Is healthcare a right? why or why not?

[mattskramer]

Where are these people 'dying in the street'? Today in IL, if a family makes $53k and hasn't health insurance, they have access to free health care. Governor Blogo thinks that's insufficient. He wants to add over 250k more people, above that $53k. I'm sorry, but from where I sit, the government, state or fed should not be doing this.

I would not say that people are dying in the street but some people, at least to a strong degree, have to choose between buying health insurance and making sure that their children have enough health care. The IL example that you gave seems to be high. How many people are in a family that gets $53k per year? I do not consider myself to be an extremist. Lines should be drawn; the question is where to draw the line. I have yet to hear a reply from Patriot, so I will ask you. DO you want government to remove ALL social welfare programs and safety nets – yes or no?

 

[Diuretic]

Well. I think that government is obligated but the only way that government can help is through money that it receives from taxpayers. Therefore, indirectly, people would be obligated to help.

I don't mean to quibble but the idea of an "indirect obligation" eludes me. I think that having an obligation is one of those fundamental concepts as in it exists or it doesn't exist. Let's say you have a child. As a parent you have direct obligations to your child. I can't think of any "indirect" obligations you may have. I do think the government has an obligation to it citizens but I don't see how an individual citizen can have any obligation to other citizens in policy matters which are the province of the government. We do have private obligations to one another of course, the obligation of duty of care is one, but there is no obligation of a citizen to provide for the health care of another citizen, that's the obligation of government.

 

[mattskramer]

I don't mean to quibble but the idea of an "indirect obligation" eludes me. I think that having an obligation is one of those fundamental concepts as in it exists or it doesn't exist. Let's say you have a child. As a parent you have direct obligations to your child. I can't think of any "indirect" obligations you may have. I do think the government has an obligation to it citizens but I don't see how an individual citizen can have any obligation to other citizens in policy matters which are the province of the government. We do have private obligations to one another of course, the obligation of duty of care is one, but there is no obligation of a citizen to provide for the health care of another citizen, that's the obligation of government.

You are confusing me. Okay. Where does the money come from that government can use to help care for the citizens?

 

[rOckNrOllsCar11]

Just remember that society as a whole can't not but feel the effects of poverty. Consider the intention behind crimes such as stealing or robbery. People would do it a lot less if there wasn't such a gap between the rich and the poor. Even more detrimental is this consumerism culture. It's turned the roles of men and women into a social disaster which cheapens and dumbs down the value of love, life and respect. As I said earlier on another thread, the battle is for hearts and minds within the smoke screens we are presented with on a daily basis.

These are little signs folks that we are on the slope of decline. If you don't see it, don't believe it or don't feel it, it's my fervent belief that you're living in bliss.

Give Aldous Huxleys' A Brave New World a read. That story; in ways; shows what a smart, progressive society should do to maintain balance, peace and prosperity. If anyone is unfamiliar with it it was written in the late 1920's. A novel very much ahead of its time. Coincidently Aldous Huxley died on the same day J.F.K. was assassinated.

 

[Diuretic]

You are confusing me. Okay. Where does the money come from that government can use to help care for the citizens?

Taxes.

 

[Diuretic]

Just remember that society as a whole can't not but feel the effects of poverty. Consider the intention behind crimes such as stealing or robbery. People would do it a lot less if there wasn't such a gap between the rich and the poor. Even more detrimental is this consumerism culture. It's turned the roles of men and women into a social disaster and cheapened the value of love, life and respect. These are little signs folks that we are on the slope of decline. If you don't see it, don't believe it or don't feel it, it's my fervent belief that you're living in bliss.

Give Aldous Huxleys' A Brave New World a read. That story; in ways; shows what a smart, progressive society should do to maintain balance, peace and prosperity.

Now we're getting into the meaning of life stuff

 

[mattskramer]

Taxes.

Yes. Also, the citizens give the taxes to government who then gives it to the needy. Therefore, in an indirect way, citizens pay from the care of other citizens. Money goes from citizens, to government and then from government to other citizens.

 

[mattskramer]

Just remember that society as a whole can't not but feel the effects of poverty. Consider the intention behind crimes such as stealing or robbery. People would do it a lot less if there wasn't such a gap between the rich and the poor. Even more detrimental is this consumerism culture. It's turned the roles of men and women into a social disaster which cheapens and dumbs down the value of love, life and respect. As I said earlier on another thread, the battle is for hearts and minds within the smoke screens we are presented with on a daily basis.

These are little signs folks that we are on the slope of decline. If you don't see it, don't believe it or don't feel it, it's my fervent belief that you're living in bliss.

Give Aldous Huxleys' A Brave New World a read. That story; in ways; shows what a smart, progressive society should do to maintain balance, peace and prosperity. If anyone is unfamiliar with it it was written in the late 1920's. A novel very much ahead of its time. Coincidently Aldous Huxley died on the same day J.F.K. was assassinated.

I disagree. Poverty may play a part in crime, but it would be a very small part. Crime causes poverty. Look at Chinatowns. Some people within those places are as poor as are those in Black ghettos. I venture to say that crime is based on societal expectation and upbringing. If you are taught that it is wrong to steal, if shame is linked by your society to stealing, and if your clique shuns you if you steal, then you will be less likely to steal. If’ on the other hand, stealing is not thought to be so bad, if you are taught that the big man owes it to you and that you have a right to his stuff. If your friends think that it is cool to get away with stealing, then there is a higher likelihood that you will steal. I just don’t put much weight on the notion that poverty causes crime.

 

[Diuretic]

Yes. Also, the citizens give the taxes to government who then gives it to the needy. Therefore, in an indirect way, citizens pay from the care of other citizens. Money goes from citizens, to government and then from government to other citizens.

Yes, in an indirect way citizens pay for the care of other citizens. They also pay for their protection from domestic and foreign threats, education, welfare (both personal and corporate) and many other budget programmes. That's how societies operate. That takes apart the objections of those who are arguing that they should have no obligation to other members of society to provide funding for healthcare. It's a straw man argument.

 

[Diuretic]

I disagree. Poverty may play a part in crime, but it would be a very small part. Crime causes poverty. Look at Chinatowns. Some people within those places are as poor as are those in Black ghettos. I venture to say that crime is based on societal expectation and upbringing. If you are taught that it is wrong to steal, if shame is linked by your society to stealing, and if your clique shuns you if you steal, then you will be less likely to steal. If’ on the other hand, stealing is not thought to be so bad, if you are taught that the big man owes it to you and that you have a right to his stuff. If your friends think that it is cool to get away with stealing, then there is a higher likelihood that you will steal. I just don’t put much weight on the notion that poverty causes crime.

There's no single cause of crime and yes, it's simplistic to say that poverty causes crime. The Enron crooks weren't poor, just greedy. Poverty is related to crime though. But I'm getting off topic.

 

[Doug]

(1) Cause-and-effect exists within society, but as an interconnected web, not as a linear chain. Everything causes everything else.

(2) The concept of cause-and-effect comes from the material world where, at the macro (but not the sub-atomic) level, it is valid.

However, even here, as the chaos theorists have shown, what may be analyzable in principle may not be in practice. (Even our Solar System, once held up as the very model of Newtonian determinism, is chaotic.)

(3) Unlike planets, human beings are conscious. This means that attempts to intervene and change their behavior run into the problems that do not occur with non-conscious entities. For example, if I observe that in a poor neighborhood with a violent crime rate 100% higher than the average, the crime rate goes down if the government builds a Youth Center with free recreational facilities, would it be a wise idea to announce that, for any neighborhood whose violent crime rate exceeds 100%, the government will build a Youth Center with free recreational facilties?

This same concept in insurance is known as "moral hazard" -- once someone is insured against the consequences of certain acts, there is a danger that they will be more tempted to commit those acts.

(4) Because human society is so complex, and because human beings are self-aware, we must be extremely cautious in assigning causes to effects, and vice versa. It is a conceit of human intelligence to believe that a social system can be analyzed like a physical system.

This is why one strain of conservative thought is .... conservative. We are skeptical about schemes for human improvement which make simplistic assumptions about how easy it will be to bring about radical alterations in human behavior. We are doubly skeptical when these schemes stem from abstract propositions about "rights" and "social justice" rather than empirical observations.

An example of incautious attempts to assign causes to outcomes can be found in the two books[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Freakonomics-Revised-Expanded-Economist-Everything/dp/0061234001/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-9655811-7155832?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191046349&sr=8-1] Freakonomics[/ame] and [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Freedomnomics-Market-Works-Half-Baked-Theories/dp/1596985062/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-9655811-7155832?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191046445&sr=1-1] Freedomnomics[/ame]. The authors, one side sort-of liberal and the other conservative, duel over the question: did Roe vs Wade cause a drop in the crime rate two decades later (by causing more babies of crime-prone poor people to be aborted)?

Each adduces various statistics to bolster his case. But the fact is, we don't really know. Society is too complex to assign such simple causes to effects.

Although conservatives should be more receptive to this idea than liberals (the latter, after all, are keen to get in there and change society for the better), in fact, conservatives often fall into the trap of simplistic assignment of cause to effect, via "common sense" reasoning.

While common sense is not to be sneered at, in reality what our common sense tells us is often wrong.

Does getting more welfare money for each new baby cause welfare mothers to have more babies? Maybe, but don't assume it. Better try to do some empirical research on the issue before deciding.

Will the oppressed and downtrodden Iraqi people welcome the liberating American troops with flowers and dancing? Maybe, but don't assume it. Better have a "Plan B" in case they don't. (Well, too late for that one. But the point is valid.)

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes, in an indirect way citizens pay for the care of other citizens. They also pay for their protection from domestic and foreign threats, education, welfare (both personal and corporate) and many other budget programmes. That's how societies operate. That takes apart the objections of those who are arguing that they should have no obligation to other members of society to provide funding for healthcare. It's a straw man argument.

No it is not. We live in a representative republic. The Constitution states what the Government is allowed to do. AND it does NOT give the Government the power to run a forced public health care program. That requires us to APPROVE of it in our voting and not voting for representatives, in being vocal and opposing or approving such plans and the MAJORITY wins out.


The Strawman argument is that somehow we MUST assume it is a right, it is NOT a right. The Government may decide to do it, but it would then be a privilage not a right. And could be taken away by the choice of the Majority.

You want it to be a right? Then create an amendment in the US that makes it so. Outside the US do what ever your form of Government requires to establish it as a right.

In the case of Britain and I assume Australia, you have no rights. You are at the whim of your Government what you can and can not do. there is NO document that gives you any right except that old Magna Carta. All you have are privaleges which can be removed by an act of your Government. You may or may not be able to change it by voting out enough members and voting in enough to change it, but that is a pretty cumbersome method and not likely to work on most issues.

 

[Diuretic]

No it is not. We live in a representative republic. The Constitution states what the Government is allowed to do. AND it does NOT give the Government the power to run a forced public health care program. That requires us to APPROVE of it in our voting and not voting for representatives, in being vocal and opposing or approving such plans and the MAJORITY wins out.

Sorry I'm gong to have to parse this.

I already mentioned several times that the parties explain their programmes which they will institute (supposedly) when in government. Voters can approve or reject. Once a government is in power they can institute their programmes. I can't think of how a government would be stopped - constitutionally speaking - from pursuing its programmes which have been approved by the electors.

The Strawman argument is that somehow we MUST assume it is a right, it is NOT a right. The Government may decide to do it, but it would then be a privilage not a right. And could be taken away by the choice of the Majority.

I've tried to argue it's not a right. My objectors have portrayed it as a right to try to overcome my point. That's the strawman. It may be an obligation by government towards citizens but it's not a right.

You want it to be a right? Then create an amendment in the US that makes it so. Outside the US do what ever your form of Government requires to establish it as a right.

No, making it a right changes nothing.

In the case of Britain and I assume Australia, you have no rights. You are at the whim of your Government what you can and can not do. there is NO document that gives you any right except that old Magna Carta. All you have are privaleges which can be removed by an act of your Government. You may or may not be able to change it by voting out enough members and voting in enough to change it, but that is a pretty cumbersome method and not likely to work on most issues.

It's actually a bit more complex than that but in essence you're right. I would dearly love to see a Bill of Rights in this country, I am bloody furious we don't have one.

We - like the US - have inherited the English common law. Whereas the US declared its independence from Britain and set about sorting its own legal stuff out, we, being a collection of colonies and a province, didn't do the same. So we inherited the hotch-potch of English law. We rely on the Magna Carta for our implied rights, we rely on the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the English Bill of Rights for our implied rights, we rely on a mass of English law for our rights. We rely on our state constitutions for our rights. We - from 1901 when our nation was officially created by an English act of Parliament (our Constitution is in fact not ours at all but is an act of the Imperial Parliament) - can't rely on our consitution because it is an administrative document and not at all like your constitution.

Anyway enough of my personal bugbears. Healthcare should not be seen in "rights" terms but in terms of obligation by government. I've tried to argue that through this thread.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The only "obligation" the Government has is to ensure proper procedures exist, that regulations and inspectors by law exist to regulate medical practice, both in licensing doctors and other health care professionals and in drugs and equipment used in medical practices.

Once again to be clear, NOTHING in the Constitution gives the Federal Government any power to create maintain and tax for a health care policy. They can do so by the current method of pretending some other clause in the Constitution covers it, the favored being the "commerce" clause. OR they can do so in the proper method by getting an amendment created and passed that gives the Federal Government that power.

I do not know all the 50 States Constitutions but I am betting they to would have to create an amendment or "stretch" some other clause to allow it.

To be more informative... Social Security is an unauthorized power that the Federal Government created out of whole cloth. The power to create it, tax for it and run it is NOT a power given to the Federal Government.

There are a slew of powers the Federal Government has created , especially since after the Civil War, that the Constitution does not give them the authority to have. Eduction is another one.

The claim that some other clause of the Constitution applies to these specific powers is ludicrous. Medicine, health care, Education and "safety nets" all existed in the late 1700's, yet the creators of the Constitution specifically left them OUT of the powers given to the Federal Government.

 

[Diuretic]

The only "obligation" the Government has is to ensure proper procedures exist, that regulations and inspectors by law exist to regulate medical practice, both in licensing doctors and other health care professionals and in drugs and equipment used in medical practices.

Once again to be clear, NOTHING in the Constitution gives the Federal Government any power to create maintain and tax for a health care policy. They can do so by the current method of pretending some other clause in the Constitution covers it, the favored being the "commerce" clause. OR they can do so in the proper method by getting an amendment created and passed that gives the Federal Government that power.

I do not know all the 50 States Constitutions but I am betting they to would have to create an amendment or "stretch" some other clause to allow it.

To be more informative... Social Security is an unauthorized power that the Federal Government created out of whole cloth. The power to create it, tax for it and run it is NOT a power given to the Federal Government.

There are a slew of powers the Federal Government has created , especially since after the Civil War, that the Constitution does not give them the authority to have. Eduction is another one.

The claim that some other clause of the Constitution applies to these specific powers is ludicrous. Medicine, health care, Education and "safety nets" all existed in the late 1700's, yet the creators of the Constitution specifically left them OUT of the powers given to the Federal Government.

You weren't paying attention. Simply repeating your point doesn't make it better.

I asked some questions, I made some points. Address them or leave it alone.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The specific powers innumerated to the Congress are listed here..

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

Now one could try to argue that the "general welfare" statement somehow means Hospital coverage but that would NOT be in line with what the TERM meant and intended. And no one makes that claim that I know of.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You weren't paying attention. Simply repeating your point doesn't make it better.

I asked some questions, I made some points. Address them or leave it alone.

First, you don't get to tell me what and what not to respond to, thank you. Second you keep making broad statements about things that I feel need clarification. Which last I checked involves ME posting on the board for others to read.

I responded that the concept that medical coverage is a right, is not true. Further I clarified that the Government has no legal right currently to create and maintain such a system, which of course wouldn't stop it from doing so and if it did that such would then be a privilage not a right, at the whims of future Congresses and the people.

You don't like that? To damn bad.

 

[Diuretic]

The specific powers innumerated to the Congress are listed here..

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

Now one could try to argue that the "general welfare" statement somehow means Hospital coverage but that would NOT be in line with what the TERM meant and intended. And no one makes that claim that I know of.

I'll defer to your knowledge and I do appreciate the link, it's very interesting and it's now bookmarked for me. I won't even try to enter into an argument about constitutionality because I don't have the knowledge but as I said, your point is taken.

 

[Diuretic]

First, you don't get to tell me what and what not to respond to, thank you. Second you keep making broad statements about things that I feel need clarification. Which last I checked involves ME posting on the board for others to read.

I responded that the concept that medical coverage is a right, is not true. Further I clarified that the Government has no legal right currently to create and maintain such a system, which of course wouldn't stop it from doing so and if it did that such would then be a privilage not a right, at the whims of future Congresses and the people.

You don't like that? To damn bad.

Hey I only gave you a little tap!

Now for my serious bit. I've been trying to make the point that health care shouldn't be seen in terms of "rights" but in terms of "obligations". I contend that government has an obligation for it, but I concede that is definitely something for the voters to decide upon. What I'm trying to do here is to suggest a different way of looking at things. I mean, as far as I'm concerned, me, the person posting this, it's irrelevant. I have access to great health care BUT I know it could be better (our federal government has been short-changing the states, the bastards, but hey sorry that's a domestic Aussie issue). I am simply suggesting that the folks reading this might want to think about a different model, a model constructed on need and not ideology.

How's that?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Something tells me that you don't need anyone to pay for your health care. In fact, you seem to have no understanding of poverty in general. Trust me, it's not just a PBS special. And the problem is only growing.

My personal is meaningless to the argument -- its validity doesn't depend on how much I make or don't make.