Healthcare is not a right!?

[ucodegen]

The government produces nothing?

By Definition the government produces public goods
ranging from parks to sidewalks to national defense.

The free market sure didn’t produce I-5.

You need to produce better examples.

*Parks are public owned property, not a produced good. The maintenance of said property is a service.. though now they have individual fees on such parks which were initially provided by through general taxes.

*not all sidewalks are done by the gov. I fact, most are done by the property owner as a requirement… as well as roads in many places. This is why you will often see sidewalks, curbs and roads in the middle of new developments before the houses are completed yet.

*national defense.. is a service not a good.

*I-15 was contracted out.. it was not build by the government.. as with virtually all highway work.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=pertinazzio]anything that costs money can’t be a right. for instance the poorest possible society can grant all their citizens the right to free speech, association, religion etc. no matter how poor the society, the citizens can still have exercise those rights. on the other hand if in very poor societies you grant a right to universal high quality education, health-care, nutrition no will be able to exercise their so-called rights for a lack of resouces. now a society may decide that decency requires it to give all citizens health care, a job, etc. but that supposes society has the wherewithall to provide those things. Real rights are independent of society’s wealth.[/quote]

That is a very good point.

I find it compelling as a way of evaluating rights.

For example it is reasonable to describe equality of access to a public service as a right but not the access itself.
So we have a right to equal treatment when trying to get education but not a right to the education per se.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=pertinazzio]anything that costs money can’t be a right. for instance the poorest possible society can grant all their citizens the right to free speech, association, religion etc. no matter how poor the society, the citizens can still have exercise those rights. on the other hand if in very poor societies you grant a right to universal high quality education, health-care, nutrition no will be able to exercise their so-called rights for a lack of resouces. now a society may decide that decency requires it to give all citizens health care, a job, etc. but that supposes society has the wherewithall to provide those things. Real rights are independent of society’s wealth.[/quote]

That is a very good point.

I find it compelling as a way of evaluating rights.

For example it is reasonable to describe equality of access to a public service as a right but not the access itself.
So we have a right to equal treatment when trying to get education but not a right to the education per se.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=pertinazzio]anything that costs money can’t be a right. for instance the poorest possible society can grant all their citizens the right to free speech, association, religion etc. no matter how poor the society, the citizens can still have exercise those rights. on the other hand if in very poor societies you grant a right to universal high quality education, health-care, nutrition no will be able to exercise their so-called rights for a lack of resouces. now a society may decide that decency requires it to give all citizens health care, a job, etc. but that supposes society has the wherewithall to provide those things. Real rights are independent of society’s wealth.[/quote]

That is a very good point.

I find it compelling as a way of evaluating rights.

For example it is reasonable to describe equality of access to a public service as a right but not the access itself.
So we have a right to equal treatment when trying to get education but not a right to the education per se.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=pertinazzio]anything that costs money can’t be a right. for instance the poorest possible society can grant all their citizens the right to free speech, association, religion etc. no matter how poor the society, the citizens can still have exercise those rights. on the other hand if in very poor societies you grant a right to universal high quality education, health-care, nutrition no will be able to exercise their so-called rights for a lack of resouces. now a society may decide that decency requires it to give all citizens health care, a job, etc. but that supposes society has the wherewithall to provide those things. Real rights are independent of society’s wealth.[/quote]

That is a very good point.

I find it compelling as a way of evaluating rights.

For example it is reasonable to describe equality of access to a public service as a right but not the access itself.
So we have a right to equal treatment when trying to get education but not a right to the education per se.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=pertinazzio]anything that costs money can’t be a right. for instance the poorest possible society can grant all their citizens the right to free speech, association, religion etc. no matter how poor the society, the citizens can still have exercise those rights. on the other hand if in very poor societies you grant a right to universal high quality education, health-care, nutrition no will be able to exercise their so-called rights for a lack of resouces. now a society may decide that decency requires it to give all citizens health care, a job, etc. but that supposes society has the wherewithall to provide those things. Real rights are independent of society’s wealth.[/quote]

That is a very good point.

I find it compelling as a way of evaluating rights.

For example it is reasonable to describe equality of access to a public service as a right but not the access itself.
So we have a right to equal treatment when trying to get education but not a right to the education per se.

[KSMountain]

[quote=pertinazzio]anything that costs money can’t be a right. for instance the poorest possible society can grant all their citizens the right to free speech, association, religion etc. no matter how poor the society, the citizens can still have exercise those rights. on the other hand if in very poor societies you grant a right to universal high quality education, health-care, nutrition no will be able to exercise their so-called rights for a lack of resouces. now a society may decide that decency requires it to give all citizens health care, a job, etc. but that supposes society has the wherewithall to provide those things. Real rights are independent of society’s wealth.[/quote]

I thought this was a pretty good comment.

Sure it would be *nice* to give everyone everything, for free. In fact, it would be even nicer to give it to anyone, of any legal status, that found their way into the country. But why stop there? Why be so selfish and discriminatory as to only want to provide healthcare to folks in the U.S? Certainly healthcare is a universal *human* right, right? Perhaps U.S. taxpayers should be obligated to cover *everyone’s* healthcare, everywhere in the world.

Without going to that silly extreme, I think you can start getting into trouble when you confuse comforts with “rights”.

For example, are these also rights?:
Electricity
Telephone
Cable/Satellite TV (for folks in remote locations)
Heating
High-speed Internet
Transportation
Dental
Orthodontia
Clothing
Entertainment
Swim Lessons (“it’s a safety issue”)
Access to health clubs
Daycare
Personal Automobile
Liver transplant for alcoholic
Care for Octomom’s 14 kids

Where do you draw the line and why?

[KSMountain]

[quote=pertinazzio]anything that costs money can’t be a right. for instance the poorest possible society can grant all their citizens the right to free speech, association, religion etc. no matter how poor the society, the citizens can still have exercise those rights. on the other hand if in very poor societies you grant a right to universal high quality education, health-care, nutrition no will be able to exercise their so-called rights for a lack of resouces. now a society may decide that decency requires it to give all citizens health care, a job, etc. but that supposes society has the wherewithall to provide those things. Real rights are independent of society’s wealth.[/quote]

I thought this was a pretty good comment.

Sure it would be *nice* to give everyone everything, for free. In fact, it would be even nicer to give it to anyone, of any legal status, that found their way into the country. But why stop there? Why be so selfish and discriminatory as to only want to provide healthcare to folks in the U.S? Certainly healthcare is a universal *human* right, right? Perhaps U.S. taxpayers should be obligated to cover *everyone’s* healthcare, everywhere in the world.

Without going to that silly extreme, I think you can start getting into trouble when you confuse comforts with “rights”.

For example, are these also rights?:
Electricity
Telephone
Cable/Satellite TV (for folks in remote locations)
Heating
High-speed Internet
Transportation
Dental
Orthodontia
Clothing
Entertainment
Swim Lessons (“it’s a safety issue”)
Access to health clubs
Daycare
Personal Automobile
Liver transplant for alcoholic
Care for Octomom’s 14 kids

Where do you draw the line and why?

[KSMountain]

[quote=pertinazzio]anything that costs money can’t be a right. for instance the poorest possible society can grant all their citizens the right to free speech, association, religion etc. no matter how poor the society, the citizens can still have exercise those rights. on the other hand if in very poor societies you grant a right to universal high quality education, health-care, nutrition no will be able to exercise their so-called rights for a lack of resouces. now a society may decide that decency requires it to give all citizens health care, a job, etc. but that supposes society has the wherewithall to provide those things. Real rights are independent of society’s wealth.[/quote]

I thought this was a pretty good comment.

Sure it would be *nice* to give everyone everything, for free. In fact, it would be even nicer to give it to anyone, of any legal status, that found their way into the country. But why stop there? Why be so selfish and discriminatory as to only want to provide healthcare to folks in the U.S? Certainly healthcare is a universal *human* right, right? Perhaps U.S. taxpayers should be obligated to cover *everyone’s* healthcare, everywhere in the world.

Without going to that silly extreme, I think you can start getting into trouble when you confuse comforts with “rights”.

For example, are these also rights?:
Electricity
Telephone
Cable/Satellite TV (for folks in remote locations)
Heating
High-speed Internet
Transportation
Dental
Orthodontia
Clothing
Entertainment
Swim Lessons (“it’s a safety issue”)
Access to health clubs
Daycare
Personal Automobile
Liver transplant for alcoholic
Care for Octomom’s 14 kids

Where do you draw the line and why?

[KSMountain]

[quote=pertinazzio]anything that costs money can’t be a right. for instance the poorest possible society can grant all their citizens the right to free speech, association, religion etc. no matter how poor the society, the citizens can still have exercise those rights. on the other hand if in very poor societies you grant a right to universal high quality education, health-care, nutrition no will be able to exercise their so-called rights for a lack of resouces. now a society may decide that decency requires it to give all citizens health care, a job, etc. but that supposes society has the wherewithall to provide those things. Real rights are independent of society’s wealth.[/quote]

I thought this was a pretty good comment.

Sure it would be *nice* to give everyone everything, for free. In fact, it would be even nicer to give it to anyone, of any legal status, that found their way into the country. But why stop there? Why be so selfish and discriminatory as to only want to provide healthcare to folks in the U.S? Certainly healthcare is a universal *human* right, right? Perhaps U.S. taxpayers should be obligated to cover *everyone’s* healthcare, everywhere in the world.

Without going to that silly extreme, I think you can start getting into trouble when you confuse comforts with “rights”.

For example, are these also rights?:
Electricity
Telephone
Cable/Satellite TV (for folks in remote locations)
Heating
High-speed Internet
Transportation
Dental
Orthodontia
Clothing
Entertainment
Swim Lessons (“it’s a safety issue”)
Access to health clubs
Daycare
Personal Automobile
Liver transplant for alcoholic
Care for Octomom’s 14 kids

Where do you draw the line and why?

[KSMountain]

[quote=pertinazzio]anything that costs money can’t be a right. for instance the poorest possible society can grant all their citizens the right to free speech, association, religion etc. no matter how poor the society, the citizens can still have exercise those rights. on the other hand if in very poor societies you grant a right to universal high quality education, health-care, nutrition no will be able to exercise their so-called rights for a lack of resouces. now a society may decide that decency requires it to give all citizens health care, a job, etc. but that supposes society has the wherewithall to provide those things. Real rights are independent of society’s wealth.[/quote]

I thought this was a pretty good comment.

Sure it would be *nice* to give everyone everything, for free. In fact, it would be even nicer to give it to anyone, of any legal status, that found their way into the country. But why stop there? Why be so selfish and discriminatory as to only want to provide healthcare to folks in the U.S? Certainly healthcare is a universal *human* right, right? Perhaps U.S. taxpayers should be obligated to cover *everyone’s* healthcare, everywhere in the world.

Without going to that silly extreme, I think you can start getting into trouble when you confuse comforts with “rights”.

For example, are these also rights?:
Electricity
Telephone
Cable/Satellite TV (for folks in remote locations)
Heating
High-speed Internet
Transportation
Dental
Orthodontia
Clothing
Entertainment
Swim Lessons (“it’s a safety issue”)
Access to health clubs
Daycare
Personal Automobile
Liver transplant for alcoholic
Care for Octomom’s 14 kids

Where do you draw the line and why?

[KSMountain]

Marginally-related, I feel if the problem is that there is insufficient insurance company competition – then let’s correct that. You don’t correct every situation of inadequate competition by having the government join in as a new participant.

We didn’t do that with Standard Oil, nor with AT&T, nor with Microsoft. By analogy, do folks who support the public option “because there’s no competition” think that the U.S. government should have started oil, phone, and computer software businesses and then run those into perpetuity?

No. We have a mechanism to deal with inadequate competition: it’s called Antitrust. It really is not rocket science. It’s my understanding that the medical insurance companies were granted some antitrust exemptions back in the 30’s or something (I didn’t research).

Anyway, I would have no problem whatsoever removing those exemptions if that were now appropriate (and it may well be).

I have a much bigger problem with this piece of legislation being rammed down our throats. This is a *big* new entitlement to sign up for – when the others are already insolvent. Seems crazy to me.

[KSMountain]

Marginally-related, I feel if the problem is that there is insufficient insurance company competition – then let’s correct that. You don’t correct every situation of inadequate competition by having the government join in as a new participant.

We didn’t do that with Standard Oil, nor with AT&T, nor with Microsoft. By analogy, do folks who support the public option “because there’s no competition” think that the U.S. government should have started oil, phone, and computer software businesses and then run those into perpetuity?

No. We have a mechanism to deal with inadequate competition: it’s called Antitrust. It really is not rocket science. It’s my understanding that the medical insurance companies were granted some antitrust exemptions back in the 30’s or something (I didn’t research).

Anyway, I would have no problem whatsoever removing those exemptions if that were now appropriate (and it may well be).

I have a much bigger problem with this piece of legislation being rammed down our throats. This is a *big* new entitlement to sign up for – when the others are already insolvent. Seems crazy to me.

[KSMountain]

Marginally-related, I feel if the problem is that there is insufficient insurance company competition – then let’s correct that. You don’t correct every situation of inadequate competition by having the government join in as a new participant.

We didn’t do that with Standard Oil, nor with AT&T, nor with Microsoft. By analogy, do folks who support the public option “because there’s no competition” think that the U.S. government should have started oil, phone, and computer software businesses and then run those into perpetuity?

No. We have a mechanism to deal with inadequate competition: it’s called Antitrust. It really is not rocket science. It’s my understanding that the medical insurance companies were granted some antitrust exemptions back in the 30’s or something (I didn’t research).

Anyway, I would have no problem whatsoever removing those exemptions if that were now appropriate (and it may well be).

I have a much bigger problem with this piece of legislation being rammed down our throats. This is a *big* new entitlement to sign up for – when the others are already insolvent. Seems crazy to me.

[KSMountain]

Marginally-related, I feel if the problem is that there is insufficient insurance company competition – then let’s correct that. You don’t correct every situation of inadequate competition by having the government join in as a new participant.

We didn’t do that with Standard Oil, nor with AT&T, nor with Microsoft. By analogy, do folks who support the public option “because there’s no competition” think that the U.S. government should have started oil, phone, and computer software businesses and then run those into perpetuity?

No. We have a mechanism to deal with inadequate competition: it’s called Antitrust. It really is not rocket science. It’s my understanding that the medical insurance companies were granted some antitrust exemptions back in the 30’s or something (I didn’t research).

Anyway, I would have no problem whatsoever removing those exemptions if that were now appropriate (and it may well be).

I have a much bigger problem with this piece of legislation being rammed down our throats. This is a *big* new entitlement to sign up for – when the others are already insolvent. Seems crazy to me.

[Author]

Posts