Healthcare--a right or not?

So you think "common human morality" is not natural? St. Thomas thought it was. Cicero thought it was, as did Hamilton, William Blackstone, Lysander Spooner, Rothbard, and every real libertarian I know. All Christians think it's natural. Hell, can you name even one single natural law theorist who didn't think natural law is something that can be easily recognized by all healthy people?

 

By you, I would hope. Or do you think it's okay to torture babies to death for fun as long as nobody's around to stop you?

 

So... in the end...you're just fine with might makes right, even though you said you don't want to live in such a society.

 

So you think it's just fine and dandy to torture babies to death for fun as long as nobody stops you or calls you to account. Noted.

 

What I think or do isn't of relevance.
If there is 1 person in the world, and I'm sure there are more than 1, does what you said, how does that grant the baby or child the right?
Who will stop anyone from doing what you are against?

What point are you trying to make. Is it universal in the entire world that babies will never be tortured?
Is it wrong, most definitely.
Just because something is wrong, doesn't automatically make it a right. Unless some outside group/person takes it upon themselves to act on the perpetrator.

How about our country dropping bombs on foreign cities in the ME? Killing children, pregnant women, and babies. It that our right?

You ask some RWers here, and they say we have the right, ask the families of those innocents killed and they will say we have NO right.

 

I would agree with that, as long as they didn't try to prevent people from having their own private health care on the side, outside the government run system.

 

I don't recall seeing healthcare in the US Constitution. Just sayin.

 

Until you tell me of another right. I don't know of any other.

- - - Updated - - -

I would hope there'd be no limit to the amount of coverage or care one wants above and beyond some minimum that all would have. And actually, all do have it now, in some form.

 

If it really is wrong to torture babies, then babies have a right to not be tortured. That is true by definition.

I don't need to prove that torturing babies is wrong, because it is as much a part of my first order experience as that you exist. It's the same for all people with healthy brains. A self-evident axiom needs no further proof or reduction.

 

A right other than.. what?
I'm confused by you opposition to the idea of might makes rights at the individual level, but support it at the societal level.
How can a society have a right that the individuals in the society do not, individually, also possess?
How it is unacceptable to you that an individual enforces his own rights, but acceptable that the collective do so?

 

stop it. you can't just redefine natural laws to mean whatever you want it to mean.

brilliant mind at work. No, of course not... The baby don't need rights to prevent me from harming it...

 

Well, so is owning a gun by that logic. 13 year olds can't own a gun, as many people also can't. That is a rather silly argument. Felons lose most of their rights, so I guess we really have no rights at all using your mindset

 

For the richest country and leader of the free world, access to affordable high quality healthcare should be a given. Unfortunately, the profit motive has more sway than basic humanity in this country. That idea is much more prevalent on one side of the political spectrum. Ironically, also the side that claims to be the party of morals and piety.

 

Nonsense.
That the possession and full exercise of right may be limited to certain people in no way means it is not a right.
Under your argument, rights do not exist.

- - - Updated - - -

Good news! Everyone in the US -has- access to to affordable high quality healthcare!

 

Have you ever read anything written by any proponent of natural law? You come off as completely ignorant of everything ever written on the matter.

Cicero:

“There is in fact a true law - namely, right reason - which is in accordance with nature, applies to all men, and is unchangeable and eternal. By its commands this law summons men to the performance of their duties; by its prohibitions it restrains them from doing wrong. Its commands and prohibitions always influence good men, but are without effect upon the bad. To invalidate this law by human legislation is never morally right, nor is it permissible ever to restrict its operation, and to annul it wholly is impossible. Neither the senate nor the people can absolve us from our obligation to obey this law, and it requires no Sextus Aelius to expound and interpret it. It will not lay down one rule at Rome and another at Athens, nor will it be one rule to-day and another tomorrow. But there will be one law, eternal and unchangeable, binding at all times upon all peoples; and there will be, as it were, one common master and ruler of men, namely God, who is the author of this law, it interpreter, and its sponsor. The man who will not obey it will abandon his better self, and, in denying the true nature of a man, will thereby suffer the severest of penalties, though he has escaped all the other consequences which men call punishments."


“Out of all the material of the philosophers' discussions, surely there comes nothing more valuable than the full realization that we are born for Justice, and that right is based, not upon man's opinions, but upon Nature. This fact will immediately be plain if you once get a clear conception of man's fellowship and union with his fellow-men. For no single thing is so like another, so exactly its counterpart, as all of us are to one another. Nay, if bad habits and false beliefs did not twist the weaker minds and turn them in whatever direction they are inclined, no one would be so like his own self as all men would be like all others.”

Blackstone:

But, as he is also a being of infinite
wisdom,
he has laid down only such laws
as were founded in those relations of justice that existed in the nature of things
antecedent to any positive precept. These are the eternal immutable laws of good and
evil, to which the Creator himself, in all his dispensations, conforms; and which he
has enabled human reason to discover, so far as they are necessary for the conduct of
human actions. Such, among others, are these principles: that we should live honestly,
should hurt nobody, and should render to every one his due; to which three general
precepts Justinian has reduced the whole doctrine of law.

Hamilton:

Hamilton's observation that the true protection of men's rights are to be found not "among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, ... and can never be erased or obscured." This, of course, is natural law. In this, Hamilton was referencing what Cicero termed "the highest reason, implanted in Nature, which commands those things which ought to be done and prohibits the reverse."

Spooner:

Through all time, so far as history informs us, wherever mankind have attempted to live in peace with each other, both the natural instincts, and the collective wisdom of the human race, have acknowledged and prescribed, as an indispensable condition, obedience to this one only universal obligation: viz., that each should live honestly towards every other. ...

Men living in contact with each other, and having intercourse together, cannot avoid learning natural law, to a very great extent, [9] even if they would. The dealings of men with men, their separate possessions and their individual wants, and the disposition of every man to demand, and insist upon, whatever he believes to be his due, and to resent and resist all invasions of what he believes to be his rights, are continually forcing upon their minds the questions, Is this act just? or is it unjust? Is this thing mine? or is it his? And these are questions of natural law; questions which, in regard to the great mass of cases, are answered alike by the human mind everywhere.

 

Healthcare can be a right if we decide to make it so. That is simply a fact

- - - Updated - - -

Discussions of natural law are pointless. The US recognizes legal rights...not just natural rights. This natural law discussion is for a philosophy forum

 

Stating the obvious is pointless and boring, and all you do when not stating the obviously false.

 

Quoting meaningless philosophy is what you do....and that is REALLY boring

 

I know of no insurance company nor any person who works for an insurance company, except in highly unique circumstances, that provides healthcare. If I have an inalienable right to healthcare, and last I looked only doctors provide such, then that/those doctor(s) MUST treat me whenever I desire. If the government enforces that the doctor treat me, that doctor, kind sir, is a slave.

 

These slaves as you call them live a very good life in the UK and Canada. I suppose you consider teachers in the US slaves. LOL

 

So the taxpayer is the slave. You can't kick the can forever.

 

There is no end to what an individual will demand of you, if some whore politician promises it to them.

 

Personally, a system of health care that mandaes me to help pay for another us wrong. Doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals spend thousands to get certified and enter practice. They should expect to be compensated fairly for their services. Market demand should dictate that income, not government mandate and restricting regulations. Government helps to drive up costs with special interest group influenced regulations that prevents competition. Yet no one complains about that. Everything starts with the corruption of our politicians. Change them out, and you will start to see a different result.
Is it a right? No! Is it a duty to help those in need? Yes! But anything government passes that requires me to support another group without my permission is nothing but government tyranny and economic slavery. It is no different than when some Americans owned slaves for economic advantage. Governments slavery method is just more subtle and round about, but no less dangerous or wrong. You cannot have it both ways.
We are either free and individual rights are protected or we are not! Don't even get me started on income tax!

 

The NHS is over 65 years old.

 

Access to affordable healthcare is a right or necessary to a free society. Free healthcare isn't. There is a big difference btween these two things