Is health care a fundemental human right?

[Dark567]

After a discussion on another thread, I want to debate this question.

I first want assume that there are such a thing as human rights* and then attempt to answer the following questions:

Is health care a human right?
If yes, what are the properties of health care that make health care a human right?
If no, what properties does health care lack that excludes it from human rights?


(*For the record I am a nihilist. I don't believe in any rights. That means I can rape, kill, and plunder all I want, but unfortunately that framework doesn't really work to start a debate in this situation)

[CorruptUser]

No.

The amount of healthcare you would have a 'right' to depends on what's available; why do you have the right to antibiotics but your great-grandparents didn't? Why will (possibly) your grandchildren have the right to nerve replacement and nanosurgery or who knows, but you don't? Rights aren't dependent on what someone else developed and what someone else can provide; you are born with them, and they can't (well, shouldn't be taken away without due process of the law.

That isn't to say I think there shouldn't be some bare minimum of healthcare; society does gain more than it loses by fixing a poor person's broken leg, allowing him to work instead of being a drain on the state. I just don't think people should think they have an inherent right to a doctor's time and expertise any more than beggars thinking that your money is theirs by right.

I also support public education, a rudimentary form of welfare, the post office, public parks, sanitation, would like to see public or properly-regulated rail systems in the US (goods shouldn't have to be shipped cross-country by truck), and many other things, but I don't consider them all to be rights.

Spoiler:

I've met plenty of beggars who I'm convinced think that they have a right to the money people give them. I'm sure you have too, so please don't ask me to cite my own experiences and opinions.

[ImagingGeek]

Is health care a human right?

No.

If no, what properties does health care lack that excludes it from human rights?

Human rights are based on the concept that all humans are born free and are entitled to a degree of legal dignity - i.e. the right to their life, to not be enslaved, to religious convictions, right to a family, freedom of opinion, etc. Human rights protect what is most basic of being human - our lives, our families and our consciousness. Health care does not fit those criteria - it neither guarantees any of those rights, nor does its exclusion forfeit any of those rights. Moreover, there have been societies throughout history who would have reached the "standard" expected by modern human rights - and they did so with the absence of any sort of effective health care. Clearly, you can have rights without health care.

To go a little OT, health care is of great importance to a developed nation - disease has a lot of direct economic costs; everything from lost productivity,to increased training expenses (to replace ill/dead employees), to decreased population growth (the fundamental driver of the economy...we'll leave the implications of that for another thread). Health care can help reduce those costs, and thus aid in the economic growth of a country. But just because it is beneficial, does not mean it is a right.

(*For the record I am a nihilist. I don't believe in any rights. That means I can rape, kill, and plunder all I want, but unfortunately that framework doesn't really work to start a debate in this situation)

I agree with you - to a point. Humans are social animals. Ergo, we have evolved built-in "morality" that is needed for our society to function. However, that biologically-necessary morality is a far cry from what human rights dictate. So in a strict biological sense, rights do not exist.

But I disagree as well. One of the few things that separate humans from (most) animals is the ability to leave our evolutionary programming behind. While our biology doesn't directly accord human rights, the fact we are able to transcend our biological programming allows of us to make real things beyond what biology dictates. Human rights - and rights in general - are one of the better things we humans have conceived of. So while they don't "exist" in any measurable manner, as a legal construct they have great value - and provide a far better legal framework than the "morality" wrought by evolution.

Bryan

[Obby]

If we're going by the assumption that a human right is something that every human should have, regardless of anything else (crimes committed, where they were born, political affiliation, etc.), then yes I believe that health care should be a basic human right. A human being should be able to walk in to a health care facility and have himself examined, diagnosed and treated for his life-threatening ailments (not necessarily all in the same visit, unless deemed necessary, like a car crash victim for instance). As far as I'm aware, most first-world countries have this practice.

@CorruptUser: I really fail to see how availability determines whether or not something can be considered a right. My great grandparents, while they technically didn't have the right to advanced antibiotics in the sense that you're using the term, weren't being denied anything, the technology just didn't exist. Were they alive today, my great grandparents would indeed have a right to the same things that I have a right to. The Bill of Rights is not an exclusive document, saying that anything not listed in it's amendments cannot possibly be a right. That's why we have the additional 17 amendments that we do: technologies change, times change, viewpoints change.

[ImagingGeek]

@CorruptUser: I really fail to see how availability determines whether or not something can be considered a right.

So this wasn't directed at me, but I made a similar argument...

The whole point of human rights (IMO) is to protect that which is an inalienable part of being human - i.e. your life, your thoughts, etc. Or, in other words, those rights flow naturally out the intrinsic nature of a human being. Ergo, the preconditions for that right would exist regardless of the state of technology.

Health care is a technologically-based thing - its not an intrinsic part of being human. Ergo, it is not a human right. Anymore than fire, or automobiles, or antibiotics are human rights. As a counter example, thought is an intrinsic part of being human, and hence the right to hold your opinions, beliefs and consciousness are a human right.

Obviously, the whole basis of your argument and mine is exactly what qualifies as a human right.

Bryan

[CorruptUser]

Arguably the amendments aren't there for things we have now but not then, but for what we should have always had. People should always have been born free, women should always have had the right to vote, people should never have been allowed to drink alcohol, people should always have been allowed to drink alcohol, etc.

Your great-grandparents were denied advanced antibiotics; not by the people or the 'system', but by lack of availability/existance. You are still denied today for things that exist, even in the best of socialized medicine. Do you have the right to an organ transplant? There are only so many available, that people are denied because they are too old or have other complications (medical, criminal, or otherwise), and if you do get on the waiting list, there is a large probability you will die before you get the transplant.

[ImagingGeek]

Do you have the right to an organ transplant? There are only so many available, that people are denied because they are too old or have other complications (medical, criminal, or otherwise), and if you do get on the waiting list, there is a large probability you will die before you get the transplant.

That's an interesting aspect I never thought of - can you have a right to a limited resource? If there isn't enough of something to go around, can anyone be thought as having a right to it?

Bryan

[Dark567]

Your great-grandparents were denied advanced antibiotics; not by the people or the 'system', but by lack of availability/existance. You are still denied today for things that exist, even in the best of socialized medicine. Do you have the right to an organ transplant? There are only so many available, that people are denied because they are too old or have other complications (medical, criminal, or otherwise), and if you do get on the waiting list, there is a large probability you will die before you get the transplant.

This to me makes it seem like the only thing you are getting denied when you are denied health care, is money. I think you would have a hard time arguing everyone has a right to money.

[mmmcannibalism]

No, the only fundamental rights are those that protect you from outside coercion.

As the old example goes, who is violating the right to health care of a man living alone on an island?

[Azrael]

Interestingly, the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights thinks it is:

Article 25

1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Although the wording seems to cut a vague line between having a right to access vs. having a minimum level provided. The whole article, though, strikes me as astoundingly cavalier in declaring that social welfare is a human right.

[Dark567]

Interestingly, the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights thinks it is:

Article 25

1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Although the wording seems to cut a vague line between having a right to access vs. having a minimum level provided. The whole article, though, strikes me as astoundingly cavalier in declaring that social welfare is a human right.

... I don't get it. I mean I get what they are trying to do, but in some countries they simply don't even have the resources to provide all these things to each citizen. It very well might be possible to provide those things in the Western world, but even providing food can be difficult in some countries, much less housing and security.

[ImagingGeek]

... I don't get it. I mean I get what they are trying to do, but in some countries they simply don't even have the resources to provide all these things to each citizen.

It's the UN, much of what they do doesn't make a lot of sense. You also have to keep in mind the declaration of human rights was composed in the era immediately after WWII. At that time, the UN was not the global organization it is today, but rather was comprised almost entirely of western nations.

Bryan

[morriswalters]

There is only one fundamental human right, the right to die. And that's biological. Else wise mother nature and man let you have whatever rights you can enforce for yourself. So in that sense there is no fundamental right to health care. In America whatever rights you have are laid out in the Constitution. And those are political rights, all of them.

[folkhero]

I just can't take the UDHR seriously when it states:

Article 24
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Limited working hours I can understand, the occasional holiday is also understandable. Getting paid holiday is nice if you can get it, but how is getting paid for not doing work a human right? If my employer pays me 10% more, but I don't get paid for my holidays, then I'm objectively better off, but somehow my employer is violating my rights all of a sudden.

Back on topic, I don't really understand how I have a right to someone else's stuff, like a doctor's time.

[elasto]

Back on topic, I don't really understand how I have a right to someone else's stuff, like a doctor's time.

In that case presumably you don't have the right to a fair trial. I mean that would mean taking up a judge's valuable time.

I don't know if I'd put universal taxpayer funded healthcare as a human right, but I definitely regard any country that doesn't provide it as fundamentally unjust and economically short-sighted.

[Izawwlgood]

Back on topic, I don't really understand how I have a right to someone else's stuff, like a doctor's time.

Because doctors aren't slaves, they're working professionals whose time is worth x dollars depending on demand for their service. By your logic, not only do you not have a right to free trial, as elasto pointed out, but you don't have the right to buy the food a farmer has grown, hire a laborer, or enjoy the knowledge imparted by a teacher.

Back OT: I feel certain aspects of health care are a BHR, and as medical technology moves forward, so should the bar of what we consider 'basic'. Today, antibiotics and basic nutrition should be the minimum, perhaps certain surgeries. I am not comfortable making all of medicine available to everyone regardless of cost. Progress needs incentive.

[folkhero]

Back on topic, I don't really understand how I have a right to someone else's stuff, like a doctor's time.

Because doctors aren't slaves, they're working professionals whose time is worth x dollars depending on demand for their service. By your logic, not only do you not have a right to free trial, as elasto pointed out, but you don't have the right to buy the food a farmer has grown, hire a laborer, or enjoy the knowledge imparted by a teacher.

There is a difference between having the right to something and having the right to engage in trade with someone to obtain it. I don't have a right to food a farmer grows until he gives, trades or sells it to me, at which point the food is no longer his.

As for the right to fair trial, the state doesn't give free and fair trials (and free legal council) to all it's citizens, only those facing criminal charges. The right can be thought of as the right to be free from criminal punishment without fair trail. This right passes the desert island test in that it doesn't require anyone else's work unless the state wants to interfere with someone's life via criminal punishment; at that point it's the state's obligation to ensure that the punishment is just.

[Glass Fractal]

As the old example goes, who is violating the right to health care of a man living alone on an island?

Dunno, who's violating his right to live when he starves to death there?

[CorruptUser]

As the old example goes, who is violating the right to health care of a man living alone on an island?

Dunno, who's violating his right to live when he starves to death there?

If the right to live meant that you have the right to be provided with absolutely everything to survive, and letting someone die is a violation of that right, some very nasty ethical questions arise.

For example, assume that the right to life is the most fundamental right, and that violation of this right is the most amoral act possible. Also assume that the right to life means that everything must be provided to keep you alive. A third assumption is that a person also has the right to not be harmed, but in keeping with the first assumption, a violation of this right is not as amoral. Now, let's say Person A is in dire need of a kidney transplant, and Person B is a match for Person A. Is it moral to take Person B's kidney against his will to save Person A's life? According to the assumptions, even though Person B's right not to be harmed is violated, it is still a moral act. If anything, Person B is amoral for trying to deny Person A's most fundamental right! An even more extreme case emerges (you probably know where this is going) when six people need organs, say a liver, heart, lungs, and kidneys. Assuming that violating the right to life of six people is worse than violating the right to life of one person, killing the person for the organs is a moral act.

Yes, I realize this might be extreme, but I fail to see the logical fallacy given the assumptions. So one, or more, of the assumptions is wrong, or it really is moral to steal organs.

The 'right to life' is really the 'right to not be killed', a right that can only be removed should you violate someone else's right not to be killed. Some places, US included, declare that by committing high treason is a violation, real or potential, of the right to life of people in said country, and is punishable by the loss of your right to life. I think he last time someone was executed for treason in the US was the Rosenbergs, but I could be wrong.



The question then arises about what violations of your right are acceptable. What right does the government have to infringe on your property rights by taxing you? The truth is, no, it doesn't have an inherent right to do so, but it is a necessary evil. Taxes may be a violation of property rights, but the additional rights, protections, amenities, and so forth, guaranteed by having an adequate police force, fire department, roads, post office, school system, and yes, health care may be included in this list, outweigh the violation of your property, or the restriction on what fire-arms you own, or how you choose to drive your car, and so forth. If you don't like what this list has to offer, you have the right to vote for someone who will amend this list, or you can always vote with your feet; I hear Antarctica is tax-free, and is rather lovely this time of year.

The issue is to make sure that no (law-abiding) person is punished by this system. The rich should pay more taxes because they have more property that is protected by the fire department, have more that can be lost from theft, have more at risk from lawsuits (you can only be sued for everything you have or will have), take more advantage of having a well educated society (they buy more from people that require even the most basic of education) and so forth, not because they have more money and the state wants it.

[elasto]

As for the right to fair trial, the state doesn't give free and fair trials (and free legal council) to all it's citizens, only those facing criminal charges. The right can be thought of as the right to be free from criminal punishment without fair trail. This right passes the desert island test in that it doesn't require anyone else's work unless the state wants to interfere with someone's life via criminal punishment; at that point it's the state's obligation to ensure that the punishment is just.

And to achieve that the state pays for the defence lawyer's time. The argument is that, equally, the state could pay for a doctor's time.

It's not that you have a right to the doctor's time directly, as your original thought seem to imply, merely a right in both cases for the state to attempt to purchase it on your behalf.

I'm not sure that any 'desert island test' enlightens us one way or the other. A right to a fair trial merely means the state tries to the best of its ability, within its limited resources that have to be allocated in all sort of directions, to give everyone a fair trial. In reality, frequently it will fall short - whether on a desert island or not.

A right to healthcare would mean exactly the same thing: The state tries to the best of its ability, within its limited resources that have to be allocated in all sort of directions, to give everyone a decent standard of healthcare. In reality, frequently it would fall short - whether on a desert island or not.

All that the likes of CorruptUser's logic shows to me is that nothing is a fundamental human right - it's all merely 'highly aspirational'. Trying to treat anything as an 'absolute' can tie you in philosophical knots.

[Qaanol]

In my wilderness survival training I learned that, should you find yourself isolated from civilization, the first things to obtain for yourself are shelter, water, fire, and food, in that order. I would say those are basic human rights that everyone should have. Beyond that, here is a list of some standards of living, in my own sort order from fundamental to luxury:

Clean air
Adequate housing
Clean water
Warm clothing in cold climates
Home heating in cold climates
Nutritious food
Sanitary plumbing
Health care
Education
Access to news
Access to green vegetated space
Access to transportation (roads)
Communication (phones)
Hot water
Electricity
Internet access
Television

These are generally access to goods or services, and there are probably many more that could go on this list. They are distinct from freedoms from things and rights to do things. Which if any qualify as human rights, I would say up through news, maybe even green space. Of course, the EU wants internet access to be considered a fundamental right. I’d put that more as an important luxury.

[Czhorat]

I don't understand the logic behind this "desert island test". The concepts of rights is meaningless absent some kind of society, and there's plenty you CAN do on a desert island that you can't, for example, in a big city. To me it's a meaningless standard aimed at limiting any responsibilities on society's part.

Let's take a step back. Is adequate nutrition a basic human right? In other words, if someone can not afford enough food to sustain life, does society have a responsibility to make a good-faith reasonable attempt to provide it? I would say "yes" to this question; without the basic necessities to sustain life, any other rights are meaningless.

I'd take health-care similarly. The right to live means the right to the basic necessities of life. This, to me, means that the society in which a person lives needs to make a good-faith effort within its abilities to provide health-care to people if they can not otherwise afford it. Making up hypotheticals about countries without the funds to afford it, about cures that haven't been invented, or anything else are, to me, completely beside the point.

[Arrian]

In that case presumably you don't have the right to a fair trial. I mean that would mean taking up a judge's valuable time.

There's a fundamental difference between a right to health care and a right to a fair trial.

The former states that you have to right to be provided with a service regardless of anything else.

The latter is actually derivative, it's part of implementing a right to be treated fairly by the government. Fundamentally it's a limitation on the use of government power, not the provision of some good or service or promise of a certain quality of life. Further it's not a fundamental right, it's a right that people have in relation to their government. (There would be no need for a right to a fair trial if the government didn't actively put you on trial, after all.) Fundamental rights are rights in relation to everyone.

From what I understand, fundamental rights allow people to make with their lives what they will. They are enumerated and protected so that people can live their life in the way they see fit without being interfered with so long as they don't interfere with anyone else doing likewise. Rights don't guarantee outcomes, it's your responsibility to produce the outcome, rights just guarantee that you have the opportunity to try for an outcome.

That's where a right to health care fails the test. It's the promise of a result, not a protection against restrictions. There are other reasons* why it fails, but the fact that it doesn't fit the structure of a right kills it before even considering those.

It seems very popular to declare something a right as an attempt to resolve a problem instead of actually addressing the problem. The "health care right" seems to fit into that trend.


*Examples off the top of my head: How much health care are you entitled to? What kinds of health care? How is health care to be distributed? What do you do when people choose not to supply enough health care for everyone, or not to supply the type of health care you want? Does health care have to be effective for you to have a right to it? If it's a fundamental right, what are we going to do about poor countries? If poor countries fundamentally have good enough health care, isn't that then the baseline for people in rich countries to be entitled to?

[Obby]

I get why people don't think health care is a right. I understand the arguments, and, honestly, agree with a lot of them as presented.

However, even though I know no one has said this, it feels as though a lot of you are skirting around an implication that someone should be denied health care services based on some as-of-yet unnamed circumstance or prerequisite. To me, this just sounds wrong. If someone needs medicine for a debilitating and/or life threatening ailment, shouldn't that person have a right to acquire that medicine, regardless of whether they have to pay out-of-pocket for it or not? Arrian asked the questions at the end of his post that I think need to be answered before the topic's question can be answered (or even agreed to be disagreed upon):

How much health care are you entitled to? What kinds of health care? How is health care to be distributed? What do you do when people choose not to supply enough health care for everyone, or not to supply the type of health care you want? Does health care have to be effective for you to have a right to it? If it's a fundamental right, what are we going to do about poor countries? If poor countries fundamentally have good enough health care, isn't that then the baseline for people in rich countries to be entitled to?

Yes, health care is not in the same category as a right to life (or rather, a right to not be killed, as another poster pointed out). Health care may not be in the same category, but doesn't it directly relate to a right to not be killed? Isn't the denial of health care a violation of that right?

[Czhorat]

From what I understand, fundamental rights allow people to make with their lives what they will. They are enumerated and protected so that people can live their life in the way they see fit without being interfered with so long as they don't interfere with anyone else doing likewise. Rights don't guarantee outcomes, it's your responsibility to produce the outcome, rights just guarantee that you have the opportunity to try for an outcome.

That's where a right to health care fails the test. It's the promise of a result, not a protection against restrictions. There are other reasons* why it fails, but the fact that it doesn't fit the structure of a right kills it before even considering those.

So you would, I suppose, also say that there is no right to adequate nutrition or shelter, and if someone is jobless and destitute is is perfectly acceptable for society to let him or her die of starvation or exposure.

As I said above, I believe that society has a responsibility to give people the necessities to keep them alive. This equates to a right to those basic necessities. I have no problem with the concept that with rights there are responsibilities and that the right to food, shelter, clean air, clean water, etc create my responsibility to contribute (through taxation), to provide such things.

If poor countries fundamentally have good enough health care, isn't that then the baseline for people in rich countries to be entitled to?

If people are starving in poor countries, does that mean rich countries should let their citizens starve? I think a sensible standard is for each society to make a good-faith effort given their availability of resources. I'm sure you would think of this yourself if you weren't just dashing off "examples off the top of your head".

[Izawwlgood]

Back on topic, I don't really understand how I have a right to someone else's stuff, like a doctor's time.

Because doctors aren't slaves, they're working professionals whose time is worth x dollars depending on demand for their service. By your logic, not only do you not have a right to free trial, as elasto pointed out, but you don't have the right to buy the food a farmer has grown, hire a laborer, or enjoy the knowledge imparted by a teacher.

There is a difference between having the right to something and having the right to engage in trade with someone to obtain it. I don't have a right to food a farmer grows until he gives, trades or sells it to me, at which point the food is no longer his.

I feel you just made my point against your original statement for me.
The issue is whether or not governments should pay for said services for all their citizens. A doctor isn't being press ganged into setting broken bones, we're debating whether or not the government should foot the bill because having your bones set is a fundemental human right, similar to the way protection from tyranny is something we should all foot the bill for.

So you would, I suppose, also say that there is no right to adequate nutrition or shelter, and if someone is jobless and destitute is is perfectly acceptable for society to let him or her die of starvation or exposure.

Yes. It is not societies responsibility to pick you up out of the gutter. It's awfully nice of society to provide things like homeless shelters, education programs for the needy, and to provide countless charities to get people off the streets. "Having your shit together" is not a right society should provide.

However, even though I know no one has said this, it feels as though a lot of you are skirting around an implication that someone should be denied health care services based on some as-of-yet unnamed circumstance or prerequisite.

This is more an issue (and a legitimate one) with the insurance system that has evolved in America today.

[Czhorat]

Yes. It is not societies responsibility to pick you up out of the gutter. It's awfully nice of society to provide things like homeless shelters, education programs for the needy, and to provide countless charities to get people off the streets. "Having your shit together" is not a right society should provide.

So if someone is unemployed, or unemployable due to injury or disability, you believe it is perfectly acceptable for society as a whole to let them die of neglect, and that there is no responsibility for society to use any resources to give them the opportunity to sustain life?

In your view, does society have any responsibilities?

I think we've reached a point at which our world views are so divergent that any kind of consensus is impossible. For the sake of the kind of world in which I wish to live, I sincerely hope that not many people think as you do.

[CorruptUser]

Healthcare is an amenity, not a right; it is something that society can provide, or should provide, but is not required to provide.

If people start thinking it as a right, that means that people are entitled to it. It's the problem with all forms of welfare; people start thinking 'this welfare is my right, I don't have to be grateful, this isn't a handout or a gift, this is restititution for what I'm owed by society, society failed me and I deserve this, that guy has more and I hate that guy so I deserve more than he has' as opposed to 'hurray society has such a safety net, I'm glad these food stamps exist so my children won't starve, I need to find a job soon'.

Society is required to provide security and a clearly defined legal system; that is the reason government was formed in the first place. Everything else ranges from "should provide in almost all circumstances" to "useful luxuries". A previous poster had a nice list that I agree with, although I think public education should be higher than healthcare.

[Czhorat]

Healthcare is an amenity, not a right; it is something that society can provide, or should provide, but is not required to provide.

Why would you classify it thusly?

And what is society required to provide?

It seems to me that anything from society requires the expenditure of resources. If you believe, for instance, that people have the right to a certain level of security then society needs to spend resources on police forces, a military, etc.

If society has ANY responsibilities then how do you draw the line and what is the moral difference between providing food and providing access to health care?

[CorruptUser]

If society has ANY responsibilities then how do you draw the line and what is the moral difference between providing food and providing access to health care?

Food is a much more pressing need than healthcare. At this point in time, the US has an overabundance of food; all but the most fundamental of Libertarians will agree that it is better to tax the food that would otherwise rot and feed the man who would otherwise starve. In the event that food is scarce enough that giving him food takes makes someone else go hungry, or the man would be able to feed himself without help, then no, it shouldn't be provided.

[Czhorat]

CorruptUser:

Would you take this to mean that society has a responsibility to provide food to all so long as the resources are available to do so?

If so, then why would you not provide the same standard to medical care? There are many cases in which not having access to medical care is as fatal as not having access to food.

[Obby]

If people start thinking it as a right, that means that people are entitled to it. It's the problem with all forms of welfare; people start thinking 'this welfare is my right, I don't have to be grateful, this isn't a handout or a gift, this is restititution for what I'm owed by society, society failed me and I deserve this, that guy has more and I hate that guy so I deserve more than he has' as opposed to 'hurray society has such a safety net, I'm glad these food stamps exist so my children won't starve, I need to find a job soon'.

Some people will think this way. Acting as if most people will abuse the system, either through some misguided belief or simply because they can, is being cynical beyond reason. We certainly don't see most of the recipients of welfare checks being free-loading degenerates. Sure, some people are, but there are (admittedly somewhat inefficient) systems in place to help prevent those people from being on welfare in the first place. And I'd rather there be some freeloaders on the system if it means helping families that really need it over there not being a system in place at all.

[roflwaffle]

Although the wording seems to cut a vague line between having a right to access vs. having a minimum level provided. The whole article, though, strikes me as astoundingly cavalier in declaring that social welfare is a human right.

I think that really depends on what kind of social welfare we're looking at. On one hand social inequity can certainly result in oppression as per the UDHR, so in that context having a minimum level provided is required, but only if there is oppression present in that context.

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.

For instance I think most would consider EEO to be a function of human rights, however if there isn't discrimination in a given economy then there's no need for a government to adopt EEO measures. Along the same lines, if there is not any economic oppression in terms of access to healthcare, then a minimum level does not need to be provided.

[Arrian]

So you would, I suppose, also say that there is no right to adequate nutrition or shelter, and if someone is jobless and destitute is is perfectly acceptable for society to let him or her die of starvation or exposure.

As I said above, I believe that society has a responsibility to give people the necessities to keep them alive.

No, I disagree. It's not a fundamental right to have the necessities to stay alive given to you. It's your responsibility to make do for yourself and your right to not have others prevent you from doing so. Society doesn't have the responsibility to take care of you. You or your family if you're not capable of taking care of yourself? Yes. Society? No.

A wise society will provide assistance to its members, but that doesn't imply that such assistance is a fundamental right. Free education has probably been a tremendous contributor first world societies' wealth, it was a good decision to provide it, but that doesn't make it a right. Just because provision of some good or service will make society better off as a whole does not transform that good or service into a fundamental right. On the other hand, individuals do not need to have a right to something in order for society to provide it to them. It takes a pretty cynical mind to assume that the only things society will provide are those its forced to in order to not infringe upon its citizens' rights.

If people are starving in poor countries, does that mean rich countries should let their citizens starve? I think a sensible standard is for each society to make a good-faith effort given their availability of resources. I'm sure you would think of this yourself if you weren't just dashing off "examples off the top of your head".

I did think of this, the people advocating for fundamental rights aren't. If something is a fundamental right, everybody has the right to it equally. That's the point of "fundamental." Therefore, if health care is a fundamental right, either residents of poor countries are being denied that right (By whom? A government that can't afford to provide it? An infrastructure that can't supply the trained people and proper material? The rich countries for having it but not giving it away for free? This is kind of important, after all, if a right is being denied to you, SOMEONE has to be doing the denial. If the natural state of the world is such that you don't have that right, then it's not a right. That's the point of the desert island allegories.) Or, the people in poor countries are not being denied their right to health care because they are getting the best that is feasible. In which case, since they are getting the fundamentally sufficient amount of health care, even the poorest of the poor in first world countries are also getting their rightful amount of health care because even without insurance American health care is better than, say, Rwandan.

Calling health care a right is either a cop out or a bargaining tool. A healthy society is going to be wealthier, happier, whatever you think is important, than an unhealthy society all other things being equal. The question really is how much should society be willing to spend on providing health care for those who don't acquire it for themselves. That's a very, very tough decision that really doesn't have much to do with rights. Not a lot of people will agree on the optimal amount of health care spending, or what kind of health care to provide or to whom, but it's important for the society to come to a compromise on all those and more.

But by defining health care as a right, you illegitimize a large portion of the argument and stack the deck in favor of people who want to provide a lot of health care. It's no longer a question of providing the socially optimal amount of health care, it's about ensuring peoples' rights are not infringed. The concept of optimal is out the window.

How much health care should we provide as a society, or what is the minimum level of health care a person living in our society should be provided regardless of their means are the questions we should be asking. Having an argument on whether or not health care is a right is an attempt to bias priors in preparation of the real argument.

[elasto]

I broadly agree. I don't think health care is a fundamental human right. Nor is education, justice and a lot of other things imo.

Do I think a civilised society should strain every sinew to provide all these things to all its citizens though? Hell yes.

[mmmcannibalism]

I broadly agree. I don't think health care is a fundamental human right. Nor is education, justice and a lot of other things imo.

Do I think a civilised society should strain every sinew to provide all these things to all its citizens though? Hell yes.

How are you defining justice in a way that it isn't a human right?

[Izawwlgood]

In your view, does society have any responsibilities?

Spoilered for being a little OT

Spoiler:

I'm glad you asked that, I do after all love a platform to directly explain my views:
For starters, we've muddied the difference between 'government' and 'society', and I'm equally at fault for conflating the two in my previous statement. I think it is indeed societies responsibility to ensure that no one is living below the poverty line, or at the very least, has food, shelter, education. And society largely does; far before this administration, Truman's administration, indeed, even before this country, society was in the business of caring for the homeless to various degrees. Soup kitchens and orphanages and the like run by religious institutions did exactly what you now want the government to do. Admittedly, society hasn't always done the best job of this, but the various metrics of standard of living have all improved over the last 500 years, from violent crime, infant mortality, and homelessness decreasing.
I'm not sure why you feel that it is a governments responsibility to ensure those things however. It's obviously easily argued either direction, but I feel government does such a poor job of managing just about every facet of it's existence, that entrusting it with something as monumental as health care is beyond the word scope of 'unwise'. In my opinion, government should be in one business, and one business only, and that's protecting the physical safety of it's citizens from invading armies. See Naval Act of 1794in response to the Barbary pirates.

I don't think health care is a fundamental human right. Nor is education, justice and a lot of other things imo.

I disagree about justice.

[Heisenberg]

How are you defining justice in a way that it isn't a human right?

If justice is the protection and defense of human rights, then justice is not itself a human right.

[CorruptUser]

How are you defining justice in a way that it isn't a human right?

If justice is the protection and defense of human rights, then justice is not itself a human right.

If healthcare is the protection and defense of the right to life, then healthcare is not itself a human right either, by that logic.

[Heisenberg]

If healthcare is the protection and defense of the right to life, then healthcare is not itself a human right either, by that logic.

Yes and no. If your right to free speech is shat on by someone who say, defaces your bumper sticker, then yes, justice is the obligation we all have to uphold and defend your right. Contrariwise, if you lose your voice box to cancer, society is under no obligation to help you speak.

Justice is the obligation society has to defend individual rights from violation by other people.

Applying this directly to heath care (assuming a right to life) would mean that society had an obligation to care for someone who had a gunshot wound, but not for those dying of natural causes.

Now Justice tells us that you should be able to seek reparations from your attacker, or from the company who polluted your air and water. But this principle falls short when it comes to tripping over your own feet and breaking your wrist. Who pays for that? Is that a personal or societal obligation?

Spoiler:

Personally, I lean towards the idea that there is a difference between rights and obligations. Rights are firm, and represent certain things people shall not do to one another. Obligations are softer, and represent certain things people should do for one another.

As a society, we Should ensure everyone has access to libraries. However, library access is not, in my mind, a human right. A community should not be punished for Failure to Aggregate Paper Volumes, but it is something communities should strive for. I'd probably group most health care, or health insurance in with library access, since it's not a legal protection as much as it is something nice we should do for one another.