Is there a Right to Health Care? David Kelley / Atlas Society

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Jan 21, 2010
23,669
4,178
290
National Freedmen's Town District
My personal notes: My summary, in short, any such social program can be run by charity and voluntary participation. The best programs I have found are run this way, by voluntary funding and participation.

Mandating through govt requires free choice and informed consent of the members of the public affected, especially those expected to pay for such programs, much more so if REQUIRED by law. As with charities, donors have a choice; or the founders running a program build its operations and procedures by consent of supporters. I find it inherently against human nature to abuse govt to REQUIRE taxpayers to fund a system that regulates their own choices without giving direct and free input in the programs, thus imposing "taxation without representation" where any such program involving spiritual and charitable choices invokes Religious Freedom.

=================================================================
Is There a Right to Health Care Ayn Rand Objectivism and Individualism The Atlas Society

Quote from article cited from David Kelley:
================================
". . .In short, the plan will require a massive exercise of coercion against individuals, far beyond anything we have seen so far. Which brings me back to the fundamental issue.

Moral Foundations
In all the ways I have described, any attempt to implement a "right" to health care necessarily sacrifices our genuine rights of liberty. We have to choose between liberty rights and welfare rights. They are logically incompatible. It is because I believe in the rights of liberty that I say there is no such thing as a right to health care. So I want to end by explaining why I think the rights of liberty are paramount, and by trying to anticipate some of the questions and objections you may have.

We have to choose between liberty rights and welfare rights.
The rights of liberty are paramount because individuals are ends in themselves. We are not instruments of society, or possessions of society. And if we are ends in ourselves, we have the right to be ends for ourselves: to hold our own lives and happiness as our highest values, not to be sacrificed for anything else."
==============
Again, my personal notes are that just because people are for free choice and liberty
does NOT mean we are AGAINST charitable medical help accessible to all.
It means we do NOT support the idea of abusing govt and force of law to coerce people through govt, limit our choices and ability to develop our own programs, and abuse TAX penalties to punish citizens and charities and schools that seek freedom to provide health care in other ways.

Being prochoice does NOT equate to pushing abortion and denying life, just because people don't want govt restricting and penalizing free choice. We can still use free choice to prevent abortion and to support life WITHOUT the govt FORCING it by law by regulating choices.

Being proliberty does NOT mean denying health care and services to others, just because people don't want govt regulating, mandating or penalizing free choice by depriving liberties. We can still use free choice to build and provide better systems of health care WITHOUT federal govt FORCING it by tax mandates that require people to buy insurance as the only exempted choice. That choice does not cover all health care needs, so why are other options penalized?
 
Last edited:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Depends on how you define 'general welfare.'

As far as I'm concerned, monopolies like United Healthcare need to be fixed. We HAD a great bipartisan law, but you know what happened.
 
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Depends on how you define 'general welfare.'

As far as I'm concerned, monopolies like United Healthcare need to be fixed. We HAD a great bipartisan law, but you know what happened.

OnePercenter
do you agree that if the public does NOT agree that health care is included in general welfare
as a function of federal govt, the Constitutional procedure is to Amend the Constitution by
agreement that this authority should either be given to federal govt, and/or made a voluntary option.

Do you agree that it is excluding, dividing and denying equal representation of people and protection
of beliefs and creeds to impose the BELIEF that right to health care is "inherent in govt" when
so many people believe in liberty and that health care is social obligation by free choice to help others.

NOTE: I agree that laws could have been made to PREVENT someone from imposing health care costs on the public. But mandating insurance is not the only way to do this. Why make the leap from people having responsibility to pay for health care, through whatever means or combination serves various needs, to suddenly assuming
that federal govt has the authority to mandate that citizens buy insurance as the only way, or face tax penalties?

How is that justifiable given that the Constitution doesn't give federal govt this express authority?

If there are laws on taxation, where is the representation and consent: all I see are people on both sides
contesting this law and objecting -- the right are vocal because their beliefs are violated, while the objectors on the left are remaining silent in public to allow the right to look like the bad guys, fight this battle, and exhaust their resources as a political strategy.

Nobody really wants to pay for it. So where is the responsibility for passing this bill that (a) nobody affected by it agrees to pay all costs for, but expects others to pay who DIDN'T consent to it (b) the people who passed and approved it aren't affected it by it because all the govt officials are under tax paid benefits anyway and thus have "free choice" whether or not to participate in the exchanges, unlike citizens who don't have the same choices.
 
Healthcare, as well as any/every utility monopoly in America needs to be either non-profit or free from the State. Period.
 
I like to use the Island Rights rule. If you are alone on an island, anything you do is a right. You can't give yourself healthcare so that means that healthcare is not a right with the exception of putting a bandage on, but you then have to buy the bandage or make it yourself. I hear people claim everything as a right and that diminishes the meaning of rights and ultimately takes away the right of others. That is greed, not the guy who worked for his wealth only to have it taken away for redistribution by the state.

Anyone who supports healthcare or any/every utility monopoly in America being made either non-profit or free from the state is showing the type of greed I was talking about in the above paragraph. Period.
 
No there is a right to pursue healthcare.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Define general welfare.
 
I like to use the Island Rights rule. If you are alone on an island, anything you do is a right. You can't give yourself healthcare so that means that healthcare is not a right with the exception of putting a bandage on, but you then have to buy the bandage or make it yourself. I hear people claim everything as a right and that diminishes the meaning of rights and ultimately takes away the right of others. That is greed, not the guy who worked for his wealth only to have it taken away for redistribution by the state.

Anyone who supports healthcare or any/every utility monopoly in America being made either non-profit or free from the state is showing the type of greed I was talking about in the above paragraph. Period.

Greed is the reason I wrote 'Healthcare, as well as any/every utility monopoly in America needs to be either non-profit or free from the State. Period'. We lost competition within the healthcare industry when Reagan gutted the HMO act.

BTY, can you name the guy who worked for his wealth only to have it taken away for redistribution by the state? I'm wealthy, and everyone that I know that was wealthy in the past is still wealthy. Republicans made it so.
 
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Depends on how you define 'general welfare.'

As far as I'm concerned, monopolies like United Healthcare need to be fixed. We HAD a great bipartisan law, but you know what happened.
Too many equate general welfare and social welfare.
 
Someone has a right to healthcare like I have a right to a new car. Don't take that I think I do. Use that to figure out my answer about healthcare.
 
I like to use the Island Rights rule. If you are alone on an island, anything you do is a right. You can't give yourself healthcare so that means that healthcare is not a right with the exception of putting a bandage on, but you then have to buy the bandage or make it yourself. I hear people claim everything as a right and that diminishes the meaning of rights and ultimately takes away the right of others. That is greed, not the guy who worked for his wealth only to have it taken away for redistribution by the state.

Anyone who supports healthcare or any/every utility monopoly in America being made either non-profit or free from the state is showing the type of greed I was talking about in the above paragraph. Period.

The problem is too many make things they want into something they have a right to. A bigger problem is too many who have the ability to do that in government, appease them.
 
I like to use the Island Rights rule. If you are alone on an island, anything you do is a right. You can't give yourself healthcare so that means that healthcare is not a right with the exception of putting a bandage on, but you then have to buy the bandage or make it yourself. I hear people claim everything as a right and that diminishes the meaning of rights and ultimately takes away the right of others. That is greed, not the guy who worked for his wealth only to have it taken away for redistribution by the state.

Anyone who supports healthcare or any/every utility monopoly in America being made either non-profit or free from the state is showing the type of greed I was talking about in the above paragraph. Period.

Greed is the reason I wrote 'Healthcare, as well as any/every utility monopoly in America needs to be either non-profit or free from the State. Period'. We lost competition within the healthcare industry when Reagan gutted the HMO act.

BTY, can you name the guy who worked for his wealth only to have it taken away for redistribution by the state? I'm wealthy, and everyone that I know that was wealthy in the past is still wealthy. Republicans made it so.
Greed is thinking that someone who earned it owes a portion of what they earned to you because you don't have what they have.
 
Healthcare, as well as any/every utility monopoly in America needs to be either non-profit or free from the State. Period.

I'll go with free from the state. Freeing health care from government control would do wonders for health care prices.
 
It actually is a right for Americans who are incarcerated. It is pretty well established by the courts under the 8th Amendment. Given that fact, is it that hard to extrapolate that right to law abiding citizens?

But even so, I'm not sure why it is so necessary that healthcare be seen as a right. We don't have a right to an aircraft carrier or a freeway system. Those are just seen as good (or bad) investments. I don't know why people suddenly get self righteous around the constitution when healthcare spending is discussed.
 
As a Canadian, I have a right to healthcare, as does everyone living in Canada, whether or not they are Canadian citizens. If you come to Canada to attend university, you will be given a health card when you come to Canada. It's the law.

Oh, and in terms of cost, our health care is cheaper than yours, by nearly half, for a standard of care which is on a par better than US health care.

Having health care covered is very freeing. I don't have to file claims, fight with my insurer or deal with all of the paperwork and expensive administrative crap Americans have to put up with. I find your claims that your freedoms are being infringed upon by being forced to buy healthcare, to be laughable. You people have no idea what real freedom is.

Freedom is being able to call my doctor and make an appointment when I'm sick without having to worry about how I will pay for it. It's knowing that my prescription will cost $4.11, regardless of what I'm being prescribed. When I had a heart attack a year and a half ago, I spent a week in hospital in ICU, went for an angiogram, and had wonderful care, and all I had to worry about was recovering my health.

I have a co-pay on prescriptions ($4.11), but there are no co-pays for doctors' visit, or hospital stays, unless I opt for a private or semi-private room. I can even get a supplemental insurance policy which will cover semi-private rooms, and that pesky prescription co-pay if I want.

Americans who come here marvel at our healthcare system, especially since Republicans have been lying to you about it for years.
 
It actually is a right for Americans who are incarcerated. It is pretty well established by the courts under the 8th Amendment. Given that fact, is it that hard to extrapolate that right to law abiding citizens?

Not if you take the view that we are all captives of the state.
 

Forum List

Back
Top