Skip to comments.Why Pay Physicians Anything At All For Providing Healthcare?
Posted on 03/18/2013 8:35:03 AM PDT by Kaslin
click here to read article
So I answered your questions honestly. I have a few for you. This will help me understand whether we’re splitting hairs or are on the same page. Do individuals possess a right to health care? How about a right to education? Do individuals possess a right to food and water?
Many leftists accept, in the abstract, the notion that scarce resources should be allocated to those who need them the most. What they (and all too many Republicans) fail to grasp is that not only does a person's willingness to pay for something correlate very strongly with need, but it is far less corruptible than other metrics. Those who outbid everyone else for scarce resources get the resources, but have to pay for them. Those who don't bid high enough to get the resources are compensated by not having to pay for them, and will consequently have more money with which they can bid on other things.
Allocating things based upon willingness to pay thus gives people a major incentive to minimize their need for scarce resource. Conversely, many other allocation methods reward those who try to maximize their real or apparent needs. Policies which reward need will beget more need, to the point that demands become insatiable. Only if policies reward those who minimize need, can needs possibly be met.
either pay your way in life or lie down and die!!!
No one owes anyone anything!
Hey Holly, some people think you make too much money!
In case it wasnt obvious to you, were talking about intrinsic, natural rights.
You didnt limit your statements to intrinsic, natural rights in either Post 9 or Post 20, so I had no reason or obligation to limit my response to that. That you find it necessary to make the distinction of intrinsic, natural rights indicates that there are other kinds of rights. Note that Websters 1828 Dictionary states: Rights are natural, civil, political, religious, personal, and public. I would say legal rights and contract rights are included.
And you did write Theres not enough discussion of what rights really are . I dont see how we can discuss that without discussing the various kinds of rights.
You have a right to someones services because they agreed to it! That is a simple concept.
Putting quotes around the word right as you did implies its not really a right, but it may well be a right. Its not an intrinsic or a natural right, but it may be some other kind of right.
You do not have a right to their services because you claim a right to health care.
You might have some type of right, if your claim is a just claim.
It negates no statement Ive made.
Ill stand by my previous statement in regard to your previous statement.
By the way, does a newborn baby have any sort of right to care (provision of sustenance, health care, etc.) from the parents, or can the parents claim the newborn has no right of any kind to anything from them?
And now, to your Post 41, after a bit.
Individuals do not possess a natural right to health care, except maybe in so far as they can provide it themselves. Except maybe a newborn child. A newborn child may have a natural right to health care from its parents. Or maybe not. Maybe the parents can just let the newborn die because it has no right to healthcare from them.
Given that there are rights other than natural rights, individuals may have some kind of right to health care other than a natural right. Arguably if an individual pays for health care in advance, the individual has a right to that health care. Arguably an individual in the US Military has a right to the health care services the military provides its members as part of the deal.
How about a right to education?
I suppose individuals have a natural right to education they can provide themselves as long as such provision doesnt abrogate anothers rights. Again, given that there are rights other than natural rights, individuals may have some kind of right to education other than a natural right.
Do individuals possess a right to food and water?
John Locke wrote: The earth, and all that is therein, is given to men for the support and comfort of their being. And tho' all the fruits it naturally produces, and beasts it feeds, belong to mankind in common, as they are produced by the spontaneous hand of nature; and no body has originally a private dominion, exclusive of the rest of mankind, in any of them, as they are thus in their natural state: yet being given for the use of men, there must of necessity be a means to appropriate them some way or other, before they can be of any use, or at all beneficial to any particular man. (Emphasis added.) He goes on to describe how a man may make such things his own property.
Locke further writes: It will perhaps be objected to this, that if gathering the acorns, or other fruits of the earth, &c. makes a right to them, then any one may ingross as much as he will. To which I answer, Not so. The same law of nature, that does by this means give us property, does also bound that property too. God has given us all things richly, 1 Tim. vi. 12. is the voice of reason confirmed by inspiration. But how far has he given it us? To enjoy. As much as any one can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils, so much he may by his Labour fix a property in: whatever is beyond this, is more than his share, and belongs to others. (Emphasis added.)
Considering the above, I would have to say that an individual does possess a right to food and water in so far as he can make them his own and that another individual does not necessarily possess a right to amass all the available food and water to the detriment of the first individual, at least absent an organized society. A question would be: Does an individual in an organized society lose this right and if so at what point?
Other questions might be:
Does a prisoner have a right to food and water or may he be justly starved to death?
Does a newborn have a right to food and water or may it be allowed to die without?
Given several property owners along a stream of water, can someone upstream rightfully divert the stream for his own purposes or do those downstream have a right to the water?
Discussion of "what rights really are" is not as simple as it might seem.
I appreciate the time you took to respond.
What you’ve done is show that discussion of rights really is as simple as I claim.
I see your answers to my three questions were “no”, even though I can tell you did not want to admit that. One of the first things I said was that one can do what one pleases as long as it doesn’t infringe upon the rights of others. That is not the same thing as you have the “right to pursue education”. It means no one has the right to stop you from doing so.
Why did I assume this was a discussion of natural rights? This thread was dedicated to health care. Absent man-made agreements, natural rights are the only one at play when it comes to healthcare. Otherwise, it’s between you and the mutually consenting party. Every edge case you presume to use is based on a mutual agreement between two consenting parties.
The rights you seem to be fond of are all man-made, and can be revoked by man.
And I appreciate your acknowledgement of that.
What youve done is show that discussion of rights really is as simple as I claim.
We disagree on that.
Absent man-made agreements, natural rights are the only one at play when it comes to healthcare.
And we have rights, though not natural rights, as a result of those agreements.
The rights you seem to be fond of are all man-made, and can be revoked by man.
I'm fond of the right to liberty and the right to the pursuit of happiness (to include the pursuit of education) and I am most particularly fond of the right to life, and those are not man-made. I'm also fond of several rights that are not natural rights, such as the right to due process, the right to a trial by jury and the right to vote. What about the right to keep and bear arms? Is that a natural right?
Again, we disagree that discussion of rights is simple. But then, we haven't defined what we're discussing so: What's your definition of a right? Did you come to it yourself or do you have a source for it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.