3 ms·

I agree, but who defines what a fundamental human right is? Healthcare is man made and not universally accessible even in places like the US. What makes it a f

by wayn3 9y ago

I agree, but who defines what a fundamental human right is? Healthcare is man made and not universally accessible even in places like the US. What makes it a fundamental human right? The fact that it says so in the constitution of some countries doesn't make it a fundamental human right. Is it a fundamental human right like the fact that you can think whatever you want? Because thats a god given ability that nobody can take away. Healthcare is just a modern luxury. You might call it necessary, but healthcare didnt really exist even 60 years ago. People died of really silly little things just 60 years ago. What makes it fundamental?

ksk 9y ago
>Healthcare is man made and not universally accessible even in places like the US. Yeah, the world sucks in many ways. Good thing we haven't lost our will to fight that. >Healthcare is just a modern luxury. Oh your kid was born with cancer and you're poor? Tough luck, no "luxurious" healthcare for you! >You might call it necessary, but healthcare didnt really exist even 60 years ago. People died of really silly little things just 60 years ago. And 60 years from now, even fewer people are going to die from really silly little things. What isn't a right now, might become a right in the future. We would call that called progress. >What makes it fundamental? Because our evolved brains can contemplate the morality of our actions. A world where health care is a fundamental right is _MORE MORAL_ than a world without. Rights, laws, rules, the constitution, etc are all abstract ideas that we created to serve us. We get to change them at any point to make them more in line with modern expectations.
- xixi77 9y ago
  This is all good, but still -- I am not sure that something that relies on resources provided by other people can be called a "fundamental right": for one, there will always be a question of exactly how much healthcare access is a right. And even if people agree on a number, what if the required resources are not available in the same amount any more? Are people's rights now violated, and if so, by whom?
  - nikdaheratik 9y ago
    In an interconnected society, pretty much everything relies on resources provided by other people. Consider these parts of modern society: Transportation, Electricity, Water, Clean Air (through enforcement of laws controlling pollution), Internet access, access to food, education, etc. Why is it that only healthcare gets the same treatment as these other fundamental parts of modern society? And why does it only seem to be from the U.S. political spectrum? No one else seems to have a major problem with this. No one is saying you need a free ride here, they're saying if you pay your taxes, you should have access the same as for education, or water, or public roads.
  - ksk 9y ago
    Those are trivial concerns. Any law/rule/entitlement that we've ever created is based on context, historical interpretations, and relies on various human factors. Coming up with questions doesn't poke holes in the concept at all. >exactly how much healthcare access is a right. Its not that hard to make a distinction between cancer and catching a cold. Pretty much all laws take into account intent, credibility, reasonable justification and other vague ill-defined criteria. >what if the required resources are not available in the same amount any more? Based on available funds, the codified law would be either stricter or looser on the qualifying criteria. >Are people's rights now violated, Yes, they would be. >and if so, by whom? You should be able to sue the party given the task of dispensing healthcare and make your argument.

by wayn3 9y ago

ksk 9y ago

>Healthcare is man made and not universally accessible even in places like the US. Yeah, the world sucks in many ways. Good thing we haven't lost our will to fight that. >Healthcare is just a modern luxury. Oh your kid was born with cancer and you're poor? Tough luck, no "luxurious" healthcare for you! >You might call it necessary, but healthcare didnt really exist even 60 years ago. People died of really silly little things just 60 years ago. And 60 years from now, even fewer people are going to die from really silly little things. What isn't a right now, might become a right in the future. We would call that called progress. >What makes it fundamental? Because our evolved brains can contemplate the morality of our actions. A world where health care is a fundamental right is _MORE MORAL_ than a world without. Rights, laws, rules, the constitution, etc are all abstract ideas that we created to serve us. We get to change them at any point to make them more in line with modern expectations.

xixi77 9y ago
This is all good, but still -- I am not sure that something that relies on resources provided by other people can be called a "fundamental right": for one, there will always be a question of exactly how much healthcare access is a right. And even if people agree on a number, what if the required resources are not available in the same amount any more? Are people's rights now violated, and if so, by whom?
- nikdaheratik 9y ago
  In an interconnected society, pretty much everything relies on resources provided by other people. Consider these parts of modern society: Transportation, Electricity, Water, Clean Air (through enforcement of laws controlling pollution), Internet access, access to food, education, etc. Why is it that only healthcare gets the same treatment as these other fundamental parts of modern society? And why does it only seem to be from the U.S. political spectrum? No one else seems to have a major problem with this. No one is saying you need a free ride here, they're saying if you pay your taxes, you should have access the same as for education, or water, or public roads.
- ksk 9y ago
  Those are trivial concerns. Any law/rule/entitlement that we've ever created is based on context, historical interpretations, and relies on various human factors. Coming up with questions doesn't poke holes in the concept at all. >exactly how much healthcare access is a right. Its not that hard to make a distinction between cancer and catching a cold. Pretty much all laws take into account intent, credibility, reasonable justification and other vague ill-defined criteria. >what if the required resources are not available in the same amount any more? Based on available funds, the codified law would be either stricter or looser on the qualifying criteria. >Are people's rights now violated, Yes, they would be. >and if so, by whom? You should be able to sue the party given the task of dispensing healthcare and make your argument.