Is healthcare a right or a privilege II

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 4 PM Pacific.

 

[Matt Black]

See folks his informal fallacy is his unproven and false premise which is that if you do not support universal health care then you do not want to help people in need therefore you are willing to let them die and because of this you are not pro life.

1. it is not true that one must accept universal health care in order want to help people in need.
2. It is not true that universal health care is the only way to meet the needs of people who cannot afford health care.
3. It is not true that rejecting universal health care means you want to let people die.

Asserting such is called begging the question. It is n informal fallacy which reasonable people should avoid.

I am not understanding why this needs explanation.

We are talking about the right to access healthcare as a corollary of the right to life. Once again you have misunderstood the issue and made a series of bare assertions with no evidence adduced to support them.

So, once more for clarity: I am asking how you square being 'pro-life' with being against healthcare being a right.

Still waiting for that answer.

 

[carpro]

Disagree. Look up EMTALA. Legally, anyone who shows up in an Emergency Room seeking treatment must be stabilized and treated regardless of ability to pay.

And no, that right is not free. It is paid for by the providers since it is an unfunded mandate.

Don't have to look it up. It's been around for decades. It's the safety net the left claims doesn't exist.

But,as you say, it ain't free, so it's not a "right". Liberals will look at it that way and, since they think it's free, to them it becomes a "right".

But it's still a service and it has to be paid for. There's nothing there that we really disagree on.

 

[Revmitchell]

We are talking about the right to access healthcare as a corollary of the right to life. Once again you have misunderstood the issue and made a series of bare assertions with no evidence adduced to support them.

So, once more for clarity: I am asking how you square being 'pro-life' with being against healthcare being a right.

Still waiting for that answer.

Once again i do not have to square it because there is no conflict and yes once again the two are not related. Not sure how many times I have to say that.

 

[Matt Black]

Then explain, using evidence not merely opinion, how there is no conflict. Is that an easier way of asking the question?

 

[carpro]

Using the word "right" to characterize such a legal obligation seems like a shift of meaning. I think that's why the conversation shifted towards natural rights.

As I see it, you pop out of the womb with every right, and if someone lived their entire life on a deserted island, they would still have every right. This other contructs, stemming from governments and businesses, are more properly understood as goals and obligations. In my opinion.

Pretty much what I think. True "rights" are free, at least monetarily. That doesn't mean they are without cost. The tree of freedom is still watered by the blood of patriots.

Anything that is paid for in dollars and cents, regardless of who pays it, is not a "right". And somebody always pays.

 

[Rob_BW]

Then explain, using evidence not merely opinion, how there is no conflict. Is that an easier way of asking the question?

Explain, using evidence, why chocolate ice cream is more delicious than vanilla ice cream. Lol...

We're arguing over opinions in here. Science cannot give us empirical proof of any of this.

 

[Rolfe]

I think that's why the conversation shifted towards natural rights.

I missed the shift. Ironically enough, I will blame the post-op meds prescribed by the surgeon who did a rather expensive arm rebuild paid for by private insurance.

*laugh*

 

[Matt Black]

Explain, using evidence, why chocolate ice cream is more delicious than vanilla ice cream. Lol...

We're arguing over opinions in here. Science cannot give us empirical proof of any of this.

Alright, I'll refine my request: explain, using cogent arguments and reasoning (and, where possible, evidence), how you square being pro-life with denying that the right to healthcare is a corollary to that.

 

[Rob_BW]

I missed the shift. Ironically enough, I will blame the post-op meds prescribed by the surgeon who did a rather expensive arm rebuild paid for by private insurance.

*laugh*

I think it happened between Grimm's Law and the Great Vowel Shift. (How's that for philological chops. )

Hey, but at least I'm willing to acknowledge that word meanings can change over time, right?

 

[Rob_BW]

Alright, I'll refine my request: explain, using cogent arguments and reasoning (and, where possible, evidence), how you square being pro-life with denying that the right to healthcare is a corollary to that.

That's what we've both been doing. Seems we can either keep at it or agree to disagree.

You want chocolate or vanilla?

 

[Matt Black]

Except I haven't seen the good Reverend put forward a reasoned (as opposed to unsubstantiated assertions) defence of his position as to how he can claim to be pro the right to life and not pro the right to healthcare as its adjunct.

 

[Rolfe]

I think it happened between Grimm's Law and the Great Vowel Shift. (How's that for philological chops. )

Evidently I am presently in no good position to comment.

 

[Rob_BW]

Except I haven't seen the good Reverend put forward a reasoned (as opposed to unsubstantiated assertions) defence of his position as to how he can claim to be pro the right to life and not pro the right to healthcare as its adjunct.

And I'm sure he and others feel the same about your posts.

I don't want this to be shocking, but did you know that sometimes (and this is especially true on the internet), people will argue about a topic and not come to a consensus.

I'm fine with this. Most people are.

 

[Matt Black]

I have put forward a reasoned argument - on your Natural Law/ Rights framework terms based on John Locke and have cited an article in support. I have yet to see anything similar from your side. Unless you produce something of that nature, the observer is forced to conclude that you have no argument, merely an opinion which can thus be safely dismissed.

 

[carpro]

Alright, I'll refine my request: explain, using cogent arguments and reasoning (and, where possible, evidence), how you square being pro-life with denying that the right to healthcare is a corollary to that.

You will never get an answer because your parameters are false.

We don't deny anyone the "right" to healthcare. They have the same "right" to it as I do. If they want it, they have to pay for it. If they refuse to do so, or can't, they can go to the local ER in this country and be taken care of.

That's easy to "square" with being against government sanctioned, and paid for, murder of a child.

 

[Matt Black]

And if they are diagnosed with a longstanding or terminal condition but cannot pay for treatment, what then? Your ER isn't going to treat them long term is it? How can you say with a straight face that such a person has the right to life in such circumstances?

 

[Rob_BW]

I have put forward a reasoned argument - on your Natural Law/ Rights framework terms based on John Locke and have cited an article in support. I have yet to see anything similar from your side. Unless you produce something of that nature, the observer is forced to conclude that you have no argument, merely an opinion which can thus be safely dismissed.

And I put the Locke quote into context, yet you did not respond. Locke spoke of depriving someone of something they possessed.

I guess if he were alive we could ask him, but that ship has sailed. (Regardless, even if a manuscript popped up where Locke flat out wrote that access to doctors and medicine should be provided free to the populus, well, he is not infallible, now is he? I am not a "Lockian," even though he got plenty right.)

So you haven't produced any evidence to change my mind, and I haven't produced any that has changed your mind. Yet you cannot even tolerate the possibility that you may be wrong, while I freely admit that our disagreement is on opinions. Since, as I stated earlier, your goal is to affirm a right to healthcare and silence debate.

 

[Rob_BW]

And if they are diagnosed with a longstanding or terminal condition but cannot pay for treatment, what then? Your ER isn't going to treat them long term is it? How can you say with a straight face that such a person has the right to life in such circumstances?

John McCain was just diagnosed with brain cancer, a type that has a high mortality rate. He may have a year and a half left.

He's going to die. At what point is his right to life violated? He has access to the best healthcare. Access to both government and private healthcare. And in the end it won't keep him alive. When do we assume guilt for his death, since his right to life is about to be violated?

 

[Matt Black]

I responded by expressly quoting Locke and stating that it was explicit IMO that he was sanctioning the right to health. But, as you say, we are, as with any other text including the Bible, free to draw what conclusions we see therein.

[ETA: cross posted with you: I'm not talking abiut a situation ad idem with McCain's, however,what if McCain's condition was treatable and he was a pauper - what then?]