Health care a "privilege" - owning guns a "right"

[EnglishPete]

That said while I agree with covering the poor and helping the middle class substantially, I don't favor tax payers funding healthcare for people like Donald Trump, who are more than capable of paying for it themselves. That is why I don't support single payer.

That's not really an issue in the UK where we have the single payer NHS system.  The service provided by the NHS is good but for those that want a 'de luxe' service with shorter waiting lists, and to get testing or treatments that are less readily available on the NHS we do still have private healthcare companies (the biggest being BUPA http://www.bupa.co.uk/ ) People in the Donald Trump income bracket in the UK will almost certainly have this type of insurance.

I suspect that these insurance companies may well offer a better service for the equivalent price than those in the US because they have to compete against a free at the point of use service. I seem to recall recall that that was one of the arguments in favour of the 'public option' option during the Obamacare debate and I think that from an electoral point of view it was a big tactical mistake of the Democrats not to do this.

The NHS also has some minor means tested fees, such as the prescription charge which those on low incomes are exempt from paying. There's no reason why an expanded Medicaid for all system can't have the same.

[EnglishPete]

What I think would be in the tactical interests of the Republicans, which doesn't mean that they'll do it, is to introduce some kind of Medicaid/compulsory insurance system that provides genuine universal coverage. I'm not a big fan of Trump promoting this terrible bill. In the UK the Conservative governments of the 1920s and 1930s had made substantial moves in the direction of Universal healthcare. They were opposed to the introduction of the Single payer NHS in 1948 but once it was established it became politically impossible to oppose to this day. If the Dems get back in power in 2020, which they'll have a much better chance of doing if the Dems keep screwing this up, they'll be able to introduce Single Payer, they probably will and the issue will be taken off the table forever.

[EnglishPete]

Why is health care a right?  What document gives one this right?  Why does anyone have the right to demand that others spend years in medical school then bill that out to other taxpayers who pay for that on behalf of some people?  This is a privilege of living in a wealthy country not a god given right. 

From a European point of view I find it astonishing to see a Red Avatar hear say such a thing. Are you one of those DC beltway Democrats we here about who think in a similar was to DC beltway Paul Ryan type Republicans. Do you think that the US should welcome in and give citizenship to as many grateful peons new Americans as want to come but if they get ill then f**k 'em.

So that you can understand how strange your ideas sound to normal people try talking to a group of them and announcing that the thing you really hate about the public schools is that taxpayers are forced to pay the school fees of poor people and there's nothing in the constitution to say you have to pay the school fees of other people's children. That's how your ideas on healthcare sound to normal people.

[EnglishPete]

Why is health care a right?  What document gives one this right?  Why does anyone have the right to demand that others spend years in medical school then bill that out to other taxpayers who pay for that on behalf of some people?  This is a privilege of living in a wealthy country not a god given right. 

From a European point of view I find it astonishing to see a Red Avatar hear say such a thing. Are you one of those DC beltway Democrats we here about who think in a similar was to DC beltway Paul Ryan type Republicans. Do you think that the US should welcome in and give citizenship to as many grateful peons new Americans as want to come but if they get ill then f**k 'em.

So that you can understand how strange your ideas sound to normal people try talking to a group of them and announcing that the thing you really hate about the public schools is that taxpayers are forced to pay the school fees of poor people and there's nothing in the constitution to say you have to pay the school fees of other people's children. That's how your ideas on healthcare sound to normal people.

I don't know if NSV is from the DC suburbs but if he is, and perhaps even if he isn't, then this article may very well explain his views

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.unz.com/freed/capitalism-and-the-minimum-wage-i-got-mine-screw-you/

[EnglishPete]

Health care is a means to an end - i.e. better health - so I think it's a cogent point,

But better health for whom? If person A is healthy, why should they care that person B (who might be from a different social class, gender, race, etc.) is sick? If mere instinctive compassion were enough, we wouldn't be having these discussions to begin with. You can't answer this question without some kind of moral framework.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I highly doubt that much good will come out of US healthcare policy as long as this assumption is maintained.

That's my point: "Health care as infrastructure" is a corrective to this assumption. Some people are healthy and others are not at any given time, but none of us is free of the risk of being maimed or struck by illness without warning and all of us face the costs and consequences of aging. All of us need this massive system of training, equipment, buildings, and organizations to help us remain as healthy and functional as possible. Few of us have any hope of covering our individual costs under any circumstances that we might face, but to even allocate most of these costs at the individual level in the first place doesn't make much sense.

[EnglishPete]

As for absolute distinction that right libertarians sometimes make between positive and negative rights where do property rights fit into that. After all if someone has been robbed or is owed a delinquent debt and they report it to the police and/or to the courts what response would they want? Would they want the police and courts to turn round to them and say "what are you complaining to us for? Property rights are negative rights. If you think someone else has robbed you/defrauded you/squatted on your property that's purely between you and him, nothing to do with the government"

So are property rights to be considered positive rights or negative rights.