3 ms·

I don't see how healthcare can be considered a "fundamental right", like freedom to practice religion or ability to own property, because it relies on (and ther

I don't see how healthcare can be considered a "fundamental right", like freedom to practice religion or ability to own property, because it relies on (and therefore places a burden on them) to deliver that service. If healthcare is my fundamental right, how can you, who is providing care, take a day off or quit the job entirely? Am I entitled to every possible test as frequently as possible plus every potential drug or medicine even as my prospects for regaining health diminish towards zero? Government's should have some system for providing "pretty good" healthcare to the largest percentage of its citizens as possible, but raising it to a "fundamental right" is not sustainable or possible or fair.

ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
The same could be said of food, water, and safe shelter. The concept of a fundamental right here depends on a morality that says everyone has a right to live, and that society should help make that possible, probably partially through taxes. If your morality is different, your opinion of whether the above are fundamental rights, might also be different. I personally agree with both points: I believe "pretty good healthcare" is a fundamental right. That is to say, it should be limited only by factors humans can't control (e.g the lead time for training new people), and otherwise be "best effort" given that constraint.
- listenallyall 2y ago
  > The same could be said of food, water, and safe shelter. Strong disagree. Let's think back 100, 200 years. A huge percentage of the population built their own shelter and grew their own food. The idea that the government ought to be required to supply these to everyone (as a "fundamental right") is very much a late 20th century concept. I agree that the government stepping in and trying to feed and house all its citizens is a noble goal - but this leads to a discussion around some minimum amount of effort and personal responsibility, or whether you want to live in a society where nothing is ever expected of the people, that it's OK for healthy, capable citizens to simply "opt-out" of work or productive pursuits, knowing the government is responsible for providing food, clothes and housing, seeing that it's a "fundamental right."
  - ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
    > Strong disagree. Let's think back 100, 200 years. A huge percentage of the population built their own shelter and grew their own food. The same could be said of medical care. I don't see how that affects morality today. > The idea that the government ought to be required to supply these to everyone (as a "fundamental right") is very much a late 20th century concept. I still don't see what history has to do with anything here. Is it a "late 20th century concept"? Maybe, maybe not, but that doesn't affect whether something is morally a fundamental right. It sounds like you fit into the "different morality" bucket I mentioned above, so we should expect you to have differing opinions on what rights are fundamental (and that's okay). And if you have differing opinions on what rights are fundamental, than we should expect you to have differing opinions on what the government should do to guarantee them. Which you appear to (and that's okay).
  - nothercastle 2y ago
    It becomes a fundamental right when the government strips people of the ability to build their own housing or grow their own food. That’s the difference. If people can’t build housing then you kind of have to provide it.
harimau777 2y ago
Even freedom to practice religion and the ability to own property rely on someone delivering the service of protecting that right (i.e. police, the courts, and the military). In that respect they aren't really any more inherent than other rights like medical care or food.
Ekaros 2y ago
What else then in modern society would not be consider "fundamental right"? Security and safety? No more state provided police or court services... No regulations? Modern state goes quite far on things and I see no reason why basic health care should not be part of those services.
- listenallyall 2y ago
  I never stated that a government should not try to keep its citizens safe or maintain order. But there's a difference between government-provided services and a "fundamental human right."

ImPostingOnHN 2y ago

The same could be said of food, water, and safe shelter. The concept of a fundamental right here depends on a morality that says everyone has a right to live, and that society should help make that possible, probably partially through taxes. If your morality is different, your opinion of whether the above are fundamental rights, might also be different. I personally agree with both points: I believe "pretty good healthcare" is a fundamental right. That is to say, it should be limited only by factors humans can't control (e.g the lead time for training new people), and otherwise be "best effort" given that constraint.

listenallyall 2y ago
> The same could be said of food, water, and safe shelter. Strong disagree. Let's think back 100, 200 years. A huge percentage of the population built their own shelter and grew their own food. The idea that the government ought to be required to supply these to everyone (as a "fundamental right") is very much a late 20th century concept. I agree that the government stepping in and trying to feed and house all its citizens is a noble goal - but this leads to a discussion around some minimum amount of effort and personal responsibility, or whether you want to live in a society where nothing is ever expected of the people, that it's OK for healthy, capable citizens to simply "opt-out" of work or productive pursuits, knowing the government is responsible for providing food, clothes and housing, seeing that it's a "fundamental right."
- ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
  > Strong disagree. Let's think back 100, 200 years. A huge percentage of the population built their own shelter and grew their own food. The same could be said of medical care. I don't see how that affects morality today. > The idea that the government ought to be required to supply these to everyone (as a "fundamental right") is very much a late 20th century concept. I still don't see what history has to do with anything here. Is it a "late 20th century concept"? Maybe, maybe not, but that doesn't affect whether something is morally a fundamental right. It sounds like you fit into the "different morality" bucket I mentioned above, so we should expect you to have differing opinions on what rights are fundamental (and that's okay). And if you have differing opinions on what rights are fundamental, than we should expect you to have differing opinions on what the government should do to guarantee them. Which you appear to (and that's okay).
- nothercastle 2y ago
  It becomes a fundamental right when the government strips people of the ability to build their own housing or grow their own food. That’s the difference. If people can’t build housing then you kind of have to provide it.

harimau777 2y ago

Even freedom to practice religion and the ability to own property rely on someone delivering the service of protecting that right (i.e. police, the courts, and the military). In that respect they aren't really any more inherent than other rights like medical care or food.

Ekaros 2y ago

What else then in modern society would not be consider "fundamental right"? Security and safety? No more state provided police or court services... No regulations? Modern state goes quite far on things and I see no reason why basic health care should not be part of those services.

listenallyall 2y ago
I never stated that a government should not try to keep its citizens safe or maintain order. But there's a difference between government-provided services and a "fundamental human right."