: rights (as freedom from unlawful imprisonment, torture, and execution) regarded as belonging fundamentally to all persons
Still trying to work through this whole discussion of health care being a right. If a right belongs, "fundamentally to all persons", as Webster suggests, then people in third world countries are being denied their right to health care. In these countries there may not be a doctor, let alone a clinic or hospital, within hundreds of miles of any given person or village. Should we be denying aid to these countries until they "get their act together" regarding human rights? How can something be a "right" that is dependent on a country's economic activity? With no economic activity, there are no resources to train and equip doctors and nurses, nor are there people capable of developing technologies and techniques for the resolution of physical problems and disease. There is no time here to expand this discussion to include all of the pieces of the health care industry required to develop and deliver health care. Are we then left with a different list of "rights" for individuals based on the economic conditions of the country they live in? Or, as I suspect, are we left with a discussion about ethics based on a country's ability to provide for its citizens? For me to participate in an ongoing discussion such as this one, I want to be working with the right vocabulary so as to have the ability to articulate my position clearly. I don't think this dialog is about "rights". At least not if we use the standard definition. When my wife and I purchased a car from a new car dealer many years back, the first thing I did, when informed of the "value" of my trade-in was to let the salesman know that I was well aware of my car's value and he was overstating it several-fold. I suggested he tell me what the wholesaler that he was in touch with was actually going to give him for the car; then we could discuss how much they were willing to come off of their inflated price. (I didn't use the word "inflated"). That way, we were both working with what might be called full disclosure. Of the $2,500 that was coming off of the $9,999 price on the car, (after substantial negotiations) only $750 was accounted for by my trade in. He would much rather that I believed they were giving me twice what my car was worth so they could pocket a generous profit while making me feel good about the deal. Instead, we both knew what my car was worth and could then focus on the inflated price of the car my wife and I wanted to buy. If you want to continue calling health care a right, have at it, but I will sit on the side-lines waiting for the real discussion to begin. By suggesting it is a right you are necessarily calling a lot of thoughtful, compassionate people mean and hateful by default. What other kind of person would deny someone a basic human right. I'm not sure how the whole "gotta buy it" thing works into this subject of rights either, but that's another occasion waiting for my time. Speaking of time, it appears I have run out of it for this particular endeavor. Thank you and have a nice day; I mean, if you want to.
