Right or Privilege?

Satya

Satya

C'est la vie
Retired Staff
MBTI
INXP
What determines whether something is one or the other?

I've been watching the health care debate and I notice that the left calls health care a "right" and the right calls it a "privilege".

right: an abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature

privilege: a special advantage or immunity or benefit not enjoyed by all
 
I don't think it is as black and white as that. Like with most things, it is a spectrum between the two.

I have stayed out of the healthcare debate because I know how I feel, and don't want to pointlessly argue with people that don't agree with me and would just tear down how I feel. Nevertheless, for this I will explain.

I am rather liberal, and I see it like this: Healthcare is a right, with some provisions. I think that everyone should have access to healthcare provided by the government if private insurance is too hard to get. Those who can afford private insurance should be able to get that. Anyone who can't should by default have the option (I stress option, not forced) to be provided healthcare. However, those on government healthcare should be required to pass a basic drug test, and prove that they need to have this insurance. If people end up breaking tax laws, or commit serious financial crimes, they should be put on some kind of probation from this insurance, or be dropped all together.

Note: I will NOT debate this, so if you feel the need to pick it apart, don't bother, because I won't respond.
 
A Right is something we have, that noone can remove.
A Privilege is something we're given, that can be removed.
 
I have stayed out of the debate too, and I agree its not black and white...I have strong opinions about this though. My best friend in the whole world has a little boy who is the only known survivor of the brain cancer he has as a baby...He is now seven and circumstances with her husbands health have led them to destitute situation, no insurance, and no money to afford the crap insurance at her job. By calling health care a privilege, she is there for not privileged enough to care for her son. A child who needs constant health care! Who has the right to tell them they cant have health care for their child because of the health concerns that bar them from making the money to be privileged enough?

Its a complete bastardization of the system!
 
Shai Gar said:
That's the American way. Don't like it? Change country.
Click to expand...


Believe me I would if I wasn't married to such a mamas boy! I have been ready to leave this country for the better part of ten years, but he loves his mommy...Personally I think the distance would do him some good...I don't particularly care for my family, and im sure the feeling is quite mutual...
 
It's not a right. Our rights were defined in the constitution.
 
Rights are privileges assumed to be universal and irrevocable. Unfortunately, people in general are too stupid to care about their rights.
 
I don't think it makes much sense to consider it a right (not that I'm very keen on "inherent" rights to begin with), because health care is something that must be provided by other people. In other words, it takes action to violate rights like life and liberty, while a right to health care would be violated by inaction. And who is to blame for inaction?
I also would have a hard time keeping a right to health care consistent with abortions rights. The idea behind a right to health care is that we must not be allowed to let people die of neglect, yet that allowance is the idea behind abortion: the woman is not supposed to be obligated to sacrifice for the fetus's well-being. She should not go out of her way to violate the right to life, either, which is why abortion was initially not allowed when the fetus was viable, since it could at that point be peacefully removed and given a chance to survive. So at what point do we start considering a person entitled to other people's sacrifices for shis own health?

Entyqua said:
Who has the right to tell them they cant have health care for their child because of the health concerns that bar them from making the money to be privileged enough?
Click to expand...

That's really an impossible question, because it assumes that someone is standing there able to provide free health care to anyone and everyone, and denying it out of spite. We should instead ask who has the right to decide who else is obligated to pay for or directly provide that child's health care, and then enforce shis decision.
 
I seriously want to marry an Irishman. Or Englishman - or Canadian. I love the idea that America chose an African American president, but we're the worst acting bunch of so-and-sos on the planet. Many are terribly ungrateful and selfish, and I hate that. The loudest voices are the ones who make me want to hide my head in the sand.

Or maybe I'm feeling this way because I'm seeing ungrateful college students who talk on their cell phones while I'm trying to teach them.

As to the right/privilege debate it's difficult. We flip-flop on the definitions depending on the circumstance. If we're the ones in trouble (or our family) we call things a right. If it's someone else - someone we don't know - we might call it a privilege. *Especially* if we feel as if that person will affect us and our pocket books.

I don't think we have the right to act like morons, nor do we have the right to break the law. We don't have the right to expect people to bend over backwards for us when we feel like it. We might *act* like we have those rights, but we do not.
 
Rights tend to be something you are granted by God. Privileges are granted to you by the king/ government, like driving, so that when you screw up they can punish you by taking away your privilge.

Both seem to be defined by whoever is trying to get something. I don't know that any religion ever says that someone has a right to anything.

Healthcare seems to be a privilege based on someone else would need to give you that care. And to force someone to care for you could potentially be a violation of thier rights (unless that person was a slave).
 
Last edited:
TheLastMohican said:
That's really an impossible question, because it assumes that someone is standing there able to provide free health care to anyone and everyone, and denying it out of spite. We should instead ask who has the right to decide who else is obligated to pay for or directly provide that child's health care, and then enforce shis decision.
Click to expand...


I totally understand what your saying...but a truly needy child should be helped. That is supposedly how the system works...But they cant make much more than 9 dollars an hour (HOUSEHOLD) and still qualify for this type of aid. The system doesn't work. NO family can survive on 9 and hour...I dont even think if I were single, i could survive on it. This is a very personal subject, logically and in the grander scheme I know there is no way to help everyone...but the system no matter who helps who is flawed
 
Billy said:
It's not a right. Our rights were defined in the constitution.
Click to expand...

Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Healthcare seems to pretty clearly promote the "general welfare" of the nation.
 
Perhaps my next question will be, should people be denied quality health care just because they can't afford to pay?
 
Satya said:
Perhaps my next question will be, should people be denied quality health care just because they can't afford to pay?
Click to expand...

Only if they should also be denied protection by the fire department, police department and military. Should people on welfare that contribute no taxes have those protections?
 
HaHa said:
Only if they should also be denied protection by the fire department, police department and military. Should people on welfare that contribute no taxes have those protections?
Click to expand...

Hm...perhaps we could lend them a garden hose and a nightstick.
 
If I look at the picture from a neutral position then such thing as a right to do something for humans does not exist per se. It can only be created and assigned during interactions. And it can be done in one of the two ways:

  1. Self appointed or "you give us what we need and we don't care what you need". It is clearly a privilege.
  2. Mutual agreement or "you provide us what we want and we provide you what you want". That way rights and responsibilities are born.

So a right can only exist together with a responsibility that comes from it. For the health care reform it would be: you give us free medical care and we pay you taxes for it's support.

There's also a third option that is maintained by certain religions - that rights are assigned by God but I will not go into that.
 
Shai Gar said:
If people police themselves, that grants licence to murder.
Click to expand...

We do police ourselves (policemen are not aliens) and it has to go under certain rules. In democratic countries it comes with both rights and responsibilities. However there are some places where a policeman can murder without amenability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top