I'm not sure implementation of some sort of system is worth talking about unless we talk about whether or not you believe humans, in societies that can afford it, ought to be provided access to basic health care, somewhat like education.

From the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/


Mods, can we get a poll?

This sort of says it all. Basic health care should come before education.

So my answer is, yes.

no

so whether something is considered a "right" depends on the relative wealth of a society? why is your access to healthcare more of a "right" than that of someone from sierra leone?

Because we were born more equal than them.

No, the right still exists. But governments can only provide what they can provide.

That is, if it were predicted America would go absolutely bankrupt and enter into a lengthy depression that would ravage the country, it would seem implementing basic health care for all might be something to hold off on.

although i'm in favor of reform of the insurance system, i'm pretty sure all americans already have ACCESS to all the health care they could ever need. the problem in this country is who pays the bills and we've got a 100+ page thread all about it.

so to answer the question, yes its a right and we're all already exercising that right.

ahhhh. i see now.

so regardless of whether one believes health care is a right, practical matters of how it is to be allocated, and the fiscal condition of the body charged with doing the providing, take precedence. scarcity is paramount, eh?

say, where have i heard that before?

which shouldn't be a problem for the richest country on earth.

i mean, if we could only stop the human right to kill other people in another country for the sole purpose of making money off scarce resources, we'd probably be able to supply food and housing for everyone too.

The thing with healthcare is that relies heavily on technology. What we see as "basic healthcare" is something that only came to exist in the 20th century thanks to all advancemets on the fields of chemistry, physics, biology, etc. So it's quite weird to have a right that relies on technology to exist.

we have a right to vote... that's invented.
we have a right to bear arms... that's invented.

i guess you overlooked those, no worries.

Dude, don't go full retarded.

Right to bear means I can not be forbidden of doing something (bearing a weapon in this case), not that someone is oblige to give me an weapon for free, and this is the case with healthcare.

who said anything about free?

without a doubt

Why are we dependent on governments to give us our "rights"? IMO the role of gov't is to protect the rights of the people, not provide them.

I guess you overlooked the fact that those are poor analogies.

The right to vote is only necessary in the absense of self government. If I were to place myself in charge of you, and then give you limited abilities to decide what I allow you to do, would that be a human right?

And it's ridiculous to say the right to bear arms is invented. That's simply a negative right, and it requires nothing more than not having someone take it away from you.

Health care requires a scarce resource, and there is no way to guarantee that everbody gets it. It has to be rationed. How can something that has to be rationed be a human right?

that's the idea, which i think we can all agree ain't been happening for a while. i blame wars & money, but that's just me.

their are not enough guns for every person in the world to have 1, if they wanted it, sounds scarce to me.

listen, i already stated that i read this to mean that everyone should have access to health care, paying for it is another matter all together, which i think both you and bass are referring to. in actuality getting care is available to everyone and is a right that is successfully expressed in the USA, despite its funding issues. As for the rest of the world, its unfortunate that power takes president over human rights in other parts of the world.

Exactly, the question is a simple one. Whether or not it's practically possible shouldn't affect your answer. That would be a different question.