Is healthcare a right? why or why not?

[CorpMediaSux]

Healthcare is a very difficult issue because it takes a debate that occurs in a lot of arenas and transports it into matters of life/death. Here's my issue and its the issue I often have with conservatives who say that they don't believe in free handouts for the working poor be it for college scholarships, housing subsidies, food stamps or cancer treatment. The government gives BILLIONS in subsidies to huge corporations, that employ the working poor. Why aren't those subsidies ear marked in such a way that forces them to provide healthcare. If you want tax payer subsidies for your business you should be forced to provide your employees with decent health coverate comensurate with their income. Why is THAT not acceptable?

It seems like the conservatives want to have it both ways. They want corporatiosn to get billions in taxpayer money, but they don't want corporations to have any responsibility for providing healthcare or other quality of life guarantees to their employees.

 

[Bern80]

Healthcare is a very difficult issue because it takes a debate that occurs in a lot of arenas and transports it into matters of life/death. Here's my issue and its the issue I often have with conservatives who say that they don't believe in free handouts for the working poor be it for college scholarships, housing subsidies, food stamps or cancer treatment. The government gives BILLIONS in subsidies to huge corporations, that employ the working poor. Why aren't those subsidies ear marked in such a way that forces them to provide healthcare. If you want tax payer subsidies for your business you should be forced to provide your employees with decent health coverate comensurate with their income. Why is THAT not acceptable?

It seems like the conservatives want to have it both ways. They want corporatiosn to get billions in taxpayer money, but they don't want corporations to have any responsibility for providing healthcare or other quality of life guarantees to their employees.

It's hard to have a debate when your paragraph is rife with inaccurate assumptions unless your just translating to your convenience.

Conservatives say they don't want free handouts to the poor? This is not accurate in the least. Where did you see a true conservative say that? Here's a free warning. Generalizing gets you in trouble on this board fast. Conservatives are not oppossed to helping people that need help. As I have said repeatedly before, we are oppossed to helping people that are fully capable of helping themselves.

On the subject of subsidies they are given for any number of reasons. The main ones being either to level a playing field in areas such as farm subsidies and or to encourage certain types of beneficial behavior. Your next faulty assumption is that comapnies are not already using these subsidies to help alleviate their healthcare costs. Do you have any evidence at all that this is the case?

Perhaps you have fewer 'issues' with conservatives than you think because the 'issues' you have seem to be innaccurate assumptions with little supporting evidence.

What is true is that no we don't want companies to have to pay people's healthcare. Why? because for the upteenth time, IT ISN'T THEIR RESPONSIBILITY. I'll ask you the same question. Why should the responsibilty for maintaining your health fall to an employer, the government or any other entity rather than you?

 

[Diuretic]

But you are wedded to socialism? Or do you have a different answer? The richest nation on earth is NOT obligated to provide healthcare to ALL no more than it is obligated to provide food and clothing and housing to ALL. That is a morally wrong approach and against the principles of our Constitution.

Why is it "morally wrong"? And where is it unconstitutional?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The reality is that large employers can better afford health care for their employees because of their work force SIZE. Insurance is cheaper for large groups , not so cheap for small groups and nearly impossible for single families.

A change needs to occur where single families can get into some kind of group so that costs go down.

 

[DeadCanDance]

But you are wedded to socialism? Or do you have a different answer? The richest nation on earth is NOT obligated to provide healthcare to ALL no more than it is obligated to provide food and clothing and housing to ALL. That is a morally wrong approach and against the principles of our Constitution.

I truly do hope you encourage republican candidates to repeat your message, over and over and over, to american voters.

 

[Bern80]

I truly do hope you encourage republican candidates to repeat your message, over and over and over, to american voters.

I'm sure you do. It would probably even have the desired effect. Let's be honest. Who want's to work for anything? You're right. The message of the rich, government, etc, not being obligated to provided for everything you need and that people need to do take responsibility for themselves isn't going to go over big with the American people. That does not mean however that they would be right to think that.

Be honest. The reason you want that is that you understand human nature and that the vast majority of poeple are basically lazy (myself included) in that few of us put forth 110% effort to be as productive and successfull as we can be. You understand that given that mindset, even if it is indeed what is best for society, such a message would be foolish. It's why dems have the advantage they have no compunction about trying to cater to every need anyone could possibly have. Cause let's face it the alternative is hard, and as a country we don't like 'hard'. We are an instant gratification society. We want cheap, easy, and fast. If your honest with yourself for even a second I think you can admit that society that has had all adverse obstacles removed from it is not going to be a very successful one.

It is amazing how a quote from one the greatest democrats (and possibly Presidents) has been lost on many of today. To reword slightly, people need to quit asking "what have you done for me lately?" and start asking What can I accomplish in/for my society.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Why is it "morally wrong"? And where is it unconstitutional?

We have certain rights in this country, among them are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and the right to private property. We do not have the right to food, clothing, housing, and utilities. Nor to health care.

The right to life for instance does not mean others must provide you with food and a house. It means you have the right to earn and provide those things for yourself in order to have a life. It does not mean you get to take what others earn for their own lives. Taking from others is taking their life.

The right to pursue happiness is exactly that -- the right to pursue -- not to receive---which means you must take action to get that happiness in life -- you can't just sit there like a putz and expect others to provide you with happiness in the form of health care, food, clothing, whatever. If it was a "right" of yours to receive things from others, then others would become rightless in the sense that they would be forced to give up some of their right to pursue their own happiness. Essentially they become your slaves. Slavery or serfdom is not moral.

It is your right to action that makes the US the greatest in the world and the most rich and powerful. You can own your own property and you are not beholden to anybody else. You are not a slave to others nor to the State. The whole "entitlement" thing is what is destroying America. The more we succumb to it, the more we become serfs to the government.

The truth is government can't "give" us working folks anything because we are the government. All government can do is take what you worked for and then turn around and give it to someone else. That's called redistribution of wealth or socialism. Taking over an industry by the State is socialism. Health care is an industry. If America socializes health care that is a major step to becoming a Socialist country. If that happens, American rights as stated in the Constitution will be curbed and this country will no longer be as free.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The reality is that large employers can better afford health care for their employees because of their work force SIZE. Insurance is cheaper for large groups , not so cheap for small groups and nearly impossible for single families.

A change needs to occur where single families can get into some kind of group so that costs go down.

I think we need to get away from the whole "group insurance" idea (except for catastrophic care). An insurance company is nothing more than a gambling enterprise. They are betting that only a certain percentage are going to need care and the less that need care means more profit for them.
But how can they bet on routine health care, something that everybody needs to have on a pretty regular basis? That is why I think that segment of health care should be paid for directly by the individual. You have more control that way and probably would pay less overall if you keep yourself in good shape.

 

[Diuretic]

We have certain rights in this country, among them are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and the right to private property. We do not have the right to food, clothing, housing, and utilities. Nor to health care.

The right to life for instance does not mean others must provide you with food and a house. It means you have the right to earn and provide those things for yourself in order to have a life. It does not mean you get to take what others earn for their own lives. Taking from others is taking their life.

The right to pursue happiness is exactly that -- the right to pursue -- not to receive---which means you must take action to get that happiness in life -- you can't just sit there like a putz and expect others to provide you with happiness in the form of health care, food, clothing, whatever. If it was a "right" of yours to receive things from others, then others would become rightless in the sense that they would be forced to give up some of their right to pursue their own happiness. Essentially they become your slaves. Slavery or serfdom is not moral.

It is your right to action that makes the US the greatest in the world and the most rich and powerful. You can own your own property and you are not beholden to anybody else. You are not a slave to others nor to the State. The whole "entitlement" thing is what is destroying America. The more we succumb to it, the more we become serfs to the government.

The truth is government can't "give" us working folks anything because we are the government. All government can do is take what you worked for and then turn around and give it to someone else. That's called redistribution of wealth or socialism. Taking over an industry by the State is socialism. Health care is an industry. If America socializes health care that is a major step to becoming a Socialist country. If that happens, American rights as stated in the Constitution will be curbed and this country will no longer be as free.

Do you live in a society or a landmass populated by individuals?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why do I ask? To me it seems to be the most fundamental part of why some advocate for universal health care and why some advocate for privatized healthcare. Every candidate on the dem ticket has a plan of some type for of universal or government run healthcare. So I have to think that most of them think it is a right. By extension then people basically have the right to good health it would seem.

A right is a freedom that you can exercise. We all have the right to health care.

However, government exists to protect your rights, not provide the means to exercise them. If you have a right to something, it does not mean that you have the right to expect others to pay for it.

 

[CharlestonChad]

We live in a country that places an extremely high value on life and the avoidance of pain. Therefore, it is only logical that every man, woman, and child should have equally sufficient health care. The ones who are against giving everyone health care are those who don't know anyone without health care.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We live in a country that places an extremely high value on life and the avoidance of pain. Therefore, it is only logical that every man, woman, and child should have equally sufficient health care. The ones who are against giving everyone health care are those who don't know anyone without health care.

Questions for you:
-What part of the Constitution specifically allows Congress to create legislation dealing with health care?
-Why should you be forced to pay for the health care of others?

Government exists to protect your rights, not provide the means to exercise them.

 

[CorpMediaSux]

Why should you be forced to pay for the health care of others?

The real question is, why should you HAVE to be forced? I always find it extremely interesting that America claims to be a Christian nation and that it is nearly impossible to get elected unless you are a Christian, yet has a decidedly un-Christian approach to the sick and elderly.

Regardless of that fact, what the government compels you to pay taxes for is, essentially, your choice because the people make those decisions. If the people vote in people who will enact legislation that compels you to pay taxes for healthcare for all, well then thats all the justification that's necessary isn't it. And unfortunately the American people are moving closer, not further away from, agreement with some system of nationalized healthcare.

All the arguments of "well pay for it yourself" mean diddly squat when you realize that those in the top tax bracket DO NOT NOT pay for healthcare. They almost always have the best health coverage provided by their employers. It is the working poor who both pay taxes AND have to pay for their own healthcare because their plans are inadequate. Again, if corporations would stop raising their CEO and upper management salaries and concentrated on taking care of their workforce, the government wouldnt have to step in. But corporations are only interested in profit, not morality so the government has to step in and say.

Lastly, NO ONE who opposes gay marriage on religious terms can oppose nationalized healthcare. Christ doesn't even mention homosexuality, but he certainly had a message about how the wealthy should relate to the sick and the poor. So if we're making marriage law around Christianity we sure as better be making nationalized healthcare around a Christian model as well.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The real question is, why should you HAVE to be forced? I always find it extremely interesting that America claims to be a Christian nation and that it is nearly impossible to get elected unless you are a Christian, yet has a decidedly un-Christian approach to the sick and elderly.

You have the right to chose to spend your money as you like. This includes the choice to give t charity and the choice to NOT give to charity. Its all about choice, right?

And so, the question remains:
Why should anyone be forced to pay for the health care of others?

Regardless of that fact, what the government compels you to pay taxes for is, essentially, your choice because the people make those decisions. If the people vote in people who will enact legislation that compels you to pay taxes for healthcare for all, well then thats all the justification that's necessary isn't it. And unfortunately the American people are moving closer, not further away from, agreement with some system of nationalized healthcare.

That's nothng other than ther 'might makes right' argument -- you do it because the government says so. That's not the question I asked -- I asked why I SHOULD pay -- that is, what is the compulsive argument that creates the basis for the idea of forcing me to provide health care to others?

All the arguments of "well pay for it yourself" mean diddly squat when you realize that those in the top tax bracket DO NOT NOT pay for healthcare. They almost always have the best health coverage provided by their employers. It is the working poor who both pay taxes AND have to pay for their own healthcare because their plans are inadequate. Again, if corporations would stop raising their CEO and upper management salaries and concentrated on taking care of their workforce, the government wouldnt have to step in. But corporations are only interested in profit, not morality so the government has to step in and say.

How does this anti-corporate, anti-CEO, anti-affluent rant in any way create an argument that I should provide health care for those that cannot pay for it themselves?

Lastly, NO ONE who opposes gay marriage on religious terms can oppose nationalized healthcare. Christ doesn't even mention homosexuality, but he certainly had a message about how the wealthy should relate to the sick and the poor. So if we're making marriage law around Christianity we sure as better be making nationalized healthcare around a Christian model as well.

I see. There's a moral obligation, based on Christian tenets.
What happened to not being able to legislate morality?
What happened to the seperation of Church and State?
Or do you accept the premise that it is OK to base our laws on religion-based morality?

You also failed to address:
-What part of the Constitution specifically allows Congress to create legislation dealing with health care?

 

[CorpMediaSux]

What happened to the seperation of Church and State?
Or do you accept the premise that it is OK to base our laws on religion-based morality?

I don't. Merely pointing out the hypocrasy of those who do. And I hope you don't oppose state sanctioned gay marriage on religious grounds cause, yeah...

You have the right to chose to spend your money as you like.

Actually not. You can't buy drugs, you can't buy nuclear fuel, you can't buy a human baby etc. etc. There are more prohibitions on your ability to spend your cash than you realize but unquestionably accept. Which just goes to say that America ISN'T built upon this notion of a free market, unregulated commerce and the might of the dollar. Society exists and it has rules that are above those of private property and the market, there IS a greater good. Some of us believe healthcare is within that. You disagree and it's a philosophical disagreement ultimately.

I asked why I SHOULD pay -- that is, what is the compulsive argument that creates the basis for the idea of forcing me to provide health care to others?

OK lets play this scenario out. Everyone only pays for the healthcare they can afford. Whats the result of this?
1. A massive decrease in consumer spending since people will be forced to save their money for future health care issues. This is the main contradiction within the "pay for it yourself" ideology and the big misunderstanding the right has with most taxation. Social programs exist in order to free Americans up to spend money on products that they don't need. It's the main engine behind our economy. Credit, short term debt, impulse buys, lifestyle buys, it's whatmakes America what it is. In a world where people are paying their own hospital bills a LOT of that is curtailed.
2. An inevitable increase in homelessness and joblessness. Two reasons:

Well your going to have a rapid increase in the homeless population as people will begin to lose their homes/apartments having to choose between medicine and a place to live. You will have a rapid increase in unemployment as people who need medication to remain functioning members of society may no longer have access to it. This will, in turn hurt the economy. Consumption will go WAY down, since people will have to save their money for potential future health services, that will hurt the economy. The last

 

[CorpMediaSux]

I asked why I SHOULD pay -- that is, what is the compulsive argument that creates the basis for the idea of forcing me to provide health care to others?

OK lets play this scenario out. Everyone only pays for the healthcare they can afford. Whats the result of this?
1. A massive decrease in consumer spending since people will be forced to save their money for future health care issues. This is the main contradiction within the "pay for it yourself" ideology and the big misunderstanding the right has with most taxation. Social programs exist in order to free Americans up to spend money on products that they don't need. It's the main engine behind our economy. Credit, short term debt, impulse buys, lifestyle buys, it's whatmakes America what it is. In a world where people are paying their own hospital bills a LOT of that is curtailed.
2. An inevitable increase in homelessness and joblessness. Two reasons:
a: People without family to rely and help them will choose between housing and medicine
b: Families will have to absorb the infirm into their household budgets causing further reductions in consumer spending and slowing down of the economy.

Bottom line is that Wall street does not want Americans to become practical, its the antithesis of our growth economy philosophy.

What happened to the seperation of Church and State?
Or do you accept the premise that it is OK to base our laws on religion-based morality?

I don't. Merely pointing out the hypocrasy of those who do. And I hope you don't oppose state sanctioned gay marriage on religious grounds cause, yeah...

You have the right to chose to spend your money as you like.

Actually not. You can't buy drugs, you can't buy nuclear fuel, you can't buy a human baby etc. etc. There are more prohibitions on your ability to spend your cash than you realize but unquestionably accept. Which just goes to say that America ISN'T built upon this notion of a free market, unregulated commerce and the might of the dollar. Society exists and it has rules that are above those of private property and the market, there IS a greater good. Some of us believe healthcare is within that. You disagree and it's a philosophical disagreement ultimately.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Bottom line is that Wall street does not want Americans to become practical, its the antithesis of our growth economy philosophy.

I sit here, wondering how this creates a sound argument as to why I should be forced to pay for the health care of others...

I don't. Merely pointing out the hypocrasy of those who do. And I hope you don't oppose state sanctioned gay marriage on religious grounds cause, yeah..

So you agree, this does nothing to answer my question.

Actually not. You can't buy drugs, you can't buy nuclear fuel, you can't buy a human baby etc. etc. There are more prohibitions on your ability to spend your cash than you realize but unquestionably accept. Which just goes to say that America ISN'T built upon this notion of a free market, unregulated commerce and the might of the dollar.

You deliberately missed my point.
We have the right to choose to NOT give to charity.
You support people having the right to choose, don't you?

Society exists and it has rules that are above those of private property and the market, there IS a greater good. Some of us believe healthcare is within that. You disagree and it's a philosophical disagreement ultimately.

Well, if you cannot give me a sound argument as to why I should be forced to pay for the health care of others, perhaops you should question your philosophy...

See, forcing people to provide others the means to exercise their rights is slavery. Reasonable, rational, thinking people who believe in and place value upon liberty do not support slavery -- rgeardless of how it might benefit the greater good.

And, you STILL haven't told me:
-What part of the Constitution specifically allows Congress to create legislation dealing with health care?

 

[maineman]

But you are wedded to socialism? Or do you have a different answer? The richest nation on earth is NOT obligated to provide healthcare to ALL no more than it is obligated to provide food and clothing and housing to ALL. That is a morally wrong approach and against the principles of our Constitution.

am I wedded to government owning all the means of production and distribution in our economy? No. I am not.

And we have a difference of opinion about universal healthcare.... no need for you to throw a hissy fit.

 

[CorpMediaSux]

I sit here, wondering how this creates a sound argument as to why I should be forced to pay for the health care of others...

If economic collapse isn't a good reason, then what is? One would assume you advocate eliminating subsidized health care. I gave a scenario for how they would utterly cripple the U.S. economy. Perhaps I mis understand your position. Are you content with the current level of subsidized health care, because if so well you already DO help to pay for the healthcare of others. If you are unwilling to discuss what would happen if you did not pay for any healthcare but your own, why do you keep insisting I provide you with a reason to do so. Engage the debate.

You deliberately missed my point.

No I didn't. I just responded to it. You said we have the right to spend our money on what we want. That is false. You already accept limitations on your money because of a greater good, there's no reason healthcare can't be part of that. Especially when I laid out what would happen to this country if we had NO subsidized healthcare.

See, forcing people to provide others the means to exercise their rights is slavery. Reasonable, rational, thinking people who believe in and place value upon liberty do not support slavery -- rgeardless of how it might benefit the greater good.

Your attempt to link your desire for lower taxes to the plight of enslaved people is both erroneous and offensive. Enslaved people would not have been even able to engage in this discussion because their access to property and citizenship did not exist. Taxation is compelled against your will, there's no question about that, but enslavement? Hardly. If you find the law to be problematic you have two recourses. You can go and live in a nation without forced taxation or you can get started on a political campaign to end taxation. I suggest voting for Ron Paul. The problem you have, however, is that there's a reason that the places without compuslory taxation aren't so fun to live and you refuse to see the connections between the lifestyle you enjoy and compulsory taxation.

-What part of the Constitution specifically allows Congress to create legislation dealing with health care?

None.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If economic collapse isn't a good reason, then what is?

There's no good reason to implement slavery.
You agree, right?

No I didn't. I just responded to it. You said we have the right to spend our money on what we want. That is false. You already accept limitations on your money because of a greater good, there's no reason healthcare can't be part of that. Especially when I laid out what would happen to this country if we had NO subsidized healthcare.

And MY point was that we have the right to choose to NOT give to charity, a statement made in response to your question as to why she HAVE to be forced. Were you going to address that point, or should I assume your question was sufficiently answered?

Your attempt to link your desire for lower taxes to the plight of enslaved people is both erroneous and offensive. Enslaved people would not have been even able to engage in this discussion because their access to property and citizenship did not exist.

None of this in any way defeats my point.
Forcing people to provide the means for others to exercise their rights is, necessarily, slavery.

None.

So, you agree that any such legislation is Unconstitutional.
Why should anyone support unconstitutional laws?