Luckily he’s not as silver-tongued nor as slippery as some of his comrades, and it’s easy to pin down exactly where and why he’s wrong.
And yet you failed miserably.
It says right there– one of the foundational roles of government is to secure the rights of its people.
Uh huh. And? It says that the purpose of government is secure rights you already have. It doesn’t say anything about the government creating rights. You have the right to live. That doesn’t mean that the government has some obligation to go out and create a life. You have a right to pursue your own happiness. That doesn’t create an obligation for the government to do everything necessary to you to be able to do that.
There is a thing called Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Originally published in 1943, Maslow stated that “people are motivated to achieve certain needs and that some needs take precedence over others”.
I have no idea why you’ve dragged Maslow into a discussion of rights. You don’t seem to grasp the premise of his Hierarchy of Needs at all.
Malsow’s Hierarchy of Needs is a list if internal motivating factors that he determined were necessary for an individual to self-actualize. It is about how the individual feels. It isn’t something that has any legal basis or creates any legal or moral obligations on anyone else. It also isn’t some long-term objective where people reach self-actualization at some point during their life. People can (and do) self-actualize several times a day. Each of us climbs and falls through Maslow’s pyramid many times each day.
As long as the individual feels safe and secure, they can progress to the next level. It doesn’t require that they actually be safe and secure. Being that the entire list of needs is based on each individual’s personal internal feelings, you’d have to be able to demonstrate the the government has some legal authority (and means) to determine each individual’s feelings for them in order to turn any of them into a “right”.
You can extrapolate on the ideas of safety and security to include healthcare.
We can extrapolate a lot of things but that doesn’t make them true. In this case, it isn’t even logical. At the next level up we have “intimate relationships” and “friends” that are also listed as “needs”. Does that mean there is some right to force someone to be an intimate partner? Can the government force someone to be your friend?
If your health is at risk in any way, you do not possess safety or security and your right to life is in jeopardy.
And? You are mixing concepts here and pretending they are one in the same. ‘Health” and “healthcare” are two very different things. Beyond that, people have the ability to feel that they are healthy without obtaining healthcare.
The rights to life, liberty and security of person (and the pursuit of happiness in the United States) cannot be secured without providing for the basic needs illustrated by Maslow’s Hierarchy.
And here is where you put the nail in your own coffin. “Healthcare” is pretty much universally understood to be some sort of medical care provided externally (i.e. by another person — as opposed to self-care).
If, as you assert, healthcare is a right, then each of us has the right to waltz into any medical provider’s office and demand that they provide us with whatever healthcare we each deem we need (regardless of any actual medical necessity) and that medical provider has no authority to refuse us.
To quote the old axiom, your rights end where the next person’s rights begin. You have no right to another person’s labor. To make healthcare a right would require that medical providers be forced to surrender their own right to liberty and their own pursuit of happiness. Your right to healthcare ends where their right to liberty begins. Since their’s begin with providing healthcare (or not), you are left with nothing.
The right to life, liberty, security of person and pursuit of happiness are all things we each provide ourselves. Government doesn’t provide those to us. Government’s role is to ensure other people don’t take them from us.
It has hopefully become obvious that there are very clear reasons that Joe Walsh is incorrect in his “reasoning”. The rights afforded to us by the founding documents of the United States (if we be American citizens), or those by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, unequivocally state that we should provide for the basic needs of our fellow humans.
The only thing that has become obvious is that you are confused. There is nothing in any of the documents you’ve mentioned that says anyone should do anything. What each of us should or shouldn’t do is our own moral and ethical decision to make. That has nothing to do with rights.