Beats me, but if you want criticism I'll give it a shot.
Healthcare is a basic human right
I'm unaware of any right that involves making other people take care of me by producing medicines, providing services, food, housing me, and tending to my disabilities.
You can certainly argue that a lack of healthcare is a moral problem that good people solve so that all folks have as much healthcare as is feasible, but to say it is a right is to start trashing what real rights are, and healthcare, for all it's importance, is nowhere near being as important as, say, free political speech. This is a critically important thing to understand.
So I agree that morally something must be done, but I felt you went way over the top with the language.
"and healthcare, for all it's importance, is nowhere near being as important as, say, free political speech."
I assume from this statement that you are either a) healthy and/or b) fully capable of paying for all you and your families medical needs - both now and in the future.
"I'm unaware of any right that involves making other people take care of me by producing medicines, providing services, food, housing me, and tending to my disabilities."
Australian doctors are highly paid. Their salaries are paid by every Australian tax payer whether healthy or sick. By sharing the burden all of society benefits.
You would be much more inclined to agree that healthcare is a basic human right if you were both sick and unable to afford treatment.
The standard of living in Australia is as good or better than in the US. My medical costs are $0. Regardless of whether I am visiting the doctor for a flu shot or having life saving heart surgery.
A basic human right is not the same thing as a shared moral obligation. The language of "rights" is often reserved for "categorically permitted acts", such as the right to think and speak as you wish.
A lot of people are resistant to using the language of "rights" in the context of "complicated systems that impose duties and burdens on the people who implement them". Even assuming that it is the duty and obligation of a moral, prosperous society to provide for the health of its members, many people would still not term that a right.
Please review your understanding of a human right.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, proclaimed that “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one’s family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care.”
In 1943, President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed a ‘Second Bill of Rights’ for
Americans, declaring ‘freedom from want’ to be one of four essential liberties necessary
for human security. Roosevelt’s definition of freedom included “the right to adequate
medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.”
http://www.nhchc.org/Advocacy/RighttoHealthinAmerica.pdf
Health care is a human right - even in America where i'm led to believe that you will receive life saving emergency treatment even if you cant afford it.
"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."
Healthcare is a basic human right
I'm unaware of any right that involves making other people take care of me by producing medicines, providing services, food, housing me, and tending to my disabilities.
You can certainly argue that a lack of healthcare is a moral problem that good people solve so that all folks have as much healthcare as is feasible, but to say it is a right is to start trashing what real rights are, and healthcare, for all it's importance, is nowhere near being as important as, say, free political speech. This is a critically important thing to understand.
So I agree that morally something must be done, but I felt you went way over the top with the language.