I think the problem is not so simple. I would rather look at it as part of
the developmental process in the complexity of communal life-forms.

Q1: who provides the care? angels, or well paid members of the society?
Q2: what do "I" provide to the society in return?
Both questions have intricate ramifications. Should a sick person just be
killed off - as a burden on the community, or should there be limitations
(?) on how far a "care" should go before that? My question for the old "Back
to nature" (Rousseau) was: and how about, if a tooth-ache strikes?

Consider a society with a just distribution of values. Nobody has excess,
nobody has unfulfillable needs. Lenin's utopistic society. Or: a phalanster.

Who will clean your sesspool? Would you forcibly assign some people to
unpopular tasks, or wait, untill SOME decide to do it voluntarily? What if
there are not enough vounteers?

Assigning 'larger' rewards for certain activities (early Marxism) results in
economical uneven growth, the death of an advanced society. Assigning a
"Brave-New-World" type educational predestination to some for such tasks is
unfair to begin with. And so on....

I don't feel ready to handle the situation by my own ideas.

John Mikes

On 3/15/10, Stephen P. King <> wrote:
>  Hi,
>             This article is most troubling to be as it seems that its
> argument has become accepted by many people without consideration of the
> logical consequence.
> *Is Universal Health Care a Human Right?*
> By Tom Head <>,
> *Question: *Is Universal Health Care a Human Right?
> *Answer: *According to the most widely accepted international human rights
> treaties, yes.
> Article 25 of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) reads
> (emphasis mine):
> 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* and necessary social services, and the right to
> security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old
> age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
> Likewise, Article 12 of the U.N. International Covenant on Economic,
> Social, and Cultural Rights (1966) reads:
> 1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of
> everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and
> mental health.
> 2. The steps to be taken by the States Parties to the present Covenant to
> achieve the full realization of this right shall include those necessary
> for:
> (a) The provision for the reduction of the stillbirth-rate and of infant
> mortality and for the healthy development of the child;
> (b) The improvement of all aspects of environmental and industrial hygiene;
> (c) The prevention, treatment and control of epidemic, endemic,
> occupational and other diseases;
> (d) The creation of conditions which would assure to all medical service
> and medical attention in the event of sickness.
> 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.
> This has historically been the position of left-leaning parties, such as
> the Democratic Party and the Green Party. But right-leaning parties, such as
> the Republican Party and the Libertarian Party, hold a different view.
> "Health care is a privilege," Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN) explained in a March
> 2009 interview. "[I]t's not necessarily a right." Not that fiscal
> conservatives are necessarily monsters--many of them volunteer to help
> provide essential medical services, in the United States and abroad--but as
> a general rule, fiscal conservatives don't believe that tax dollars should
> be used to fund universal health care. They believe this responsibility
> should fall on the private sector, and if the private sector isn't able to
> comprehensively meet needs, calling on the government to pick up the slack
> simply isn't an option. They see health care as something that good people
> can grant to those who don't have it, but they don't see it as something to
> which every human being is entitled.
> But international human rights law is unambiguous on the matter: Universal
> health care is a right, and the government must step in and provide it if
> the private sector fails to do so. If there are such things as human rights,
> under the international framework, then health care is definitely among
> them.
> End quote
>             That a “need” becomes a right by convention or treaty or any
> means that enforce such is to effect the legitimation of coercion of the
> rights of those that can provide those “needs”. “From each according to
> their ability to each according to his need” scream out at us here and
> without a coherent response we are witnessing the virtual imprisonment of
> any and all that might have the skills required to provide such.
>             What I see here is by accepting the premise of this and similar
> arguments requires that a government has the “right” to demand services from
> individuals with ability **for whatever reason** which then is to accept
> that the State has the right to control the behavior of any individual and
> that any right of self-determination is abrogated.
>             Any comment is welcome.
> Onward!
> Stephen P. King
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> .
> For more options, visit this group at

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to