Is healthcare a right? why or why not?

[M14 Shooter]

My answer to your question is that sometimes people fall onto hard times, often through nothing that they could have reasonable expected: a crooked employer gets into trouble, lays you off, and goes bankrupt. While you struggle to save and find another job you take a chance and let your health insurance lapse out of sheer necessity. Suddenly, while uninsured, you get severely sick. I guess that it is just too bad. Go die in the street. I should not be obligated to give you one red cent. Some people are born with severe mental and physical handicaps. To make things worse, those handicapped people might be born to very poor families without the money or resources to care for such needy people. I guess that it just too bad. We should not expect you to help pay, in the slightest, for such people to exercise their right to X (survival).

I'm not clear here:

Do you or do you not agree that you have a right to expect me to pay for you to exercise your right to (x)?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

But it doesnt address the fundamental question regarding welfare (including federal health care programs):

Do you have the right to expect me to pay for you to exercise your rights?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

Based on what?

but I concede that is definitely something for the voters to decide upon.

The People should decide if they can force me to pay for them to exercise their rights? Isnt this two wolves and a rabbit deciding on what's for supper?

 

[mattskramer]

I'm not clear here:

Do you or do you not agree that you have a right to expect me to pay for you to exercise your right to (x)?

I don’t know if I would call it a “right”. Yet, I think that my answer to your question is “Yes” in that people should be obligated to pay a small amount to the government so that it can distribute money temporarily to people who qualify for temporary assistance based on fundamental need.

Your turn. Please answer my yes-no question. Would you opt to remove all domestic assitance programs offered by the US federal and state and local governments?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don’t know if I would call it a “right”. Yet, I think that my answer to your question is “Yes” in that people should be obligated to pay a small amount to the government so that it can distribute money temporarily to people who qualify for temporary assistance based on fundamental need.

So, according to the above:
If I cannot afford to exercise my right to arms, you should be forced to supply me the means to do so?
Right?

Would you opt to remove all domestic assitance programs offered by the US federal and state and local governments?

In a heartbeat. Why? Three reasons:
-The governemt exists to protect yoru rights, not prove you the means to exercie them;
-You do not have the right to expect me to pay for you to exercse your rights.
-Focing people to provide to others the means to exercise their rights is slavery.

 

[jillian]

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.

You forgot the "necessary and proper" clause. That gives pretty wide latitude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articl...ates_Constitution#Necessary_and_Proper_clause

 

[M14 Shooter]

You forgot the "necessary and proper" clause. That gives pretty wide latitude.

You forgot the second part of the clause -- for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States

That is, it allows congress to create laws pursuant to the enumerated powers, or other powers found in the Constitution; it does not give Congress the power to do whatever it wants to do.

 

[jillian]

You forgot the second part of the clause -- for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States

That is, it allows congress to create laws pursuant to the enumerated powers, or other powers found in the Constitution; it does not give Congress the power to do whatever it wants to do.

I didn't forget. Even going back to the days of the founding fathers, it was found that the powers were pretty expansive. You might like that, you might not (I presume not) but it is the way the constitution has been construed since the beginning.

 

[mattskramer]

So, according to the above:
If I cannot afford to exercise my right to arms, you should be forced to supply me the means to do so?
Right?


In a heartbeat. Why? Three reasons:
-The governemt exists to protect yoru rights, not prove you the means to exercie them;
-You do not have the right to expect me to pay for you to exercse your rights.
-Focing people to provide to others the means to exercise their rights is slavery.

I understand your point without fully agreeing with it. Practically all things should be considered in moderation. I think that medical care is more expensive than is a gun purchase. If you can’t afford to buy a gun, you certainly can’t affort life-saving surgery. I think that human survival is important and is a “common good”.

What are the odds of someone contacting a disease or medical condition that he can’t afford to have treated? On the other hand, what are the odds of someone being attacked and killed for lack of a gun (because he can’t afford it) and not having the knowledge and skill to be able to properly use it?

Again, I see your point. It is as if you are saying “Okay. How about forcing me to help you pay for this right or that right or that right.” I don’t have all of the answers. My partial answer is that I think that people should be obligated to temporarily help those who fall on hard times.

As a side note, in a sense, we have manditory insurance against being assaulted. It is the police and criminal judicial system (although private gun ownership might help. Also, within reason, I have no objection to citizens having the right to own guns. It comes down to where we draw the line.)

I know what you are saying - if I require you to help pay for social services, you should require me to help you buy a gun. I just think that being required to help those who are ill and can’t afford treatment is more important than helping one buy a gun when he can’t afford to do so on his own.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I didn't forget. Even going back to the days of the founding fathers, it was found that the powers were pretty expansive. You might like that, you might not (I presume not) but it is the way the constitution has been construed since the beginning.

The Elastic clause DOES mean that the powers of Congress are pretty expansive -- but the fact remains that all it does is allow Congress to create laws pursuant to the powers already given to it by the Constitution.

Otherwise, all you'd need is the Elastic Clause as there'd be no need for a list of enumerated powers.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I understand your point without fully agreeing with it. Practically all things should be considered in moderation.

Slavery is OK so long as it is in "moderation"?

I think that medical care is more expensive than is a gun purchase. If you can’t afford to buy a gun, you certainly can’t affort life-saving surgery. I think that human survival is important and is a “common good”.

So what?
According to your argument, if I cannot afford to exercise my right to arms, you should be forced to supply me the means to do so?
Right?

What are the odds of someone contacting a disease or medical condition that he can’t afford to have treated? On the other hand, what are the odds of someone being attacked and killed for lack of a gun (because he can’t afford it) and not having the knowledge and skill to be able to properly use it?

Irrelevant.
You're arguing that if I cannot afford to exercie my right to (x), you should be forced to provide me the means to do so. The specifics of (x) is meaningless to that.

Again, I see your point. It is as if you are saying “Okay. How about forcing me to help you pay for this right or that right or that right.” I don’t have all of the answers.

You mean you dont know how you can be consistent when you argue that people should be forced to pay for others to exercise certain rights and not others, depending on if you think a given right right is 'important enough'.
That IS a dilema.

 

[mattskramer]

Slavery is OK so long as it is in "moderation"?

I should have clarified my point. I meant that general themes should be considered in moderation. Slavery is a specific thing. Consider the ownership and abuse of other animals. Where do you draw the line? Is it okay to kill ants, cockroaches, and mice? Is it okay to torture such things? How about fish? Are bullfights okay? What about dog races? What about eating duck?

So what?
According to your argument, if I cannot afford to exercise my right to arms, you should be forced to supply me the means to do so?
Right?

In my opinion it is relative and depends on the severity of the “need”. If you were dirt poor and lived in a high-crime ridden area where many shootings occur, I might be inclined to support cheap gun distributions to poor citizens. Still, over-all, and nation-wide, I think that health care is more important to life than is gun ownership.

You mean you dont know how you can be consistent when you argue that people should be forced to pay for others to exercise certain rights and not others, depending on if you think a given right right is 'important enough'.
That IS a dilema.

Again, general issues are relative. Do you think that people should be allowed to smoke cigarettes even though cigarettes are unhealthy? Okay, what is your opinion on marijuana and cocaine? It is more dangerous to drive 65 than it is to drive 45. Let’s lower the speed limit to 35.

 

[mattskramer]

In a heartbeat. Why? Three reasons:
-The governemt exists to protect yoru rights, not prove you the means to exercie them;
-You do not have the right to expect me to pay for you to exercse your rights.
-Focing people to provide to others the means to exercise their rights is slavery.

Wow. I hope that you never fall on a practically unforeseeable string of bad luck through practically no fault of your own and have no friends or family to call on for help and desperately need a temporary helping hand up. Tell me, what would you do with the severely mentally and physically handicapped?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wow. I hope that you never fall on a practically unforeseeable string of bad luck through practically no fault of your own and have no friends or family to call on for help and desperately need a temporary helping hand up.

My personal situation does not and will not in any way change my position -- I, personally, shall never demand that someone else pay to provide me with the means to exercise my rights.

But, presuming that I did fall on a practically unforeseeable string of bad luck through practically no fault of my own and have no friends or family to call on for help and desperately need a temporary helping hand up -- how do I have a right to expect the govenment to force you to help me?

Tell me, what would you do with the severely mentally and physically handicapped?

Hope that private charity is sufficient to provide for them. if not, then they will suffer accordingly.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I should have clarified my point. I meant that general themes should be considered in moderation. Slavery is a specific thing.

And we're talking about a specific thing, not a general theme.
So, I ask again: Slavery is OK so long as it is in "moderation"?

In my opinion it is relative and depends on the severity of the “need”.

I see -- it all has to do with your perception of hwo important a right is.
So long as you think the need is great enough, it is OK to enslave others, but if you don't think the "need" is great enough, its not.

Given that you think the need is great enough, it is OK to enslave others:
-I- think that there is sufficient "need" for you to be forced to buy me a gun.
What is your argument against the government forcing you to do so?

Again, general issues are relative.

And you're basing your entire argument on your subjective idea of what rights create sufficient "need" to force people to provide the means to exercise their rights.

That is, as long as -your- ox isnt gored, you dont have a problem with enslavng people.

 

[mattskramer]

My personal situation does not and will not in any way change my position -- I, personally, shall never demand that someone else pay to provide me with the means to exercise my rights.

But, presuming that I did fall on a practically unforeseeable string of bad luck through practically no fault of my own and have no friends or family to call on for help and desperately need a temporary helping hand up -- how do I have a right to expect the govenment to force you to help me?

I don't know. I just think that it is the right thing for a government to do. Help those who fall on hard times. Perhaps in the way it governs the economy through trade regulations and international relations, it makes some bad calls and things go south. Perhaps when it deregulates businesses and lays off watchdogs, some businesses commit gross fraud and injustice against their peons. So it has an obligation to help those who are affected by unpredictable shifts in the economy.

Hope that private charity is sufficient to provide for them. if not, then they will suffer accordingly.

That is…wow…. I’m speechless. We simply disagree.

 

[mattskramer]

And we're talking about a specific thing, not a general theme.
So, I ask again: Slavery is OK so long as it is in "moderation"?

Look. I think that slavery is wrong. Our founding fathers didn't think that slavery should end. Otherwise they would have ended it. Now I'll throw it back at you. Where do you draw the line at abuse of other animals?

I see -- it all has to do with your perception of hwo important a right is.
So long as you think the need is great enough, it is OK to enslave others, but if you don't think the "need" is great enough, its not.

That was pretty much the sentiment of our founding fathers.

Given that you think the need is great enough, it is OK to enslave others:
-I- think that there is sufficient "need" for you to be forced to buy me a gun.
What is your argument against the government forcing you to do so?


And you're basing your entire argument on your subjective idea of what rights create sufficient "need" to force people to provide the means to exercise their rights.

That is, as long as -your- ox isnt gored, you dont have a problem with enslavng people.

The best system that we have is vote. It is the sentiment of the general public that draws the line – via direct or indirect vote. Yet, even though something might be popular or unpopular does not necessarily mean that it is wrong or right.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ahh there we go, finally to the crux, no right or wrong. As long as you believe so.

As to the Government providing for everyone, the Federal Government does NOT have the authority to do so. In fact Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The Constitution is clear, it does not list what the Government can NOT do until some amendments are added. The Document lists what the Government CAN do. With out an amendment the Federal Government can NOT usurp powers NOT given to it by the Constitution.

States can run these welfare programs depending on what their Constitutions say. The Federal Government can NOT. They can not legally tax for nor administer the programs LEGALLY. Just because the Courts haven't taken it up doesn't change the fact the Federal Government does NOT legally have the power to run, oversee or tax for these programs.

 

[Diuretic]

Based on what?


The People should decide if they can force me to pay for them to exercise their rights? Isnt this two wolves and a rabbit deciding on what's for supper?

As I pointed out, it's not a right. I don't regard it as a right. I haven't seen any proof here of it being a right. I do regard it as a social obligation though.

 

[Diuretic]

Ahh there we go, finally to the crux, no right or wrong. As long as you believe so.

I missed that bit can you point it out?

As to the Government providing for everyone, the Federal Government does NOT have the authority to do so. In fact Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.{/quote]

I missed that too, can you point it out?

The Constitution is clear, it does not list what the Government can NOT do until some amendments are added. The Document lists what the Government CAN do. With out an amendment the Federal Government can NOT usurp powers NOT given to it by the Constitution.

Can you do it again? Point out to me where your constitution says that?

States can run these welfare programs depending on what their Constitutions say. The Federal Government can NOT. They can not legally tax for nor administer the programs LEGALLY. Just because the Courts haven't taken it up doesn't change the fact the Federal Government does NOT legally have the power to run, oversee or tax for these programs.

It doesn't? Why not? Why hasn't it been stopped?

This is interesting.