Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule
Interesting way to frame the question. So healthcare is a right - but only when a nation has "the means to provide it". Does that mean that a nation with TRILLION DOLLAR Debt somehow has the means to afford it? At what level does it cease being a right? My understanding of rights is that they existed above a governmental level. Hence why Human Rights can trump governmental dictatorships and led to phrases like "inalienable" and "God-given"(Saden just insert naturally occuring for that one, no sense in re-hashing the "God" issue). Either Universal healthcare is a Right and a government should cover it regardless of having the means, or, it is an individual responsibility. I believe it is an individual responsibility.
in terms of the hierarchy of needs, you conveniently switch from an individual perspective to a governmental responsibility to a social structure. Our federal government is duly charged with protecting our borders, which requires a defense outlay. It is charged with providing a level of safety to ensure commerce and provide the populace with a general safety. To go any further than that is really a slippery slope. For example, I have no desire for the government to provide for my sex life, yet that is listed as a base need in your link.
Bottomline for me, just because something is important, does not mean it is a right, or something that the government is obliged to involve itself in.
|
I think a society that can ensure that it's citizens are provided for heathwise, must. For me, it goes back to how you define your level of civilization. What makes one country "third world" while another is first? A large component of the answer to that question is the quality of life of its citizenry. There is no more important issue than health, and there is absolutely no good reason that a society as advanced as ours should have a segment of the population without access to healthcare. In my opinion, any other view is callous and shortsighted.