Health Care as a Human Right - Is Universal Health Care a Human Right?
Stephen P. King
Hi,
This article is most troubling to be as it seems that its argument has become accepted by many people without consideration of the logical consequence.
Is Universal Health Care a Human Right?
By Tom Head,
Question: Is Universal Health Care a Human Right?
Answer: According to the most widely accepted international human rights treaties, yes.
Article 25 of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) reads (emphasis mine):
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.
Likewise, Article 12 of the U.N. International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (1966) reads:
1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.
2. The steps to be taken by the States Parties to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include those necessary for:
(a) The provision for the reduction of the stillbirth-rate and of infant mortality and for the healthy development of the child;
(b) The improvement of all aspects of environmental and industrial hygiene;
(c) The prevention, treatment and control of epidemic, endemic, occupational and other diseases;
(d) The creation of conditions which would assure to all medical service and medical attention in the event of sickness.
Because the United States is a signatory to both treaties, and U.S. policymakers played a role in drafting both treaties, it would stand to reason that health care would be accepted as part of the American understanding of human rights. And it is, at least by most--according to a 2007 CBS News/New York Times poll, 64% of Americans believe that the government has a responsibility to ensure universal health care.
This has historically been the position of left-leaning parties, such as the Democratic Party and the Green Party. But right-leaning parties, such as the Republican Party and the Libertarian Party, hold a different view. "Health care is a privilege," Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN) explained in a March 2009 interview. "[I]t's not necessarily a right." Not that fiscal conservatives are necessarily monsters--many of them volunteer to help provide essential medical services, in the United States and abroad--but as a general rule, fiscal conservatives don't believe that tax dollars should be used to fund universal health care. They believe this responsibility should fall on the private sector, and if the private sector isn't able to comprehensively meet needs, calling on the government to pick up the slack simply isn't an option. They see health care as something that good people can grant to those who don't have it, but they don't see it as something to which every human being is entitled.
But international human rights law is unambiguous on the matter: Universal health care is a right, and the government must step in and provide it if the private sector fails to do so. If there are such things as human rights, under the international framework, then health care is definitely among them.
End quote
That a “need” becomes a right by convention or treaty or any means that enforce such is to effect the legitimation of coercion of the rights of those that can provide those “needs”. “From each according to their ability to each according to his need” scream out at us here and without a coherent response we are witnessing the virtual imprisonment of any and all that might have the skills required to provide such.
What I see here is by accepting the premise of this and similar arguments requires that a government has the “right” to demand services from individuals with ability *for whatever reason* which then is to accept that the State has the right to control the behavior of any individual and that any right of self-determination is abrogated.
Any comment is welcome.
Onward!
Stephen P. King
Stathis Papaioannou
The problem is that "right" has no objective basis. It's like "good"
or "beauty": a concept made up by humans. You obviously think that
public health care is morally wrong while others (probably most people
in the world) think that the lack of public health care is morally
wrong. You could have a rational discussion about, say, the efficiency
of public versus private health care, but with the core moral issue
you will reach an impasse, because your premises differ.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
John Mikes
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Bruno Marchal
On 15 Mar 2010, at 14:32, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On 16 March 2010 00:00, Stephen P. King <step...@charter.net> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This article is most troubling to be as it seems that its
>> argument has become accepted by many people without consideration
>> of the
>> logical consequence.
>>
>> http://civilliberty.about.com/od/equalrights/f/Health-Care-Human-Right.htm
>>
>>
>>
>> Is Universal Health Care a Human Right?
>> Any comment is welcome.
>
> The problem is that "right" has no objective basis. It's like "good"
> or "beauty": a concept made up by humans.
The concepts of moon, rock, galaxies, and numbers, are also made by
human, but they may relate to things no done by humans.
Let me (try to) give you a definition of beauty. X is beautiful
relatively to universal Y, if universal Y is attracted by X. X is
very beautiful if X attracts a large class of universal Y. X is
universally beautiful if X attracts all universal Y.
Good is a notion quite close to consciousness. We cannot define it,
but we know it most clearly than anything else.
Most people are clear about what they find good, in the instant (as
opposed to long term effect which makes things having both good and
bad aspects).
Subjective is true and undoubtable, but non definable, and non
communicable, still less institutionalizable.
Good is related to the partial ability that universal machines to get
partial and local level of satisfaction, sometimes eventually based on
universal goal (like "survive").
I tend to believe also in universal right. Although I doubt any
temporal construction other than education, schools, academies,
research institutes, can help to develop it. I would say that all
universal machine have, at birth, the right to search happiness. It
may be a moral duty to share the tools facilitating that search.
> You obviously think that
> public health care is morally wrong while others (probably most people
> in the world) think that the lack of public health care is morally
> wrong. You could have a rational discussion about, say, the efficiency
> of public versus private health care, but with the core moral issue
> you will reach an impasse, because your premises differ.
I may disagree. There is a quasi-universal reason for which health
should be a public care, or at least a matter of making heathy people
to provide the money. Why? Because if you don't force the healthy
people to provide money to the medical system(s), then, it will be in
the survival interest of the medical systems that there are as many
unhealthy people as possible. The results will be like making
efficacious and cheap medication illegal, and encourage, by making
legal, medications which are inefficacious and unhealthy.
Bruno Marchal
Stephen P. King
I respectfully invite you to re-read my comment.
> That a "need" becomes a right by convention or treaty or
> any means that enforce such is to effect the legitimation of coercion
> of the rights of those that can provide those "needs". "From each
> according to their ability to each according to his need" scream out
> at us here and without a coherent response we are witnessing the
> virtual imprisonment of any and all that might have the skills required to
provide such.
>
> What I see here is by accepting the premise of this and
> similar arguments requires that a government has the "right" to demand
> services from individuals with ability *for whatever reason* which
> then is to accept that the State has the right to control the behavior
> of any individual and that any right of self-determination is abrogated.
I stated an argument for the purpose of soliciting comments and
counter-arguments not to make a "moral" claim. In fact, I thought that my
argument was an attempt to counter the "moral" claim in the article by
pointing out the logical (to me at least) implications of the claim:
"> Question: Is Universal Health Care a Human Right?
>
> Answer: According to the most widely accepted international human
> rights treaties, yes."
My primary motivation for posting this was to extend the previous
discussion of the efficiency of Market vs. Managed systems in economics and
I assume, perhaps naively, that all of our members are interested in an
objective exploration of logical arguments within the context of the
Everything-List.
If the totality of Existence is "logical" or "Computational" or
both, then it seems to me that there should be no counter-example for such
within our sphere of experience and that if we find what appears to be such
a contradiction we should consider that a) there is a misunderstanding
somewhere that leads to the counter-example or b) that there is a flaw in
our premise somewhere or c) some combination of a) and b).
It should not matter what the particular "need" is. The same
reasoning can be applied to Housing, Transportation, Food, Entertainment,
etc. So long as some notion of "need" can be presented and accepted by some
portion of society that has the ability to implicitly or explicitly use
coercion to motivate the fulfillment of this need. I am trying to get a
discussion of the consequences of this entire line of reasoning without
having to get into the subjective notion of "morals".
Onward!
Stephen P. King
-----Original Message-----
From: everyth...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stathis Papaioannou
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 9:32 AM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Health Care as a Human Right - Is Universal Health Care a Human
Right?
Snip
Brent Meeker
On 16 March 2010 00:00, Stephen P. King <step...@charter.net> wrote:
Hi, ����������� This article is most troubling to be as it seems that its argument has become accepted by many people without consideration of the logical consequence. http://civilliberty.about.com/od/equalrights/f/Health-Care-Human-Right.htm Is Universal Health Care a Human�Right? By Tom Head, Question: Is Universal Health Care a Human Right? Answer: According to the most widely accepted international human rights treaties, yes. Article 25 of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) reads (emphasis mine): 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. Likewise, Article 12 of the U.N. International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (1966) reads: 1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. 2. The steps to be taken by the States Parties to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include those necessary for: (a) The provision for the reduction of the stillbirth-rate and of infant mortality and for the healthy development of the child; (b) The improvement of all aspects of environmental and industrial hygiene; (c) The prevention, treatment and control of epidemic, endemic, occupational and other diseases; (d) The creation of conditions which would assure to all medical service and medical attention in the event of sickness. Because the United States is a signatory to both treaties, and U.S. policymakers played a role in drafting both treaties, it would stand to reason that health care would be accepted as part of the American understanding of human rights. And it is, at least by most--according to a 2007 CBS News/New York Times poll, 64% of Americans believe that the government has a responsibility to ensure universal health care. This has historically been the position of left-leaning parties, such as the Democratic Party and the Green Party. But right-leaning parties, such as the Republican Party and the Libertarian Party, hold a different view. "Health care is a privilege," Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN) explained in a March 2009 interview. "[I]t's not necessarily a right." Not that fiscal conservatives are necessarily monsters--many of them volunteer to help provide essential medical services, in the United States and abroad--but as a general rule, fiscal conservatives don't believe that tax dollars should be used to fund universal health care. They believe this responsibility should fall on the private sector, and if the private sector isn't able to comprehensively meet needs, calling on the government to pick up the slack simply isn't an option. They see health care as something that good people can grant to those who don't have it, but they don't see it as something to which every human being is entitled. But international human rights law is unambiguous on the matter: Universal health care is a right, and the government must step in and provide it if the private sector fails to do so. If there are such things as human rights, under the international framework, then health care is definitely among them. End quote ����������� That a �need� becomes a right by convention or treaty or any means that enforce such is to effect the legitimation of coercion of the rights of those that can provide those �needs�. �From each according to their ability to each according to his need� scream out at us here and without a coherent response we are witnessing the virtual imprisonment of any and all that might have the skills required to provide such. ����������� What I see here is by accepting the premise of this and similar arguments requires that a government has the �right� to demand services from individuals with ability *for whatever reason* which then is to accept that the State has the right to control the behavior of any individual and that any right of self-determination is abrogated. ����������� Any comment is welcome.
The problem is that "right" has no objective basis. It's like "good" or "beauty": a concept made up by humans. You obviously think that public health care is morally wrong while others (probably most people in the world) think that the lack of public health care is morally wrong. You could have a rational discussion about, say, the efficiency of public versus private health care, but with the core moral issue you will reach an impasse, because your premises differ.
Brent
Brent Meeker
Brent
Stephen P. King
Hi Brent,
I wonder how you might explain to a medical doctor that his ability is required independent of his own need to use it on his own behalf? How is the need of the one person such that it can make demands on some other person to act even against their own circumstances? While it may be true that other OECD nations have cheaper health care, the fact remains that health care does not exist in a vacuum. We can always find a wonderful attribute or condition within, say, Cuba, but would you want to move your family there? How many time must Marx’s “theory” be tested before we realize that it is based on a false premise: that somehow society can achieve “social justice” for all without a grotesque human cost. How far do the bodies need to pile up in mass graves before this nonsense of a “free lunch for all” is rejected?
There are wider societal conditions and mechanisms that one needs to consider. What social reward system will exist to generate a motivation for persons to go through the rigors of training that being a Health Care provider demands in a monolithic non-profit health system for all eligible Americans? I ask the question honestly! But enough of that …
My point is not against Universal health care per say, it is against the underlying set of assumptions. I am asking for a careful consideration of the premises that are being put forward: That governmental bureaucracies are even capable of achieving the goal of providing services in ways that are better than when free markets can provide. In my original posting on this thread I sought to point of that there is a computational way of considering the free vs. managed market system and so far I have not had much of a response to my point other than one post by Elliot. Human beings populate both the corporate systems and federal bureaucracies and so in both systems we should expect the same range of human tendencies. I would like to understand how efficiency works in both cases as a way to form a metric of comparison that is independent of political stripes.
Onward!
Stephen P. King
From: everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Brent Meeker
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 3:25 PM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Health Care as a Human Right - Is Universal Health Care a Human Right?
snip
Quentin Anciaux
Hi Stathis and Friends,
I respectfully invite you to re-read my comment.
I stated an argument for the purpose of soliciting comments and
> That a "need" becomes a right by convention or treaty or
> any means that enforce such is to effect the legitimation of coercion
> of the rights of those that can provide those "needs". "From each
> according to their ability to each according to his need" scream out
> at us here and without a coherent response we are witnessing the
> virtual imprisonment of any and all that might have the skills required to
provide such.
>
> What I see here is by accepting the premise of this and
> similar arguments requires that a government has the "right" to demand
> services from individuals with ability *for whatever reason* which
> then is to accept that the State has the right to control the behavior
> of any individual and that any right of self-determination is abrogated.
counter-arguments not to make a "moral" claim. In fact, I thought that my
argument was an attempt to counter the "moral" claim in the article by
pointing out the logical (to me at least) implications of the claim:
You are talking about *life* and **death**. If you don't see the *moral* thing in your selfish babling it's *bad*.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
Brent Meeker
Hi Brent,
I wonder how you might explain to a medical doctor that his ability is required independent of his own need to use it on his own behalf? How is the need of the one person such that it can make demands on some other person to act even against their own circumstances? While it may be true that other OECD nations have cheaper health care, the fact remains that health care does not exist in a vacuum. We can always find a wonderful attribute or condition within, say, Cuba, but would you want to move your family there? How many time must Marx’s “theory” be tested before we realize that it is based on a false premise: that somehow society can achieve “social justice” for all without a grotesque human cost. How far do the bodies need to pile up in mass graves before this nonsense of a “free lunch for all” is rejected?
How many sweatshops and monopolies and corporate run governments must we have before we realize that a laissez faire free for all does not make for a good society.
There are wider societal conditions and mechanisms that one needs to consider. What social reward system will exist to generate a motivation for persons to go through the rigors of training that being a Health Care provider demands in a monolithic non-profit health system for all eligible Americans? I ask the question honestly! But enough of that …
My point is not against Universal health care per say, it is against the underlying set of assumptions. I am asking for a careful consideration of the premises that are being put forward: That governmental bureaucracies are even capable of achieving the goal of providing services in ways that are better than when free markets can provide. In my original posting on this thread I sought to point of that there is a computational way of considering the free vs. managed market system and so far I have not had much of a response to my point other than one post by Elliot.
Human beings populate both the corporate systems and federal bureaucracies and so in both systems we should expect the same range of human tendencies. I would like to understand how efficiency works in both cases as a way to form a metric of comparison that is independent of political stripes.
But I don't think this topic is appropriate to the everything-list. So if you want to reply I suggest you take it offline.
Brent
Onward!
Stephen P. King
From: everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Brent Meeker
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 3:25 PM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Health Care as a Human Right - Is Universal Health Care a Human Right?
snip
First, your argument is logic chopping. There are differences among different needs. For example no one wants to need health care. Second, empirical observation trumps logic. Communism empirically failed, it didn't reach Marx's paradise. Was Marx's logic wrong? - probably not, he just didn't take account of enough in his premises. Universal health care succeeds. Every OECD nation, except the U.S., had some form of non-profit universal health care, their results are as good or better than the U.S. and they cost only half as much per capita.
Brent
--
Stathis Papaioannou
>> The problem is that "right" has no objective basis. It's like "good"
>> or "beauty": a concept made up by humans.
>
>
> The concepts of moon, rock, galaxies, and numbers, are also made by human,
> but they may relate to things no done by humans.
> Let me (try to) give you a definition of beauty. X is beautiful relatively
> to universal Y, if universal Y is attracted by X. X is very beautiful if X
> attracts a large class of universal Y. X is universally beautiful if X
> attracts all universal Y.
>
> Good is a notion quite close to consciousness. We cannot define it, but we
> know it most clearly than anything else.
> Most people are clear about what they find good, in the instant (as opposed
> to long term effect which makes things having both good and bad aspects).
>
> Subjective is true and undoubtable, but non definable, and non communicable,
> still less institutionalizable.
>
> Good is related to the partial ability that universal machines to get
> partial and local level of satisfaction, sometimes eventually based on
> universal goal (like "survive").
>
> I tend to believe also in universal right. Although I doubt any temporal
> construction other than education, schools, academies, research institutes,
> can help to develop it. I would say that all universal machine have, at
> birth, the right to search happiness. It may be a moral duty to share the
> tools facilitating that search.
But people may disagree in aesthetic and ethical judgements while they
will all agree on some matter of fact. If you say "good" is defined
for a machine in terms of that which helps it attain a goal that is a
good operational definition but then the problem is only deferred
until we consider the goal. A goal of destroying all intelligent
entities other than oneself is a perfectly legitimate one; there is no
logical contradiction and no incompatibility with physical reality in
it..
>> You obviously think that
>> public health care is morally wrong while others (probably most people
>> in the world) think that the lack of public health care is morally
>> wrong. You could have a rational discussion about, say, the efficiency
>> of public versus private health care, but with the core moral issue
>> you will reach an impasse, because your premises differ.
>
>
> I may disagree. There is a quasi-universal reason for which health should be
> a public care, or at least a matter of making heathy people to provide the
> money. Why? Because if you don't force the healthy people to provide money
> to the medical system(s), then, it will be in the survival interest of the
> medical systems that there are as many unhealthy people as possible. The
> results will be like making efficacious and cheap medication illegal, and
> encourage, by making legal, medications which are inefficacious and
> unhealthy.
You could argue that would be the case with many privately provided
services; a mechanic should not be motivated to fix your car, for
example. Despite this obvious bias, mechanics still fix cars because
(apart from honesty and professional standards) they will not get
repeat business if the cars they fix keep breaking down: their
competitors who do a better job get the business instead.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
Stathis Papaioannou
> It should not matter what the particular "need" is. The same
> reasoning can be applied to Housing, Transportation, Food, Entertainment,
> etc. So long as some notion of "need" can be presented and accepted by some
> portion of society that has the ability to implicitly or explicitly use
> coercion to motivate the fulfillment of this need. I am trying to get a
> discussion of the consequences of this entire line of reasoning without
> having to get into the subjective notion of "morals".
But the thing about political and ethical principles is that they are
not like a formal argument, with premises and conclusions. If you try
to pretend they are, you can get ridiculous results that no-one would
accept. Does the right to health care mean the government can enslave
people to provide it if there aren't enough volunteers? Most people
would say no, the government should provide higher salaries or perhaps
advertise in other countries to attract health care workers. Isn't
that still enslavement of sorts, since working people will be forced
to pay for these services? Most people would say no, it is not as bad
to be taxed as it is to be directly enslaved, and although they don't
like to be taxed, they can see that there are benefits to it and they
prefer to live in a society where significant taxation exists. In a
formal argument or for an insanely rigid ideologue going back and
changing the premises is not allowed, but in real life it is.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
Bruno Marchal
In case such a destruction is needed to satisfy some universal goal
like surviving, then I can agree.
Particular good and bad can be in the beholder's eyes, yet good and
bad are lived as undoubtable or true, and can have objective roots in
computer science. Killing all the others may be contradictory on
epistemological levels or pragmatic one, etc. Self-destruction is
usually bad and related to relatively bad things, with respect of
universal goal (like surviving).
I agree with you. The point was not so the private/state opposition,
than the idea of making only the sick people to pay for their care. In
many country state medicine handle better social solidarity. But
private societies could do this too, in principle, but this leads
naturally to different kinds of care for the rich and the poor. The
same for education.
Now, the big pharmaceutical industry has no competitors, still less,
when politics intervenes and makes illegal alternative medications.
Here the private, due to monopole, is even worst than the states.
Politics should not been allow to take decision in many health matter.
It makes the state accomplice of the derailing of global health
decisions.
Universal health care may be a Löbian right. All beings capable of
suffering has the right to suffer the less possible, even when
respectfully eaten.
Bruno
Brent Meeker
On 16 March 2010 01:39, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
... I may disagree. There is a quasi-universal reason for which health should be a public care, or at least a matter of making heathy people to provide the money. Why? Because if you don't force the healthy people to provide money to the medical system(s), then, it will be in the survival interest of the medical systems that there are as many unhealthy people as possible. The results will be like making efficacious and cheap medication illegal, and encourage, by making legal, medications which are inefficacious and unhealthy.
You could argue that would be the case with many privately provided services; a mechanic should not be motivated to fix your car, for example. Despite this obvious bias, mechanics still fix cars because (apart from honesty and professional standards) they will not get repeat business if the cars they fix keep breaking down: their competitors who do a better job get the business instead.
Brent
Brent Meeker
Brent