The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein was known for breaking down sentences and everyday terms and finding them to be fairly arbitrary in meaning. His conclusions were often rather shoddy, but his processes were frequently eye-opening. Inspired by some of his methods — and by those of others who would sometimes take a crack at how we use language, including famous anti-statist Herbert Spencer — I will now unpack the sentence “Universal health care should be a right.”
Universal
What does it mean for something to be “universal”? Should all citizens have it? Well, why stop there? Is it a human right or will it merely become an American one? Will foreign visitors to our soil receive the same quality? What if they don’t pay any taxes? What about illegal immigrants? If health care is a human right, then doesn’t it seem a little incoherent to deny illegal immigrants coverage simply because they are not American citizens? Sure, they broke our laws, but so did a crack-cocaine user, and nobody is suggesting that we deny them coverage under a government-sponsored plan.
I deem the word “universal” to be meaningless pending further clarification from the left.
Health Care
What is “health care”? Is mental health included, or just physical health? What about cosmetic, quality-of-life surgeries? What about counseling? What about gender reassignment surgery? What about self-inflicted wounds, such as those brought on by choosing to smoke, drink, or partake in other dangerous activities? Should they be de-prioritized by the government? For how long? Should there be limits to how much ‘health care’ one can partake in on the taxpayer’s dime?
I deem the term “health care” to be meaningless pending further clarification from the left.
Should be a Right
It “should” be a right? Doesn’t that imply that it is not currently a right? So rights are granted by government? Or is it a natural right? If so, how do we determine this? What methodology do we use to differentiate a right from a non-right? Would I still have a right to health care if I were the last person on Earth? What if two people needed heart transplants only available from each other? Whose rights overrides the others, if health care is indeed a right?
In conclusion, I am forced to declare the entire proposition “Universal health care should be a right” so vague as to be practically meaningless.
Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com
August 27th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
What does ‘what’ mean? How about ‘mean’?
Grrr.
August 27th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
“What” is a word we use when we want to pin something down. It’s either as a question (What is the matter with you? — Looking for the X that the what is indicating) or as a reference point (I will give you what [x] I told you I would). The X that the what is asking for in this case is what it “even means,” which is defined as: the precise definition of what we’re speaking of. Words that can be used arbitrarily should be precisely defined beforehand.
August 27th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
I suppose liberals imagine a utopia where everybody receives medical care according to their needs and pays according to their ability. Where doctors, after 4 years of college, 4 years of medical school, and 4 years of residency, work long hours, not for money, but for the betterment of society. They of course receive the same benefits as those with no education, work ethic, or job for that matter.
August 27th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
When anybody says there is a right to an object, rather than an action, it begs the question, “at whose expense”?
Those who allege rights to objects are those who proposing sacrificing some at the expense of others.
Those of us who uphold rights to actions (excluding actions which would limit the actions of others), only, are the only defenders of equal rights.
August 27th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Alex, I suppose you could deconstruct the phrase ‘endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights among these are life, liberty and the persuit of happiness’ in the fashion.
August 27th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Ha! Kevin, I thought the same thing.
But seriously, either you think people should be left to die whenever they can’t afford health insurance, or you don’t. If you don’t, either you think somebody else pays for care, or you know that you’re doing it right now, but at the highest rates possible.
In the sense of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, I’d argue getting access to health care is a right. Not the free, magical care right-wingers always think everyone else wants, but affordable, portable, and without restrictions based on age, wealth, or pre-existing conditions.
Crazy, huh? And yet the majority of people still want health care reform, even despite the right’s outright lies on the subject.
August 27th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Good point, doesn’t everybody have the “right” to health care assuming they can pay for it, convince somebody else to pay for it, convince somebody to do it for free, or trade for it.
What we’re really talking about is the “right” to “free health care”, or the “right” to “health care paid for by somebody else”.
August 27th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
NO, what we’re talking about is the “right” to have choices when it comes to health care, and what we ALL pay. Get your head out of the sand – you’re paying for all those uninsured people RIGHT NOW. You think doing nothing isn’t going to cost you more? Cause that’s reality.
Side note:
http://www.detnews.com/article/20090826/AUTO01/908260371/1148/Bankrupt-suppliers-seek-exec-bonuses
Another reason we need health care reform. Look who the company wants to pick up the costs while they give execs massive bonuses.
August 27th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
#6 “But seriously, either you think people should be left to die whenever they can’t afford health insurance”
In America we offer Medicaid to those who can not afford health insurance. We offer Medicare for the elderly. Charity often reaches to those with special circumstances who are not poor.
We offer SCHIP for all lower income children.
There are also programs to receive life-saving care and pay back your debt over a long period of time.
It seems a bit irresponsible to suggest people who aren’t poor should be able to force others to pay for their medical needs.
Why is it my fault someone who can afford insurance has decided not to pay for it?
Why should my co-worker who doesn’t want to pay for insurance receive his care at my expense when I’ve already paid for my insurance?
This liberal ethic of forcing the responsible to pay for the irresponsible strikes me as elitist and unfair.
By all means we should continue to help the poor (although Medicaid probably ought to be reformed). However I don’t think we should be bailing out irresponsible middle-class people at my expense when I’ve acted responsibly.
August 27th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
People have the ‘right’ to declare bankrupcy whenever they want. If you play your cards right, you can have a right to pretty much anything you want for free.
It’s a shame reforms that are actually NEEDED have no place in Obamacare. These include cost controls, fraud reduction, tort reform, importing meds, etc. Barry knows he has to wave unholy amounts of money at healthcare providers for him to even have a shot at passing this thing. Sorry American Ideals, Barry is too cowardly to oppose the industry head-on so he resorts to lying when he says it will save money, it won’t. Every independand group confirms this.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Alex, I suppose you could deconstruct the phrase ‘endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights among these are life, liberty and the persuit of happiness’ in the fashion.
Actually, we did do that; it’s spelled out in the Constitution. Not that anyone cares.
But seriously, either you think people should be left to die whenever they can’t afford health insurance, or you don’t. If you don’t, either you think somebody else pays for care, or you know that you’re doing it right now, but at the highest rates possible.
Well, that’s the standard bleeding-heart emotionalist response. The question must be asked: at whose expense, and by what right?
August 27th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
The main belief of liberalism is that people should be shielded by government from the effects of living.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
[...] is that poop throwingly happy because what may be the single stupidest article in the history of the internet has ever been written. Now I know you’re saying, “Tom, there’s a lot of stupidity [...]
August 28th, 2009 at 12:27 am
Hah! Yes! The College Democrats leader of the University of Michigan have just declared this the Stupidest Article In the History of the Internet.
August 28th, 2009 at 12:31 am
#14 Dicktitude?
August 28th, 2009 at 12:35 am
I’m a dick, apparently, for pointing out the incoherence of the left’s terminology. “Universal means applied to everyone, Alex!” — Well, duh — But there are certain legal ramifications to this that aren’t being addressed. This is where the rationing debate comes in: should it be rationed by the government, or by free men in free markets? Should it rest on voluntarism, or by force?
August 28th, 2009 at 12:41 am
Is that monkey on his blog supposed to symbolize the evolution of rational thinking with the progressive political establishment?
August 28th, 2009 at 7:22 am
Alex,
“What if two people needed heart transplants only available from each other?”
Why would someone want a heart transplant from someone who needs a heart transplant?
August 28th, 2009 at 7:32 am
Alex,
In the spirit of your question, I would also ask how treating health care as a “right” would look different than how health care is treated today.
For instance, even a man who just murdered 50 people and is here illegally must receive life saving treatment from a hospital, regardless of his ability to pay. How is this not treating at least that portion of his health care as a “right”? So I would like to see what kinds of health care liberals think people are being denied today that they shouldn’t, regardless of ability to pay. They must have something in mind.
August 28th, 2009 at 7:58 am
As long as we are parsing and thinking through the implications, consider the significance of the syntax:
“Universal health care is a right” is not precisely the same thing as “Health care is a universal right.”
In the latter, it states that health care (however defined) is a right that all men have (or should have). The former signifies that if someone else is not receiving health care, my right to “universal health care” has been violated, even though I am personally receiving such care, because health care is not universal if someone else is not receiving care. So I suppose that if health care (however defined) is somehow not reaching everyone (universally) then ALL of our right to “universal health care” is being “denied.” So until we can bring health care (however defined) to every corner of the globe, none of us can actualize our right to “universal health care.”
Right?
August 28th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
It’s quite obvious that no one making these comments here has been or has anyone in their family that is
really really sick. That’s good, I would never wish that on anyone.
However, it’s not quite a question of responsibility as some here would assert. One course of cancer treatment can cost as much as $500 thousand dollars. That figure is not made up by me but qin
todays NY times article about Senator Kennedy. Has anyone on this post really looked at t
their insurance policy to see what the cap is? For those not in the know, a “cap” means the maximum that an insurance policy will pay out. My company has no cap which is surprising. However a friends has a cap at 1 million dollars.
So for those who think that God forbid it should happen it’s a matter of individual responsibility, start saving your money now. For most of us, including me, even though I pay my insurance and my bills, should god forbid the worst happens and my insurance runs out, a figure like that is way out of my reach. Oh well,can’t live forever right? Isn’t that the GOP mantra now, (sorry for the sarcasm)>
August 28th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
The troll returns.
August 28th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
#21 After an individual’s insurance runs out and their medical expenses pile up, they are eligible for Medicaid and often Medicare.
There’s a lot of mythology involved in attempts to force the responsible to pay for the irresponsible.
Of course we already cover those in financial need when their insurance runs out.
My father spent 6 years in the hospital due to brain tumors and the resulting surguries. After his Blue Cross and Blue Shield police insurance ran out he was covered by Medicare/Medicaid.
That’s different than asking me to subsidize insurance for my deadbeat coworker who doesn’t want to pay for his insurance like I do.
August 28th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
I agree with Doug. Everybody will at some time reach a point that at some historical moment
Where it will require huge amounts of money to keep them alive. Within a few decades it won’t be
quite as expensive to cure people of cancer or keep them alive. 50 years ago it cost a lot more to
treat infections that it costs today. 50 years from now we’ll have treatments that we can’t even
comprehend today, but that will still be very expensive.
The solution isn’t to start whining that people don’t care or don’t understand (I’m talking to you
ex-republican). I’ve had two relatives die slow and expensive deaths from AIDS. I’ve had relatives
die from cancer as well. The solution is to take care of the vulnerable and encourage
those who have the means to pay to pay for insurance. Death is a powerful incentive, like it or not.
We shouldn’t cut care on the vunerable because some yuppie 30-year would rather drive a beamer then get adequate insurance.
August 28th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Bankrupcy is also a powerful incentive to conserve resources and apply them wisely. People should have appropriate incentives in order to lower costs. It’s a lot better having hundreds of millions of people make those decisions than have a few dozen Beareaucrats (who are infinitly more stupid than the collective wisdom of a market network) make those decisions for them. As I’ve said. Let’s cover the vulnerable and let people make decisions for themselves.
August 28th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Doug is right that a lot of groups are already covered by the government, however, I think the group that’s really being missed is the lower middle class. There are people who are able to get a job and work hard enough to be above the poverty line, but simply can’t afford health care, this is more of a problem when they have health problems. We have to find a way to the people falling in the cracks, even though I lean against doing it by nationalizing health care. We definitely need a better solution than to tell all the people that can’t afford health care that its just due to irresponsibility.