Health Care Is NOT a Right

Photo: NESRI/Flickr

Photo: NESRI/Flickr

Barack Obama tweeted:


Health care is not a right.

Shock! Horror! I know. But let’s think it through logically for a moment.

Individuals have a right to Liberty. I presume my dear reader would not challenge me on that self-evident truth.

It follows that individuals have a right to the fruits of their labor.

The idea of health care as a “right” is irreconcilable with the right to the fruits of one’s own labor and with the right to Liberty.

Are doctors our slaves that they should provide their services to us for free, without compensation for their labor? Certainly not! They have a right to the fruits of their labor like anyone else, and deserve to be compensated for the services they provide.

Or are our neighbors our slaves, that we may confiscate the fruits of their labor in order to have the means to compensate our doctors for their services? Certainly not, for this violates the same principle of the individual’s right to Liberty.

Therefore, there is no such thing as a “right” to health care.

Print Friendly
  • meh

    “Health Care Is NOT a Right”

    if you pay taxes it bloomin well is… thats what comes first, then shelter.. education..
    youre so retarded, just because a doctor works in a public system, doesnt mean they are doing it for free ya moron..

    • Jeremy R. Hammond

      1) The conclusion that if you pay taxes for something, therefore it is a right is a non sequitur. 2) I didn’t argue that because a doctor works in a public system means he provides his services for free.

      • meh

        non sequitur! rubbish! its totally relevant! – if im paying taxes, that money should be spent on something that would benefit me. the way a society is judged is based on how it looks after its poor and sick. its the responsibility of the government who collects the taxes, to look after the poor and the sick, and it is their right to demand it.

        “Are doctors our slaves that they should provide their services to us for free, without compensation for their labor?”

        if that isnt suggesting that doctors would get nothing because health care is a right, i dont know what else it could be.

        youre a moron. your article is rubbish and your response is even worse.

        • Jeremy R. Hammond

          “Non sequitur” doesn’t man “irrelevant”. It means the conclusion does not logically follow from the premise. Rights aren’t derived from government. They are inherent.

          Seems you stopped reading at “Are doctors our slaves that they should provide their services to us for free, without compensation for their labor?” Please also read the paragraphs that follow.

          • meh

            see above

          • meh

            slaves dont get paid a wage.. i know no doctor that works in a system of public healthcare, where health care is a recognised RIGHT, that doesnt get a wage and could by any stretch of the imagination be considered a slave.

            your a moron.. your arguments have no basis in facts.

          • Jeremy R. Hammond

            Correct, slaves don’t get paid a wage. You’re starting to catch on. Congratulations. As for the rest, I never argued that doctors don’t get paid wages. I was making a point of logic to illustrate why health care isn’t a right. Don’t worry, keep thinking about it, and you’ll get it eventually.

          • meh

            if you are now saying that doctors are not slaves under a public health care system, thenm youre an idiot for suggesting they are in the first place, but your idiocy has never been in doubt, a fact emphasised time and again with your every reply.

            the only point you have is on the top of your head.

          • Jeremy R. Hammond

            I didn’t suggest doctors are slaves under a public health care system. It was a point of logic. Don’t worry, keep exercising that brain of yours, and you’ll get it someday.

      • meh

        a fraction of the overwhelming amount of info available that shows you to be a moronic lumpen..


        you have the right to seek your own care.. but you dont have the right to deny others..

        • Jeremy R. Hammond

          You are welcome to present an argument if you have one. Certainly, you have the right to seek care. But what do you mean “you do’t have the right to deny others”? The only way I see to interpret that is that doctors are our slaves and must provide health care without compensation.

          • meh

            listen dipstick..
            Noun: non sequitur
            1. A reply that has no relevance to what preceded it
            2. (logic) a conclusion that does not follow from the premises

            stop trying to look clever, it doesnt suit you.

            you dont have the right to deny others their fundamental right to health care. It no surprise you suffer from basic comprehension difficulties at all.

            the only thing youve illustrated is your fundamental idiocy and your propensity to highlight how stupid you are at every me where i suggested rights are derived from the government idiot, and ill give you a thousand dollars.

            “The paragraph containing the question about doctors being slaves, coupled with the paragraph that follows it, illustrate why health care is not a right.”

            maybe on your planet it does.. not around here though you gormless schmuck.

            heres 50 cents, go rent a clue.

          • Jeremy R. Hammond

            Like I said, “non sequitur” in my above sentence doesn’t mean “irrelevant”; it means that your conclusion doesn’t follow from your premise. That is, your argument is a logical fallacy. Health care is not a “right” for the reasons I’ve given.

          • meh

            if youre saying something that doesnt follow from what precedes it.. it is irrelevant.. ie a non sequitur. your inability to comprehend such a simple concept is proof you have no functioning cognisant ability, probably due to the fact your fat clumsy mother dropped you on your head when you were a baby. no matter how many times you say otherwise.. wont change the fact that you are simply wrong. deal with it.

          • Jeremy R. Hammond

            No, to say a conclusion does not follow from the premise is not the same as saying something is irrelevant. These are two different things. “Illogical” and “irrelevant” are not synonyms.

          • meh

            to say a conclusion does not follow from the premise, is the same as saying that they have no relevance to each other, not matter how many times you say otherwise, youll still be wrong, as you are with your moronic assertion that healthcare is not a right.

          • meh

            “You are welcome to present an argument if you have one.”

            you say that after i posted links to exactly that.. you ridiculous smeghead..


          • Jeremy R. Hammond

            The WHO is mistaken. Health care is not a “right” for the reasons I’ve given you.

  • meh

    Noun: non sequitur
    1. A reply that has no relevance to what preceded it

    Adjective: irrelevant
    1. Having no bearing on or connection with the subject at issue

    keep going dim wit – keep showing the world just how stupid you are.

    • Jeremy R. Hammond

      And banned for trolling and repeatedly issuing insults in lieu of arguments. Your commenting privileges are revoked. See, your commenting here is a privilege that I grant you, not a right. You know, not a right, like health care.

      • meh

        banned? you really dont know how the internet works do you…

        obviously dont know the definition of trolling either. what a clown

      • meh

        lol – deleting comments now eh loser? woteva floats ya boat!

  • Jackson

  • Lone Ranger

    What is the Right to Adequate Health? -

    The idea that all people are entitled to have the physical needs of their bodies satisfied is at the heart of the human rights movement. This includes the right to survive and to live free of reasonably preventable suffering. The Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) articulates this right to adequate health in Article 25:

    “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care…”

    This definition deviates from the conception of rights held in the18th and 19th centuries, which only restrained the state from actively denying citizens their basic civil and economic rights. (Eide et al. 386). UDHR Article 25 contends that states must also take action to ensure that all citizens enjoy an adequate standard of living. It recognizes food, clothing, housing, health care and social services as essential components of a standard of living adequate for health and well-being.

    Defining the precise standards that must evaluate these components is difficult since states with different economic and social histories and capacities have different understandings of an “adequate standard of living.

    Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) defines the right to adequate health in a relative fashion:

    “… the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.”

    • Jeremy R. Hammond

      I’ve explained why these treaties are mistaken, why there is no such thing as an inherent “right” to health care, above.

    • Greg

      How are we entitled to clothing if we were born butt ass naked

  • Andy

    Is healthcare a human right?
    86% Say Yes

    • Jeremy R. Hammond

      Obviously, most people don’t understand what rights are.

      • Diedre

        Obviously, you’re in denial.

        “Because the United States is a signatory to both treaties, and U.S. policymakers played a role in drafting both treaties, it would stand to reason that health care would be accepted as part of the American understanding of human rights. And it is, at least by most–according to a 2007 CBS News/New York Times poll, 64% of Americans believe that the government has a responsibility to ensure universal health care.”

        • Jeremy R. Hammond

          How can I be in denial of the fact that most people don’t understand that health care is not a right when I just pointed it out?

          • Eddie

            Are you really saying, that you would like to live in a society, where if a child is in pain and is suffering, and there is a readily available treatment, you would deny treatment to that child based purely on the fact they were unable to afford it? What exactly would it be that you would say to them, what if it was your child?

          • Jeremy R. Hammond

            No, I am not saying that. I am simply pointing out the fact that health care is not a right.

          • SpotTheDog

            “What exactly would it be that you would say to them, what if it was your child?”

            You missed that one.

          • Jeremy R. Hammond

            Your second question followed upon the false premise that my answer to the first would be “yes”, but, again, it is “no”. Hence the second question is invalid.

          • Icy

            I’ll ask the question by itself, with no premise if it makes you happy.

            What you would say to a child of yours, to tell them that their suffering could not be eased simply due to a lack of money, as healthcare is not a right, they must go without medicine that is readily available and effective. Lets say the child is in early teens, and beyond believing in fairy tales and Santa already.

            It seems your arguments are all based on an ideology that has no connection to the reality of the situation we are actually living in.

          • Jeremy R. Hammond

            Your question still relies on a false premise. It does not follow that since health care is not a right, therefore children must go without it.

          • Again

            It seems your arguments are all based on an ideology that has no
            connection to the reality of the situation we are actually living in.

            Face reality, there are plenty in america today that go without adequate healthcare simply because they can not afford it. There is nothing false about that. You’re advocating for a system for a totally dysfunctional society, bereft of humanity, compassion and common sense.

            Regardless if you think that it does not follow any premise, as you were asked, premise aside..if it is a right or not, regardless of the fact there is supposed to be adequate health care in america, many do, on a daily basis, still have to tell their children they must do without. So, how would you tell a child of yours, that simply because of a lack of money, they will be denied treatment to ease their suffering.

            It’s a simple question, but if it’s too hard for you, just be honest and say so.

          • Jeremy R. Hammond

            You are engaging in the fallacy of ad hominem argumentation by trying to appeal to some supposed prejudice of mine instead of pointing to any error in fact or logic of the argument I presented. And you can keep asking your question with its false premise, but I will just keep pointing out its premise is false. It does not follow that since a person is poor therefore their children could not get health care. Even if it did, it would not follow that therefore health care is a right. It would not follow that therefore either (a) doctors must be forced to work without compensation or (b) forcibly expropriating wealth from your neighbor to pay for your child’s care wouldn’t violate his right to the fruits of his own labor.

          • Chutzpah is strong

            So you’re incapable of answering what should be for you, if you really believe what your saying, a very simple question.

            It is patently obvious, people go without adequate healthcare in the USA, simply because they have insufficient funds.

            You say that is how it should be, but when asked to justify that in human terms, yours simply incapable. The fact that you refuse to answer in fact, speaks volumes more than if you had attempted a mealy mouthed pretentious response.

          • Jeremy R. Hammond

            Do you still beat your wife?

            Yes, people certainly do go without adequate healthcare in the US, because it has become so unaffordable due to government intervention in the market. Hence, even more government attempts to centrally plan our health care for us is self-evidently not the solution.

            No, I did not say “that is how it should be”, and I’ve no interest in debating a strawman.

  • Common Sense

    As in most countries/states, USA is not alone in applying income tax to peoples wages, so, the fruits of the average worker, are indeed being confiscated.

    As such, the people have a right, to certain things that these taxes are said to be being taken for.

    As you are not arguing about the right to decent roads to drive on, or other infrastructure, or libraries, let me presume you are happy with these things being supplied and if you make contributions towards them, either willingly or otherwise, it is right that you may demand these services to be available and maintained.

    The idea of health care as NOT a “right” is irreconcilable if people are contributing to society via compulsory taxation, when health is one of the most important aspects of a properly functioning, modern, compassionate humane society.

    • Jeremy R. Hammond

      Yes, government is violating individuals’ right to the fruit of their labor.

      It does not follow that therefore health care is a right.

      See the second to last paragraph in my post above, please.

      • Stump

        Are police a right?
        Are govt officials a right?

        Is the army a right?
        They are all publicly funded from stolen money, as are so many other services you enjoy every day. Where is your argument for disbanding the police and the army and all other govt bureaucracies? Are you advocating anarchy? Surely if the govt is going to steal all our money anyway, why are you so determined the people shouldn’t see any benefit from it in the way of proper health? If done properly it would cost a fraction of the monthy military budget spent on killing people.? You would rather it all go to fighting illegal wars, bombing innocent people who were never a threat to anyone, a police state enforcing the shredding of the constitution. What;s wrong with you? What planet do you live on? On this planet, they TAX US! THERFORE WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DEMAND SOMETHING FROM IT!

        If not health, then I ask you, what?

        • Jeremy R. Hammond

          No, police and government officials are not a “right”.

          Again, your logic that since individuals pay taxes, therefore they have a right to health care is a non sequitur. See above.

          If government is stealing all our money, why are you so determined to encourage it rather than taking a stand against this theft and for individuals’ property rights and right to the fruits of their own labor? Are you content with your slavery?

          • woteva

            why are you worried about healthcare when the govt is stealing your money? are you content with your slavery? youre the one who wrote the article about health care

          • Jeremy R. Hammond

            Yes, I wrote the article because I am concerned about the government stealing our money and am not content with slavery. Obviously.

          • woteva2

            good job. well done. what a difference youve made. obviously

          • Jeremy R. Hammond

            Indeed, it is an uphill battle when so many people are ignorant about what rights even are and embrace their own slavery.

  • That One Person

    I do apologize for posting on such an old article, but I just had a question pop into my head as I finished reading. Would I be correct in assuming that you, Mr. Hammond, believe that your “right” to own the biggest T.V. on the block trumps somebody else’s right to life?

    • Jeremy R. Hammond

      No, you would not be correct. What an absurd proposition! How you arrive at the ridiculous conclusion that I believe that one person’s rights may “trump” another’s, or one kind of right “trump” another is beyond me. Only someone who has no understanding of what rights are (i.e., you) could even suggest such a thing.