The
debate on whether healthcare is a human right or a privilege has been an
ongoing debate for many years. This debate has caused many problems to arise
between people who disagree on the touchy subject. The book “Universal
Healthcare” explains both sides of the debate by giving articles written by
Helen Redmond, and by Leonard Peikoff. The article written by Helen Redmond
takes the side that healthcare is a human right. Leonard Peikoff takes the
opposing side stating that healthcare is not a right, rather a privilege.
Helen
starts out with her article claiming that “the core of the idea that healthcare
is a human right is freedom”. She then goes on to explain her side of the story
saying that the freedom that we have been given in this country has been robbed
by the burdens of the healthcare system. Instead of freedom, there is fear. Helen
symbolizes the government as a “bully that terrorizes and forces us to live in
fear. It determines what is possible and what is not possible and crushes hopes
and dreams. It imprisons people into lives they did not choose.” Basically,
this side of the argument focuses on the people who cannot afford healthcare;
therefore it should be given to them since it is a “human right”
Leonard
focuses on the opposing side of the debate stating that healthcare is not a
right but rather a privilege. On page 85, he states: “Now our only rights, the
American viewpoint continues, are the rights to life, liberty, property, and
the pursuit of happiness. That’s all. Observe that all legitimate rights have
one thing in common: they are rights to action, not to rewards from other
people.” Those who are in favor of this argument agree that it is not fair for
the American people to spend their own money on people who may be too lazy to
get a job, don’t want to work, can’t
afford it, or have personal addiction issues.
Personally,
I agree with Leonard. I believe that healthcare is a privilege, not a right. “The
system guarantees you the chance to work for what you want, not to be given it
without effort by somebody else.” I do not believe it is fair for some people
to work, but also pay for those who do no work at all. Leonard symbolizes free
healthcare like free haircuts. If they are free, why not get your hair cut more
often or for no reason at all? If all things were free, why work? Socialism is
not the answer. People need to work for what they want instead of having it
given to them with no effort. On the
other hand, if people are in an EMERGENCY and need care, I believe that they
should be treated but not on the bill of everyone else. They need to be
responsible for the costs instead of putting the burden on people who have
nothing to do with the situation. Leonard states that the people who cannot
afford healthcare are a minority. If they were the majority, the country would
not even think of a national medical program. “As to this small minority, in a
free country they have to rely solely on private, voluntary charity. Yes, a charity,
not a right”.
Nice job on the blog post Dan, it was very well written. I agree that this topic is a point of debate for many people. I personally side with Helen, however, I do both agree and see how people could take advantage of a socialist system. I feel socialism has always failed in the past. I believe history has proved that. However, I think in this country, with the great minds and innovators that we possess, we could come to some sort of policy that would allow everyone a basic form of healthcare when they need it, and for it to be accessed in a way that would not be taken advantage of. Thank you for sharing this viewpoint, I enjoyed reading it.
ReplyDeleteIntriguing post Dan, well written and succinct. I like your quotes along with your supporting points. However, I feel at this current moment in time I have to agree with Keegan. I believe everyone in the world deserves a "minimum" or "neccesary" form of health care. If we refused someones basic rights to recieve health care that directly affects their well-being then I feel we are doing them an injustice. I do agree with you on the point though Dan that at a certain point it becomes a privilege for health care. I obviously don't know all the specifics to either argument, but I hope that you and I continue to strive for the better answer for society as a whole.
ReplyDeleteHello Dan,
ReplyDeleteI really appreciate you taking a stand that reflects an understanding of both positions. Being able to include comments from authors on both sides of the debate indicates you have examined both points of view before stating your own position. Consider the possibility that a haircut may not be a "good" example because people do not need a haircut to survive, but they may need health care to survive. also feel free to relate the topic to the experiences in Rome for example, is there a connection between the debate and what you learned at the Baths of Caracalla?
Keep up the good work! you are doing great.
Hey Dan,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your post, it was very well done. I agree with you on some points but not on others. I agree with you when you say we should not pay for those who do not want to put any effort into working at all. People should not take things without doing anything. However, I just want to bring up those people who do work and put in effort but still can't afford the medical care that they need. What happens to them; is it morally acceptable to let them fall through the cracks because they need expensive treatment? That's all from me, thanks!