Thread 519498089

Libertarians keep arguing against this by saying
>Healthcare isn't a human right because you don't have the right to someone else's labor
But hey what is the sixth Amendment?
>the accused shall enjoy the right to... have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
You have the right to an attorney. That is to say you have the right to someone else's labor in this instance. No?
Why is it okay to have the right to an attorney but not to have the right to a doctor?

>>519498089 (OP)
Fuck jews, fuck Obama, and fuck the United States federal government.

Deregulate pharma so anyone can buy or make their own drugs again.

Abolish the AMA and let anyone practice medicine again.

Make all drugs available over the counter again.

Normalize house calls, bedside manner, and getting paid for medical treatment in groceries again.

How would you prevent certain treatments — which their victims, and some others, justly consider evil — from being funded by those very same people?
It’s not a problem when that evil thing is already illegal in both public and private practice, but the fact is, sometimes it can be legal. And in those cases, you’d be making the victims fund their own misery, as well as that of those who are going to share the same fate.
Another tragic case arises when a person truly requires a treatment, yet prevailing moral consensus condemns it as evil, rendering it inaccessible through public healthcare.
I see several possible outcomes for a human society that isn’t composed of a near-absolute majority of people with good moral character and high intelligence.

1. Risk of tyranny under central authority (public healthcare).
It requires the same central authority’s blessing to escape from it, meaning you can only act within the system without breaking it.
2. Risk of tyranny under distributed authorities (private healthcare).
It’s much easier to escape, but perhaps only for you and a select few. People are gullible and easily fall for its vices.
3. Risk of tyranny under both (public and private healthcare combined).
The first form becomes inescapable, and the two tend to merge into one another.

To sum it up, I think it doesn’t really matter whether you have universal healthcare or not.
Even though I’ve focused on just one moral aspect of the issue, I firmly believe that any deeper discussion would inevitably lead to the same conclusion.
As long as the people who implement it are intelligent and possess good moral character, all the rest — policies, structures, and regulations — are merely operational manuals.
And those manuals do matter, at least to me, because I don’t live in a society where intelligent people with strong moral character are even a majority.

1/2

>>519500309
Can I be in charge, or at least have a considerable effect on universal healthcare policy? I’d say give it a try.
Can I choose who will be in charge, or strongly influence who decides that? Again, give it a try.
Do I want universal healthcare under the current circumstances? No, I don’t.
Under the current system, I’d settle for universal urgent care at best.

2/2

>>519498089 (OP)
>Healthcare

That's not what you think it is anon.

>>519499224
>Deregulate pharma so anyone can buy or make their own drugs again.
>Abolish the AMA and let anyone practice medicine again.
>Make all drugs available over the counter again.
>Normalize house calls, bedside manner, and getting paid for medical treatment in groceries again.
I have to say, I'd vote for that.

>>519498089 (OP)
>Healthcare as a human right
What is a human right?
Where does it come from?

>>519498089 (OP)
>president says Americans don't have the right to Chinese labor
>lolbergs chimpout
>credit card processors say gun buyers don't have a right to their labor
>lolbergs chimpout
They're not serious people.