Don't we ban people from a lot of guns, does that mean since they "can and must be denied" they are not a right? Same for speech, one cannot threaten or slander.
Trump tells House Republicans to find a ‘fair number’ on SALT
- Thread starter crazed_hoosier2
- Start date
Don't we ban people from a lot of guns, does that mean since they "can and must be denied" they are not a right? Same for speech, one cannot threaten or slander.
It's unalieanable in the sense that the govt and the society says it is. Nothing more. If, to you, that means it is not unalienable, then fine, I don't believe in things in that sense. Those are fairytales.
I previously detailed what I would call a "natural" right. Anything more than that--based on some supernatural being or metaphysical truth--can't be justified, IMHO.
Re what the signers of the Declaration of Independence thought, I'm interested in that historically, but philosophically it's irrelevant. Practically speaking, too, they leave a lot to be desired on the moral front--remember, many were slave owners.
I don't get where you're going. I have moral judgments. That's not contradictory.
Yes. But these are well-defined limits to the rights we have. And the exceptions exist for good reason.
Are the healthcare goods and services that somebody wants, but cannot get, well defined…such that we understand the exceptions?
In most cases, no. Now, that may be true with elective things that are excluded from coverage. But that’s not what describes most claim denials - whether the insurer is NHS, Medicare, or United Healthcare.
And we don’t know what goods/services we can or can’t get until we try to get them. Some will get them, others won’t.
The claim denials have to do with the necessity of rationing. Not because it’s a form of speech that is injurious to others. Speech is still an infinite thing, even if a couple forms of it aren’t protected by the right as a well-defined exception. So far as the vast majority which is protected, we can engage in it as much as we want, whenever we want, about whomever we want….without ever diminishing somebody else’s right to do the same.
Healthcare is not a finite thing. And that’s why people each and every day who have health insurance (here and elsewhere) find out that this does not mean they have a right to get whatever they want or need as far as health care. Somebody else will decide what they can get.
You made a moral judgment that slavery was wrong in the 1700s and also maintain there are no inalienable rights guaranteed by God. Morality then is nothing more than cultural norms. The signers of the constitution were behaving within the cultural norms of the time. I don’t understand why you would claim morally they left a lot to be desired. Unless……………….we were designed in God’s image and you ultimately draw your morality from him and know slavery is evil. Just say you love Jesus🤣 😇
The supernatural/metaphysical part of it is incidental. The concept of natural rights isn’t necessarily religious. What’s operative is that these rights, as understood by the framers and even Justice Brennan (among many of his colleagues), are inherent to man such that they supersede any king or Congress.
And they have to in order to be unalienable (by king or Congress). The two concepts go hand in hand.
That some of the framers and DOI signers were slaveholders is nothing but a red herring. Some of them were abolitionists, too. And to what end?
The hypocrisy was noted even in that period. That those of them who were defenders of slavery were hypocrites doesn’t mean they were wrong about rights that were beyond the scope of government.
Is healthcare really limited? Some aspects are, just like guns. We came close to vaccinating the world for smallpox. I don't know, I suspect worldwide more have had the measles vaccine than own guns.
The right to basic healthcare, a doctor, a diagnosis, a broken arm set, stitches applied if needed, antibiotic and antidiarrheals given, vaccinations, supervised pain relief, eyeglasses, hearing aids, burns treated, all seem doable. Yes, we cannot do heart-lung transplants for everyone (today, tomorrow??). Not sure that should stop the rest.
Well, one key difference between you and me here is that I really don’t see this as some kind of choice. Hell, I wish it was. A world without these kinds of limitations would be a better world indeed.
That’s why I keep posting that Sowell quote about scarcity and politics. It’s so insightful - we really do approach these things as if we have control over them and it’s just a question of how generous we want politicians to be with our money. And it’s pretty damn evident looking at our fiscal situation. Unfortunately, “the first lesson of economics” isn’t up for a vote. It’s just a hard fact of life.
FTR, most private insurers here have a claim denial rate around 15%. Medicaid’s denial rate is about 17%. Medicare’s is around 8%. It’s not at all cut and dried what or why claims get denied. Costs are off the chart. The NHS is an abject mess. Canadian provinces have sought to prohibit privately contracted medical services.
And it’s all for the same reason: we consider something that is necessarily scarce to be a basic human right. I’m not saying that it shouldn’t be - as that would imply that it’s a matter of choice. I’m saying that it cannot be.
To be fair, I am not certain healthcare is a right in the conventional sense. At the same point I am very uncomfortable with the idea only elites can get decent care.
Trump spent a lot of time wanting to drill more oil to keep it cheap. Isn't that exactly Sowell's point?
I’d be uncomfortable with that, too. But it’s a false choice. At today’s prices, without risk-pooling and/or subsidy, it would probably be the case that care would be affordable only by well-off people.
But why has it become so expensive? It hasn’t always been. Healthcare prices began diverging from the CPI back in the early 70s. You think it’s a coincidence that this is also around the time the government began getting deeply involved in it?
I don’t.
Maybe. But the supply of oil available for sale on the market is a different metric than the reserves which remain in the ground.
For the most part, global oil supplies have kept pace with demand. But they won’t be able to do that forever, that’s for sure. And this is why the energy transition to non-fossil sources is inevitable.
And I should also add that Sowell doesn’t exempt any politicians in his comment. And, really, Trump is probably as bad as any of them…which is why he ends up in some weird places on economic policies.
Trump is about Trump, first and always.
Obviously it has an impact. But it is far from the only impact. Technology is an impact. The obvious, MRIs were not available to buy in 1970 and cost a lot. I know when I get my yearly physical, my blood test is very, uhm, exhaustive. Page after page of tests ran. I suspect we didn't do all that in 1960. The big driver I suspect is the obesity rate started up in the 60s. I think we both agree that is a big driver of cost.
When the 3 kids were young we were very much a paycheck to paycheck family. I am sensitive that one can be in the broad middle class and find healthcare pretty unaffordable.
All of this cost issue is cured, if you simply find a hippy that lives across the street from you. Doesn't shave her arm pits but does her legs. She needs to think that she is allergic to Wifi Signals. Wears free flowing sun dresses year around and loved electric vehicles, that she can keep running for 3 months at a time before major repairs.
Do this, and you will totally forget about high medical cost. You will, however wake 14 times a night with nightmares of the 1970's era bush monster eating the world, and you still want to "give it a go" anyway.
Problem solved! *foot notes; she even has her own house ! At least in this exercise.
Do this, and you will totally forget about high medical cost. You will, however wake 14 times a night with nightmares of the 1970's era bush monster eating the world, and you still want to "give it a go" anyway.
Problem solved! *foot notes; she even has her own house ! At least in this exercise.
