The NHS really is something to be proud of.

[beorhthelm]

Healthcare is not a right, however much you would like it to be.

I do respond to the points people make on here. But it is becoming a bore. Here is some reading.

i will say again, we have a right to free health care because we have decided we want that and provided the mechanism for it. just like the right to free speech, its not something that magically happens, its an agreement based on our society's customs and laws.

go and live in Texas if you want to live by the teachings of Ron Paul.

 

[dingodan]

i will say again, we have a right to free health care because we have decided we want that and provided the mechanism for it. just like the right to free speech, its not something that magically happens, its an agreement based on our society's customs and laws.

go and live in Texas if you want to live by the teachings of Ron Paul.

Wrong, your rights exist naturally, nobody gives them to you and nobody takes them away.

 

[DTES]

Wrong, your rights exist naturally, nobody gives them to you and nobody takes them away.

I read this to mean they've somehow evolved, and/or all of nature (i.e. every plant/animal would recognise them). Could you name a single right that exists "naturally" in this way?

 

[beorhthelm]

Wrong, your rights exist naturally, nobody gives them to you and nobody takes them away.

please provide an example of such a "natural right": something devived from nature, universally applicable, not secured by any law and cannot be taken away.

 

[dingodan]

Nice unbiased article.

I understand the viewpoint that things that education and healthcare should not be considered as rights, and should not be provided by the state. But it is just that; it is an opinion. Repeating it ad nauseum does not make it any more or less valid than any other opinion.

In my view, the perfect society should ensure that no-one goes without food, no-one goes without shelter, and no-one goes without healthcare (for a start; you could also add education, law and order, etc.). Not everyone has the ability to pay for these things; if that means that the rich subsidise the poor, then I think that's a reasonable expectation of the rich, and provides a clear benefit to the most needy.

"it is an opinion. Repeating it ad nauseum does not make it any more or less valid than any other opinion." - I take it that this is your opinion?

If you believe that society should ensure that no-one goes without food or shelter or healthcare, then really you are society has a duty to provide food and shelter and healthcare. That is socialism. And the society is really you and me. So are you not placing a compulsion on me to provide these things to other people? That is totalitarianism. We should be free from compulsions, and responsible for our own lives.

On the other thing you said, yes we have a private option in this country. And perversly, because government managed healthcare pushes up the cost of healthcare, it means that under this system it is indeed only those who can afford the high prices in healthcare who can afford to participate in the market. If everyone participated in the market and if the government did not inflate and regulate through public provisions, then access to healthcare would be more equal, the quality would be better and the price would be less.

 

[DTES]

And perversly, because government managed healthcare pushes up the cost of healthcare, it means that under this system it is indeed only those who can afford the high prices in healthcare who can afford to participate in the market. If everyone participated in the market and if the government did not inflate and regulate through public provisions, then access to healthcare would be more equal, the quality would be better and the price would be less.

But it would not be universal. Do you, or do you not, accept this?

(I don't mean a minority, a small majority, or even a massive majority would have it. I mean universal.)

 

[dingodan]

If you guys are saying that people do not have rights, except for those that society agrees upon, then fine that is on you. But reflect on it. See if you can figure out the problems with that position, they become obvious pretty quickly for me.

 

[Brovion]

Wrong, your rights exist naturally, nobody gives them to you and nobody takes them away.

Eh? What are they then?


Great thread BTW!

 

[DTES]

If you guys are saying that people do not have rights, except for those that society agrees upon, then fine that is on you. But reflect on it. See if you can figure out the problems with that position, they become obvious pretty quickly for me.

FFS. And you denied earlier that you avoid/refuse to answer questions.

Of course there are problems with that, but that is a completely separate argument. YOU said rights are natural, so we asked you to name an example of such a "natural" right.

Please stop ignoring the questions - or at least admit you're doing it.

Come on - name one of these "natural" rights that you state exist...

 

[dingodan]

But it would not be universal. Do you, or do you not, accept this?

(I don't mean a minority, a small majority, or even a massive majority would have it. I mean universal.)

You want to paint my position as morally questionable because if people are responsible for themselves, some people will have it hard. Some people might not be able to afford healthcare. I have said already that family, community and charity will always be there for those that cannot look after themselves. You want to suggest that if we didnt have an NHS people would be dying in the street. That is just false.

If you care about the poor the first thing you should want is healthcare to be as affordable as possible. So why support a system which pushes costs up? You say you want universal healthcare? its not universal when someone is refused treatment because it is too expensive.

Again, we both want everyone to have equal and fair access to healthcare, the questions is how is that best achieved.

 

[sten_super]

I am close to dropping out. If I wanted to bang my head against a brick wall I could go outside and do that. However I'll have one more go; please try to accept that these things you say are just views, they are not truisms. Ironically on many of these threads where you espouse 'alternative' views you ask others to open their minds to these ideas; I would ask that you do the same. For the record I am well aware that everything I say is my opinion, and I often preface things as such; I also try not to be dismissive of other people's arguments just because I do not agree with them (which is, I think, why we get involved in so many of these discussions!).

If you believe that society should ensure that no-one goes without food or shelter or healthcare, then really you are society has a duty to provide food and shelter and healthcare. That is socialism. And the society is really you and me. So are you not placing a compulsion on me to provide these things to other people? That is totalitarianism. We should be free from compulsions, and responsible for our own lives.

I suggest you go back to your political textbook (or maybe Youtube?) and check what totalitarianism is. Having some expectation of societal contribution is not totalitarianism. But yes, I would place compulsion on people to provide for others, because the free market would not do so. What is best for society is not necessarily what is best for an individual actor.

On the other thing you said, yes we have a private option in this country. And perversly, because government managed healthcare pushes up the cost of healthcare, it means that under this system it is indeed only those who can afford the high prices in healthcare who can afford to participate in the market. If everyone participated in the market and if the government did not inflate and regulate through public provisions, then access to healthcare would be more equal, the quality would be better and the price would be less.

There is little evidence for government pushing up the cost of healthcare. Economic theory suggests that have a monoposony (i.e. one large demander of goods) should reduce the costs of drugs and medical produce, not increase it. Similarly, theory dictates that private healthcare suppliers have no interest in maintaining artificially high charge rates, because any individual practice could lower charges and instantly collect a sizeable chunk of the private healthcare market (at least within a given region). Certainly there is nothing in the theory to suggest that access would be more equal, or that the quality would increase, even if we ignored the price issue.

 

[dingodan]

FFS. And you denied earlier that you avoid/refuse to answer questions.

Of course there are problems with that, but that is a completely separate argument. YOU said rights are natural, so we asked you to name an example of such a "natural" right.

Please stop ignoring the questions - or at least admit you're doing it.

Come on - name one of these "natural" rights that you state exist...

You are mighty rude.

Our rights extend from our humanity. We own our bodies, so we own the gifts that come from our bodies, we have a right to our life, we have a right to the fruits of a labour, to develop our personalities, to say what we think, and to publish what we say.

 

[DTES]

You want to paint my position as morally questionable because if people are responsible for themselves, some people will have it hard. Some people might not be able to afford healthcare. I have said already that family, community and charity will always be there for those that cannot look after themselves. You want to suggest that if we didnt have an NHS people would be dying in the street. That is just false.

If you care about the poor the first thing you should want is healthcare to be as affordable as possible. So why support a system which pushes costs up? You say you want universal healthcare? its not universal when someone is refused treatment because it is too expensive.

Again, we both want everyone to have equal and fair access to healthcare, the questions is how is that best achieved.

Simply unbelievable. Another simple Yes or No question that you fail to either answer "Yes" or "No" to. Try again?

Under the current system, every citizen will have access to equal treatment. Some treatments may not be purchased by the NHS if they are both expensive and unproven, but that does not depend on the identity of the individual. Under your scenario, the rich would have access to better healthcare than the poor. The identity (wealth) of the individual will have a bearing on the care available to them It may be cheaper, but not everyone could afford everything. Once more - do you accept this? And if so, how do you square that with your explicit statement that you want equal access to healthcare?

 

[DTES]

You are mighty rude.

I have genuinely tried to be perfectly polite in this debate. However yes, I do concede that I have snapped. Seeing you avoid answering questions, and then state the bare-faced lie that you do not avoid answering questions made me snap.

In the interest of honesty, I believe lying to be just as rude.

 

[dingodan]

I suggest you go back to your political textbook (or maybe Youtube?) and check what totalitarianism is. Having some expectation of societal contribution is not totalitarianism. But yes, I would place compulsion on people to provide for others, because the free market would not do so. What is best for society is not necessarily what is best for an individual actor.

 

[DTES]

We own our bodies, so we own the gifts that come from our bodies, we have a right to our life, we have a right to the fruits of a labour, to develop our personalities, to say what we think, and to publish what we say.

Maybe you could help me out here. A "natural" right to say what we think? A "natural" right to the fruits of our labour? Really? Does the universe round on those who take them away? If you work and someone steals your wages/food, who is it protects you? The universe, or the society that gives you those rights?

 

[The Large One]

Very strange debating method, this Dingodan chap.

Reading through his stuff, I'd call him a very dangerous individual, acting on a warped sense of received knowledge - not particularly considerate to the needs and cares of society, only his own.

Still not got a thought of his own, mind.

 

[dingodan]

Maybe you could help me out here. A "natural" right to say what we think? A "natural" right to the fruits of our labour? Really? Does the universe round on those who take them away? If you work and someone steals your wages/food, who is it protects you? The universe, or the society that gives you those rights?

Society can uphold your rights, it can also deny your rights. Whether it does either of those, or neither of those, does not change whether or not you have that right.

You have that right as a product of your humanity, it is self evident. Just because someone upholds your right to speak does not mean they gave that right to you.

I'm sorry but hearing how Sten would force people to do things because its best for the society (the society over the individual i.e. collectivism), and hearing how you think that you have no rights except what the government gives you, this is all making me really sad so Im gonna call it a day in this thread. Thanks for the chat.

 

[Stat Brother]

Stat Jnr, is a little better today.

 

[Brovion]

You are mighty rude.

Our rights extend from our humanity. We own our bodies, so we own the gifts that come from our bodies, we have a right to our life, we have a right to the fruits of a labour, to develop our personalities, to say what we think, and to publish what we say.

Part of the 'fruits of our labour' we are happy to see go to the NHS in the form of Tax and N.I. payments. Ergo Health Care, free at the point of delivery, is something we see as our 'Right' in the UK. Other countries may not feel the same way. And all those points you make can be removed by legislation, which goes to show that 'Rights' are whatever a society deems them to be. A communist/communard or any other collective form society for example may say that the individual does NOT have the right to the fruits of their labour.

And he's not rude. You continually put your own views over as 'facts' and say that anybody who disagrees with you is 'wrong'. All we're asking is that you think through the issues.