Quote from: Reikoku on July 08, 2011, 03:41:10 PM

1. You accept a right to private property.
2. You accept a right to healthcare.

Assuming that I'm correct so far, let's look at what happens when Person A is sick and can't afford healthcare. If you accept that Person B has to provide for Person A via welfare, then you add a third rule:

3. A person with a deficit's rights can overrule the rights of a person with surplus.

If you accept this so far, then it's up to you to explain a rights-based argument why it is right to make this overrule apply to property rights, but not to the right to health.

Health and wealth are very different assets. If we could pump abstract thing called 'health' from people and lump it back to sickly then we seriously would need to consider the ethics of forced redistribution of health (I'm not behind it though as we would be fixing bad luck and peoples own choices). As completely theoretical construct I would not touch on that. In practice (kidney transfer for example) egalitarianism is not met in compromising someones health for 'utilitarian good'. Thus we don't need to consider overriding someones health if we believe in right to equal and just treatment. Wealth can be redistributed equally among each income-class so it can be done 'equally'.

As to completely different question than the original post, I'll sketch few reasons why I think transfer of wealth for health-care is okay:

If transfer of wealth is acceptable in first place (as I believe it is as there are structural unfairness that need to be fixed), then it is reasonable to direct part of it to health-care as that is expense for people same way as everything else. This is my main reason
Health is capital. The whole economy functions better when people are healthy. In long run this will benefit also those paying the bill. Only way to do this rational 'investment' is by forcing the collective behind it as all will want to reap the benefits but nobody foot the bill. Individualism is bad excuse for not doing reasonable things.
I think we are both individuals and part of the community (or larger entities, in the end whole biosphere). Entities we live in are the precondition for our well-being so we are morally indebted to keep them well-being too. Some people just seem oblivious to this.
If we consider that people have equal right to lead good life regardless of their socio-economic status, then not being able to afford health-care is in effect contradicting this.
(We are not touching your tangible property. Only your bank account. There is subtle but significant difference when considering property rights.)

You could sum up my stance as that in essence we are not overriding your property rights but more like charging a moral debt. That is, in effect your property rights were not violated.