4 ms·

The mindset that is against government healthcare is one based on a clear conception of natural rights theory. It recognizes the validity of negative rights an

The mindset that is against government healthcare is one based on a clear conception of natural rights theory. It recognizes the validity of negative rights and the complete contradiction that is positive rights. Though most aren't against providing healthcare through non-coercive means such as private charity.

stretchwithme 16y ago
So, you'd classify a right to the belongings of others as a positive right?
- dantheman 16y ago
  Yes, positive rights are claims that someone can make against another -- I have a right to food, you must provide it for me, etc. In this case, I have a right to healthcare, you must provide it for me. From wikipedia: Under the theory of positive and negative rights, a negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another person or group—a government, for example—usually in the form of abuse or coercion. A positive right is a right to be subjected to an action of another person or group. In theory, a negative right forbids others from acting against the right holder, while a positive right obligates others to act with respect to the right holder. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
  - stretchwithme 16y ago
    So all people have the right to have all people provide their material needs. Seems unworkable to me. Maybe it just works for parasites.
  - gloob 16y ago
    "I am a citizen, you must hold (if you are the government) or fund (if you are a taxpayer) an election for me to vote in." What's your feeling on that positive right? I've encountered people who argue against democracy, and I've encountered people who will re-word the right as stated above and then call it a negative right. I disagree with the former, and the latter only succeed in demonstrating that the difference between positive and negative rights is one of phrasing, and not of the right itself. Do you have a different take on the matter?
_delirium 16y ago
Very few people in the U.S. fully oppose a positive right to health-care though. They're against a positive right to see a doctor and get regular treatment, but are in favor of a positive right to receive emergency-room care if necessary. Hence, ERs are required to treat heart-attack and stroke patients who show up on their doorstep, even if the victim is uninsured and has no ability to pay; turning them away is illegal. So the question isn't over whether there's a positive right to health care--- almost everyone agrees there is to some extent. The disagreement is over which kinds of care are included in the right.
- robryan 16y ago
  The deeper problem here may be though that treating an emergency patient that is dying thus requiring immediate care they can't afford could run higher costs that the appropriate preventative treatment they were unable to afford. Morally we are obligated to save the emergency patients life but also morally we shouldn't have let their condition slip to the point it is in.
prodigal_erik 16y ago
> most aren't against providing healthcare through non-coercive means such as private charity I've never been able to give that a more benign reading than "as long as it doesn't cost anyone enough to seriously affect the problem". I'd rather be required to pay to keep society at least minimally humane, than voluntarily pay for gates and guards to protect me from the poor, desperate, and angry.

stretchwithme 16y ago

So, you'd classify a right to the belongings of others as a positive right?

dantheman 16y ago
Yes, positive rights are claims that someone can make against another -- I have a right to food, you must provide it for me, etc. In this case, I have a right to healthcare, you must provide it for me. From wikipedia: Under the theory of positive and negative rights, a negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another person or group—a government, for example—usually in the form of abuse or coercion. A positive right is a right to be subjected to an action of another person or group. In theory, a negative right forbids others from acting against the right holder, while a positive right obligates others to act with respect to the right holder. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
- stretchwithme 16y ago
  So all people have the right to have all people provide their material needs. Seems unworkable to me. Maybe it just works for parasites.
- gloob 16y ago
  "I am a citizen, you must hold (if you are the government) or fund (if you are a taxpayer) an election for me to vote in." What's your feeling on that positive right? I've encountered people who argue against democracy, and I've encountered people who will re-word the right as stated above and then call it a negative right. I disagree with the former, and the latter only succeed in demonstrating that the difference between positive and negative rights is one of phrasing, and not of the right itself. Do you have a different take on the matter?

_delirium 16y ago

Very few people in the U.S. fully oppose a positive right to health-care though. They're against a positive right to see a doctor and get regular treatment, but are in favor of a positive right to receive emergency-room care if necessary. Hence, ERs are required to treat heart-attack and stroke patients who show up on their doorstep, even if the victim is uninsured and has no ability to pay; turning them away is illegal. So the question isn't over whether there's a positive right to health care--- almost everyone agrees there is to some extent. The disagreement is over which kinds of care are included in the right.

robryan 16y ago
The deeper problem here may be though that treating an emergency patient that is dying thus requiring immediate care they can't afford could run higher costs that the appropriate preventative treatment they were unable to afford. Morally we are obligated to save the emergency patients life but also morally we shouldn't have let their condition slip to the point it is in.

prodigal_erik 16y ago

> most aren't against providing healthcare through non-coercive means such as private charity I've never been able to give that a more benign reading than "as long as it doesn't cost anyone enough to seriously affect the problem". I'd rather be required to pay to keep society at least minimally humane, than voluntarily pay for gates and guards to protect me from the poor, desperate, and angry.