Comments on: I Want My Death Panels!

By: Barry

Barry — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 16:28:48 +0000

Julian, as for a war between good and evil, notice which side is clearly a deliberately making up lies about ‘death panels’. Notice which side is constructing astroturf organizations.

By: Julian Sanchez

Julian Sanchez — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 13:32:31 +0000

Tim-
It’s not really supposed to be an airtight deductive argument; more a suggestion that the intuitive appeal of a “right to healthcare” turns on background beliefs about distributive injustice. I doubt anyone finds it especially offensive if wealthy people are expected to pay for their own health care, rather than getting it provided free because it’s a fundamental right. That said, I allowed earlier that there might be practical reasons why the best way to remedy the distributive injustice (if you think there is one) is though provision of a particular good that’s highly important to most people. Food stamps, which you mention, frankly strike me as a mixture of a distributive remedy with some undisguised paternalism: The problem is that some people are too poor to afford these really basic goods, and we *could* provide a direct cash transfer, except we worry they’d blow it on booze and drugs and fuck up their lives still further. All that aside, the compensation suggestion is intriguing and probably a fruitful line of inquiry to pursue. In the same vein, there’s probably a defensive/public health line of argument for infectious diseases, and maybe something similar to be said about controls on antibiotics to prevent the development of resistance.

By: Tim W

Tim W — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 07:38:07 +0000

Julian-

Consider this possibility: some “rights” might be seen as compensation for being subject to state coercion.

Nozick claiming something like that: only citizenship can provide adequate compensation for the forced boundary crossing of bringing non-consenters into the state.

It may be possible for others to extend this and argue that health care is part of citizenship; however, that is usually linked to the idea of social citizenship, which is rather alien to the Nozickean ideas of freedom. But perhaps there might be a freedom-based cased for health care? There might not be, but I think that rather than treat people’s ideology like suits, we should ask what are the fundamental ideas motivating them… rather than try to figure out their principles from their bottom lines, we might also help other’s with different ideologies by suggesting to them the terms on which they could best ask themselves the questions about health care.

I think the general idea of looking at a lot of rights we have in the state are the result of being subject to coercion, compensation in some sense. This assume the anarchist isn’t correct, and there can be some compensation. That doesn’t mean it is beneficience or aid. These can be called natural rights or human rights, even if they only make sense in the context of the state.

So, consider this principle: all things being equal, an institution has more obligation to alleviate illness incidence that it is contributing to, as opposed to illnesses that stem from natural ills. This might not be an absolute principle, but to the extent our social institutions do make it so we are subject to all sorts of harms (pollution, for example) without consent or compensation, they should provide health care.

By: Tim W

Tim W — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 06:55:20 +0000

“At most it means a right to some finite amount of social assistance in getting healthcare if you can’t afford it yourself. But if we owe them the assistance, why say they MUST use it for healthcare?”

Are you demanding a justification, or asserting that none can be given? It may be that no particular good rationale for a right to health care can be given, but it seems you’re resting your case in opposing this: Something we owe assistance for certain types of goods, depending on the reasons we have for the debt or providing a good.
For example, a veteran who loses his leg in war doesn’t have a right to a cash equivalent; but it surely still makes sense (even if you disagree) to say he is entitled to an artificial limb.

Consider a claim that there is a right to subsistence. Does that mean food stamps make no sense? It may be that there is a better way to implement this right. Indeed, it might be possible to protect a right without having legally guaranteed right (e.g. a market system might best protect against starvation in many cases). However, that is (or need not be) not a right to an equivalent sum of money.

Julian’s case, I suppose, might best be made by saying that everyone has the right to certain means to accomplish their ends. But why is that? The very reasons for that could point to means of a certain sort (or aiming at access to functioning of a certain sort).

By: Contribute

Contribute — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 21:10:27 +0000

Some relevant info regarding DEATH PANELS

http://deathpanels.tumblr.com/

By: Pat

Pat — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 21:06:12 +0000

It’s called what we have now. Rationing of health care, limiting it to those who are over 65 and those who are rich.

By: Doug

Doug — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 19:00:51 +0000

Paul, are you sure it isn’t just your father’s customers?

By: paul

paul — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 18:47:10 +0000

Finally someone who’s willing to point out the obvious but inconvenient truth that WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE EVENTUALLY. My Dad was an undertaker and take my word for it, everyone – rich, poor, famous, infamous – does. To pretend otherwise, to pretend that one side or the other has the magic elixir to circumvent death is folly of the highest nature.

By: Julian Sanchez

Julian Sanchez — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 18:45:50 +0000

I doubt that strictly follows, but it’s probably a good illustration of why abstract talk about a “right to health care” is more confusing than helpful.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 18:32:21 +0000

if health care is a basic human right, then the adolescent and the old person have an equal right to the kidney, and it has to be decided by the toss of a coin. basic human rights don’t go away just because you age.