Is healthcare a right? why or why not?

[Diuretic]

and for the umteen gazillionth time, WHY is it an obligation? You said you were a believer in the five whys theory, so lets get the ball rolling. WHY am I obligated to provide you with healthcare?

I snipped out the rest of your post in the response, not because it's not relevant but because I just need to keep this concise.

You are not obligated towards me (and we're hypothesising the you and me of course). You are (as I am) obliged to pay taxes. From those taxes the government disburses finances to fulfill its policy programme.

I hold that the government should be (note the normative statement, I didn't claim "it is") obliged to ensure a healthcare scheme is in place for the whole of the population (there are a few different models which is why I'm being a bit non-specific here because I'm focused on my ideas of obligation by govt).

Here's an idea why the government should be obligated. It's a good thing for society to have as many healthy people in it as possible. When someone gets sick they should be able to receive health care to get better.

It's also a good thing for someone to take themselves to the doctor early so that things don't get worse.

It's also a good thing for someone to take themselves to the doctor early because if it's a contagious condition it can be halted before it spreads.

The voluntary presentation of a sick patient at a doctor's surgery/rooms could be inhibited by an inability to pay for treatment.

I'm happy to take a utilitarian view on this as well as the bleeding heart view

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Please explain how I am wrong. I quoted you word-for-word.

Did I say the Government should TAX us to enforce some animal code on us? Please provide that part of my statement. The treatment of animals is a State and local community issue as well. You won't find any power for the Federal Government to create or enforce laws regarding how we treat animals, except our food sources. Or in Interstate trade. Thus it is not linked in any way to your tirades on health care provided by Big Brother, the Federal Government.

Now I will admit that non religious people have no moral obligation to be humane to animals, but Christians, Muslims and Jews do. It is religious thing, NOT a Government thing.

 

[Diuretic]

Now I will admit that non religious people have no moral obligation to be humane to animals, but Christians, Muslims and Jews do. It is religious thing, NOT a Government thing.

I think non-religious people do have that moral obligations, but is that another thread? Because I find it a really interesting question.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't know. I just think that it is the right thing for a government to do.

Ah - the "right thing to do".

Thats a statement of morality. I thought we couldn't legislate morality?
Do you accept this argument for any/all actions that the government should take? Like, say, outlawing abortion -- because its the right thing to do?

So it has an obligation to help those who are affected by unpredictable shifts in the economy.

Where does this obligation come from?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Look. I think that slavery is wrong.

And yet you support it, at least where certain rights are involved.

Now I'll throw it back at you. Where do you draw the line at abuse of other animals?

Irrelevant to the conversation -- we're talking about the "right" to healh care, and the "right" to expect others to provide it for you.

That was pretty much the sentiment of our founding fathers.

You think this, somehow, makes your subjective support of slavery less reprehensible?

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.

Ah yes -- the tyranny of the majority.
If the majority of the people say you should be a slave, then you're OK with it. Right? I mean, if "the vote should decide" is your position, then what argument do you have against such a thing?

 

[M14 Shooter]

On the issue of slavery, moral relativism, and situational ethics, I enjoy asking conservatives if it was wrong to own slaves. Many people would not give me a quick yes/no answer.

You're dodging the question:
To you, slavery is OK as long as it is in "moderation". Right?

And my position regarding slavery was made clear very early in this topic.
It's too bad yours is so subjective and situational.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So where does it say the Congress can't do certain things?

You mean, where does it say that Congress (in specific, the government in general) can't do something that its not been given the power to do by the Constitution?

Read Marbury v Madison, and the 10th amendment.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Congress can pass amendments can't it?

Not by itself.
And, the Constitution can be amended w/o involvement from Congress.

 

[Diuretic]

You mean, where does it say that Congress (in specific, the government in general) can't do something that its not been given the power to do by the Constitution?

Read Marbury v Madison, and the 10th amendment.

Marbury was the case that allowed the Supreme Court the power of judicial review over a Congressional decision, vide Justice Marshall. It's not the same thing, it's that the Supreme Court can review legislation passed by Congress to work out if it's constitutional. The Constitution didn't say that, the US Supreme Court said it. Conundrum no?

 

[Diuretic]

Not by itself.
And, the Constitution can be amended w/o involvement from Congress.

And how many times has it happened?

 

[M14 Shooter]

And how many times has it happened?

27 times. What's your point?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Marbury was the case that allowed the Supreme Court the power of judicial review over a Congressional decision, vide Justice Marshall. It's not the same thing...

From Marbury, where it speaks of limits:

The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.

Now, you can argue all you want that the government can do things that the Constitution doesnt give it the power to do, but those things are all extra-constututional, and therefore necessarily unconstitutional. If, according to you, the government can do what it wants, regardless if its in the constitution or not, why bother having a constitution at all?

 

[Bern80]

I snipped out the rest of your post in the response, not because it's not relevant but because I just need to keep this concise.

You are not obligated towards me (and we're hypothesising the you and me of course). You are (as I am) obliged to pay taxes. From those taxes the government disburses finances to fulfill its policy programme.

I hold that the government should be (note the normative statement, I didn't claim "it is") obliged to ensure a healthcare scheme is in place for the whole of the population (there are a few different models which is why I'm being a bit non-specific here because I'm focused on my ideas of obligation by govt).

If it's done through taxes though it's not government paying for it. It's you and me. So the obligation is still mine. You can't be obliged to do something just because. There has to be a reason. Obligation implies indebtedness. For instance if I take a head of lettuce from a store I am obligated to pay for it. Or if you promise to do something you are obliged to do it. Or if you agree to something via a contract of some type.

Here's an idea why the government should be obligated. It's a good thing for society to have as many healthy people in it as possible. When someone gets sick they should be able to receive health care to get better.

It's also a good thing for someone to take themselves to the doctor early so that things don't get worse.

It's also a good thing for someone to take themselves to the doctor early because if it's a contagious condition it can be halted before it spreads.

The voluntary presentation of a sick patient at a doctor's surgery/rooms could be inhibited by an inability to pay for treatment.

I'm happy to take a utilitarian view on this as well as the bleeding heart view

Ah the warm-fuzzy argument. Couple problems. You can't create obligation out of something simply because it is 'good' or the suppossed 'right thing to do'.

Secondly are the things you listed even good things. Do you not beleive it even better for people to take responsibility for themselves? I think it is much wiser for society to er on the side of encouraging personal responsibility and encouraging those to help the less fortunate rather than creating dependance and legislating who I must give my money to. Don't you agree?

 

[mattskramer]

Did I say the Government should TAX us to enforce some animal code on us? Please provide that part of my statement. The treatment of animals is a State and local community issue as well. You won't find any power for the Federal Government to create or enforce laws regarding how we treat animals, except our food sources. Or in Interstate trade. Thus it is not linked in any way to your tirades on health care provided by Big Brother, the Federal Government.

Now I will admit that non religious people have no moral obligation to be humane to animals, but Christians, Muslims and Jews do. It is religious thing, NOT a Government thing.

Without taxes, how are we going to maintain programs to deal with those who abuse animals and how are we going to pay for the healing of these animals. Surely the criminals can’t afford to maintain the ASPCA and other agencies. Taxes would be required one way or another. Also, it may cost people time and money to be careful and not neglectfully injur or kill animals.

Oh. It was nice of you to finally include a disclaimer. So it is only religious people who have a moral obligation with regard to animals. That just destroyed any argument that supports legislation to protect animals. Therefore, should we remove the ASPCA and legalize animal cruelty. Why or why not?

 

[mattskramer]

You're dodging the question:
To you, slavery is OK as long as it is in "moderation". Right?

And my position regarding slavery was made clear very early in this topic.
It's too bad yours is so subjective and situational.

All positions are subjective. I thought that I answered it. In my opinion, slavery is wrong.

 

[mattskramer]

Ah yes -- the tyranny of the majority.
If the majority of the people say you should be a slave, then you're OK with it. Right? I mean, if "the vote should decide" is your position, then what argument do you have against such a thing?

How do you support your position on things except to say that it is your opinion? How do you determine what is right or what is wrong?

 

[M14 Shooter]

All positions are subjective. I thought that I answered it. In my opinion, slavery is wrong.

But you support it when you think its "the right thing to do".
How is doing something wrong ever the right thing to do?

 

[mattskramer]

Ah - the "right thing to do".

Thats a statement of morality. I thought we couldn't legislate morality?
Do you accept this argument for any/all actions that the government should take? Like, say, outlawing abortion -- because its the right thing to do?


Where does this obligation come from?

Of course we can legislate morality. I never said that we caan’t or don’t legislate morality. By outlawing murder, we are legislating morality. We, the general public, think that murder is wrong.

 

[M14 Shooter]

How do you support your position on things except to say that it is your opinion? How do you determine what is right or what is wrong?

You're not addressing my post.

If the majority of the people say you should be a slave, then you're OK with it?
If "the vote should decide" is your position, then what argument do you have against such a thing?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Of course we can legislate morality. I never said that we caan’t or don’t legislate morality. By outlawing murder, we are legislating morality. We, the general public, think that murder is wrong.

Do you accept this argument for any/all actions that the government should take? Like, say, outlawing abortion -- because its the right thing to do?