A human's right to life is not a valid argument for universal healthcare

1. I agree with both scenarios in the first paragraph, But both of us have failed to mention anything remotely close to your original argument against "refusal to give medical treatment is not a violation of right to life". If a doctor tries to give someone treatment, but they end up dying, the doctor did nothing wrong. The essence of the action has was taking was good hearted. However, if a doctor refuses to give you medical treatment, that would be violating someone's right to life. "Physicians often feel compelled to terminate a relationship with a patient for reasons such as the patient"s failure to pay for the services, the patient"s failure to appear for appointments or take prescribed medications, the patient"s seeking services that are morally or religiously objectionable to the physician and/or the patient having a communicable disease. A physician"s desire to terminate the relationship, however, must be tempered by legal considerations. While the physician may withdraw from the physician/patient relationship under certain circumstances, the physician cannot just say "no" to providing the patient further care." That would be refusing to acknowledge that that person has a right to life. Physicians do have the choice to initially refuse treatment, but after a "relationship" between the doctor and the patient is established, legally, they can no longer refuse it. (By "relationship", I'm referring to the connection that is established where the physician actually sees the patient. A relationship can be impliedly established in many more unexpected ways, even when there has been no direct contact between the physician and the patient. For example, if the physician agrees to treat a patient for a specific condition and schedules an appointment but the patient does not keep the appointment, a physician/patient relationship may still exist. As another example, a physician/patient relationship may similarly exist if an HMO patient"s primary care physician refers the patient to a specialist physician participating in the HMO and the specialist physician"s office gives the patient an appointment at a designated time and place.) Under these circumstances, refusing to give medical treatment IS in fact violating the person's rights, and if Universal health care was in place, the physician would have less reasons to refuse the medical care in the first place. Sources: physiciansnews.com 2. I understand what you're trying to say, and I agree. It isn't a right, I'm saying that it SHOULD be. Everyone, no matter what their income, social class, race, sex, etc. should be able to get medical treatment for a serious medical condition. 3. Similar to number 2, I understand what you're saying here, and agree with the facts in it. I'm going to use an allusion here. The declaration of independence states that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The #1 purpose of the Government is protect its people, and keeping them healthy is part of protecting them. If the government was more focused on helping its people than the useless arguing involved in common politics, We would be a lot better off than we are right now. If the government ran the health care system, they SHOULD be less likely to focus on the income of the system and focus more on the welfare of the people of their country.