It's worth pointing out that this...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948. Article 25 states: "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." |
...is the law. We've signed onto the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, therefore, it is a part of US law. That we don't fully live up to our responsibilities is nothing new, but it is law nonetheless.
Personally, I wish we'd also ratify the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. It's quite sad to look at
the map and see the US stand out as one of the few countries who has not fully ratified this covenant. Granted, many countries who
have ratified it do not abide by it, so I suppose you could at least give the US credit for not signing something it has no interest in upholding, but you kind of have to wonder how sick the political landscape in the US must be when we don't recognize the goodness of ratifying this covenant but Iran does. They may not adhere to it, but they're at least aware that civil society does expect such things so they should at least make a show of it. Here? We don't even try.
Health care is much the same. How one can argue that it is a
right to carry a gun (one which I'm totally OK with by the way), and a
right to say what you want (with certain minor limitations of course), but not a right to receive the health care necessary to stay alive and well to do such things, I will never understand. That some here are apparently so used to their own doublespeak that they think a right to healthcare is really some nefarious plan to control people is even more saddening. Have you lost so much of your humanity - been so fully consumed by your own selfish principles - that you are incapable of comprehending that people might consider the full chance of a long and healthy life a right, with no ulterior motives?
For the record, I disagree with Cynthetiq's distinction between which type of care is a right vs which is a privilege, mainly because some of those treatments can extend life by a significant amount. But, for the sake of clarity, let's reword this right: "People have the right to preventitive medical care, and medical care which will reasonably serve to extend their life in the face of illness." Being a right, it's unimportant to get into what is and is not reasonable, just like the constitution does not define what is "well-regulated" or so forth. We can debate about what "reasonably" extends life in the face of terminal illness - I think the AIDS cocktail qualifies, Cynthetiq does not - but denying such a right is, to my mind, unconscienable.