What does the Pronoun "it" refer to?

[yasuju]

What does the Pronoun "it" refer to? medical coverage, every right, obligation or whatever? And I also need explanation.

ex)
In the USA, about 45 million people, or 15 percent of the population, lack health insurance, and another 20 million don’t have adequate coverage. Should basic medical coverage be something that any person, by virtue of being human, deserves? If so, who should pay for it? With every right comes a corresponding obligation of someone or some institution to provide it. On one hand, it makes sense that having medical procedures and treatment is a private economic good with a cost to be borne by each consumer. On the other hand, some of the economic benefits accruing from good health have positive external effects beyond individuals. In many ways health is a public good, with the benefits of any individual’s good health extending to many other people in the workplace and community. Further, being in good health has value beyond any monetary figure we assign to it. Even if it could not be shown that improved health would have benefits for other people, the opportunity to live in good health should not be limited by economic status.

 

[5jj]

Should basic medical coverage be something that any person, by virtue of being human, deserves? If so, who should pay for it?
With every right comes a corresponding obligation of someone or some institution to provide it. [...]
Further, being in good health has value beyond any monetary figure we assign to it.

 

[SoothingDave]

With ​

every right​

comes a corresponding ​

obligation​

of someone or some institution to provide ​

it​

. ​

Which is utter nonsense. I have the right to free speech. Who is to provide me with a printing press?

I have the right to bear arms. Which institution has an obligation to give me a pistol?

I have the right to exercise my freedom of religion. Upon whom does this create an obligation?

I have the right to remain silent. This encumbers no other person or group.

 

[5jj]

It is not nonsense, in my opinion.QUOTE=SoothingDave;884869]I have the right to free speech.
Totalitarian regimes do not recognise that right. They recognise no obligation to allow it.
Free speech does not require a printing press.

I have the right to bear arms.
You, as an American, believe you have the right to bear arms. This implies that no institution has the right to prevent you; it doesn't mean any institution has to provide you with arms. It's a bit like the right to the pursuit of happiness.

I have the right to exercise my freedom of religion. Upon whom does this create an obligation?
Upon everybody - not to prevent you exercising that right.

I have the right to remain silent. This encumbers no other person or group.
If you have that right, it imposes an obligation on others not to penalise you for exercising it.[/QUOTE]

 

[SoothingDave]

You, as an American, believe you have the right to bear arms.​

​

This implies that no institution has the right to prevent you; it doesn't mean any institution has to provide you with arms. It's a bit like the right to the pursuit of happiness.​

Exactly. My right to medical care is exactly the same as my right to bear arms. I am free (for the moment) to purchase whatever medical care I desire, without creating an obligation for someone else to pay for it.

A decent society cares for those who can not care for themselves. But this is charity, not a right.

 

[5jj]

Exactly. My right to medical care is exactly the same as my right to bear arms. I am free (for the moment) to purchase whatever medical care I desire, without creating an obligation for someone else to pay for it.

If you have a right to medical care (free or otherwise), then there is a corresponding obligation on somebody to provide medical care.

The writer of that article is saying that if basic medical coverage should be provided free, then somebody, somehow, has to pay for it.

A decent society cares for those who can not care for themselves. But this is charity, not a right.
If a society agrees that it is a right, then it is a right.

5

 

[SoothingDave]

The writer of that article is saying that​

if basic medical coverage should be provided free, then somebody, somehow, has to pay for it.

I can't argue with that.

I do protest the notion that one can claim a "right" to the fruit of another's labor.

 

[5jj]

I do protest the notion that one can claim a "right" to the fruit of another's labor.

That's a different question. I was talking mainly about the way the writer of the article had used the words 'right' and 'obligation'.

Interesting though it might be, this forum is unfortunately not the place for a discussion of your protest. (Ayn's ideas are alive and kicking, I see ;-))

 

[SoothingDave]

That's a different question. I was talking mainly about the way the writer of the article had used the words 'right' and 'obligation'.

Interesting though it might be, this forum is unfortunately not the place for a discussion your protest. (Ayn's ideas are alive and kicking, I see ;-))

Agreed. Have a nice day.