Generally I don't believe in the existance of positive rights. I think the whole notion of entitlement is a bunch of socialist non-sense that is probounded by bleeding hearts
The distinction between positive and negative rights is purely theoretical.
You can frame everything both ways.
A right to
healthcare is also a right to not
suffer degrading conditions caused by things beyond your control.
Just the same as the right not to
be beaten or mugged can be framed as a right to
the time and work of a policeman.
If I'd want to be an egoistic git like you, let's try:
"Why should my tax money pay for a policeman that will save you from having your legs broken? I'm big and strong and got a gun, so I can defend myself."
Same goes with military... "Why oh why should my tax money should fund guns and missiles to keep Osama Bin Laden away? When he comes, I'll just convert to Islam. I'm a man, so I won't have to wear a burka so it's all good..."
and those who cast an envenious eye upon the possessions of those who are more clever, harder worker or simply more fortunate than they.
Envy and a desire not to suffer because of illness are the same thing for you?
Damn those people, envious of medicine, prothesthics and wheelchairs, huh?
I'm content with the government staying out of my way and leaving me to my own devices to make of my life what I will.
If that results in misfortunate for others - such is life an element of misery and imperfection has existed in the human condition for as long as the species has lasted. There is no perfect tomorrow where everyone has enough, there are no sick or diseased or anything of that nature. Its the stuff of pipe dreams, fantasies and science fiction.
Suffering cannot be eliminated completely.
But life can be made nicer, easier and safer. Read up on 19 century UK and it's unrestrained capitalism. Read up on what the results were.
Also, those who say that it's 'not worth' to make things better are those that already have it good.
Comparing a police force to health care is also hyperbole, enforcing laws is clearly a negative not positive right and as such a police force would exist in even in a state without any positive entitlements.
See above. Each 'right' and each societal thing can be given a different political spin, based on what suits the politician better.
I don't believe there *is* any right to get help. My personal circumstances are entirely irrelevant. What your doing Celestial isn't appealing to logic but emotion. Something bad may happen to someone I care about or myself therefore the government should save everyone?
That presumes that a) I'm incapable of adequately retaining insurance through private means - not really a problem for most capable people who've obtained education or skills training and that b) those I care about are incapable of doing the same.
So should I logically conclude that:
a) you've got no emotions or no respect for emotions
b) you only care about people who are insured
c) if you'd be poor, uninsured and unable to provide for yourself, you'd suffer without complaint?
But why Celestial should I be my brother's keeper - not even my brother's keeper but the keeper of a vast host of people I've never met?
I'm also not 'my brother's keeper'. I don't spen
Why should my tax dollars be devoted to supporting the poor health choices of people who injest all manners of illegal substances, fail to adequately maintain their bodies, have poor diets, drink, smoke and make a variety of other advised decisions? Why should their choices be subsidized by an unlimited call upon my money?
First, this is a 'strawman' argument. Only some illnesses are caused by 'poor health choices'. Most people don't choose to be ill.
There's also a touch of USA prohibition(or Victorian England) in your thinking... Rich people can use and abuse vices, but poor people should keep themselves clean and sober, huh? That's a fertile ground for puritanism a generation later...
If my labour goes to generating my wage - it should be mine to do with as I please. Beyond some common items like roadways, police and fire services and national defense should I not be free to make such arrangements as I deem fit to deal with other aspects of my life? Who are others to demand that I contribute to paying for the education of their children, their healthcare and other programs?
"I'm a travelling salesman and don't own a house, why should my money fund fire prevention for your house?"
"I'm a cross-country runner, why should my money fund roads?"
"I don't own anything worth stealing, why should my money fund police?"
"I'm Chuck Norris, why should my money fund national defense?"
Oh, and a good reason for publically funded education... Your kids will have to live with kids of other people.
A practical argument? All you've really made there is an argument for legitimizing the theft of money from people because you think the 'government can spend it better than they can'. That's really not an argument so much as an articulation of envy.
What's the deal with the word 'envy' anyway? Are you trying to argue from a religious position?
But what's more important... you know what 'theft' is? Theft is taking someone's property
. And property
is also not a heaven-given right that people are born with. Property is something your goverment guarantees, just like it guarantees your money are worth more than the paper they are printed on. (unless, as a libertarian, you prefer gold currency *snicker*)
As for the superior performance of a government managed system - not really. A monopoly such as exists in Canada compliment by a monopsony of unionized health care worker labour creates the most inefficient system that can occur under any economic model. There is no practical benefit to it.
There is no practical benefit to it for people who are able to afford treatment for every illness they have. So either very rich people or very healthy people.
Here's another question for you Celestial - why should you pay for health care for people who aren't even in your country legally? I all your arguments apply equally to illegal immigrants as much as to any other person. After all they are sick and needy.
Because they're still people and I treat them in the same way I'd want to be treated... You know, emotions
, those funny things that make us more than animals?
Would you be ok with denying illegal immigrants other citizen rights as well? Police, legal, fire coverage, etc?
I mean really following your arguments to their logical conclusion non-one should have any more than anyone else and we should all live in barely above third world conditions once we've redistributed everything as things like 'cars, homes and vacations don't really matter'.
I think you got it backward. Redistributing money to fund things necessary to live like a human being does not equal redistributing *all* money equally.
Also, I didn't state that luxuries 'don't matter'. They just matter less than the basic human needs like a need to eat,drink,excrete(made impossible by some medical conditions, awful way to go) and not feel pain.
There's some scientific table called 'Maslow's hierarchy of needs' that can be found on wikipedia and other places. It illustrates the difference between things that 'matter' more and less.