If Health Care Is A Right, Does That Make Doctors Slaves? (Rand Paul idiocy)

[cali]

"Do you feel like a slave?"

That's a question Dana Kraus, a Vermont family doctor, probably didn't expect at a Senate subcommittee hearing today on the issue of how to reduce the unnecessary use of hospital emergency rooms.

But that's what Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) asked her as the hearing turned into a philosophical debate between the socialist Sanders and conservative Sen. Rand Paul, (R-KY) over whether health care is a right for all Americans.

<snip>

Paul, an ophthalmologist, took exception to Sanders' remark that health care was a right for everyone, saying that was akin to putting physicians into slavery. "Having a right to health care implies that you have the right to conscript me and you can enslave me, the janitor at my hospital or the person who cleans my office or the nurse," Paul said.

<snip>

Kraus' answer: "I love my job. I chose to work there. I do not consider myself a slave."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/05/11/136212110/if-health-care-is-a-right-does-that-make-doctors-slaves?ps=sh_sthdl

[Enrique]

1. speaking of slavery

what's Rand Paul's position on that? You never know.

[Matariki]

2. I understand this argument and have argued that the language isn't on target

First I want to say that I am 100% in favor of a single payer health care system where EVERYONE, regardless of income, can get access to the best possible care. I feel VERY strongly about this.

But, that said, I've never thought that calling it 'a right' made much sense to me. It's not a natural resource, it's the product of many people's labor. Calling it 'a right' leads to a distraction of the issue. Does anyone have 'a right' to another person's labor for free? I think it would be more appropriate to speak of what civilized societies do, how having a base level of care (health and otherwise) for EVERY citizen leads to a stable and strong society.

I suppose it would have to do with how a person defined the term 'rights' though. Where they come from and how they are given and asserted.

[dkf]

4. If it is a right then the collective needs to provide compensation.

Until the collective agrees upon funding, it isn't a right.

[cali]

5. education isn't a natural resource either, but that's considered a basic right in this and most

other countries. I firmly believe health care is a right.

[Matariki]

9. That's a good point. And here's another way to look at framing the issue

I think overall it's better to make people understand that certain things done collectively (like public education) make our mutual society stronger and healthier for everyone. There was a time when that was a given about public education - that a literate population was good for civilization and made us excel as a nation. Now you have people trying very hard to undermine public education.

This is a healthier framing of the issue, imo, than whether it's a right or not. I say it's healthier because by framing it as good for society as a whole, it focuses on the Greater Good of society. By focusing on whether it's a basic right or not, it throws the focus onto the individual.

Moving the focus away from the benefits to Society as a whole and onto the individual is, in many ways, the root of the problem.

[EstimatedProphet]

7. Nonsense. That's not the way it works.

IF it were the case that rights mean things are completely free, then you have no rights whatsoever. Fees have nothing to do with it, and there's nothing in this world that comes without a fee, not even air these days.

[Matariki]

10. Explain to me, how *is* it a right?

I think that word needs to be clearly defined. If it's an existing right, then why are people dying from lack of health care?

[EstimatedProphet]

26. "Right" doesn't mean "freebie"

What is the true violation of the healthcare right is the insurance companies' gouging of costs. That's what is killing people.

[Abq_Sarah]

8. Just because something is a right

Doesn't mean it must be given free of charge.

I have a right to travel but that doesn't mean I have a "right" to hop on a train, bus or airplane and make someone else pay for my ticket. I personally believe we have a right to seek healthcare but not a right to demand it free of charge.

[Matariki]

11. I'm not arguing against it being a right. I'm saying we need to frame the discussion differently

In order to achieve an actual, real, fair system of Universal healthcare.

At the moment, Healthcare in the US is certainly not a right. Otherwise there wouldn't be people unnecessarily dying from the lack of it.

[EstimatedProphet]

32. But see, that's really the point

It isn't that healthcare isn't a right, it's that it isn't recognized as such. Very much the same way that gay marriage isn't recognized as a right, incorrectly.

[Synicus Maximus]

21. There is a difference between a right to travel and a right to transportation

[Nevernose]

34. I, for one, think you have a valid point.

I still disagree with you, but I do understand what your argument.

Calling it a "right" may not be the most linguistically accurate term -- that depends on your definition of "right," for starters. It is, however, the most pragmatic (and maybe cynical) framing. People whu support universal single-payer health care generally do so for one of two reasons: either they're smart enough to know it makes the best economic sense or their altruistic enough to know what's good for their neighbor is good for them. The people we're trying to convince generally have all of the altruism of a male lion: they're looking out for one person only, themselves. This group likes "rights." They don't give a shit about rights for others (e.g. Guantanamo Bay, the entire Bush administration, COINTELPRO), but they do care very deeply about their own rights. Some of these people can be, and occasionally are, reached.

Sadly, the second group is also in direct contrast to the two main reasons for single-payer health care given above. Except instead of being the opposite of altruistic (selfish), they're the opposite of smart enough to understand what's in their own best interests. As an English teacher from East Texas once told me: there ain't no remediatin' stupid.

So we're left reaching out to those most concerned with rights. Or at least that's my two cent opinion.

[Zoeisright]

3. This is just another variant on "feel sorry for rich people, you peons!"

Anyone who falls for it is a fucking idiot.

[EstimatedProphet]

6. If healthcare isn't a right, then the government can deny access to it

Try that one out for size, freepers. If you don't want healthcare to be a right, then the government can take it away from you at any time, for any reason. They can simply pass a law saying that, for example, doctor's consultations are hereby illegal for people over 65. This is the consequence of something being a privilege and not a right - driving is a privilege, and the government can revoke that privilege for whatever reason it wants, or refuse to grant it.

[Matariki]

13. That's interesting but seems to fall short as a useful metaphor.

The government hasn't passed a law saying that stores can't sell milk to folks over 65 - but that doesn't give people a right to take milk from the store without paying.

Your metaphor doesn't seem to help move forward the issue of getting healthcare for everyone, regardless of ability to pay.

:shrug:

[dpibel]

18. Failed analogy

Taking milk from the store without paying is really not at all parallel to a doctor getting paid out of pooled funds administered by the government.

But the "slave" meme is equally vapid.

You are a slave if you are forced to work for free. No one is suggesting that doctors have to provide care for no compensation.

[Matariki]

19. You fail to understand EstimatedProphet's broken example

and my answer to it. Which is that something is not a right simply because there is no law against it.

[EstimatedProphet]

29. My example isn't broken

Rights aren't freebies. People confuse the two too often.

[Matariki]

30. The issue isn't whether people can access healthcare, but whether they can afford it.

So I guess I don't understand what you are trying to say exactly.

When people talk about healthcare being a right, they mean that people have a right to the service no matter their ability to pay. Obviously, unless we force doctors, nurses, hospital workers, lab technicians, etc, etc, to work for free - then we have to decide how it will be paid for.

My argument is that it would be far more productive to NOT frame the debate in terms of whether people have a RIGHT to have healthcare paid for if they can't afford it - which could be argued is asserting a right to other people's labor. I think it's obvious that when put that way we will never move forward on the issue. I believe a much more productive argument would be to focus on what sort of Society we want to create collectively - one where "universal health care is a moral, and also economic, imperative" as Raging_moderate so eloquently put it down-thread. Point out exactly WHY it benefits EVEERYONE to have everyone covered.

[EstimatedProphet]

28. Again, "right" and "freebie" are not the same thing.

As an example, if you are arrested you have a right to an attorney. You're still paying the attorney. The Supreme Court has weighed in on the 2n'd Amendment as being an individual right. Guns didn't become free. Food is considered a basic human right by international law. You still have to buy it.

What "right" specifically means is that the government cannot infringe on your use. Affording any right is your own matter.

[nolabear]

12. Paul's not a slave. He's a tool. nt.

[raging_moderate]

14. I'm a physician, and no slave.

I actually work with Dana (and she's my wife and dughter's MD). I was taken by surprise when I saw the clip of her on Cspan.

Health care can not be considered a "right" in the same fashion that we have rights regarding discrimination etc... because it is also a product and has costs. If we say it's a "right" than where does it come from?? I have a "right" to drive on public roads, but I also have a responsibility to help pay for them. That doesn't make those who build them or police them slaves.

To me, universal health care is a moral, and also economic, imperative. We will not survive as an advanced nation without it. There is no winning argument against it whether it be ethical, philosophical, economic, or social.

bwt, Mr. Paul would probably do well to not volunteer the word "slave" anywhere near his own name given his backwards positions on civil rights and all.

[cali]

15. welcome to DU

fellow Kingdom dweller. How is health care different from education? We consider education (at least k-12) education a right. As others in this thread have pointed out, just because it's a right doesn't mean it's free- anymore than education is free.

[Matariki]

17. Very well put. Thanks.

"Universal health care is a moral, and also economic, imperative."

[w8liftinglady]

20. I am right there with you

I am working on my masters to be a nurse practitioner.
Your view is one I hear repeatedly from Most physicians.They want their patients to receive the best care and have access to the latest treatments.They do their best to get access for uninsured patients(In Texas,we have a lot).
It visably bothers these doctors when their patients can not get the specialized treatment that has been proven to help.
I think Universal Healthcare will free doctors to practice their love...medicine.
...and see true benefits from their patients' progress towards better health.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. If Freedom of the Press is a right, does that make journalists slaves?

Does the right to a fair trial make judges and lawyers slaves?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

22. If the Constitution grants one the right to counsel in a criminal case

(and it does), does that mean lawyers are slaves?

[quaker bill]

23. No, properly it makes you a public employee

Mr. Paul may consider that slavery, but it isn't (yet). Once they get done dismantling pay, benefits, and collective bargaining rights, it will be more similar. However, even with all that considered, you can still quit.

[Uncle Joe]

24. No, doctors aren't born in to their profession, they choose to enter it.

Thanks for the thread, cali.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

25. Do doctors in Canda, UK, etc. consider themselves "slaves"???

:shrug:

That's not been something I've ever heard.

Or, to use a real-life American example, do police officers consider themselves slaves?

:wtf: :crazy:

[lovuian]

27. doctors are debt slaves to capitalism Rand

it takes about over 200,000 dollars to be a specialist in college tuition

and then they become employees to heartless insurance companies


their slaves already

[surrealAmerican]

31. Of course we are guaranteed a right to representation in the house and the senate ...

... so I guess Rand Paul would consider himself to be the slave of his constituents.

[Betty]

33. then public school teachers are slaves by that definition

even though they are all paid for their work.