EVERYONE has the right to food and healthcare,
No, you have the right to not have the government deny you access to either, but you have no right to demand that the government should provide them.
And what amount exactly? Do you get a cheap burger or a steak? Unlimited surgeries? As many drugs as your body can handle? Why not a steak if it's a right ... and how many steaks a week can you demand is your right to have? Who decides who gets what? Is it based on body-weight? So fat people have the right to more than thin people? Or everyone has the same (oh, but now fat people are hungry and the thin people are too content).
See the problem? If you make something a right when it really can't be, you surely have to put a limit on it. But what limit? Whatever the limit becomes, it's denying something to someone. That's a hint that it doesn't work. The only right you can really have is a negative - to not have something done to you.
Simon. Just because one person lacks the money to pay for said commodities does not give the entire world the right to deny them.
You seem to lack the ability to read and understand what I am saying which causes you to leap to an emotional response without considering the reality or practicality of what you are claiming. I already explained some of the paradoxes if you make something a right that shouldn't be one.
The government should create an environment where people are free to chose to become doctors, surgeons, farmers and so on with the incentives for some to follow that path but if they decide to dictate that people provide those services then that is denying those people their freedom.
Part of what makes a civilized country great and appealing is that they create and sustain this environment. People have the access to the things they need without it being 'a right' because market forces drive people to fields that reward them.
Contrast this to countries such as Venezuela - does having the 'right' to food mean you can actually get it? No - because the government messed up and interfered with the freedom of people to decide what to do with their time and skills. They destroyed the market and now they can't provide those things. Should they now force people to farm at gunpoint?
HAVE A GODDAMNED HEART AND WORK OUT A DEAL WITH THEM.
It's more heartless to push people towards the misery of a failed socialist state. It's more heartless to tell people they have the right to something that they fundamentally cannot have the right to and isn't in the governments power to guarantee to deliver.
I can't believe I have to explain to you why you should care about other people!
Again, it's more caring to support and promote a system that works. You don't need enshrined rights in such a system - they are not worth the paper they are written on anyway.
All the UN proclamations do jack shit for people's daily lives. What has lifted millions out of poverty is capitalism and an environment that allows people to do good and benefit from their labour and that in turn benefits others.
Are you going to literally refuse to help a sick or starving child just because he/she can't pay you? Even if doing so ensures that child's death?
That's an extreme example but still it doesn't rely on government intervention, it's often charity that fills that gap. But should some people be allowed to refuse to work? What food and how much can they demand is their right if they do?
If you ever end up in such a situation, with no money to pay for food or healthcare, you had BETTER refuse any handouts you're offered if you don't want to be labeled the biggest hypocrite in the universe.
I have worked all my life, paid taxes all my life, paid for everything all my life including food and healthcare and pay to save to support myself in future. I believe in having safety-nets for periods of people's life when they may have hit an unexpected hardship but that doesn't remove the responsibility for people not to be lazy and or feckless and expect other people to pick up the pieces for the choices they have made.
My mother DIED because her insurance didn't cover certain life-saving procedures, so monsters like you suggesting she had no right to healthcare because she had no money make me sick!
How did she die and why? Why didn't she have better health insurance? Why wasn't she healthier? Why didn't she have any money to get better health insurance?
Most things in life can be traced back to choices people make - some chose wisely and some don't. It's not the fault of other people for the choices we make ourselves and the consequences of those choices.
Some people chose to buy insurance and to save money for their future and to look after themselves. Some chose to spend their money on short-term tat and vacations, live unhealthy lifestyles and take risks. Should those who think ahead also pay for those who don't or who refuse to? Why?
If food and healthcare are a right, then they are a right for all. If the government will provide it because it's a right, then why would anyone save for it or put money aside for it? Why wouldn't someone with money demand that the state fund their medical bills - isn't it their right after all? Why should they pay if others won't? It doesn't take much for misplaced ideology to crash a system by removing the incentives for people to do well and work hard, especially if it's for the basics of existence. The healthcare you enjoy is there in no small part because richer, healthier, hard-working people pay into a system, not because the poor are being disadvantaged.
It doesn't alter the fact that the role of government should be to not remove or interfere with your right to make choices. Once it starts on making and dictating choices for you it will inevitably be a less beneficial system because on the whole, governments make lousy guardians and it always ends in ruin every time it's been tried.