Liberal Medical Schools

[CaNEM]

I'm changing the title of my post, since the conversation in this thread has absolutely nothing to do with my original question!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Polar girl]

The Jesuit schools are not necessarily conservative except on things like abortion. They're all about helping the underprivileged, and stuff like that that's more liberal.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Originally posted by Polar girl
The Jesuit schools are not necessarily conservative... They're all about helping the underprivileged, and stuff like that that's more liberal.

I disagree that "helping the underpriveleged" and "stuff like that" is liberal. Assisting people in need is humanitarian, which doesn't require a political affiliation or assignation.

Conservative and liberal views differ in philosophy, but do not necessarily indicate a tendency towards or greater propensity for compassion. Political corruption exists on both sides of the aisle IMHO, but I always flinch when people stereotype conservatives as baseless and uncaring. -dh

 

[banannie]

i don't think that helping the underpriveleged is necessarily a liberal thing. i do however think that liberals and conservatives want to help people for different reasons

liberal: i want to help you because it's not your fault your life sucks. society screwed you over, and access to decent health care is a right, not a privilege

conservative: i want to help you because God says I should . . . and to ease my conscience for voting for those tax cuts

as you can tell, i would also be interested in knowing which schools tend to be more liberal . . . I don't think I'd fit in very well with a more conservative student body . . .

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

Do liberals want to go to liberal schools? I thought you guys wanted DIVERSITY.

True liberals would want to go to the most conservative schools. Because their mere presence adds to the diversity on campus.

 

[Street Philosopher]

health care is a privilege, not a right. this society often confuses what is desired with what is to be rightfully demanded.

 

[Street Philosopher]

Originally posted by Ryo-Ohki
Do liberals want to go to liberal schools? I thought you guys wanted DIVERSITY.

True liberals would want to go to the most conservative schools. Because their mere presence adds to the diversity on campus.

True true true.

Maybe CaNeM is a die hard conservative though.

 

[lola]

i would consider myself quite liberal but am applying to a couple of jesuit schools. catholicism isn't a particularly conservative religion other than their views on birth control/abortion. in general, catholics tend to vote democrat, don't they?
i can't answer your questions about what schools are liberal, but i can say loma linda is not i'm sure you knew that though...

 

[SMW]

Originally posted by Street Philosopher
health care is a privilege, not a right. this society often confuses what is desired with what is to be rightfully demanded.

An incredible statement,coming from a physician-to-be. Shall we just let all the sick babies who didn't ask to be born die because their parents can't afford to pay for the privilege? And while we're at it, let's start charging people for the privileges of clean water, sewage treatment, and public schooling.

 

[lola]

Originally posted by Street Philosopher
health care is a privilege, not a right. this society often confuses what is desired with what is to be rightfully demanded.

sickening, isn't it?

 

[Street Philosopher]

Originally posted by SMW
An incredible statement,coming from a physician-to-be. Shall we just let all the sick babies who didn't ask to be born die because their parents can't afford to pay for the privilege? And while we're at it, let's start charging people for the privileges of clean water, sewage treatment, and public schooling.

come on now, it's not nice to twist words.

i've mentioned that healthcare is desireable. most of us are humanitarians and we care a great deal about how we treat others. but to say healthcare is a right, without providing any reason for thinking that way, makes me suspect that it is another case of confusing what we want with what is rightfully ours.

saying that healthcare is a right is a nice mantra that makes us feel better, but i personally think that's all it is.

clean water, sewage treatment, and public schooling are not rights either. first of all, we pay taxes. second, in LA (don't know about anywhere else) we specifically pay water and sewage bills.

It has been fashionable for some time now and in many aspects of American public life for people to demand what they want or need as a matter of rights.

-- Leon R. Kass, Head of the President's Council on Bioethics

 

[lola]

Originally posted by Street Philosopher


saying that healthcare is a right is a nice mantra that makes us feel better, but i personally think that's all it is.

clean water, sewage treatment, and public schooling are not rights either.

i beg to differ. in a country so wealthy, they should be rights. we spend so much money on the military, the space program, etc... if we can't keep our population healthy and educated and our streets sanitary, we should not be spending that money.

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

Never introduce concepts of reality when talking to liberals. Just nod your head in agreement.


Yeah, health care is a right. Seriously, it is. I'm a good person!

 

[Street Philosopher]

Originally posted by lola
i beg to differ. in a country so wealthy, they should be rights. we spend so much money on the military, the space program, etc... if we can't keep our population healthy and educated and our streets sanitary, we should not be spending that money.

someone will probably note some fallacy about appealing to authority, but it captures the counterargument's point so nicely:

"...Grounded neither in nature nor in reason, it demonstrates the nihilistic implication of a new doctrine of rights, rooted in the self-creating will."

Leon R. Kass

AMEN.

 

[SMW]

I am really surprised at you SP. Yes, we pay taxes for clean water, sewage treatment and education. Maybe you'd like to take those things away from people who are too poor to pay taxes? We are all paying for everyone's health care anyway, by the increased insurance rates due to all the uninsured having to use emergency rooms, etc. so we might as well skip paying all those middlemen, and go straight to a single-payer system. Here is an excellent article you might want to read to get educated on the matter:
The Forgotten Domestic Crisis, by Marcia Angell, former editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine and a senior lecturer at Harvard Medical School.

 

[Street Philosopher]

Originally posted by lola
sickening, isn't it?

i don't see what is so sickening about a philosophical position on the matter of rights. i never said poor babies should go untreated or we should sail poor grandma down the river. i said healthcare is not a right.

excuse me for being able to separate reasons from emotions.

 

[saiyagirl]

sp,

you also haven't given one reason defending your beliefs. i'd like to hear them.

 

[SMW]

Originally posted by SMW
I am really surprised at you SP. Yes, we pay taxes for clean water, sewage treatment and education. Maybe you'd like to take those things away from people who are too poor to pay taxes? We are all paying for everyone's health care anyway, by the increased insurance rates due to all the uninsured having to use emergency rooms, etc. so we might as well skip paying all those middlemen, and go straight to a single-payer system. Here is an excellent article you might want to read to get educated on the matter:
The Forgotten Domestic Crisis, by Marcia Angell, former editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine and a senior lecturer at Harvard Medical School.

What's interesting about her article is that her rationale is mainly economic. Which is good news for all us liberals -- we can afford to do this!!

 

[Street Philosopher]

Originally posted by SMW
I am really surprised at you SP. Yes, we pay taxes for clean water, sewage treatment and education. Maybe you'd like to take those things away from people who are too poor to pay taxes? We are all paying for everyone's health care anyway, by the increased insurance rates due to all the uninsured having to use emergency rooms, etc. so we might as well skip paying all those middlemen, and go straight to a single-payer system. Here is an excellent article you might want to read to get educated on the matter:
The Forgotten Domestic Crisis, by Marcia Angell, former editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine and a seneior lecturer at Harvard Medical School.

You are still confusing what I would like in society with what I believe we should demand of from society. I want healthcare for everyone. I want high living conditions in the form of clean water, sewage treatment, and education. Because I want these things, because I care for other people, I am satisfied, no, I encourage the distribution of resources to meet these needs. But I do not believe any of these things are rights.


I do think that article is very interesting. I'm all for healthcare reform and doing what helps raise the bar in terms of healthcare and standard of living.

 

[UCLA2000]

UPenn is very liberal in many ways. The administration is also very supportive of its students.

 

[Street Philosopher]

Originally posted by saiyagirl
sp,

you also haven't given one reason defending your beliefs. i'd like to hear them.

i don't think a "right to healthcare" meets any of the criteria I consider necessary for a true "right."

1. rights protect liberties.
2. natural rights are rights you have as a human being (e.g. right to be treated as ends, not means, a right not to be murdered)

these are summarized as "negative" rights, that is, rights that are established to protect the individual against the tyranny of others.

i fail to see how healthcare fits in with these criteria.

What does it mean to have a right? It means that people have a justified claim on others to perform or not perform certain actions. It demands other to either act or refrain. It demands that others hand over what is rightfully theirs. Given this view, I can see no justification for the claim that healthcare is a right.

 

[SMW]

So you think the poor shouldn't have clean water, sewage treatment, good roads, schools, etc? They are not paying for them, so to be consistent you'd should be in favor of taking those things away from them. I think you're a little confused. I know I am confused by your argument!

 

[Street Philosopher]

Originally posted by SMW
So you think the poor shouldn't have clean water, sewage treatment, good roads, schools, etc? They are not paying for them, so to be consistent you'd should be in favor of taking those things away from them. I think you're a little confused. I know I am confused by your argument!

You are still confusing what I would like in society with what I believe we should demand of from society. I want healthcare for everyone. I want high living conditions in the form of clean water, sewage treatment, and education. Because I want these things, because I care for other people, I am satisfied, no, I encourage the distribution of resources to meet these needs. But I do not believe any of these things are rights.

 

[Cerberus]

Originally posted by Street Philosopher
You are still confusing what I would like in society with what I believe we should demand of from society. I want healthcare for everyone. I want high living conditions in the form of clean water, sewage treatment, and education. Because I want these things, because I care for other people, I am satisfied, no, I encourage the distribution of resources to meet these needs. But I do not believe any of these things are rights.

Back Peddler

 

[SMW]

Originally posted by Street Philosopher
I want high living conditions in the form of clean water, sewage treatment, and education. Because I want these things, because I care for other people, I am satisfied, no, I encourage the distribution of resources to meet these needs. But I do not believe any of these things are rights.

So why don't you want and encourage the distribution of resources to meet the needs of everyone for medical care? I don't think you're thinking very clearly. Did you read that article? You still haven't said whether you favor making the poor do without clean water, sewage treatment and education as you are in favor of making them do without health care.

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

You can't backpedal when you're repeating your original statement. You guys are just twisting his words to fit your own perception of what you think he's saying.

 

[saiyagirl]

okay, sp.

so what i get from your argument is you believe healthcare is not a right. And you claim that clean water, waste disposal, and education are also not rights, based on the fact that we pay taxes for them.

you also say you would support (no, encourage!) the distribution of resources to meet the needs healthcare. so even though you say healthcare is not a right, it seems you would support some sort of government financed healthcare system. (considering that education, clean water, and waste disposals are government-financed, highly regulated industries).

i can understand why you believe healthcare is not a right based on your argument (though i think your argument is flawed...how does a right "demand others hand over what is rightfully theirs?" show me an example of this. Doesn't the current market system infringe upon the rights of people to be treated as an end in themselves, not as means, when they are denied coverage if they cannot pay? They're being treated as a means for corporate profit. And I'm confused about your "rights protect liberties" criterion. What is the difference, according to you, between a right and a liberty?)

what would you say about healthcare as a public good?

 

[Street Philosopher]

Originally posted by saiyagirl
okay, sp.

so what i get from your argument is you believe healthcare is not a right. And you claim that clean water, waste disposal, and education are also not rights, based on the fact that we pay taxes for them.

you also say you would support the distribution of resources to finance healthcare. so even though you say healthcare is not a right, it seems you would support some sort of government financed healthcare system. (considering that education, clean water, and waste disposals are government-financed, highly regulated industries).

i can understand why you believe healthcare is not a right based on your argument (though i think your argument is flawed...how does a right "demand others hand over what is rightfully theirs?" show me an example of this. Doesn't the current market system infringe upon the rights of people to be treated as an end in themselves, not as means, when they are denied coverage if they cannot pay? They're being treated as a means for corporate profit. )

what would you say about healthcare as a public good?

example of demanding what is rightfully mine is pretty simple. i have the right to free speech. if you try to censor what i say, i have the right to demand my free speech back. or simply, if someone takes my kidney when I'm sleeping, i have the right to demand that back.

the current system does infringe upon the rights of people to be treated as ends and not means. this society is blatantly utilitarian, and only "backpeddles" when it is convenient to protect some privileges and rights. your example of being denied healthcare as being treated as means is, in my opinion, misguided. since there is no right to healthcare in the first place, denying the right to healthcare is not infringing on any rights. this of course changes once you have a contract, viz insurance.

 

[saiyagirl]

i included another question in my post. i was editing as you were replying i guess.

 

[finney]

Originally posted by saiyagirl
okay, sp.

how does a right "demand others hand over what is rightfully theirs?" show me an example of this. Doesn't the current market system infringe upon the rights of people to be treated as an end in themselves, not as means, when they are denied coverage if they cannot pay? They're being treated as a means for corporate profit.)

what would you say about healthcare as a public good?

a physician in a world where every person has the "right" of health care would become a slave to society's medical needs.

by the way does this "right" to health care end at the US border?

 

[SMW]

What about the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? Seems like healthcare kind of fits in there. But I don't think they'd make it under your thinking (sic). Excuse me for saying so, SP, but your thinking is really very muddled. Plus you never answer a question that anyone asks you.

 

[Street Philosopher]

Sure I think healthcare is a public good, if you mean to use "public good" as "something that is beneficial for the public" or "something beneficial that the public should strive for".

But I would not consider healthcare as public good if you use the term to mean "things that the public MUST provide"

no need to confuse the issue with semantics.

 

[finney]

how in the world does health care fit in there? do you think you have a right to a free vacation because you want to pursue happiness?

you have the right to pursue things independent of the world serving your needs. your right to life means that others may not take your life (murder) or enslave you.........

it does not mean that you have a right to all healthcare

 

[Street Philosopher]

Originally posted by SMW
What about the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? Seems like healthcare kind of fits in there. But I don't think they'd make it under your thinking (sic). Excuse me for saying so, SP, but your thinking is really very muddled. Plus you never answer a question that anyone asks you.

At this point I must admit I'm completely baffled by your responses. I've taken pains to answer every question or challenge asked of me, yet I get this reply? I made my point crystal clear yet you still think I want to let babies starve and sail grandma down the river.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ALL exhibit negative rights, namely in the right NOT to be murdered, to have liberties taken away, and the liberty to choose what is best for one's own life. Perhaps if you take "right to healthcare" to mean that one has a right to treat themselves without others preventing them to do so, you might have a point. However, if you interpret the right to healthcare as "i have the right to be treated by someone else" (which is without a doubt what you have in mind), then I say there is no such right.

 

[saiyagirl]

Originally posted by Street Philosopher
example of demanding what is rightfully mine is pretty simple. i have the right to free speech. if you try to censor what i say, i have the right to demand my free speech back. or simply, if someone takes my kidney when I'm sleeping, i have the right to demand that back.

ok i can understad your reasoning, though i still think heathcare can fit. everyone is not a doctor in this world and are therefore dependent on others to regain their health when they fall sick. if we were to deny people access to healthcare for whatever reason--aren't we taking away their natural right to live? Since, without treatment, they may very well lose their lives as they have NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE since they are incapable of treating themselves (this is the important part). And how am i claiming that there even is a natural right to live? Since you claim that the right not to be murdered is a natural right, i say the right to live follows logically as a natural right.

you might argue that someone can cause their own healthcare problems and should therefore not be treating (since they are violating their own right toilve). i still think that denying proper healthcare to even these people would be wrong--because they might have come to a point where even though they put themselves at risk, they may not be able to come OUT of risk without professional help. and since doctors are the professionals who provide healthcare....you got it, right.

Originally posted by Street Philosopher
the current system does infringe upon the rights of people to be treated as ends and not means. this society is blatantly utilitarian, and only "backpeddles" when it is convenient to protect some privileges and rights. your example of being denied healthcare as being treated as means is, in my opinion, misguided. since there is no right to healthcare in the first place, denying the right to healthcare is not infringing on any rights. this of course changes once you have a contract, viz insurance. [/B]

how is our society utiltairian? i thought utilitarianism was taking actions that would promote the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. that's not what our healthcare system is doing now.

 

[saiyagirl]

Originally posted by finney
a physician in a world where every person has the "right" of health care would become a slave to society's medical needs.

by the way does this "right" to health care end at the US border?

apparantly it does. the US is the only industrialized nation that does not have some sort of national health care system.

 

[Street Philosopher]

Originally posted by saiyagirl
if we were to deny people access to healthcare for whatever reason--aren't we taking away their natural right to live?

And how am i claiming that there even is a natural right to live? Since you claim that the right not to be murdered is a natural right, i say the right to live follows logically as a natural right.

how is our society utiltairian? i thought utilitarianism was taking actions that would promote the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. that's not what our healthcare system is doing now.

I've taken away nothing. Your wording is HIGHLY misleading. People get sick for a variety of reasons, but unless I somehow made that person sick, I've done nothing to TAKE AWAY their right to live.

Counterexample: suppose I have a right to life. I also want to be a gangster and shoot up a whole lot of rival gang members. Since I have a right to life, under your reasoning, I have a right to as many bodyguards as needed to keep me alive.

The second paragraph I quote simply says there is a right to live, and that this is interpreted to mean there is a right not to be murdered. Both of which I've said previously.

Lastly, just because the most utility isn't achieved, it doesn't mean that policies aren't made with the aim of achieving the most utility.

 

[cabruen]

I may be one of the most liberal person on this board, and I am treasurer of the SMW fanclub, but I must come to SP's defense.

A person's right can not be morally justified if it makes a demand on another person to perform an action.

I will propose a scenario for us to focus the discussion.

A 24 year old female, pregnant 8 months, desires to get a ultrasound to check on the health of her baby. She has no financial resources (no isurance, no cash, no credit card, nothing). Does she have a right to this test?

My answer: I think it is in society's best interest to provide it, I am willing to contribute money to help provide it, and if I ever become a physician I would be willing to provide it. However, she does not have a right to the test. She does not have the right to compel the administrative assistant to check her in at the office, the technician to perform the test, the doctor to interpret the results, the instrument maker to manufactur the ultrasound, the builder owner to provide office space, etc. Does she have the right to demand the test at 3:24am if so wants? Of course not. You can not have any right the demands an action of another free individual.

It comes down to my basis of judgement: you are free and have the right to do anything you want as a free individual, until it makes demands on another person.

So in the end, I am a strong component of universal health care coverage, in the model of medicare and medicaid. But just as those programs provide healthcare to those who can not pay for them, they are not rights, they are generous gifts from society. Both because of society's good will towards fellow humans, and also for some self interest financial reaons.

 

[Street Philosopher]

I'm also a member of the SMW fanclub. Just because I disagree, it doesn't mean I dislike you. That goes for everyone in this thread. Anyone is encouraged to challenge my views, and I've been known to change them in the face of new arguments and insights. I only get emotionally involved you resort to ad homoniem attacks, which has thankfully not come up in this discussion.

 

[Random Access]

Originally posted by SMW
An incredible statement,coming from a physician-to-be. Shall we just let all the sick babies who didn't ask to be born die because their parents can't afford to pay for the privilege? And while we're at it, let's start charging people for the privileges of clean water, sewage treatment, and public schooling.

Ummm...SMW...we do charge people for clean water and for how much they contribute to sewers. At least, that's what my water bill says.

 

[whozshoe]

I totally and utterly agree that we SHOULD have universal access to health care, but I don't believe universal access is a right. Below I will explain why I believe this.
Billions of kids are starving around the globe, and they all desperately need basic medical care (eg. hydration/nutrition through an IV). If health care is indeed a universal right, then by thinking of our WANTS (NOT RIGHTS; clean water, regular garbage service, chlorination of sewage certainly are NOT rights, they are public goods in which we have made a conscious decision to invest) above their RIGHTS and not sharing our resources with them, we are impinging and violating these billion of individuals' rights to health care. That is, we are committing moral crimes against each and every one of them because their rights have been violated at the expense of our wants.
1) IF YOU SAY "YES," we are IN FACT IMMORAL for not providing them healthcare by giving them our resources, then I cannot convince you that health care is not a right. But you will be accepting the "fact" that you and everyone on this discussion board, are immoral for not diverting all available resources from say, NIH funding (whose purpose is not ensuring the "right" to health care but instead, is advancing technologies and drugs that MAY lead to minimal increases in survival rates of heart attacks, cancer, etc) to helping these billions of children, for whom basic surival needs are at stake. End Discussion. See next thread. =)
2) BUT IF YOU SAY NO, I'm not committing moral crimes against these billions of kids (because I'm not responsible for them, because I have limited resources) then you don't really believe that they have a RIGHT to health care. You simply believe that they should have healthcare but it's beyond my resources. But in admitting this, then you are also admitting that health care is NOT A RIGHT, because **RIGHTS CANNOT BE CONTINGENT UPON EXTERNAL FACTORS** like how much money/resources we have to spare. Rights - in the strictest sense- are independent of situational circumstance. My right to reproduce, for example, is certainly not contingent upon my being able to care for my kids. Otherwise, we'd be sterilizing women abusing drugs or on welfare.

Within the U.S., clearly universal health care is not beyond the resources of the state considering all the money we spend on lower priorities, such as building monuments, building excess bombs, etc. As such, I believe that we SHOULD divert funding from these lower priority aims to help provide healthcare to our citizens.

 

[Random Access]

Originally posted by UCLA2000
UPenn is very liberal in many ways. The administration is also very supportive of its students.

Haha...to the point that they cave in to all demands. For example, the Penn administration caved after 2 hours of a sit-in. Compare this to Yale which is also a very very liberal campus (William F. Buckley was right!). President Levin basically laid the smackdown and said "screw you!" to Students Against Sweatshops back in 2000 when they camped out. Eventually, SAS gave up, claiming they could no longer camp out on Beinecke because they needed to study for finals. Wusses!

 

[banannie]

i think the major source of this argument was a misstatement on my part. what I should have written is "health care SHOULD BE a right, not a privelege" is does not equal ought. as it currently stands, healthcare is not a right in our country. however, it should be, and can easily be made so by legislation. after all, doesn't every individual have a right to a public defender? i would argue that under the same logic, every individual should have a right to decent health care when they are sick.

and i apologize if i offended anyone by saying that i didn't want to be among a student body that was mostly conservative. i was kiddin' i love conservatives! they keep life interesting! what would I do without Ann Coulterisms to laugh at????

 

[Random Access]

Originally posted by banannie
after all, doesn't every individual have a right to a public defender? i would argue that under the same logic, every individual should have a right to decent health care when they are sick.

Hmmm...I don't understand the "logic" behind this. I mean, people have a right not to have cruel and unusual punishment. And they have a right to a fair and speedy trial (fair requiring that they have someone who knows the law to counsel them). But how is that related to health care in any way, shape, or form? Or any of the other rights? No one has the right to have someone available to treat them. And one would still have to buy medications (there's no right to medication--just ask the patent office!). I don't understand what you're trying to say at all.

Health care is not a right. But it'd be nice to have it available to all.

 

[saiyagirl]

i think sp and cabruen have made good points...especially with these last few posts, i do see how healthcare can not be considered a right, yet still be a public good financed by the people (like education and national defense). BUT - i still question this because healthcare is critical to keeping people ALIVE and preventing health problems.

i guess i wonder (and i'm generalizing this) whether it is possible to violate someone else's rights by FAILING to act in a way that would help them if they were vulnerable and if you were in a position to help them.

whozshoe--i still think failing to act in the above situation could be considered immoral.

 

[Random Access]

Originally posted by saiyagirl
i guess i wonder (and i'm generalizing this) whether it is possible to violate someone else's rights by FAILING to act in a way that would help them if they were vulnerable and if you were in a position to help them.

So you're saying that doctors must treat everyone no matter what???? Because they are in a position to help people, regardless of whether those people can afford it? I don't see how this obligation should be the burden of doctors.

I don't see how that would be violating someone's rights. The right to life isn't the right to be kept alive, more the right not to be killed.

 

[saiyagirl]

Originally posted by Random Access
So you're saying that doctors must treat everyone no matter what???? Because they are in a position to help people, regardless of whether those people can afford it? I don't see how this obligation should be the burden of doctors.

I don't see how that would be violating someone's rights. The right to life isn't the right to be kept alive.

yeah, i do agree the burden should not fall to doctors...i'd rather see it fall to a national healthcare system. i just don't want to turn patients away when i become an MD. it would seriously break my heart. at the same time i can't bring the ENTIRE burden on my shoulders because i would crack.

anyway i'm just WONDERING whether such a scenario might be true.

okay i really have to get to work now. sdn is so bad for my academic health

 

[Nefertari]

Gosh, this is starting to sound like a Supreme Court debate.
Seems like the argument is more over semantics and definitions. But I'm glad to see that most of us here are in favor of improving access to healthcare.

 

[pwrpfgrl]

While I don't really want to get involved in this discussion, I think it should be pointed out that basic healthcare is a right according to the UN declaration of human rights:


"Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family including ... medical care ..."

whether or not you want to argue that its an inherent or natural right is a different issue.

back to the op's question, I really have no idea which schools are more liberal - I'd guess it would depend a lot on the faculty and student body (ok, duh). ummm, anyone have any ideas??

 

[Street Philosopher]

well that just makes this argument moot doesn't it? all this time we were arguing natural rights and we didn't even know about this UN thingy. since this makes the right to healthcare sort of a contract, and contracts ARE binding if we agree to them. unless there is any civil disobidience against the right to healthcare going on, we've effectively agreed to the contract. wow this brings up jurisprudence issues.

now it seems to be more of a matter of fact than a matter of principle.

why didn't you post this several hours ago?