Is healthcare a right? why or why not?

[EdwardBaiamonte]

There is nothing dignified in having a sick populace. Nobody is served by it.

just like having a population without enough food clothing and shelter so lets add health care as a right and become a nation of moochers rather than a nation of workers!!!!!!

 

[dblack]

To me there is a certain dignity in rights. They are an expression of our fundamental and mutual humanity. There is nothing dignified in having a sick populace. Nobody is served by it.

Hmm.. ok, well, how do you define rights? When Jefferson claimed that the purpose of government was to secure rights, what did he mean?

I presume rights are to be decided by the electorate, through the enactment of legislation and/or constitutional amendment

Wow... really? So if the electorate decided that slavery was cool again, owning another person as property would be a 'right'?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

To me there is a certain dignity in rights. They are an expression of our fundamental and mutual humanity. There is nothing dignified in having a sick populace. Nobody is served by it.

Hmm.. ok, well, how do you define rights? When Jefferson claimed that the purpose of government was to secure rights, what did he mean?

I presume rights are to be decided by the electorate, through the enactment of legislation and/or constitutional amendment

as long as the Constitution prevents stealing from other people to secure your right to their property.

 

[kellyd]

To me there is a certain dignity in rights. They are an expression of our fundamental and mutual humanity. There is nothing dignified in having a sick populace. Nobody is served by it.

Hmm.. ok, well, how do you define rights? When Jefferson claimed that the purpose of government was to secure rights, what did he mean?

I presume rights are to be decided by the electorate, through the enactment of legislation and/or constitutional amendment

Wow... really? So if the electorate decided that slavery was cool again, owning another person as property would be a 'right'?

Isn't that how democracy works? There is nothing inherently good about the will of the people. Legislation is only as good as the people shaping it. Slavery was legal until enough people decided to change the existing laws.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Isn't that how democracy works? .

which is why our genius founders thought of it as mob rule and gave us a Constitution!!

 

[task0778]

To me there is a certain dignity in rights. They are an expression of our fundamental and mutual humanity. There is nothing dignified in having a sick populace. Nobody is served by it.

You seem to be taking the responsibility for your health and well-being from the individual and placing it with the gov't. Which I have a problem with, for a couple of reasons. First of all, a right has to do with the freedom to do something rather than get something. You don't pay for it and neither should anyone else. I'm not sure there's much dignity in creating a burden on society for the failure to take care of yourself. I get that times are difficult, but if we get into the habit of allowing people to be irresponsible then we've created yet another division between us and we don't need more divisiveness.

 

[dblack]

So if the electorate decided that slavery was cool again, owning another person as property would be a 'right'?

Isn't that how democracy works?

It is. Which is why our founders decided against democracy and, instead, set up a constitutional republic, with democratically elected representatives. It was specifically because their definition of rights didn't depend on democratic consensus. The rights they recognized where inherently part of human free will, not a matter of legislation.

 

[kellyd]

To me there is a certain dignity in rights. They are an expression of our fundamental and mutual humanity. There is nothing dignified in having a sick populace. Nobody is served by it.

You seem to be taking the responsibility for your health and well-being from the individual and placing it with the gov't. Which I have a problem with, for a couple of reasons. First of all, a right has to do with the freedom to do something rather than get something. You don't pay for it and neither should anyone else. I'm not sure there's much dignity in creating a burden on society for the failure to take care of yourself. I get that times are difficult, but if we get into the habit of allowing people to be irresponsible then we've created yet another division between us and we don't need more divisiveness.

where do you get the impression health care isn't paid for? I pay for it, as does everyone else, apart from those who earn too little to pay. But the interesting side effect of universal health care is that more people are WELL ENOUGH to work. Poverty isn't necessarily a moral failing, but a confluence of many factors, state of health being one of them

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I pay for it, as does everyone else, apart from those who earn too little to pay.

actually the whole point of thread is that most americans don't pay for it but rather get it from govt in a very very inefficient way that costs us 4 times what it should!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. But the interesting side effect of universal health care is that more people are WELL ENOUGH to work

stupid lie as if a significant number are too sick to work and would be able to with communist health care. How many??????????

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Poverty isn't necessarily a moral failing, but a confluence of many factors, state of health being one of them

most importantly its a failure of crippling liberal programs designed to buy votes

 

[dblack]

In short, we need to standardized curriculum and we need more equity in school funding and that will not happen without some central control at the federal level.

Yeah. That's what you keep saying. Still don't see why "we" need this.

We need to standardize curriculum, eliminate the disparity in education funding, and encourage the implementation of techniques and policies that have been proven to be effective.

Why? Why do we "need" this? Why do you want to force it on people via government?

The need for standardize curriculum, better techniques, and more equitable funding should be obvious to anyone. I've tried to explain it but you've either closed your mind or you're not listening so I'm not going to repeat.

I haven't noticed. You simply take it as a given that its obvious. But it's not obvious to me, why anyone should be allowed to use government to force their will on others.

 

[kellyd]

. But the interesting side effect of universal health care is that more people are WELL ENOUGH to work

stupid lie as if a significant number are too sick to work and would be able to with communist health care. How many??????????

There are many in the US off on disability, I believe? Try treating their ills, and find out the answer to that question. Seems logical to me at least

 

[task0778]

To me there is a certain dignity in rights. They are an expression of our fundamental and mutual humanity. There is nothing dignified in having a sick populace. Nobody is served by it.

You seem to be taking the responsibility for your health and well-being from the individual and placing it with the gov't. Which I have a problem with, for a couple of reasons. First of all, a right has to do with the freedom to do something rather than get something. You don't pay for it and neither should anyone else. I'm not sure there's much dignity in creating a burden on society for the failure to take care of yourself. I get that times are difficult, but if we get into the habit of allowing people to be irresponsible then we've created yet another division between us and we don't need more divisiveness.

where do you get the impression health care isn't paid for? I pay for it, as does everyone else, apart from those who earn too little to pay. But the interesting side effect of universal health care is that more people are WELL ENOUGH to work. Poverty isn't necessarily a moral failing, but a confluence of many factors, state of health being one of them

Isn't that the point of the thread, to make health care a right so everybody gets it for free? How many people are on Medicaid today or are getting HCI wholey or partly subsidized by the taxpayers? How many go to ER across the nation and by law have to receive treatment? Do these people pay for services rendered if they have no insurance? There's a lotta people who do not pay for their healthcare; it's paid for by the taxpayers in many cases, and that would increase exponentially if we had a UHC system.

I'm sure you know that Britain has a UBC system. But everybody there has to pay for it whether they use it or not. And it's everybody who pays, from your first dollar of income up to approx $30k, they pay 20% to support that UHC. You think that would go over well here in the US? I don't think so.

 

[kellyd]

To me there is a certain dignity in rights. They are an expression of our fundamental and mutual humanity. There is nothing dignified in having a sick populace. Nobody is served by it.

You seem to be taking the responsibility for your health and well-being from the individual and placing it with the gov't. Which I have a problem with, for a couple of reasons. First of all, a right has to do with the freedom to do something rather than get something. You don't pay for it and neither should anyone else. I'm not sure there's much dignity in creating a burden on society for the failure to take care of yourself. I get that times are difficult, but if we get into the habit of allowing people to be irresponsible then we've created yet another division between us and we don't need more divisiveness.

where do you get the impression health care isn't paid for? I pay for it, as does everyone else, apart from those who earn too little to pay. But the interesting side effect of universal health care is that more people are WELL ENOUGH to work. Poverty isn't necessarily a moral failing, but a confluence of many factors, state of health being one of them

Isn't that the point of the thread, to make health care a right so everybody gets it for free? How many people are on Medicaid today or are getting HCI wholey or partly subsidized by the taxpayers? How many go to ER across the nation and by law have to receive treatment? Do these people pay for services rendered if they have no insurance? There's a lotta people who do not pay for their healthcare; it's paid for by the taxpayers in many cases, and that would increase exponentially if we had a UHC system.

I'm sure you know that Britain has a UBC system. But everybody there has to pay for it whether they use it or not. And it's everybody who pays, from your first dollar of income up to approx $30k, they pay 20% to support that UHC. You think that would go over well here in the US? I don't think so.

If you ask most British people, they may moan about the NHS service, but they point to it as a source of national pride. When they hosted the Olympics, they included a segment on the NHS in the opening ceremonies. As a Canadian, I feel it is a unifying thing, something that binds us together. It's our service, and we are proud

 

[dblack]

If you ask most British people, they may moan about the NHS service, but they point to it as a source of national pride. When they hosted the Olympics, they included a segment on the NHS in the opening ceremonies. As a Canadian, I feel it is a unifying thing, something that binds us together. It's our service, and we are proud

That's fine. But the question of whether government should provide health care isn't the same as whether or not it's a right. Most people who say "health care is (or should be) a right" are simply saying it's something they'd like government to provide. Other's think government shouldn't get involved, and the two sides argue. So the health-care-as-a-right argument becomes a proxy for whether government should be tasked with ensuring that everyone gets health care. But it muddies the concept of rights and promotes confusion about the role of government and our Constitution.

Constitutional rights aren't services the government is required to provide us. They are freedoms the government is prohibited from violating. They stand as limitations to what government can do in performing its various functions. So, for example, the Constitution specifies a postal service as a government service. That doesn't make postal service a right. And, more importantly, it doesn't give the post office the power to violate our rights when conducting its business.

We could do the same thing with health care that we've done with the post office. We could amend the Constitution and make it a legitimate function of government. But it still wouldn't be a right, nor would it be an excuse to violate our actual rights.

 

[kellyd]

It just seems like a "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" type argument. It shouldnt be a philosophical argument. Congress should be responsive to the requirements of those who placed it in power. People want health care, not philosophy

 

[esthermoon]

I think healthcare is a right for everybody because health is absolutely necessary for a good life. It's not something you can say "I don't care about it".
So all governments should grant healthcare (especially poor people need that because if you're rich you can pay for your health, if you're not you need help!)

 

[dblack]

It just seems like a "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" type argument. It shouldnt be a philosophical argument. Congress should be responsive to the requirements of those who placed it in power. People want health care, not philosophy

Rights aren't merely philosophy. They are practical limits on the power of government.

 

[debbiedowner]

I live in Canada, with a single payer health care system, and it isn't free. I pay for it with my taxes every year. Because everyone above poverty line pays into it, costs are low to me. The government forces me to pay it, like the local government makes me pay my property tax. This way, everyone gets to use the services that were purchased using our pooled resources. When you insure your car, you benefit from other payees when you total your car. Why is health care any different?

Well, for starters, because your personal health is not a public good that is being used by other people, the way most of the things paid for by property tax, for example, are. And car insurance which covers YOUR car in the event of an accident is voluntarily paid for by the car owners. In the US, at least, the car insurance which is mandated by the government is to protect OTHER people's property from your stupidity. You're perfectly welcome to leave your own car's damaged uncovered by insurance if you want to, so long as it's not owned by someone other than you, who is then going to suffer financially for your stupidity.

But my personal health IS a public good. It enables me to remain in work and be a benefit to society. The more workers fit for work, the better.

It should be your responsibility to be fit and healthy enough to work, no one else's. I can see where a society has a responsibility to assist those who cannot be fit and healthy enough to work through no fault of their own, but that does not mean health care should be a right or an entitlement. Nor does it mean the gov't is the only way to provide HC for everybody either.

Keep in mind, when you say rights, there are different definitions.

For example, there are fundamental rights that is those that are listed in US constitution as interpreted by the courts. There are also rights specified in state constitutions such as a right to public education which exist in many state constitutions. There are rights as expressed in state laws such a parents rights, patient rights, and right to privacy.

Then there are also rights that pertain to a particular issue or group such as labor rights, LGBT rights, disability rights, prisoner rights, etc... These rights may be defined in or through interpretation of federal and state constitutions or laws. And then there are inalienable rights, such as the right to live or right to protect yourself,...

The right to professional free healthcare will happen but it's years in the future, probably about the time when most of the population is job sharing and the government is paying 80% of the healthcare costs. I don't see this as avoidable. The advances in life saving and life extension healthcare are going to be so expensive, essential no one is going to be able to pay for it except the government which of course means a much larger portion of GDP is going to go healthcare.

The costs aren't so great right now that Canada is unable to provide great single payer health care that is funded by taxpayers. Already Canadians are living longer than Americans, as a result of universal health coverage. I pay just under 600 bucks per year to cover me and the kids. It's good value, because insurance companies aren't driving the costs

You can purchase private health insurance Canada, can't you?