obesity
Options
Replies
-
That doesn't change the shape of your brain.0
-
eveandqsmom wrote: »That doesn't change the shape of your brain.
No, but it changes the fact that they couldn't exploit me, if I was never exposed to any nefarious advertising, which is what you were fingering. If anything, you'd be better laying the blame at the feet of some 16 year old guy with a mohawk, behind the trailers of the school I went to. Of course, you could get plausible (and ridiculous) if you were to lay it in a chain of I saw him, he saw his mom, his mom saw her dad, who saw Camel ads in the 1940s. That's stretching it a bit though, don't you think?0 -
I'm sorry, I missed your age. There have been no lawsuits from your generation. I am only 10 years older. We were exploited.0
-
Almost half our tax dollars go to defense. The rest is doled out in (albeit disproportionally) to what the government see fit to spend on. My point was that we don't NEED to spend 45% on defense. The majority of money isn't even spent on soldiers or servicemen. It's spent on research and development along with over priced cost of attaining weaponry.The US COULD have a more affordable health care system if 45% of taxes weren't spent on defense (more than practically all countries spend together on defense). Mind you I'm not saying reduce what we need to do to protect the country as a whole, but when we spend 3 trillion on planes (F35 series) that aren't even finished yet (ongoing delays and overbudget) and likely won't be needed on US soil unless a war comes over here, diverting some of that money instead to a more "user friendly" health care system would help. Hell, even kids would be able to get college education with that money. Of course with the money spent and profited on due to defense cost, that's likely not going to happen.
What about the tax dollars spent on foreign aid, to countries who despise the U.S. and express delight when anything bad happens to us?
What about the tax dollars spent subsidizing non-citizens, who haven't earned or contributed significantly, so they can disproportionately collect perks such as: WIC, EBT cards, Section 8, free doctors' appointments, free hospital services, subsidized childcare, subsidized state run postsecondary education tuition and subsidized utility payments?
These are two examples, and a there are few more I'd like to list, but they're too controversial to be discussed on this thread. I don't know what percentage of the tax pie these examples comprise, but I'd rather see cuts here than cuts to our defense.
And if I've gotten too political in this discussion and broke the rules, let me know and I'll stop gabbing and just lurk.
Honestly I don't know because I'm not in the military. I'd like to hear from active service men and women though, regarding the bolded quote above.
I don't see why our service members' opinion would rate any greater importance than the rest of the populous. The main functions of the military are to deter aggression and win wars. Those are goals that affect the country as a whole.
That being said, I do feel that military compensation should be equal to the upper end of the private sector, which it is...for the most part.
If there was a proposal to cut government funding to state or federally funded hospitals, I'd want to hear from the doctors and nurses who work at those hospitals. They know how they'd like to see money spent for the nuts and bolts, front line sorta work.
For instance, I know that in the charitable and privately funded Shriner's hospitals, nurses generally don't have to hunt for basic supplies like syringes, towels, wound dressings, blood pressure cuffs that work, etc.
In a government run, and even in some privately owned hospitals, nurses might have to run around for 15 minutes before they can locate what they need to change a catheter, start a nebulizer, hang an IV or do a sterile dressing - due to a tight budget for supplies.
Every military person I know is perfectly fine with a reduced budget, ASSUMING that it's cut from wasteful Pentagon and DoD programs, and not soldier pay, etc. That's the problem with pols though. We all know which would get cut, due to greased palms.0 -
Almost half our tax dollars go to defense. The rest is doled out in (albeit disproportionally) to what the government see fit to spend on. My point was that we don't NEED to spend 45% on defense. The majority of money isn't even spent on soldiers or servicemen. It's spent on research and development along with over priced cost of attaining weaponry.The US COULD have a more affordable health care system if 45% of taxes weren't spent on defense (more than practically all countries spend together on defense). Mind you I'm not saying reduce what we need to do to protect the country as a whole, but when we spend 3 trillion on planes (F35 series) that aren't even finished yet (ongoing delays and overbudget) and likely won't be needed on US soil unless a war comes over here, diverting some of that money instead to a more "user friendly" health care system would help. Hell, even kids would be able to get college education with that money. Of course with the money spent and profited on due to defense cost, that's likely not going to happen.
What about the tax dollars spent on foreign aid, to countries who despise the U.S. and express delight when anything bad happens to us?
What about the tax dollars spent subsidizing non-citizens, who haven't earned or contributed significantly, so they can disproportionately collect perks such as: WIC, EBT cards, Section 8, free doctors' appointments, free hospital services, subsidized childcare, subsidized state run postsecondary education tuition and subsidized utility payments?
These are two examples, and a there are few more I'd like to list, but they're too controversial to be discussed on this thread. I don't know what percentage of the tax pie these examples comprise, but I'd rather see cuts here than cuts to our defense.
And if I've gotten too political in this discussion and broke the rules, let me know and I'll stop gabbing and just lurk.
Honestly I don't know because I'm not in the military. I'd like to hear from active service men and women though, regarding the bolded quote above.
I don't see why our service members' opinion would rate any greater importance than the rest of the populous. The main functions of the military are to deter aggression and win wars. Those are goals that affect the country as a whole.
That being said, I do feel that military compensation should be equal to the upper end of the private sector, which it is...for the most part.
If there was a proposal to cut government funding to state or federally funded hospitals, I'd want to hear from the doctors and nurses who work at those hospitals. They know how they'd like to see money spent for the nuts and bolts, front line sorta work.
For instance, I know that in the charitable and privately funded Shriner's hospitals, nurses generally don't have to hunt for basic supplies like syringes, towels, wound dressings, blood pressure cuffs that work, etc.
In a government run, and even in some privately owned hospitals, nurses might have to run around for 15 minutes before they can locate what they need to change a catheter, start a nebulizer, hang an IV or do a sterile dressing - due to a tight budget for supplies.
The "military budget" is comprised of broad areas most of which the average service person will never be made aware. If the hospital has a budget for medical supplies, and a budget for pizza parties, cutting the pizza parties shouldn't affect the workers' ability to perform their job (unless recruiting is an issue).
I guess my point is that the military is a big beast with a big budget. You don't have to be a service member to know that there should be some opportunities to cut spending there without putting our people at risk. Though the opinions of service members vary widely, you can assume that in a vacuum, we would always support having the best tools, technology and training available to accomplish our mission and be fairly compensated. However, as we are all citizens as well, we have the same vested interest in the overall best outcome for the country as a whole.0 -
Almost half our tax dollars go to defense. The rest is doled out in (albeit disproportionally) to what the government see fit to spend on. My point was that we don't NEED to spend 45% on defense. The majority of money isn't even spent on soldiers or servicemen. It's spent on research and development along with over priced cost of attaining weaponry.The US COULD have a more affordable health care system if 45% of taxes weren't spent on defense (more than practically all countries spend together on defense). Mind you I'm not saying reduce what we need to do to protect the country as a whole, but when we spend 3 trillion on planes (F35 series) that aren't even finished yet (ongoing delays and overbudget) and likely won't be needed on US soil unless a war comes over here, diverting some of that money instead to a more "user friendly" health care system would help. Hell, even kids would be able to get college education with that money. Of course with the money spent and profited on due to defense cost, that's likely not going to happen.
What about the tax dollars spent on foreign aid, to countries who despise the U.S. and express delight when anything bad happens to us?
What about the tax dollars spent subsidizing non-citizens, who haven't earned or contributed significantly, so they can disproportionately collect perks such as: WIC, EBT cards, Section 8, free doctors' appointments, free hospital services, subsidized childcare, subsidized state run postsecondary education tuition and subsidized utility payments?
These are two examples, and a there are few more I'd like to list, but they're too controversial to be discussed on this thread. I don't know what percentage of the tax pie these examples comprise, but I'd rather see cuts here than cuts to our defense.
And if I've gotten too political in this discussion and broke the rules, let me know and I'll stop gabbing and just lurk.
Honestly I don't know because I'm not in the military. I'd like to hear from active service men and women though, regarding the bolded quote above.
Based on the 2012 budget numbers, defense accounted for about 19% of the budget.
I'm not active duty, but my husband is, so here's one factor to consider: the military is part of the government, and like most government entities, the money is use it or lose it. If they don't spend all the money in a given fiscal year, the government figures they don't actually need, and gives a smaller budget next year. Once the money is reduced, it's really hard to get it back, because that means arguing with Congress. So even if your department doesn't need the whole budget for a given year, they still find a way to spend it, because if all hell breaks loose the following year, they want to have some money immediately available and not have to wait for congressional approval. Pretty much every government entity I've ever worked with does this.
The military also needs to stay on top on evolving technology, and that not only means weapons, but also engineering and medical advances. Many of the items developed for troops find their way into the civilian world in some format - clothing, outdoor gear, prosthetics, electronics, transportation, etc, so it's not like the spending on defense doesn't also find it's way back to benefiting the civilian population.3 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »The riparian rights discussion is fascinating
You just wanted to write riparian rights, didn't you?
I just wanted to point out that there is such a thing. Rather specialized area of practice even. With actual laws and stuff.
So for property discussions do you prefer the bundle of sticks or Swiss cheese analogy? I personally love Swiss cheese on hamburgers.
It would seem not everyone in this thread agrees there ::should:: be rights to something like that. it isn't 'Murican enough and infringes on their freedom. Or something.
there is a difference between the fundamental right to have ones property and some pie in the sky dreamed up right that everyone somehow has a natural human right to access free healthcare...2 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »The riparian rights discussion is fascinating
You just wanted to write riparian rights, didn't you?
I just wanted to point out that there is such a thing. Rather specialized area of practice even. With actual laws and stuff.
So for property discussions do you prefer the bundle of sticks or Swiss cheese analogy? I personally love Swiss cheese on hamburgers.
It would seem not everyone in this thread agrees there ::should:: be rights to something like that. it isn't 'Murican enough and infringes on their freedom. Or something.
there is a difference between the fundamental right to have ones property and some pie in the sky dreamed up right that everyone somehow has a natural human right to access free healthcare...
Obviously the people in these countries would disagree that it's something "dreamed up":
Norway
New Zealand
Japan
Germany
Belgium
United Kingdom
Kuwait
Sweden
Bahrain
Brunei
Canada
Netherlands
Austria
United Arab Emirates
Finland
Slovenia
Denmark
Luxembourg
France
Australia
Ireland
Italy
Portugal
Cyprus
Greece
Spain
South Korea
Iceland
Hong Kong
Singapore
Switzerland
Israel1 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »The riparian rights discussion is fascinating
You just wanted to write riparian rights, didn't you?
I just wanted to point out that there is such a thing. Rather specialized area of practice even. With actual laws and stuff.
So for property discussions do you prefer the bundle of sticks or Swiss cheese analogy? I personally love Swiss cheese on hamburgers.
It would seem not everyone in this thread agrees there ::should:: be rights to something like that. it isn't 'Murican enough and infringes on their freedom. Or something.
there is a difference between the fundamental right to have ones property and some pie in the sky dreamed up right that everyone somehow has a natural human right to access free healthcare...
Obviously the people in these countries would disagree that it's something "dreamed up":
Norway
New Zealand
Japan
Germany
Belgium
United Kingdom
Kuwait
Sweden
Bahrain
Brunei
Canada
Netherlands
Austria
United Arab Emirates
Finland
Slovenia
Denmark
Luxembourg
France
Australia
Ireland
Italy
Portugal
Cyprus
Greece
Spain
South Korea
Iceland
Hong Kong
Singapore
Switzerland
Israel
Because these countries have this, it doesn't mean that it is a right. The "right" is the part that was dreamed up.0 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »The riparian rights discussion is fascinating
You just wanted to write riparian rights, didn't you?
I just wanted to point out that there is such a thing. Rather specialized area of practice even. With actual laws and stuff.
So for property discussions do you prefer the bundle of sticks or Swiss cheese analogy? I personally love Swiss cheese on hamburgers.
It would seem not everyone in this thread agrees there ::should:: be rights to something like that. it isn't 'Murican enough and infringes on their freedom. Or something.
there is a difference between the fundamental right to have ones property and some pie in the sky dreamed up right that everyone somehow has a natural human right to access free healthcare...
Obviously the people in these countries would disagree that it's something "dreamed up":
Norway
New Zealand
Japan
Germany
Belgium
United Kingdom
Kuwait
Sweden
Bahrain
Brunei
Canada
Netherlands
Austria
United Arab Emirates
Finland
Slovenia
Denmark
Luxembourg
France
Australia
Ireland
Italy
Portugal
Cyprus
Greece
Spain
South Korea
Iceland
Hong Kong
Singapore
Switzerland
Israel
Because these countries have this, it doesn't mean that it is a right. The "right" is the part that was dreamed up.
To them it's a "right." Just like some people in this thread think there's a right to property or a right to get your grievances heard before a court of law. I understand some people here don't think this is a right, and I really do respect and want to hear the other point of view, but some people in the US do think it's a right. And many people in the countries I listed above think so too. I don't mean to use the "appeal to bandwagon" fallacy, though.1 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »The riparian rights discussion is fascinating
You just wanted to write riparian rights, didn't you?
I just wanted to point out that there is such a thing. Rather specialized area of practice even. With actual laws and stuff.
So for property discussions do you prefer the bundle of sticks or Swiss cheese analogy? I personally love Swiss cheese on hamburgers.
It would seem not everyone in this thread agrees there ::should:: be rights to something like that. it isn't 'Murican enough and infringes on their freedom. Or something.
there is a difference between the fundamental right to have ones property and some pie in the sky dreamed up right that everyone somehow has a natural human right to access free healthcare...
Obviously the people in these countries would disagree that it's something "dreamed up":
Norway
New Zealand
Japan
Germany
Belgium
United Kingdom
Kuwait
Sweden
Bahrain
Brunei
Canada
Netherlands
Austria
United Arab Emirates
Finland
Slovenia
Denmark
Luxembourg
France
Australia
Ireland
Italy
Portugal
Cyprus
Greece
Spain
South Korea
Iceland
Hong Kong
Singapore
Switzerland
Israel
Because these countries have this, it doesn't mean that it is a right. The "right" is the part that was dreamed up.
Many in the US think of rights as inherently "freedoms" (a right vs. the gov't). But there's also a long tradition of seeing them (human rights) as related to what humans need: stuff like the right to be free from hunger. We recognize this to some extent in refusing to permit hospitals to deny emergency care, and so that many people (and entities like the WHO) see basic health care as a right isn't new or outside this tradition.
It's also considered a human right by the Catholic Church: "The Catholic tradition affirms that health care is a basic right flowing from the sanctity and dignity of human life." (Thus, long history in providing health care.)
Not saying anyone needs to agree -- I'm even cool with people taking the position that the only proper way to use right is in the Constitutional "free from" sense (although I don't agree). But it's not just something dreamed up out of the blue for the purposes of this discussion.
Edit: newmeadow is correct that a "right" can be a legal entitlement based on a statute too. That's a common way to use the term (and is legally correct), even in the US.1 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »The riparian rights discussion is fascinating
You just wanted to write riparian rights, didn't you?
I just wanted to point out that there is such a thing. Rather specialized area of practice even. With actual laws and stuff.
So for property discussions do you prefer the bundle of sticks or Swiss cheese analogy? I personally love Swiss cheese on hamburgers.
It would seem not everyone in this thread agrees there ::should:: be rights to something like that. it isn't 'Murican enough and infringes on their freedom. Or something.
there is a difference between the fundamental right to have ones property and some pie in the sky dreamed up right that everyone somehow has a natural human right to access free healthcare...
Obviously the people in these countries would disagree that it's something "dreamed up":
Norway
New Zealand
Japan
Germany
Belgium
United Kingdom
Kuwait
Sweden
Bahrain
Brunei
Canada
Netherlands
Austria
United Arab Emirates
Finland
Slovenia
Denmark
Luxembourg
France
Australia
Ireland
Italy
Portugal
Cyprus
Greece
Spain
South Korea
Iceland
Hong Kong
Singapore
Switzerland
Israel
Also, it is not free. Someone, somehow is paying for it.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »The riparian rights discussion is fascinating
You just wanted to write riparian rights, didn't you?
I just wanted to point out that there is such a thing. Rather specialized area of practice even. With actual laws and stuff.
So for property discussions do you prefer the bundle of sticks or Swiss cheese analogy? I personally love Swiss cheese on hamburgers.
It would seem not everyone in this thread agrees there ::should:: be rights to something like that. it isn't 'Murican enough and infringes on their freedom. Or something.
there is a difference between the fundamental right to have ones property and some pie in the sky dreamed up right that everyone somehow has a natural human right to access free healthcare...
Obviously the people in these countries would disagree that it's something "dreamed up":
Norway
New Zealand
Japan
Germany
Belgium
United Kingdom
Kuwait
Sweden
Bahrain
Brunei
Canada
Netherlands
Austria
United Arab Emirates
Finland
Slovenia
Denmark
Luxembourg
France
Australia
Ireland
Italy
Portugal
Cyprus
Greece
Spain
South Korea
Iceland
Hong Kong
Singapore
Switzerland
Israel
Also, it is not free. Someone, somehow is paying for it.
Would it be more accurate to say "free-at-the-time-of-services-via-collective-taxes"?1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »The riparian rights discussion is fascinating
You just wanted to write riparian rights, didn't you?
I just wanted to point out that there is such a thing. Rather specialized area of practice even. With actual laws and stuff.
So for property discussions do you prefer the bundle of sticks or Swiss cheese analogy? I personally love Swiss cheese on hamburgers.
It would seem not everyone in this thread agrees there ::should:: be rights to something like that. it isn't 'Murican enough and infringes on their freedom. Or something.
there is a difference between the fundamental right to have ones property and some pie in the sky dreamed up right that everyone somehow has a natural human right to access free healthcare...
Obviously the people in these countries would disagree that it's something "dreamed up":
Norway
New Zealand
Japan
Germany
Belgium
United Kingdom
Kuwait
Sweden
Bahrain
Brunei
Canada
Netherlands
Austria
United Arab Emirates
Finland
Slovenia
Denmark
Luxembourg
France
Australia
Ireland
Italy
Portugal
Cyprus
Greece
Spain
South Korea
Iceland
Hong Kong
Singapore
Switzerland
Israel
Also, it is not free. Someone, somehow is paying for it.
Would it be more accurate to say "free-at-the-time-of-services-via-collective-taxes"?
That would certainly be more accurate, if a bit unwieldy.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »The riparian rights discussion is fascinating
You just wanted to write riparian rights, didn't you?
I just wanted to point out that there is such a thing. Rather specialized area of practice even. With actual laws and stuff.
So for property discussions do you prefer the bundle of sticks or Swiss cheese analogy? I personally love Swiss cheese on hamburgers.
It would seem not everyone in this thread agrees there ::should:: be rights to something like that. it isn't 'Murican enough and infringes on their freedom. Or something.
there is a difference between the fundamental right to have ones property and some pie in the sky dreamed up right that everyone somehow has a natural human right to access free healthcare...
Obviously the people in these countries would disagree that it's something "dreamed up":
Norway
New Zealand
Japan
Germany
Belgium
United Kingdom
Kuwait
Sweden
Bahrain
Brunei
Canada
Netherlands
Austria
United Arab Emirates
Finland
Slovenia
Denmark
Luxembourg
France
Australia
Ireland
Italy
Portugal
Cyprus
Greece
Spain
South Korea
Iceland
Hong Kong
Singapore
Switzerland
Israel
Also, it is not free. Someone, somehow is paying for it.
Would it be more accurate to say "free-at-the-time-of-services-via-collective-taxes"?
If you're not health insured for whatever reason, it's not free for you either.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »The riparian rights discussion is fascinating
You just wanted to write riparian rights, didn't you?
I just wanted to point out that there is such a thing. Rather specialized area of practice even. With actual laws and stuff.
So for property discussions do you prefer the bundle of sticks or Swiss cheese analogy? I personally love Swiss cheese on hamburgers.
It would seem not everyone in this thread agrees there ::should:: be rights to something like that. it isn't 'Murican enough and infringes on their freedom. Or something.
there is a difference between the fundamental right to have ones property and some pie in the sky dreamed up right that everyone somehow has a natural human right to access free healthcare...
Obviously the people in these countries would disagree that it's something "dreamed up":
Norway
New Zealand
Japan
Germany
Belgium
United Kingdom
Kuwait
Sweden
Bahrain
Brunei
Canada
Netherlands
Austria
United Arab Emirates
Finland
Slovenia
Denmark
Luxembourg
France
Australia
Ireland
Italy
Portugal
Cyprus
Greece
Spain
South Korea
Iceland
Hong Kong
Singapore
Switzerland
Israel
Because these countries have this, it doesn't mean that it is a right. The "right" is the part that was dreamed up.
Many in the US think of rights as inherently "freedoms" (a right vs. the gov't). But there's also a long tradition of seeing them (human rights) as related to what humans need: stuff like the right to be free from hunger. We recognize this to some extent in refusing to permit hospitals to deny emergency care, and so that many people (and entities like the WHO) see basic health care as a right isn't new or outside this tradition.
It's also considered a human right by the Catholic Church: "The Catholic tradition affirms that health care is a basic right flowing from the sanctity and dignity of human life." (Thus, long history in providing health care.)
Not saying anyone needs to agree -- I'm even cool with people taking the position that the only proper way to use right is in the Constitutional "free from" sense (although I don't agree). But it's not just something dreamed up out of the blue for the purposes of this discussion.
Edit: newmeadow is correct that a "right" can be a legal entitlement based on a statute too. That's a common way to use the term (and is legally correct), even in the US.
Needs=/= human rights. The freedom to take action to fulfill those needs does (as long as the rights of others are not infringed upon as a consequence). When government controls healthcare and denies service based on whatever criteria, that freedom is impeded. The same can be said of the food supply, which has been used in the past by governments to kill millions.1 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »The riparian rights discussion is fascinating
You just wanted to write riparian rights, didn't you?
I just wanted to point out that there is such a thing. Rather specialized area of practice even. With actual laws and stuff.
So for property discussions do you prefer the bundle of sticks or Swiss cheese analogy? I personally love Swiss cheese on hamburgers.
It would seem not everyone in this thread agrees there ::should:: be rights to something like that. it isn't 'Murican enough and infringes on their freedom. Or something.
there is a difference between the fundamental right to have ones property and some pie in the sky dreamed up right that everyone somehow has a natural human right to access free healthcare...
Obviously the people in these countries would disagree that it's something "dreamed up":
Norway
New Zealand
Japan
Germany
Belgium
United Kingdom
Kuwait
Sweden
Bahrain
Brunei
Canada
Netherlands
Austria
United Arab Emirates
Finland
Slovenia
Denmark
Luxembourg
France
Australia
Ireland
Italy
Portugal
Cyprus
Greece
Spain
South Korea
Iceland
Hong Kong
Singapore
Switzerland
Israel
not sure what any of those countries have to do with the US....
In most of those countries you have to wait one year plus for basic care, so not so sure that there "right" is being realized...1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »The riparian rights discussion is fascinating
You just wanted to write riparian rights, didn't you?
I just wanted to point out that there is such a thing. Rather specialized area of practice even. With actual laws and stuff.
So for property discussions do you prefer the bundle of sticks or Swiss cheese analogy? I personally love Swiss cheese on hamburgers.
It would seem not everyone in this thread agrees there ::should:: be rights to something like that. it isn't 'Murican enough and infringes on their freedom. Or something.
there is a difference between the fundamental right to have ones property and some pie in the sky dreamed up right that everyone somehow has a natural human right to access free healthcare...
Obviously the people in these countries would disagree that it's something "dreamed up":
Norway
New Zealand
Japan
Germany
Belgium
United Kingdom
Kuwait
Sweden
Bahrain
Brunei
Canada
Netherlands
Austria
United Arab Emirates
Finland
Slovenia
Denmark
Luxembourg
France
Australia
Ireland
Italy
Portugal
Cyprus
Greece
Spain
South Korea
Iceland
Hong Kong
Singapore
Switzerland
Israel
Because these countries have this, it doesn't mean that it is a right. The "right" is the part that was dreamed up.
Many in the US think of rights as inherently "freedoms" (a right vs. the gov't). But there's also a long tradition of seeing them (human rights) as related to what humans need: stuff like the right to be free from hunger. We recognize this to some extent in refusing to permit hospitals to deny emergency care, and so that many people (and entities like the WHO) see basic health care as a right isn't new or outside this tradition.
It's also considered a human right by the Catholic Church: "The Catholic tradition affirms that health care is a basic right flowing from the sanctity and dignity of human life." (Thus, long history in providing health care.)
Not saying anyone needs to agree -- I'm even cool with people taking the position that the only proper way to use right is in the Constitutional "free from" sense (although I don't agree). But it's not just something dreamed up out of the blue for the purposes of this discussion.
Edit: newmeadow is correct that a "right" can be a legal entitlement based on a statute too. That's a common way to use the term (and is legally correct), even in the US.
Needs=/= human rights. The freedom to take action to fulfill those needs does (as long as the rights of others are not infringed upon as a consequence). When government controls healthcare and denies service based on whatever criteria, that freedom is impeded. The same can be said of the food supply, which has been used in the past by governments to kill millions.
That's either a semantic argument (what is a right) or a policy one. Point is there are different ways to understand the term "right" and "something that all humans should be entitled to as a matter of basic human dignity" is one. And in that definition food and basic health care could be considered rights.
I haven't suggested that the gov't should control healthcare, either. Policy is a separate issue, although in my personal policy preference there would be a basic level of care guaranteed (and paid for by the taxpayer), and people can buy more or insurance covering more to their heart's content. My parents have Medicare and a supplemental policy -- it would be like that, perhaps.
But that's really beside the point. The discussion here is can it be appropriate to use the term "right" to refer to something other than a freedom from restriction? Of course it can.0 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »The riparian rights discussion is fascinating
You just wanted to write riparian rights, didn't you?
I just wanted to point out that there is such a thing. Rather specialized area of practice even. With actual laws and stuff.
So for property discussions do you prefer the bundle of sticks or Swiss cheese analogy? I personally love Swiss cheese on hamburgers.
It would seem not everyone in this thread agrees there ::should:: be rights to something like that. it isn't 'Murican enough and infringes on their freedom. Or something.
there is a difference between the fundamental right to have ones property and some pie in the sky dreamed up right that everyone somehow has a natural human right to access free healthcare...
Obviously the people in these countries would disagree that it's something "dreamed up":
Norway
New Zealand
Japan
Germany
Belgium
United Kingdom
Kuwait
Sweden
Bahrain
Brunei
Canada
Netherlands
Austria
United Arab Emirates
Finland
Slovenia
Denmark
Luxembourg
France
Australia
Ireland
Italy
Portugal
Cyprus
Greece
Spain
South Korea
Iceland
Hong Kong
Singapore
Switzerland
Israel
not sure what any of those countries have to do with the US....
Am I being unclear? I'm sorry about that. Shall I rephrase my statement? Let me try, but please don't get mad or attempt to demean my opinion for reiterating something, ok?
The people, the human beings in these countries with as rich and varied of lives, thoughts, and feelings as you, along with millions of people in this country do in fact feel that medical care is a basic right. I will grant you that not all of the people I've just mentioned are Americans. But many millions of Americans do feel health care is an entitlement owed to citizens. In fact, in the US, for the past 50 years citizens over age 65 have an entitlement to health care. As do prisoners, prisoners of war, children, pregnant women, the disabled.
I suppose there's a semantic argument to be made between right/entitlement/obligation, etc.
Does that help?0 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »The riparian rights discussion is fascinating
You just wanted to write riparian rights, didn't you?
I just wanted to point out that there is such a thing. Rather specialized area of practice even. With actual laws and stuff.
So for property discussions do you prefer the bundle of sticks or Swiss cheese analogy? I personally love Swiss cheese on hamburgers.
It would seem not everyone in this thread agrees there ::should:: be rights to something like that. it isn't 'Murican enough and infringes on their freedom. Or something.
there is a difference between the fundamental right to have ones property and some pie in the sky dreamed up right that everyone somehow has a natural human right to access free healthcare...
Obviously the people in these countries would disagree that it's something "dreamed up":
Norway
New Zealand
Japan
Germany
Belgium
United Kingdom
Kuwait
Sweden
Bahrain
Brunei
Canada
Netherlands
Austria
United Arab Emirates
Finland
Slovenia
Denmark
Luxembourg
France
Australia
Ireland
Italy
Portugal
Cyprus
Greece
Spain
South Korea
Iceland
Hong Kong
Singapore
Switzerland
Israel
not sure what any of those countries have to do with the US....
In most of those countries you have to wait one year plus for basic care, so not so sure that there "right" is being realized...
As someone who lived in one of those countries, I've never had to wait that long for care I needed...
When I was diagnosed with gestational diabetes (the most severe health issue I've had other than an emergent situation that occured when I was already in the hospital), I was at the diabetes educator and given a (free) glucometer plus a small starting supply of lancets and test strips within 1 business day.
I have a family doctor and while I can't always get in same day to see him, he works out of a shared practice clinic and I've always been seen by someone within 45 minutes. The few times I've been to emergency I've been seen within 2 hours. When I took my son to emergency because his testicle tripled in size and changed colour we were assessed within 30 minutes and he had an ultrasound to rule out torsion within an hour.
The only time I've had to wait to see a specialist was when my doctor referred my son to rule out any further issues. But it was listed as non urgent on the referral form, and had it been more urgent we would have been seen same day.
Also, none of the above cost me a dime directly. I have no issue with my tax rate--I feel it is fair given that I utilize what my taxes pay for.
In my country, the right to universal healthcare is enshrined in our charter of rights & freedoms, which is part of our constitution.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 399 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 979 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions