But Beau Blue brought up the subject in a post that had to do with certainty and that mentioned health care in that connection. I also link to it because it brings to a subject sorely in need of it some dispassionate logic and personal experience (Dalrymple is an English physician).
Before wading into the idea of health care as a right, I would instead offer you an interesting fictional representation of the ideas of rights and freedoms: Isaac Asimov's short story "The Bicentennial Man" features a robot and humans as they come to grips with the foregoing ideas; sometimes, of course, fiction writers (especially SF writers) have a way of dealing with themes most effectively, and--in fact--I would rather consider Asimov's carefully considered perspectives than be coerced by politicians' carelessly and irresponsibly framed points of view. When we turn the definitions and delineations of "rights" and "freedoms" over to politicians, we almost always learn to regret having done so. Now, as for a "right to health care," that requires more thought. In the meantime, I would urge the politicians to read and consider Asimov's representation before they once again get carried away. However, if I were to expect most politicians to understand Asimov, this would require politicians' to have a grasp of satire and irony, which is probably hoping for too much.
ReplyDeletePerhaps we should think in terms of a "duty" to take care of yourself. Weren't the sick jailed in Erewhon? That's the sort of thing that ought to appeal to Puritans of all stripes.
ReplyDelete"Rights" becomes a word that is too difficult to define. If it is defined by political philosophers (not politicians), it is nevertheless bound up in considerations of power (which tends to corrupt all hopes of an objective and meaningful definition). If it is defined by others (i.e., secular humanists, theologians, medical ethicists, etc.), the definitions can hardly ever be reconciled. So, for better or worse, we are probably doomed to have it defined by politicians. That will not change the facts of life (i.e., God given rights--if such things do exist), but it will certainly change life itself. So, being powerless to influence any outcome, I simply sit back and observe the shenanigans in Washington, knowing that the absolute known as life-span and the "inalienable right" known as freedom of though will have a way of trumping almost anything the politicians can do to me.
ReplyDeleteWith that having been said, though, I am intrigued by your use of the words "duty" and "Puritan" in the same context. "Puritan" tends to have such a negative connotation in almost any context, so I wonder about your use of it in terms of "duty." As for myself, with Erewhon aside, I do believe people have certain duties and responsibilities (which too many people ignore by deferring to others), and governments have a way of legislating duties and responsibilities to points well beyond "natural law" and "common sense," but I am confused about your (tongue-in-cheek?) mixing of "duty," "sick," and "Puritans." Perhaps I am missing the irony of what you are saying.
CORRECTION:
ReplyDeleteChange "freedom of though" to "freedom of thought."
Yeah, I was just cracking wise. The original Puritans I have a certain respect for. They did their best, I think, to lead examined lives. Their modern counterparts - who would tell us what to eat, how to cook, how to raise vegetables, what to drink and do, etc. - are just power-hungry busybodies. As I have said, I have taken pretty good care of myself. Even when I drank heavily, I ate properly and exercised (you gotta be in shape to do the partying I did). I hear people bloviating about the "environment" who couldn't tell a screech owl from cerulean warbler and spend no time actually in nature, contemplating it, being alone in it. Instead, they form groups and invade it with their leaders and guides and ooh and ahh over what they told about it. It's like listening to a bunch of tourists tell Basho about Mount Fuji.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I was just cracking wise. The original Puritans I have a certain respect for. They did their best, I think, to lead examined lives. Their modern counterparts - who would tell us what to eat, how to cook, how to raise vegetables, what to drink and do, etc. - are just power-hungry busybodies. As I have said, I have taken pretty good care of myself. Even when I drank heavily, I ate properly and exercised (you gotta be in shape to do the partying I did). I hear people bloviating about the "environment" who couldn't tell a screech owl from cerulean warbler and spend no time actually in nature, contemplating it, being alone in it. Instead, they form groups and invade it with their leaders and guides and ooh and ahh over what they are told about it. It's like listening to a bunch of tourists tell Basho about Mount Fuji.
ReplyDeleteLike Fred Allen, I think everybody should leave everybody else the hell alone. As for rights and health care, should the latter be tailored to those who didn't bother to take care of themselves?
"When I then ask my interlocutor whether he can think of any reason why people should not be left to die in the street, other than that they have a right to health care, he is generally reduced to silence. He cannot think of one."
ReplyDeleteI can think of one. Do unto others ... what's that called again? The Golden rule? Who named it that, anyway?
And there's the story about a brother's keeper, too. That seems to apply, right? I guess we should all expect to step over those dying in our streets one day, once everyone believes the same as Dawkins and Hitchens do, huh?
Seems a might cold for July.
-blue
Once again, Blue, we agree. I certainly would not step over a person who was even ill in the street and I don't think many of the people I know would, either. And that would include many non-believers.
ReplyDeleteThere is in this national debate about health care something that you (Frank) and Blue have touched upon, and that is community and personal responsibility. Those who cannot help themselves but need help deserve to be helped, and--in the proper application of government's role--the American people become a "community" to provide that help. A key component in that formula, however, is the phrase "those who CANNOT help themselves." Where government has gone awry--and threatens to do so even more perniciously--is in bending over backwards (for purposes of centralizing power) in efforts to help those who CAN help themselves but (for whatever the reasons) have chosen NOT to take responsibility for themselves. I am among those, Frank, who would extend a helping hand to people who need the help but cannot help themselves; however, I rather resent being forced into a "community" by the government wherein I must also help so many who simply will not (rather than cannot) help themselves. (I know there are redundancies in my comments, but I think the repetition is important to the point.) Let me state it a slightly different way. I am, I think, a good Samaritan in many ways; the government, on the other hand, is not a good Samaritan because its motives are considerably different.
ReplyDeleteVery good point, R.T. Anyone who thinks a government's motives are primarily altruistic is a fool. Government is one the principal players in the power game, period.
ReplyDelete