russ_watters said:
The cause is this: Rights are protections, not financial gifts - healthcare has no basis for being called a "right" and does not fit with the concept of rights. By taking things that have no logical/philosophical/theoretical basis as rights and granting them the status of rights, you create the above incongruity. It is fine that you believe that the government should be made to provide such things, but they are not rights, they are simply government services like roads and museums.
Rights are human constructions. For example, free speech is a right, but it is also a property. According to the Bill of Rights, I have the right to free speech. According to article one of the constitution, I also have the right to own such speech under copyright law. I have the right to sell my speech, and I have the right to sue others who 'borrow' my speech. But a question arises, do I have absolute free speech? Obviously, I do not because I cannot reproduce your free speech unless I independently create it or license it from you. So in theory, I do not have complete freedom of speech. There are other snags on speech, but the point is that it is all artificial. Rights may be defined as what you can do without getting into some kind of legal trouble. An even better definition would be: A right is what is expected of the government that rules the population.
Can health-care be called a right? I suppose it depends on how a person views the *right* to live. Do people deserve life? Not a very good question I suppose. A better question may be: Should governments do everything within their power to protect the lives of their citizens? Military is often said to exist for such purposes. One often hears governments declare that the military is protecting citizens. So would health-care also protect citizens? I think so for several reasons.
1. Obviously, access to health-care saves lives.
2. Not so obvious, sickness spreads throughout a population. By denying a certain portion of the population access to health-care, the other portion with access may have an increased chance of becoming sick. Why? Sickness is often contagious. Although health-care may first appear a "financial gift", one may be protecting oneself and becoming less sick.
3. Very not so obvious, a lot of people without health-care may be doing 'self-treatments.' For example, one has went to the doctor and has left over antibiotics and gives the remaining antibiotics to the person without health-care. The antibiotics are used improperly, and the bug develops resistance to antibiotics making it more difficult to treat. The 'hard-working and financially independent' person comes along and catches said sickness, and he or she has a very difficult time getting rid of the bug because the bug has developed a resistance to the antibiotics. The person spends a lot of money, loses productivity, and may even lose some functionality.
In a basic nutshell, I would not call health-care a gift; instead, I would say it is in the best interest of self preservation even when the health-care is provided to others at some expense to yourself.
