Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-21 Human rights and the United States

Request details
The primary dispute is about the present lack of specificity in regard to what is and what is not a human right in regard to the United States. Raggz strongly asserts that while the article may define these broadly in a a philosophical sense or more narrowly in a legal sense, that the Reader should be able to know what is meant by a human right. If the use changes from legal to philosophical, the Reader should know that the useage has changed. Raggz strongly asserts that each definition of a human right needs to be supported by a reliable source applicable to the US. In regard to legally recognized human rights, this would normally be a US judicial opinion or a UN Security Council finding. When human rights are used in a broader philosophical context, the human right discussed needs a solid reliable source.

One primary example of this dispute is the relevance of whether universal health care is a human right in the US. Raggz believes that inclusion of a subsection on universal health care in the article implicitly and deceptively suggests that the article is espousing the view that Universal health care is a Human right in the United States. Health care is a human right within the US, and both parties agree to this. Silly rabbit believes that the Universal health care debate is, therefore, relevant for inclusion in the article whether or not it is definitively established as a human right (whatever that would entail). Raggz, who favors the removal of the section, asserts that if the article wants to discuss health care in the US it needs to begin with the missing reliable source that would recognize legally the right to Universal health care: a Supreme Court decision. It next needs to discuss how medicaid has (or has not) met this right, and it needs to do this with reliable sources. The article presently implies that a right to universal health care that does not exist within the US actually does exist. Silly rabbit insists that this is not implied, and that the section need not be eliminated altogether as original research.

Who are the involved parties?
Raggz and Silly rabbit have agreed to informal mediation. Other editors may wish to as well.

What's going on?
Raggz and Silly rabbit are frustrated that despite a large volume of discussion, no progress toward consensus is being made. Mediation is requested in regard to how best to determine with specificity what is and what is not a human right in regard to the United States.

What would you like to change about that?
Both parties would like to be able to reach consensus without endless and unproductive discussion.

Mediator notes
User:Raggz's views, from what I understand, are that Universal Healthcare is not a right in the U.S. because, even though human rights apply to all humans regardless of country from the point of view of the U.N., the government of the U.S. does not recognize it as a right and therefore it is an unenforced right in its borders.

I have yet to attain User:Silly rabbit's views.

User:Raggz says that there is no human right to universal healthcare. User:Silly rabbit, on the other hand, is not interested in establishing the existence of rights (in his own words, "by divine endowment or whatever".

I agree with Silly Rabbit's view for the obvious reason that human rights are not material things of which existence you can confirm as a fact. For said reason, a solution that comes to mind is to assert facts about opinions (opinion being whether the right to universal health care exists or does not exist in the U.S.).

The way Raggz believes the dispute will be resolved is like so (quoted from his talk page):


 * The first point of the mediation (in my opinion) is to get agreement as to (1) what are facts (where there is only one side) and (2) what issues are debates (where they have two sides).
 * The second point (in my opinion) is to agree to cover both sides of all debates. We cannot do the second until we do the first. We are stuck in the second step because editors claim that their opinions are facts, so they do not need to cover both sides.

It seems, according to this, that we have an agreement about the second step. The debate between those who believe the human right for universal health care exists or does not should be covered. About the first step, however, the existence of human rights cannot be proven by facts because, as afore stated, they are not material. It can be proven, however, whether human rights are enforced in certain places (as laws are) or not, for example. In the case of universal health care, to my understading, it is not enforced in the U.S.

Discussion
Not sure how the mediation process works, but assume that I can add my views here. Regarding universal health care as a human right, I think that the issue of health care does certainly belong in the article. Health care is recognised as a human right in many major international human rights documents and so a discussion of this is certainly relevant. Whether the human right to health should be interpreted as universal health care provision is open to debate and I'm sure there is much literature written on this, the UN Rapporteur on the right to health and general comments of the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Committee would be a good place to start, and are good solid, mainstream sources. Regardless, this subject certainly merits inclusion in the article.

Another brief point, regarding the premise of this discussion: there is a conceptual error that Raggz has repeatedly made when dealing with this article, which is one of the reasons that he/she has become embroiled in disputes with many of the other editors that maintain the article. Raggz makes a false distinction between human rights and human rights in the US. One of the basic principles of human rights is that they are universal and progressive, so, regardless of whether they have been codified in US law or whether they have legal application in the US, they are still relevant, the US being populated by humans and all humans having human rights. (Hence all North Koreans have all of the human rights recognised in the UDHR and all the other human rights treaties, regardless of whether they are legally applicable in North Korea or whether they are recognised by the North Korean government. The idea is that human rights are progressively realised, until they are universally respected and applied.) Pexise (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Human rights are in fact universal. This is true from a philosophical perspective, but there is no reliable source offered yet, nor are universal human rights mentioned anywhere. Getting this into this article is something I have hoped for. Human rights are ALSO sometimes legally enforceable rights. This article has yet to open the subject of universal human rights, and presently only deals with human rights recognized by laws and treaties. I have insisted that the Reader (1) be able to easily understand what legal (or philosophical) human right is being discussed and (2) that there be a reliable source for this. Presently, neither of these are satisfied. Raggz (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "..."UN Rapporteur on the right to health and general comments of the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Committee would be a good place to start, and are good solid, mainstream sources". These types of sources are fine if we are discussing philosophical universal rights and are not describing legally enforceable human rights. The UN General Assembly has no legal authority in regard to human rights, nor does the, Social and Cultural Rights Committee have any form of legal authority either. The UN Rapporteur offers advice to an advisory committee that offers advice to the General Assembly, which in turn offers advice to the UN Security Council. In our article it is important to be honest about context. UN Rapporteurs are reliable sources that can and should be quoted so long as their opinions are fairly presented so that the Reader understands that they have almost nothing to do with the actual enforcement of human rights. It is incorrect to say that the General Assembly (and it's employees the UN Rapporteurs) is without authority only because it has no legal authority whatever. The General Assembly has moral authority, and if offered in this context, General Assembly determinations are excellent sources. When they are offered as though they had legal authority that they totally lack, this is deceptive. Raggz (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Bringing this back to the issue at hand, the Article lacks any reliable source that universal health care is a human right, but it makes this claim. It does offer a UN treaty for a source, a treaty that ensures that every person in every nation now has effective health care. The Article does not mention that the US medicaid program ensures compliance with the UN treaties declaration of the human right to health care. Now, there likely are challenges that medicaid meets the human right to health care, this issue would be fair (if sourced), but the original research does not address any alleged gaps, but implies that the US does not even attempt to meet the human right for health care because (1) there is no universal health care and (2) Americans would like their health care costs to be lower. This is a major NPOV issue. Raggz (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Pexise states "... One of the basic principles of human rights is that they are universal and progressive. This is not stated in human rights where "universal human rights" are presented as a "theory", and even an "imperialistic theory". I suggest that human rights is the proper forum to first debate "universal human rights". Universal human rights would fit well here, as the US was the first nation to recognize this concept and is presently the only nation to recognize these (and has since it was founded). I would have no issues with this historical addition, but do challenge the idea that this fundamentally American concept has yet to be accepted by the world generally as more than another brash American imperialistic theory. Raggz (talk) 06:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Source: UDHR, article 2: "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. Pexise (talk) 14:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is the language of the UDHR, and it does apply to the US. Why is it relevant to health care and the US? The UN Security Council acting under Article 39 of the United Nations Charter may enforce the UDHR, (and no other UN organ has jurisdiction). Since the UN has not found any US health cares issues relative to any human rights issue, why is the UDHR relevant? The General Assembly has an important advisory role, and the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Committee advises the GA. A few UN lawyers working for the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Committee have expressed concern, but the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Committee has not accepted these concerns. How significant is this?


 * The force-feeding of enemy combattants that will not otherwise eat is required by the Geneva Conventions, because the GCs require that enemy prisoners be treated the same way an American soldier who refused food would be treated. Allowing them to die of starvation when a US soldier would be treated differently, would be a war crime. Force-feeding is opposed by these UN lawyers. This is an issue where they claim that the UDHR requires that the US commit a war crime. The US resists the urging of these lawyers to commit war crimes, but would be required to if ordered by the UNSC. The GA lacks jurisdiction to order war crimes. Do we really want this debate in this article? I suggest no. I strongly assert that if we reference the opinions of UN lawyers, that we not imply that these are the opinions of the UN, unless they are actually the opinion of the UN. Raggz (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Note. It has been falsely claimed at the Administrators' noticeboard (WP:AN/I) that I have refused to participate in this request for mediation. On the contrary, I have reaffirmed my willingness to subject to mediation on multiple occasions. I have not written volumes of discussion on the topic, because I do not see the point of thousands of lines more of unproductive bickering. Mediation is being sought precisely to avoid more of the same. If and when a mediator takes up this request, then I will obligingly engage in discussion. Silly rabbit (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Silly rabbit's view
Sorry for posting this here, but it seems as appropriate a place as any other. I had made some edits to the above referendum back when this mediation first started so that it fairly represented both views, but here goes.

My view is that the section on Universal heath care is indeed relevant to the subject of Human rights and the United States. There is a highly political debate of notable historical importance in the history of health rights in the US. Among the extremely popular alternative proposals is that of universal health care. Secondly, there is a debate which focuses more precisely on the human rights dimensions of universal health care. I had provided one reference for this before the whole dispute began, and am actively seeking out others at the moment. There is thus, and I think both parties agree to this, a well-documented debate concerning Health care, and whether universal health care is a human right (or, to use language Raggz may find more appealing, whether to make it a human right in the United States).

I would like to work on the existing section without deleting massive amounts of sourced, relevant material. From my point of view, Raggz's concern seems to center on a particular unintended interpretation of the text. Specifically that the article states that Universal health care is a legally recognized human right within the United States, which therefore the US is in violation of. If the article actually said this, of course such a statement would have to be removed. However, the article makes no such assertion. It is certainly true that (according to all parties) "Health care" is a legally recognized right. Hence, I do not think it is misleading to then say, "The level of government involvement in providing, ensuring, and enforcing the right to adequate health care is a topic of longstanding political debate," and then go on to document the debate.

I think that part of the need for mediation is that I simply don't see how the existing text suggests that Universal health care is a legally recognized human right. Since I don't really myself understand the problem, I cannot properly address it on my own. Silly rabbit (talk) 03:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Great point. Why do we have a section about universal health care at all in this article? There should be one in WP (and there is), but why here? I don't understand why. Raggz (talk) 06:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Raggz, why are you even engaging in this constant debate if we both know that you would like nothing better than to gut the section under consideration? I have already given excellent grounds for inclusion in the article, and I thought at one point at least that you agreed, at least in principle, that the material should stay.  To me that is now the purpose of this mediation: to help us to ascertain what the final shape of the section should be.  But honestly, I really don't like to argue ad nauseum.  If you get serious, and want to do something, or have some actual suggestions, let me know.  If you want to continue saying the same stuff over and over again, then I suppose this is as good a forum as any. But don't expect a lot of participation from me. Silly rabbit (talk) 07:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I honestly believe that proposals to modify the US health care system to universal coverage have nothing to do with human rights and the US. This is my opinion. You still don't have a strong reliable source that there actually is any enforceable right to universal health care, just an opinion. The reason that it keeps coming up is that this is not resolved.


 * You can present a section on universal health care that fairly represents NPOV policy, but presently this has a good ways to go yet. (1) Explain that there is no enforceable right to universal health care (2) include the other opinion: that many or most oppose it because they support the human right to health care (better care) and we are done here. I would like to be done here. I am here helping you with a section that I do not think is important, but here I am, helping you.


 * You have yet to offer text that explains to the Reader (or me) why UHC is part of a discussion of human rights. Health care is relevant, but why UHC? You have one persons opinion, an improvement. If necessary explain that one persons opinion, but it would be much more relevant to quote Hillary Clinton's campaign. If she doesn't mention a human right denied, what does that mean? Raggz (talk) 07:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Raggz NPOV Proposal
FROM WP:ANF: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can."


 * Assert facts about what human rights are recognized, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. Some human rights are facts, we can look them up and no one disputes these, they can be enforced. These rights are for NPOV "facts". By "fact" we mean "a human right about which there is no serious dispute." We can easily make a list of these, there are numerous reliable sources that state what these are and what their limits are.


 * Discuss opinions about what human rights (facts) should be recognized. When there is a dispute if a right exists, if it cannot be looked up in a book, if it cannot be enforced, it is not a fact.
 * We can discuss opinions about human rights where there is serious dispute. These human rights lack a reliable source that they are recognized. They usually have reliable sources about opinions. Raggz (talk) 12:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

To comply with NPOV, I suggest that we need sort the facts from the opinions. If we do this, if we follow NPOV (as above) there are no more mediation issues. There is no right to universal health care because there is no reliable source that says this is a fact. There are many reliable sources that say that it is their opinion that the right exists and should be recognized. We can and should accurately report facts. We also should accurately discuss significant opinions.

If Silly rabbit has a reliable source that universal health care is a recognized human right, then we can say that it is a recognized right. If not, we cannot.

I agree with everything Silly rabbit stated above. My views were not accurately stated above. Raggz (talk) 12:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You invoke WP:ASF. So please identify (by providing relevant quotes from the text) which opinions are being asserted as facts.  Silly rabbit (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean the article? Raggz (talk) 12:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Silly rabbit (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "Assert facts about what human rights are recognized". According to who would these rights be recognized? The UDHR source in the discussion section states that all humans are entitled to human rights regardless of where they live. That is one point of view. Another point of view is that a human right "isn't present" in a given country (e.g. Universal Healthcare in the U.S.) because it isn't recognized or enforced by that country's government. Even if you get sources from one of these, whatever assertion said source makes ay be challenged by a source from the other view. The only solution I see is to provide sources, but, since the views are equally valid (if sources are retrieved for both of them, of course) they can only be used as sources providing proof that these opinions exist. And, if there is a debate, the debate will be mentioned, and any assertions made by any side will be backed up by reliable sources. -- 23:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We are a lot closer. Universal Human Rights are exactly as you say. They are Universal, there is no list, and everyone has a different and equally valid opinion about them. Everyone can make a list of what in their opinion these are, but no one can make a list of what these really are. There are no facts about Universal Human Rights.


 * The UDHR is not Universal. It is an enforceable right. It is a fact, the UDHR is an enforceable right.


 * Silly rabbit holds the opinion that universal health care is a right. Why? Because Silly rabbit believes that health care would be better if this system were implemented. I disagree, and believe that health care would cost more and would be worse. We both agree that there is an enforceable right to health care, but we disagree about universal health care. Neither of us is right about universal health care, it is a pov issue. It however is a fact that there is a right to health care. When facts exist and we skip them, this becomes a NPOV issue. Raggz (talk) 06:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Is this about Silly rabbit or the article, Raggz? (Just for the record, I never claimed that Universal health care was a human right.) What, in the article are you concerned about?  Is there a statement in the article that says that Universal health care is a human right?  Yes, universal health care is a POV issue.  The article attempts to address both POVs.  That is what NPOV tells us to do.  You can help to improve the article by finding some more balancing material, rather than just throwing your weight around on talk pages.  Silly rabbit (talk) 07:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Is it about you? No. Yes, I am responsible for helping you attain NPOV for your edits, but we first needed to communicate. You have primary responsibility for NPOV compliance, but none of us ever really manage this alone. Honestly, did you begin with the deep conviction that universal health care was better? Your text strongly implies this. I honestly do not know if it is - or not. I doubt that it is, but my pov is not important for the Article.


 * The key issue is if universal health care is even a human rights issue. I do not believe that it is. I believe that improving health care is a human rights issues and I can articulate many specific areas and sources where US health care services may deny this right. Presently there is no real linkage between universal health care and the right to health care. Most Americans view universal health care to be an inferior and more expensive system (or why wouldn't we pass it)? I believe that this entire section is a distraction, and that it is better to refer to universal health care and let them work on all this. I suggest that we either (1) do an excellent treatise on UHC and have very strong links to human rights - or drop this section. Raggz (talk) 07:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the primary onus is on me to address your NPOV challenge. So far you have not demonstrated in the least any legitimate challenge.  In all of these pages and pages of endless debate, you haven't cited a single source.  Part of the way NPOV challenges typically go, and this also ties in with WP:WEIGHT issues, is that competing sources are brought to the table and discussed.  I would be completely open to this.  But so far the discussion is entirely about high-flown "is it a right or isn't it" jibber-jabber.  And I have already repeatedly averred my lack of interest in engaging in this sort of argument.  As I have pointed out repeatedly: Health care is a right, and we both agree that it is.  There is a debate over whether Universal health care is/should be a right in the US.  This is a significant debate in a human rights context.  This establishes relevance for inclusion.  You are welcome to be of the opinion that the section doesn't belong here.  But that determination does not lie solely with you.


 * Finally, since the question clearly seems not to be one of whether and how to improve the section, but whether or not to delete it, may I suggest that we change the focus of this mediation and/or file an RfC asking "Should the section on Universal Health Care be deleted?" Silly rabbit (talk) 07:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that an RfC would be in order, if the issue is truly between deleting or not deleting the section. -- 20:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The New Text
I see you have been busy. All of the old text is gone. OK

Alicia Ely Yamin, a human rights attorney at the Harvard School of Public Health, has advocated universal health care for the pragmatic reason that the US government is failing to enforce and uphold nominally extant health care rights.[76]'' This is a statement of opinion and not of fact. If you state it as opinion, fine. This attorney is noteable?


 * The paper is in the American Journal of Public Health, a significant publication in the area of public health policy. Silly rabbit (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The source is reliable. The NPOV policy requires sorting reliable sources into a pile of facts and another of significant opinions. This source goes into the significant opinion pile. A Court decision would be a fact.


 * Raggz, first of all, you can sign your post by placing four "tildes" after it ~ . I would like to ask you to try to do this whenever you insert a new comment into the thread.  Second of all, nowhere in WP:ASF does it say that we need to segregate "facts" and "opinions" by having one section devoted to facts and the other to opinions, as you seem to be suggesting.  Instead, as long as the correct attribution is given, the opinion can be given, as long as it is clearly presented as an opinion and to whom the opinion belongs.  I.e., we can state an opinion as a fact by providing attribution. I honestly do not understand why you have such difficulty understanding such simple concepts, and you also seem repeatedly intent on a selective reading of Wikipedia policy in this case and many many many others.  By the way, court opinions are also only opinions: They are significant opinions, but still they are "only" opinions. Silly rabbit (talk) 06:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The most recent attempt to institute universal coverage was in 1994 when First Lady of the United States Hillary Rodham Clinton, an attorney and social activist experienced in the area, strongly supported by trade unions , tried to implement a universal-care plan without a single-payer system; however, Republicans in Congress, strongly supported by the insurance and pharmaceutical industries , defeated the measure, heavily airing a series of commercials featuring a fictitious couple, "Harry and Louise", who were shown wondering how the Clinton plan would affect their existing coverage. Several candidates (mostly Democratic) for the 2008 Presidential election are supporting various forms of universal coverage. Most Republicans believe health care costs should be left to the market with minimal government involvement . 2008 GOP Presidential contender Mitt Romney, as Governor of Massachusetts, helped institute a system requiring Massachusetts residents to buy private health insurance, with subsidies for those who cannot afford it.

There are a lot of NPOV issues that could be worked out.

Pharmaceuticals 1994 Dems-$3,473,446 (43%) GOP- $4,493,021 (56%) The 43/56 ratio is about what ALL industries gave to the two parties that year. Do you have a different source?

"heavily airing a series of commercials featuring a fictitious couple, "Harry and Louise", who were shown wondering how the Clinton plan would affect their existing coverage." Why that commercial? Why not use the actual arguments that defeated HillaryCare? Just explain why it lost (opinions), and source that? That would be NPOV.

Most Republicans believe health care costs should be left to the market with minimal government involvement. You don't really believe this? Do you have a fact for a source, or an opinion? Yes, there are people with that opinion.

Why not say: All of the Republican canidates oppose universal health care because they believe that it will soon be insolvent like the three major existing federally run health programs (Medicare, the VA, and medicaid). The also are concerned about decreasing the access Americans have to health care and decreasing the quality - at a higher overall cost.


 * That would be a beginning. The heart of the matter is that Americans want better health care. Government-run health care is believed (by some) to reduce the level of care and to increase the costs. But this is my pov. WP requires fair representation of the major views. You don't need to reflect my views. The key change would be to not present UHC only as better and less expensive health care (which is an opinion of many). It should also be presented as lower quality and more expensive (which is an opinion of many). If you manage this difficult challenge, I will support the text. The reason that I challenge your text is that it implies strongly that one side of the debate is correct. Neither you nor I really know which is correct. Raggz (talk) 06:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

As for the election, I would just say that universal health care is a major issue for the 2008 Presidential election. You could say most of that, but what does it add? Raggz (talk) 13:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

All of the text above is a debate about an issue that we already have a better article on. Is there ANYTHING about human rights and the United States? What did we learn that is important to the topic? Raggz (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I was considering removing the section on Hillary, Mitt, and friends. It simply doesn't fit.  Silly rabbit (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, there are many reliable sources that the reason the Democrats were thrown out of both houses of Congress for twelve years was the anger of the American People about HillaryCare. This subject has nothing to do with Human Rights, but it fits with the rest that also lacks connection to the topic. Raggz (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I find that very doubtful. Silly rabbit (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand that. It was widely reported, so should be included. If Americans wanted their health care reduced by a government controlled system, they would have supported it, and it would exist. Raggz (talk) 06:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Raggz's view
My views were not accurately stated above.
 * User:Raggz's views, from what I understand, are that Universal Healthcare is not a right in the U.S. because, even though human rights apply to all humans regardless of country from the point of view of the U.N., the government of the U.S. does not recognize it as a right and therefore it is an unenforced right in its borders. This is not even close. What human rights are recognized is a matter of fact. What rights may (or should) be recognized is a matter of opinion. If the US or the UN recognize a right, it is recognized. If there is an opinion that either should recognize a right, this is an opinion.

Of course human rights "apply to all humans regardless of country", but there is no reliable source for what these rights are, only reliable sources for which are recognized. If there was a reliable source for what "human rights apply to all humans regardless of country", then we could these. We just do not have that list. Raggz (talk) 13:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * All right, sorry if that wasn't even close. You have to understand that "from what I understand" is a general term, used in this case to replace "according to what I was able to surmise from several paragraphs, all of which I had to reread to understand". And your view still isn't clear, so go ahead and place it in the mediator's notes. -- 23:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The Universal Declaration of Human Rights outlines the universal human rights that all people, regardless of nationality, are entitled to. Subsequent treaties and UN pronouncements elaborate further on this. - These are the best sources we can use if we are being encyclopedic. Pexise (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is entirely correct.


 * The next question is about how is this treaty enforced? Only by the US Supreme Court. In Europe by the analagous European Court of Human Rights, in Cuba by the Cuban Legislature. The UN Security Council may (in theory) enforce human rights that the US Supreme Court or the European Court of Human Rights refuses to enforce. It never has done so, despite multiple resolutions supported almost unanimously by the General Assembly. Raggz (talk) 05:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Response to new proposal

 * I have a reliable source open. It says that we are both correct. Human Rights exist in a universal sense. Everyone agrees on this. Everyone has a different opinion of what these are (as we do here). Universal human rights exist but cannot be enforced until a society agrees to enforce certain rights.


 * As I once said, I favor inclusion of a universal rights section (I have the sources to write it). Silly rabbit is correct to say that there is a human right to universal health care, because it is a philosophical and Silly rabbit is entitled to an opinion. I am also entitled to my opinion, and we need not agree, we just have a difference of philosophy. A right to universal health care exists - and it does not.


 * The human rights that can be enforced can be written down. The universal human rights that cannot be enforced, cannot be written down.


 * Silly rabbit, do you have a list of all of our universal human rights from any reliable source? The UN UDHR does not mention gay marriage or universal health care, yet both might some day be recognized human rights. The UDHR is not a proper listing of Universal Human Rights. Should I decide, or should it be you? I propose that it be me, or that we agree that there is no such list - but only opinions about what is or is not.


 * NPOV requires a sorting of fact from opinion. (1) There are no facts about Universal Human Rights, so only opinion is relevant. (2)Enforceable human rights (like the UDHR) involve facts and opinions, so NPOV for this section needs to handle both fairly. Agreed? Raggz (talk) 06:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Raggz, I will not respond to any more straw men. And I certainly will not do so in the "Mediator notes" section. Silly rabbit (talk) 06:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I see no "straw men". The question is central. Raggz (talk) 06:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Raggz, first of all, let's see that source. Second, and this has already been stated, human rights don't exist as material things which can be measured or their existence proven as facts. The same way laws don't. But both human rights and laws can be enforced. And they only exist if they're enforced or recognized. There are no facts to say "this right exists, this one doesn't. There are facts as to whether rights are enforced, and those may be written down, but explaining where they're enforced and by what entity. If there is a debate as to whether a human right should be enforced or not in a determined place, the debate will be covered (as long as it is a large debate, of course. Any questions as to what I have just written? -- 20:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Raggz - if we are being mainstream and encyclopedic we should stick to the mainstream sources rather than getting 'philosophical' about what rights are. As I said earlier:
 * The Universal Declaration of Human Rights outlines the universal human rights that all people, regardless of nationality, are entitled to. Subsequent treaties and UN pronouncements elaborate further on this.
 * Health care is established as a human right in the UDHR and many subsequent treaties and pronouncements - it therefore should be included in the article. A discussion of universal health care is also a welcome addition as it is one of the proposed solutions by which this human right should be realised, though arguments against universal health care should also be included to maintain NPOV. Pexise (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The only reason that the people repeatedly reject universal health care is to preserve their right to health care. Why else would people keep a system they felt was bad if they had a better choice? The problem is that not everyone is poor enough for public care - or can easily afford $1,500 monthly for private insurance. By cutting medical care to the poor, a subsidy for those who are neither poor nor affluent could be afforded. This 20% wants universal health care. Most of the money spent by the affluent cannot be used, because it is their earned income and they can spend it on cars - or on health care. There isn't enough money to fund universal health care without major cuts in something else. All three major federal health programs will soon be insolvent, and their failure really will compromise the right to health care. They have priority for funds and should have this.


 * Universal health care will necessarily reduce the spending on health care for the poor (there is no other place to get this money.) Presently US per capita spending on the poor greatly exceeds what Canada or Europe spend on their citizens. So we can cut medical care for the poor and implement universal health care. Would cutting care for the poor in favor of those somewhat better off, advance human rights? We could tax the wealthy at 100% of income, and that would not produce even a fraction of the money needed for universal care.


 * Europe and Canada deny the right to health care by restricting access for the elderly and most seriously ill. That would work here too, but we are reluctant to deny people their rights. Human rights are important to Americans. There are major savings if those most ill are put onto waiting lists until they die, or are denied expensive treatments. If the US were willing to reduce human rights and deny those seriouslly ill access to health care, THEN universal health care could be afforded. In effect we would take rights from the elderly and the ill for the financial gain of working class people that are younger and healthier. Does that sound better?

Case closed?
I propose that because communication is greatly better, that we now close this case. Does anyone agree or disagree? Raggz (talk) 04:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As a latecomer, this may be superfluous, but I did want to suggest several pieces of legislation that, to varying extents, address some concepts of rights to health care in the United States. Some of these are traceable to universal declarations (e.g., Declaration of Helsinki), without enforcement mechanisms, but the legislative and judicial histories may be useful and reputable sources:
 * Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)
 * Patient Self-Determination Act (PSDA)
 * Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) (the title may seem unrelated, but HIPAA contains the principal US legislation regarding medical confidentiality, and, to a reasonable extent, patient autonomy)


 * If this belongs back in the main article, or even in a new one, my feelings will not be harmed. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I encourage you to edit this in if you want to. None of these pertain to universal health care, but to the right to health care? Thank you. Raggz (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I will be in Mexico and away from the Net until 2/17 Raggz (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)



''Raggz, I am no longer going to engage you on the talk page of Human rights and the United States. I have had it. I quit. Dealing with you is awful, and I refuse to continue to do so. You win. Defile the article however you want. Hell, delete the whole bloody thing, as was your original intention. Silly rabbit (talk) 04:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)''
 * That doesn't sound like "communication is greatly better", so closing it is out of the question. -- 18:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)