Is healthcare not a Human Right?

Healthcare is a Human Right
This is how Americans are going to get national health insurance, by demanding it. In Colorado Springs we’re still passing around petitions to support President Obama’s health insurance company stop-gaps. The Des Moines Catholic Workers find themselves charged with criminal trespass, for trying to confront Wellmark Blue Cross Blue Shield about their egregious profit-making at the expense of the public health.

INSURANCE PROFITS MAKE US SICK. HEALTHCARE IS A HUMAN RIGHT

Shouldn’t healthcare be considered a human right? Men are not sick of their own volition, nor by acts of capricious fate. Mankind is being sickened by industrial society, from which the poisoners are reaping their profits without regard to the true costs of their toxic schemes.

21 thoughts on “Is healthcare not a Human Right?

  1. Avatarkoyunbaba

    You are absolutely right in this one. Health care is a human right and as such it is the responsibility of “the people” to administer it. I am happy to delegate this administration to my elected officials in exchange for tax dollars because, ultimately, they answer to me – not to shareholders, board members, banks, or credit rating agencies. Basic insurance for profit is immoral and the American people shouldn’t stand for it any longer. http://www.orble.com/the-health-scare/

    Koyunbaba

  2. Avatarcopy cat

    …HEALTHCARE IS A HUMAN RIGHT…
    …”Health care is a human right and as such it is the responsibility of “the people” to administer it.”…

    1.From whom do you demand this service (health care)?

    2.Do you demand this service for free?

    3.Whose labor goes to pay for those who cannot afford to pay?

    4.Do those people have a right not to labor (without compensation) for the benefit of the people who need?

    5. How is this labor (without compensation) different from slavery?

    6. If you see the “society” as compensation, society is based on mutual benefit. What benefit does the one who labors receive from the one for whom he pays the health care?

    You have a right to procure, protect, and trade your own resources, not a right to demand resources of others.

    …”Basic insurance for profit is immoral…”…

    1.Is it the function of government to enforce morality?

    2.Whose morality? The majority?

    3.What if the majority were to deem that slavery was moral? Or that homosexuality were immoral?

    4.Should the government allow or prevent these based on the majority opinion?

    copycat

  3. AvatarTony Logan

    dittohead asks us??? 1.From whom do you demand this service (health care)?

    I for the life of me cannot figure out why we should not demand that services be provided from the government like other peoples and nations do? Trillions of American government dollars go out to the military and to the companies that feed off the Pentagon giving welfare machine and most Americans don’t scream and yell about this ‘socialism’ for the rich….. but why not?

    Then just let somebody or anybody actually want the government to provide a service that people actually need and Right Winger copycats come crawling out the woodwork like cockroaches yelling and screaming that Liberty is being attacked! What’s wrong with this scene? Tax monies are only to be used for death and destruction, copycat, without you complaining too loudly? Why is that? I doth think you spin way too much with your supposed ‘questions’.

  4. EricEric

    Dear Mr. Cat,
    1- from all of us; 2- yes free; 3- everyone’s; 4,5&6- all work is compensated, doctors in socialized systems are still rich. Health care comes out of taxes, just like bridges, public parks, FDA inspectors, military and schools.

    YOUR rhetorical questions assume that people catch disease like a bad roll of the dice, not due to the poisons of the industrial age. Would you have people suffer just because they fell ill and not you? No one should have to live with ill health when advanced societies can afford to treat them.

    Every other developed nation has determined their majority wish good health for all. Just because you can convince hillbillies to march against their own interests and hold torches for the US health insurance companies is not going to make a majority.

  5. AvatarTony Logan

    Doctors in socialized systems of medical care delivery are not rich. I hardly think that the doctors of Cuba are rich, however they do make house calls unlike here in the US of A.

    BTW, universal coverage is not ‘socialized medicine’, and Britain, France, Canada, and Germany continue to be wildly capitalist countries just like the US of A is, copycat. Isn’t that something?!!!

  6. Avatarcopy cat

    To Eric,

    >>>Dear Mr. Cat,
    >>>1- from all of us;

    Are we all doctors?

    >>> 2- yes free;
    nothing is free, SOMEONE has to pay.

    >>> 3- everyone’s;

    so, someone who does not labor…his labor goes to pay?? please explain that one.

    >>> 4,5&6- all work is compensated, doctors in socialized systems are still rich.

    I was not talking about the doctor. I was talking about the factory worker, part of whose labor goes to pay for medical care for the deadbeat on welfare’s health care.

    I ask again,

    -Does that factory worker have the right NOT to have to work part of his day for free, so the deadbeat can have his “right” to health care?

    -How is that free labor different from slavery?

    -If society is based on “mutual benefit”, What benefit does that factory worker get from the deadbeat in exchange for his labor (which goes to pay for the deadbeat’s health care)?

    >>>Health care comes out of taxes, just like bridges, public parks, FDA inspectors, military and schools.

    Taxes come from the people, not from government. Government does not produce anything. It must take from one and give to another.

    As far as bridges, public parks, FDA inspector and schools, I believe these things could be funded more efficiently by the private sector. As far as the military, I believe that it is a necessary evil that has been misused since before the Korean war, to “prevent the spread of communism” and “spread freedom and democracy” instead of what it should be used for, which is to “defend the united States”.

    >>>YOUR rhetorical questions assume that people catch disease like a bad roll of the dice, not due to the poisons of the industrial age.

    Why people get sick is not the issue, and my questions are not rhetorical, I expect answers.

    >>>Would you have people suffer just because they fell ill and not you?

    I would have no one suffer, I would volunteer to stop the suffering of those whom I believe were really in need. I would not attempt to FORCE others to work toward stopping that suffering. Your comment here is an attempt to say “if you don’t agree, you are a bad person.” People have a right to be real jerks. I do not have the right to FORCE them not to be jerks.

    >>>No one should have to live with ill health when advanced societies can afford to treat them.

    That is an opinion. If you believe it to be a noble cause, you should fight for and fund that cause. But do you have the right to force everyone else to fund a cause just because you think that cause is noble?

    Let’s say we have 3 people on an island. They all contract a deadly, but curable, disease. The cure involves collecting certain herbs, and combining them in certain ways. One of the people collects the herbs, but does not know how to combine them, so he brings them to the second guy, who knows how to combine them, but is too ill to collect them. There is only time, and resources to make 2 doses of the medicine (less than a dose will not cure). What should they do about the third person? Who deserves the medicine? Should one of the producers of the medicine sacrifice his life for the third person?

    Let’s say that the producers could have labored harder and produced enough for 3. Should the 3rd person be able to force them to labor to save him?

    Also, If you believe health care is a right, Where does that right come from? Who gives people rights?

    copycat

  7. Avatarcopy cat

    People on both ends of the political spectrum agree that Social Security is quickly going broke. The only reason it has lasted as long as it has is because lawmakers keep lowering benefits, and increasing the eligibility age for retirement. This is functionally equivalent to rationing the service. How long would the Social Security funds last, if you could withdraw money at will?

    With socialized health care, either you would be restricted in your ability to use the service (rationing services) or you could visit the doctor whenever you want (withdraw at will). Which , do you think, will happen? If health care is rationed, how is this a more desirable system? If you can withdraw at will, how long before the system is as broke as Social Security?

  8. AvatarTony Logan

    More Dittohead common nonsense with this one….

    ‘People on both ends of the political spectrum agree that Social Security is quickly going broke.’

    Come off it, copycat. Nothing is going broke with Social Security as a program since it either gets funded or it doesn’t. Right Wingers love this line about SS supposedly ‘going broke’, though we never hear you guys spouting off this crap when it comes to the Pentagon ‘going broke’. Why is that?

    (You gave the answer for that yourself though, since Right Wingers like your own copy cat self always say that the military is a ‘necessary evil’ in your silly opinions, since it is so socialistic in your silly opinions! It’s always that you DittoNuts are FOR socialized destruction and AGAINST any socialized construction! …lol… So predictable you are.)

    The only reason it has lasted as long as it has is because lawmakers keep lowering benefits, and increasing the eligibility age for retirement.

    Wrong again. It has lasted simply because Right Wingers such as yourself have not succeeded yet in totally destroying this program that has worked for so many folk in need. You keep working on destroying it though.

  9. Avatarcopy cat

    You misunderstand my position on the military. I believe we should spend WAAAAAAY less in the military, and restrict it’s activities to protecting our soil, not nation building, or police actions, or “crusading” across the world, or spreading our empire.

    do you believe we need NO military?

    >>…has worked for so many folk in need.

    how come most of the people who are for these “social programs” are the ones who get more out than they put in? That’s like saying “I’m all for you giving me money.” Why is it that the people who would have to work harder just to stay where they are ,for the most part, don’t support these programs? when I debate the ethics of these programs, once all the “logical” reasons for the program have been countered, the conversation invariably turns into the supporter of the social program effectively saying” you are a bad person if you don’t agree”. That’s like putting your fingers in your ears and screaming “i’m not listening.”

  10. AvatarTony Logan

    How much military do people like you really think that the US needs, copycat? Is anybody attacking us, the common American people? Big Bad Terrorists perhaps that are envious of us because we are so free?

    The reason I am asking, is because in reality it is YOU that rejects having the US government provide anything for ordinary people, but is only for the ONE government program, the ONE PROGRAM that is used by the government to deny freedoms to other peoples and to advantage the rich here in the US… the US military. You are for that Anti- Social Program.

    YOU are actually for the one ‘service’ where the government rips us off and provides a horrible ‘service’, that of killing other peoples in other lands. WAAAAY so! It is YOU that is for that, though YOU do give us some lip service about wanting to supposedly reduce it way down. So? And when and where? How much is your ‘WAAAAAY less’ actually to be with your ass backwards views on government being something usefull for the people to command?

    When it comes to government being used to provide services that actually benefit people, then you start bad mouthing any and all that though. Hypocrite! You are for the actual bad services the government provides, but against anything proposed for public benefit that we would have it do! Then, per your opinion, it just can’t be done, it would be unjust to propose it, and that we are bunch of thieves simply to think of having the government do it! STUPID. And dishonest of you to boot, since you see no such horror when it comes to bombs and bullets.

  11. Avatarcopy cat

    >>How much military do people like you really think that the US needs, copycat?

    I cannot speak for others, but i think we need enough, stationed here (on, or near American soil), to counter attack if, and only if, we are attacked (this is called self defense). I think the “terrorism” thing was just a “scare tactic” used by the bush administration to push through anti-constitution legislation.

    >>in reality it is YOU that rejects having the US government provide anything for ordinary people,

    I just believe that it is the responsibility of the individual to provide for himself, and not be forced to provide for others.

    Do you even read my posts, or do your rants just go on automatic if someone disagrees with you?
    I will repeat what i said on the military:

    “…restrict it’s activities to protecting our soil, not nation building, or police actions, or “crusading” across the world, or spreading our empire.”

    Does this really sound like I support blowing up people in other countries for fun and profit?

    BTW, you still didn’t answer my question:
    “how come most of the people who are for these “social programs” are the ones who get more out than they put in?”

    9 out of 10 people on welfare support welfare. 🙂

    copycat.

  12. AvatarTony Logan

    Most of the old and sick do support Social Security programs. So what? You don’t really have a clue as to why the government should actually carry out programs of common benefit to people, do you, Ditto Head? You, with your Libertarian philosophy book in hand, are like some sad, delusional, paranoid schizophrenic.

  13. AvatarTony Logan

    One other thing, copycat. Yes, I do read, plus have read what you actually write about the military and just find it all so utterly unimpressive, as is all this American Libertarian ditto thought you spout off as per your religious convictions. So you say that you want a defensive military and one based only on supposedly ‘protecting our soil’? Big deal. Is that supposed to be an impressive stand against nationalistic militarism by Big Corporate Government?

    Wouldn’t all this true Libertarian capitalistic mindset you have in fact lead you to continuing your support for all sorts of funding for nuclear weaponry supposedly for ‘defensive reasons’? Most of your Libertarian mindset comes straight out of the John Birch Society mindset of the ’50s when the US was supposedly engaged in a big ‘defensive’ struggle to keep America safe from the big government of the Big Bad Reds. What’s different now in your ‘defensive’ orientation from then?

    It’s very easy for Libertarian Americans to convince themselves that military funding is for ‘defensive’ reasons only and Homeland based, when in fact none of that has ever really been true. In fact, from what you have said so far, a supposed ‘missile defense’ system would certainly qualify for big time funding with your total support seemingly in the bag?

    I think it great that you are against forward front ’empire building’ and ‘nation building’, but sincerely doubt in fact that you really want to do away much anything with American military spending as a whole. You want to restructure it, sure. Privatize it I would guess? Make it more ‘efficient’ under private corporate hands… lol… Make it more ‘defensive’ in style as opposed to the strutting Empire style now so currently in vogue. BOOM! I’m just not that impressed with your supposed anti-militarism stance.

  14. Avatarcopy cat

    so, i’m against a big military, i say i’m against a big military, and you still assume that i’m for a big military? I’m not against a military, i’m against a global military empire. I’m against the “military industrial complex” that got its start in the wake of the second world war. I’m for a state based volunteer citizen military that the federal government can call upon to protect American soil against foreign invaders.

    As far as “missile defense” goes, yes, i would support interceptor type weapons that take out nukes after launch, and before detonation. and a very small arsenal of nukes to take out any country that sent that sort of weapon our way. It is just like shooting a burglar in the head when he breaks in. You won’t have any more trouble from him again. I do not support “preemptive” war of any kind. I see nothing hypocritical about self defense.

    As for “big corporate government”, you seem to think that hey, since corps use the government against the people , the solution to that is to make government bigger, and more invasive.

    The solution is to make government smaller, ban the use of taxpayer money to fund primary elections, ban “matching funds” from taxpayer money for political parties, limit corporate donations to political parties, strip corporations of “citizenship”, and ban payment for lobbying activities.

    >>>You don’t really have a clue as to why the government should actually carry out programs of common benefit to people, do you, Ditto Head?

    I assume that you believe that government should carry out these programs because they are the right thing to do, that it is immoral for someone NOT to want to help others.

    I refer you to the second set of questions from my original post.

    1.Is it the function of government to enforce morality?

    2.Whose morality? The majority?

    3.What if the majority were to deem that slavery was moral? Or that homosexuality were immoral?

    4.Should the government allow or prevent these based on the majority opinion?

    The point is that if you allow government to decide what is moral, and give it the power to enforce that morality, then you open up the possibility for the “majority” to decide that something that you think is immoral should be mandatory, or that something that you believe to be moral should be prohibited. I believe the best solution is to let individuals decide for themselves what activities they choose to engage in or what causes to support, and not allow anyone to be forced to engage in activities or causes they disagree with.

    copycat

  15. AvatarTony Logan

    OK, in short you are for a capitalist government’s military. You say you want it to be small, but it won’t be no matter what you as an individual should want your capitalist government to do with its military. Why is that? It’s because capitalist businesses inherently will lobby the capitalist government and build up their business through building up greater government contracts (for national ‘defense’ of course). To be so pro-capitalism you Libertarians never seem to actually figure out how capitalism actually works real world. It really is frustrating to discuss these issues with you people, since you live in make-believe-land.

    ‘I assume that you believe that government should carry out these programs because they are the right thing to do, that it is immoral for someone NOT to want to help others.’

    No that’s not it at all. It is simply that a democratic government by the people and for the people should organize social resources for the people. And do that through the people and with the people actively participating in government and in making decisions. You might not believe it, but that is called DEMOCRACY.

    But I forget that as a pro business Libertarian you don’t think that the people should actually be involved in either government or in planning their own work environment. You think that workers should be ordered around by owner businessmen, now don’t you, copycat? A worker actively involved in running either government or their work environment is anathema to you, the Libertarian. You want the worker enslaved and bossed around by the businesses because you consider that to be the business owners perogative to do and the natural order of something you Libertarians actually have the nerve to call ‘Liberty’.

  16. Avatarcopy cat

    Democracy, hmmm. Let’s forget ,for a moment, the fact that we are a republic (rule by law) , and not a democracy (rule by people).

    Let’s pretend you got your way, and we were a democracy. If 2/3 of the people decided that the remaining 1/3 should labor to support them, what recourse would that 1/3 have within a democracy?

  17. EricEric

    Copy Dude,
    If 2/3 of the people decided they wanted to stop breathing or become fish, we couldn’t stop them. There really is no precedent to indicate mankind has to worry about that problem.

    Now, if 2/3 of the people decided they wanted to stop going to school and become uneducated idiots who knew nothing of history, human nature or civic responsibility, we could stop them, because education is law.

    Happily education is a right, and looky too, it’s a wonderful benefit, given us by wise ancestors who knew better. How wise do you have to be to recognize that health is beneficial to humankind too?

  18. AvatarTony Logan

    I’m glad that you have come clean here about your Libertarianism, copycat. Libertarianism is the antithesis of democracy and you distrust democratic decision making, fear it, and even hate it. Instead of rule by the majority, you put your faith in rule by the business owner class and to hell with the workers who do the work for them.

    You are for a corporate dictatorship, since you fear that The People would be a mere rabble if empowered in any way, shape, or form. People without their own businesses you feel are in some way irresponsible, and dare I say it?, even inhuman to you… You fear the thought of them making decisions and holding power.

    Once again, you ask us implausible and misleading questions, too. You ask me what would happen if the country was actually ruled by the real people, as opposed to the paper laws that our elites use to run the country with. You imply that without these paper structures, put forward hundreds of years ago by the elites of that time then modified by elites in later years and now used to lord it over the mob (at least you see The Common People as a mob), that one portion of the people would dominate another portion of the crowd. Hey! But isn’t that just exactly what the paper of ‘laws you love so much helps the elites do against the overwhelmingly majority of the population? YES it is, copy cat.

    You fear though that in a real democracy that laws would actually be made by portions of the population that are not of the ownership class, that already drives the vast group of us like slaves. Slaves that have the right to work for others under the whip of others, and then to die. What is it that is always said by you Libertarians??? If you don’t like this job and your Boss, then just go fuck yourself? Something like that, I think.

  19. Avatarcopy cat

    tony, i have stopped commenting so much on your posts, because you have continued to misrepresent my views on things, by substituting your own impression of how a “traditional conservative” thinks. If you ever decide to actually think about what I write, instead of spouting the liberal line of “if you disagree, you must be a pawn of evil corporations”, I’ll comment.

    >>Instead of rule by the majority, you put your faith in rule by the business owner class and to hell with the workers who do the work for them.

    I believe that all individuals should be treated equally, no matter if they are working class, or own the freaking corporation. The law should apply to ALL PEOPLE EQUALLY!

    >>>You are for a corporate dictatorship, since you fear that The People would be a mere rabble if empowered in any way, shape, or form. People without their own businesses you feel are in some way irresponsible, and dare I say it?, even inhuman to you… You fear the thought of them making decisions and holding power.

    completely false, and falls into the category “if you disagree you are an evil corporate pawn”.

    >>>Once again, you ask us implausible and misleading questions, too. You ask me what would happen if the country was actually ruled by the real people, as opposed to the paper laws that our elites use to run the country with. You imply that without these paper structures, put forward hundreds of years ago by the elites of that time then modified by elites in later years and now used to lord it over the mob (at least you see The Common People as a mob), that one portion of the people would dominate another portion of the crowd. Hey! But isn’t that just exactly what the paper of ‘laws you love so much helps the elites do against the overwhelmingly majority of the population? YES it is, copy cat.

    avoiding the question by spouting liberal rhetoric.

    >>>You fear though that in a real democracy that laws would actually be made by portions of the population that are not of the ownership class, that already drives the vast group of us like slaves. Slaves that have the right to work for others under the whip of others, and then to die. What is it that is always said by you Libertarians??? If you don’t like this job and your Boss, then just go fuck yourself? Something like that, I think.

    The problem is that you see yourself (and people of like mind) as a mob, and not as a group of individuals. you see yourself as “oppressed by the evil overseers”. you are not against a master/slave relationship, you see yourself as a slave now, and you want to be the master. You don’t see the employer /employee relationship as trade of resources. You believe that the purpose of the employer is to pander to the employed, and damn the cost to himself. So, for all your rhetoric about fairness, you don’t really want fairness, you want to be treated like you are special. You see the employer/employee relationship as a competition, a zero-sum game where one loses, and one wins. In reality it is a positive sum game where both parties are better off than if they had not traded their resources.

    copycat

  20. AvatarTony Logan

    Me-
    Instead of rule by the majority, you put your faith in rule by the business owner class and to hell with the workers who do the work for them.

    CopyCat-
    I believe that all individuals should be treated equally, no matter if they are working class, or own the freaking corporation. The law should apply to ALL PEOPLE EQUALLY!

    My reply-
    What are you talking about? Laws are made by the elite to keep them in power and are neither equal for all, nor equally applied to all. When you say that you think that they should be applied equally that ignores the entire reality of who makes these laws up in the first place. I can imagine you back in 1859 telling us that the law should be applied equally! …Lol… Would that have impressed the chattel slaves?

    Now… I will ignore all the crying about me ‘spouting liberal rhetoric’ and go to your summary…

    copycat ‘The problem is that you see yourself (and people of like mind) as a mob, and not as a group of individuals. you see yourself as “oppressed by the evil overseers”.’

    You are only right in that I see the society as being an unjust one, whereas you don’t. The rest of this about me supposedly seeing myself as being part of a mob comes from me saying that is how you see the Common People as being, and for that is why you support the elites running things for them and without real democracy being in place… You support the elites because you think that it is a just society and the elites are there due to merit. I think that you are one dumb asshole for believing that.

    ‘you are not against a master/slave relationship, you see yourself as a slave now, and you want to be the master. You don’t see the employer /employee relationship as trade of resources.’

    That’s because it is not ‘a trade of resources’ when the ownership of property is skewed like it is. We are about one inch away from the times when some people owned other people and you spout off nonsense about it being now a ‘trade of resources’! What a nitwit you are, CC!

    ‘You believe that the purpose of the employer is to pander to the employed, and damn the cost to himself. So, for all your rhetoric about fairness, you don’t really want fairness, you want to be treated like you are special.’

    ‘Pander to the employed’? Bullshit! The owners as a rule cannot even employee many people and in some parts of the capitalist world this runs into being the majority of the population. You as a Libertarian though just ignore this very harsh reality and accuse me of persecuting you and the ruling classes with my supposedly selfish and childish whining attitude that you accuse me of having. What a pile of crap, CC. You are a specialist in this type of crap though. It is you who thinks that they are somebody special, not me. You simply think that you are better than most people and that it is their own fault if they are down on the bottom of the economic scale. You are the elitest who thinks of themselves as being special, not me.

    ‘You see the employer/employee relationship as a competition, a zero-sum game where one loses, and one wins.’

    Well, duh. A hobo unemployed lying dead out on the street due to illness and poverty and age and class warfare from the rich is not a winner compared to the Waltons and Gates, Bud. If you think that they there is no competition by the rich against the poor you are one lost idiot in life. How can an ‘educated man like yourself actually ignore these things? You should be ashamed of yourself, but you have no shame evidently.

    copycat ‘In reality it is a positive sum game where both parties are better off than if they had not traded their resources.’

    Oh blah, blah, blah. You are a true dimwit. Why don’t you stop wasting our time here? You have yet to figure out that I am not even a liberal as you keep accusing me of being. What is gained by us in discussing politics with somebody as far out in religious outer space as you seem to be? You are a nice enough guy and I am being harsh with you, but really…? You are just too glued to a blueprint philosophy to notice what is actually being said by others. It is not a ‘positive sum game’, Dullard.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *