> every other developed country expects from society as the most basic right

But they're wrong, at least by the American definition of a "right". We understand a "right" to be synonymous with a "liberty" or a "freedom"--things you're allowed to do, not things others must do for you. Unfortunately healthcare is something that someone else must do for you. Saying you have a right to it is saying you have a right to someone else's labor, or someone else's money to pay for it.

Of couse, even though healthcare isn't a right, maybe universal healthcare is worth implementing as a public service, like roads or a military. But maybe not--that debate is still unsettled in the United States. I suspect this is because we have at least one political party that actively resists framing it as "free healthcare". It is of course not free--it is taxpayer funded, and there are costs and tradeoffs associated with that that we have to honestly consider. If other Western countries have decided that universal healthcare is worthwhile for them, then so be it, but it does not follow that it is necessarily the correct course of action for the United States.

As an American, I consider a "right" to be something owed to you by other people. The "Bill of Rights" is "the Bill of things the government owes you". So, when I say "Healthcare is a right" I mean that "healthcare is something that the government owes to its people".

The debate is unsettled in the United States, correct. We have one party that actively believes that letting people who would otherwise not die is okay. In fact, some people in this party believe that letting people die who would otherwise not die is a moral good.

There are other unsettled debates in the United States. Climate change is an example. So is the evolution. A debate being "unsettled" doesn't tell you much about the debate, but in the context of every other country having settled on the issue, it may tell us that whoever professes to believe the opposite isn't acting in good faith.

Please do not use HN for partisan battle. It's always the same, and therefore off topic here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

My bad. The ideological battle helmet blinders fell right into place. [1]

[1]https://www.amazon.com/Armor-Venue-Bascinet-Medieval-Metalli...

> As an American, I consider a "right" to be something owed to you by other people.

You can consider it whatever you like. You can consider the moon to be made of cheese. You're wrong, unless you have some basis for this statement. If so, let's hear it.

> The "Bill of Rights" is "the Bill of things the government owes you".

That is absolutely incorrect. It's the "Bill of things the government can't do" or the "Bill of things the government cannot stop you from doing". Name one thing that the Bill of Rights says the government has to provide you, other than a fair trial with representation, which is an implementation detail of the idea that they can't unilaterally decide to incarcerate or otherwise punish you. Go ahead, I'll wait.

> We have one party that actively believes that letting people who would otherwise not die is okay. In fact, some people in this party believe that letting people die who would otherwise not die is a moral good.

> whoever professes to believe the opposite isn't acting in good faith.

And now I realize we can't actually have a productive conversation about this, because you presume that the only reason anyone could possibly disagree with you is because they're morally deficient. You're not interested in the other side of the debate.

You took this thread straight into flamewar. That's not what this site is for and we ban accounts that do it.

If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use this site as intended in the future, we'd appreciate it. That means steering away from ideological battle, not directly into it. It also means being civil in your comments.

Question: why is posting an inflammatory and fact-free statement like this:

> You wouldn't see these scenes in even the most deprived corners of Newcastle-upon-Tyne or the Rhondda Valley. The crowds the event attracts! This is what a developing country looks like.

...not "steering into ideological battle", but objecting to it is?

They were both steering into it, but it's a matter of degree. That comment was at least about something specific, and I wouldn't call it fact-free. It has a link to an interesting-sounding documentary, plus I assume the commenter knows something about Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

Your comments went straight down a generic ideological tangent. That's the worst, most tedious stuff. Also, yours were snarky, which makes flamewars much worse. Also, you eventually got personal. All of these are markers of much worse flamewar than what the GP did.

It's not the documentary I object to, it's the baseless assertion that things like that never happen in the UK (maybe they don't, but some evidence would be nice), and that a single incident in rural Tenessee (which I know something about, as I also do about developing countries, having been to several) is enough to judge the entire country.

I'm not sure what you're calling "generic ideology"--my comments about the definition of a "right"? Most of our founding documents are based on that understanding of rights. Agree with that definition or not, that's how the founders defined it and that definition still frames much our national debates. I don't see how that's an ideological statement.

Yeah, I admit I got snarky. That was because I tried to calmy explain my position, and the response I got for my troubles was that I must be acting in bad faith and/or be morally lacking simply for holding the views that I hold, regardless of my rational arguments for them. Frankly I don't understand HN's fixation with "snark" as if it's the only kind of rudeness that's capable of derailing a conversation.

I get tired of seeing so many threads turned into opportunities to demonstrate how backwards the United States supposedly is. Every forum has a political leaning, and HN's is fairly strongly left. That's fine, but it's irritating to see you mods claim to be objective but then suppress things like "snark" and "ideology" on only, or at least mostly, one side of the debate.

We don't claim to be objective. That would require arhat levels of self-knowledge. But we do try.

People with the opposite ideology to yours perceive HN as having the opposite bias. I was keeping a list of these for a while. Here's a sample:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16098840

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16407769

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16750306

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17248326

This phenomenon has been studied. It's called the Hostile Media Effect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_media_effect

https://hn.algolia.com/?query=%22hostile%20media%20effect%22....

> Fun fact

Who's being snarky now?

> I was keeping a list of these for a while.

Those are people complaining about other HN commenters. I'm talking about you specifically unevenly suppressing conservative posts. Just look at your comment history to see how many people complain about that, and how few complain in the other direction.

> We don't claim to be objective.

And yet you post that tiresome Hostile Media Effect link every time someone calls you out for it. Yes, we know it's a thing. No, that doesn't automatically mean that's what's going on here. No, it is not reasonable to think that everyone is wearing ideological blinders except you.

Ban me if you want. You're not moderating, you're taking sides.

It didn't occur to me that 'fun fact' would sound snarky. It really is a curious fact. But I'll edit that bit out above.

You didn't seem to notice that I posted moderation replies to two accounts in this thread: yours and one with the opposing view. Those were the two that obviously broke the guidelines. That's all we're really looking for when we do this; we're not much interested in the opinions.