Is Healthcare a right or a priviledge?

Quote from: Colonel Gaydafi on February 06, 2009, 02:18:32 PM

Maybe its a matter of that they should be rights (and are in, in the countries they are) but we're all fuck ups and thats why they haven't been made into rights everywhere and so we should be ashamed of ourselves.

Mark the date Gayer...  we agree on something again.

A lot of things should be rights... and someday, maybe enough humans will get together and make it so.

Quote from: Ravenwood240 on February 06, 2009, 02:21:37 PM

Quote from: Colonel Gaydafi on February 06, 2009, 02:18:32 PM

Maybe its a matter of that they should be rights (and are in, in the countries they are) but we're all fuck ups and thats why they haven't been made into rights everywhere and so we should be ashamed of ourselves.

Mark the date Gayer...  we agree on something again.

A lot of things should be rights... and someday, maybe enough humans will get together and make it so.

But there's no point complaining about humans not getting it together if we don't want it in our own countries. So why doesn't the US want to say that it is a human right?

Article 12 of the Covenant recognises the right of everyone to "the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health."[40] "Health" is understood not just as a right to be healthy, but as a right to control ones own health and body (including reproduction), and be free from interference such as torture or medical experimentation.[41] States must protect this right by ensuring that everyone within their jurisdiction has access to the underlying determinants of health, such as clean water, sanitation, food, nutrition and housing, and through a comprehensive system of healthcare, which is available to everyone without discrimination, and economically accessible to all.[42]

Article 12.2 requires parties to take specific steps to improve the health of their citizens, including reducing infant mortality and improving child health, improving environmental and workplace health, preventing, controlling and treating epidemic diseases, and creating conditions to ensure equal and timely access to medical services for all. These are considered to be "illustrative, non-exhaustive examples", rather than a complete statement of parties' obligations.[43]

The right to health is interpreted as requiring parties to respect women's' reproductive rights, by not limiting access to contraception or "censoring, withholding or intentionally misrepresenting" information about sexual health.[44] They must also ensure that women are protected from harmful traditional practices such as female genital mutilation.[45]

Would you agree with it though? The text from the covenant is this:

Quote

Article 12 of the Covenant recognises the right of everyone to "the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health."[40] "Health" is understood not just as a right to be healthy, but as a right to control ones own health and body (including reproduction), and be free from interference such as torture or medical experimentation.[41] States must protect this right by ensuring that everyone within their jurisdiction has access to the underlying determinants of health, such as clean water, sanitation, food, nutrition and housing, and through a comprehensive system of healthcare, which is available to everyone without discrimination, and economically accessible to all.[42]

Article 12.2 requires parties to take specific steps to improve the health of their citizens, including reducing infant mortality and improving child health, improving environmental and workplace health, preventing, controlling and treating epidemic diseases, and creating conditions to ensure equal and timely access to medical services for all. These are considered to be "illustrative, non-exhaustive examples", rather than a complete statement of parties' obligations.[43]

The right to health is interpreted as requiring parties to respect women's' reproductive rights, by not limiting access to contraception or "censoring, withholding or intentionally misrepresenting" information about sexual health.[44] They must also ensure that women are protected from harmful traditional practices such as female genital mutilation.[45]

Economic accessibility (affordability): health facilities, goods and services must be affordable for all. Payment for health-care services, as well as services related to the underlying determinants of health, has to be based on the principle of equity, ensuring that these services, whether privately or publicly provided, are affordable for all, including socially disadvantaged groups. Equity demands that poorer households should not be disproportionately burdened with health expenses as compared to richer households.

Quote

Economic accessibility (affordability): health facilities, goods and services must be affordable for all. Payment for health-care services, as well as services related to the underlying determinants of health, has to be based on the principle of equity, ensuring that these services, whether privately or publicly provided, are affordable for all, including socially disadvantaged groups. Equity demands that poorer households should not be disproportionately burdened with health expenses as compared to richer households.

From the UN general note on the right to health

The Jewnited States of Amerikkka" would be better.

Have any of you watched Sicko?  It's a great documentary, even if you hate Michael Moore.  http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/health-care-proposal/

The vast majority of people in this world live in abject poverty and squalor with very little protection whatsoever. Until everyone has the same rights we do, they are mere privileges.

I kinda don't think he's lying in Sicko... and I've always hated his fat guts.  It really does make you think about why things are so fucked up here. 

This website http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?cycle=2008&ind=H  makes me feel a little DEATH TO AMERICA-ish.

lol.. those are all conservative websites, of course they're going to disagree with him.  I know Moore is a liberal fruit, but the conservative talking heads are no better. 

With testimonials?  The same way Moore backed up his claims? 

Quote from: Proleg on February 06, 2009, 02:16:55 PM

The vast majority of people in this world live in abject poverty and squalor with very little protection whatsoever. Until everyone has the same rights we do, they are mere privileges.

I dealt with this same point the Though Police thread. Lurk Moar


An redirecting
Cinlef

Quote from: Colonel Gaydafi on February 06, 2009, 02:53:00 PM

Quote

Economic accessibility (affordability): health facilities, goods and services must be affordable for all. Payment for health-care services, as well as services related to the underlying determinants of health, has to be based on the principle of equity, ensuring that these services, whether privately or publicly provided, are affordable for all, including socially disadvantaged groups. Equity demands that poorer households should not be disproportionately burdened with health expenses as compared to richer households.

From the UN general note on the right to health

I don't mean the poorer people... remember, I am one of those poorer people.  I'm talking here of that small minority who will not work at all as long as people will give them enough to live on.  The ones that are more than happy using the food stamps, welfare, etc now and have never, and will never contribute a single thing to the economy as long as someone else can be conned into supporting them.

People like that should only get public help after they can prove that they will not contaminate the gene pool with whatever genetic code causes that attitude.

19. With respect to the right to health, equality of access to health care and health services has to be emphasized. States have a special obligation to provide those who do not have sufficient means with the necessary health insurance and health-care facilities, and to prevent any discrimination on internationally prohibited grounds in the provision of health care and health services, especially with respect to the core obligations of the right to health. (16) Inappropriate health resource allocation can lead to discrimination that may not be overt. For example, investments should not disproportionately favour expensive curative health services which are often accessible only to a small, privileged fraction of the population, rather than primary and preventive health care benefiting a far larger part of the population.

34. In particular, States are under the obligation to respect the right to health by, inter alia, refraining from denying or limiting equal access for all persons, including prisoners or detainees, minorities, asylum seekers and illegal immigrants, to preventive, curative and palliative health services; abstaining from enforcing discriminatory practices as a State policy; and abstaining from imposing discriminatory practices relating to women's health status and needs. Furthermore, obligations to respect include a State's obligation to refrain from prohibiting or impeding traditional preventive care, healing practices and medicines, from marketing unsafe drugs and from applying coercive medical treatments, unless on an exceptional basis for the treatment of mental illness or the prevention and control of communicable diseases. Such exceptional cases should be subject to specific and restrictive conditions, respecting best practices and applicable international standards, including the Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and the Improvement of Mental Health Care

Quote

19. With respect to the right to health, equality of access to health care and health services has to be emphasized. States have a special obligation to provide those who do not have sufficient means with the necessary health insurance and health-care facilities, and to prevent any discrimination on internationally prohibited grounds in the provision of health care and health services, especially with respect to the core obligations of the right to health. (16) Inappropriate health resource allocation can lead to discrimination that may not be overt. For example, investments should not disproportionately favour expensive curative health services which are often accessible only to a small, privileged fraction of the population, rather than primary and preventive health care benefiting a far larger part of the population.

this is also interesting

Quote

34. In particular, States are under the obligation to respect the right to health by, inter alia, refraining from denying or limiting equal access for all persons, including prisoners or detainees, minorities, asylum seekers and illegal immigrants, to preventive, curative and palliative health services; abstaining from enforcing discriminatory practices as a State policy; and abstaining from imposing discriminatory practices relating to women's health status and needs. Furthermore, obligations to respect include a State's obligation to refrain from prohibiting or impeding traditional preventive care, healing practices and medicines, from marketing unsafe drugs and from applying coercive medical treatments, unless on an exceptional basis for the treatment of mental illness or the prevention and control of communicable diseases. Such exceptional cases should be subject to specific and restrictive conditions, respecting best practices and applicable international standards, including the Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and the Improvement of Mental Health Care

I have to disagree with this.  If you can't get in the country legally, if you sneak across the border, you have committed a crime.  The country you have snuck into should have no responsibility toward you but to send you back where you came from.

If someone climbs my fence and trespasses on my property, breaking his leg in the process, I don't have to take him to the doctor to have it set before calling the cops to have him taken away.  I damn sure am not paying for it.

Your quoting is broke again...

And you're not disagreeing me, you're disagreeing with the UN.
But I would think that the country has a responisiblity to send them back, yes, but only if it is safe to send them back (which in the case of the US with I assume most of the illegal immigrants coming Mexico then yeah its safe) but the country also has a responsibility to care for them if they are sick or injured on the basis that it is human rights that we are talking about here, they apply to everyone in a State regardless of who they are or why they are there.

Quote from: Colonel Gaydafi on February 07, 2009, 09:34:01 AM

Your quoting is broke again...

And you're not disagreeing me, you're disagreeing with the UN.
But I would think that the country has a responisiblity to send them back, yes, but only if it is safe to send them back (which in the case of the US with I assume most of the illegal immigrants coming Mexico then yeah its safe) but the country also has a responsibility to care for them if they are sick or injured on the basis that it is human rights that we are talking about here, they apply to everyone in a State regardless of who they are or why they are there.

Under that thinking, Gayer, the state could charge you for that trespasser's broken leg, since it happened on your property.

Quote from: Ravenwood240 on February 07, 2009, 09:40:51 AM

Quote from: Colonel Gaydafi on February 07, 2009, 09:34:01 AM

Your quoting is broke again...

And you're not disagreeing me, you're disagreeing with the UN.
But I would think that the country has a responisiblity to send them back, yes, but only if it is safe to send them back (which in the case of the US with I assume most of the illegal immigrants coming Mexico then yeah its safe) but the country also has a responsibility to care for them if they are sick or injured on the basis that it is human rights that we are talking about here, they apply to everyone in a State regardless of who they are or why they are there.

Under that thinking, Gayer, the state could charge you for that trespasser's broken leg, since it happened on your property.

That's exactly right, and here's why.

http://overlawyered.com/2006/09/the-burglar-and-the-skylight-another-debunking-that-isnt/

"Bodine sued for $8 million (in 1984 dollars, about $16 million today) and settled for the nuisance sum of $260,000 plus $1200/month for life, about the equivalent of a million dollars in conservatively-estimated 2006 present value."

Also

"In other words, a burglar fell through a skylight, and blamed the skylight?s owners for his injuries; because the law permits such suits, and because the law does not compensate defendants for successful defenses, Bodine had the ability to extort hundreds of thousands of dollars from taxpayers for injuries suffered in the course of his own criminal behavior."

That incident occured in the United States. You are American as I recall ( I may be wrong, apologies if I am). It occured in 2006. You already have paid for it. Sorry to break it to you. Though I do see your point, it shouldn't occur. But it has, is, and will.

Quote from: Guessed on February 07, 2009, 10:29:02 AM

That incident occured in the United States. You are American as I recall ( I may be wrong, apologies if I am). It occured in 2006. You already have paid for it. Sorry to break it to you. Though I do see your point, it shouldn't occur. But it has, is, and will.

Yeah, whichever school system that was is paying for it, which means that my tax dollars are also paying for it.

The only good thing about the entire scene is that the USA is not the only one with some freaky laws.

"At least the school didn?t face criminal charges, as happened in the Netherlands when a burglar (in the dark, after forcing the front door of a house) stepped on a skateboard in the hallways, tripped, and broke his ankle (or lower leg).
Homeowner was woken by the noise, called the police, and was promptly arrested and charged with illegally restraining a person and causing bodily harm.

The burglar was treated and released.

Homeowner spent several month in prison, and of course came home to find his property completely emptied."

(Further down in the same article you quoted.)

Crap like that is why I don't want to give the government any more power than they have already.  At what point do rights stop, anyway?

If we give the ability to the government to decide on the rights of the people, how long will it be before they use that to increase their power?

"The right of the people to free cars means we have to create a new department, insuring that everyone has a car."  (Yes, that's a bit extreme... today.)

I see you point completely. My only counterpoint I'd offer is that, the government has a responsibility to keep it's citizens healthy in order that they remain productive and the country continues to prosper. Surely you can agree to that at least? I'm not saying convert the U.S into the Soviet Union 2.0, I'm merely saying that the healthy of society are the productive of society.

Quote from: Colonel Gaydafi on February 07, 2009, 09:34:01 AM

Your quoting is broke again...

And you're not disagreeing me, you're disagreeing with the UN.
But I would think that the country has a responisiblity to send them back, yes, but only if it is safe to send them back (which in the case of the US with I assume most of the illegal immigrants coming Mexico then yeah its safe) but the country also has a responsibility to care for them if they are sick or injured on the basis that it is human rights that we are talking about here, they apply to everyone in a State regardless of who they are or why they are there.

Under that thinking, Gayer, the state could charge you for that trespasser's broken leg, since it happened on your property.