Is healthcare a right? why or why not?

[mattskramer]

It GIVES you goods (medicine) and services (doctors care).
It PROVIDES you with the means to attain these things - with the means to exercise your rights.

Neither the police nor the military PROVIDE you with a means to exercise your rights -- they PROTECT you from those that would interfere with you doing so.

Really - if you dont understand the disticntion here, there's no point in carrying on the discussion.

Police give goods. I recall a policeman giving a frightened child a stuffed teddybear.

Police give you services (protection, 911 emergency contact, and transportation in the event of an emergency). It provides you with the means to attain these things.

Health care does protect you from things that would end your life as well. It also treats you in the event that you get a life threatening gunshot (I mean illness).

Really – if you don’t understand how very similar they are in their over-all purpose, then there is no point on carrying on the discussion.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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?

What part of IT IS NOT a POWER of the US GOVERNMENT did you NOT get? Your inability to read and comprehend is getting worse as the thread progresses. States and Local Governments handle those laws and they do them NOT based on edicts from the federal Government but because the people that vote in those Governments support those laws. All part of the responsibilities of those LOCAL Governments NOT a responsibility of the Federal Government.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What about you and animal cruelty. Should I be enslaved to take caution with respect to animals. Should I take the time and effort to not abuse or neglect my pets. Shouldn’t I be free to abandon them. Should I be enslaved and forced to pay taxes to support the ASPCA. What about national defence? Imagine that I oppose the Iraq war. Should I be required to pay taxes for it? The American soldiers chose to join. Shouldn’t they be required to buy their own guns? Don’t you see that practically all of this is relative. I imagine that if I think long and carefully enough, I could come up with more scenarios in which you would condone forcing me to support stuff with my taxes.

Animal rights do not exist and are not a power of the Federal Government. Defense however IS a stated power of the Government, a RESPONSIBILITY and yes you have to pay for it. ANY specific power granted BY THE people to the Government is something we as citizens can be taxed for. Animal laws are State and local laws NOT Federal, except in specific clear cases that deal with FEDERAL issues. If you beat your dog and starve it the Federal Government can not charge you with a crime. They are powerless in that case. Now if you beat and starve hundreds of dogs and in the process are involved in shipping dogs out of State or importing Dogs into State, THERE ARE Federal laws for that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Police give goods. I recall a policeman giving a frightened child a stuffed teddybear

Either you really don't understand the difference between the words "provide" and "protect", or you're being deliberately obtuse.

Either way, you're done here.

 

[mattskramer]

What part of IT IS NOT a POWER of the US GOVERNMENT did you NOT get? Your inability to read and comprehend is getting worse as the thread progresses. States and Local Governments handle those laws and they do them NOT based on edicts from the federal Government but because the people that vote in those Governments support those laws. All part of the responsibilities of those LOCAL Governments NOT a responsibility of the Federal Government.

That was a nice little personal attack, jump in, and switcheroo. I was discussing with M14 his logical reasoning for reasons why he supports requiring me to pay taxes for police services but not for health care services. We are not discussing constitutional law. I understand what the Constitution says and does not say. If the Constitution said that once each male red-headed left-handed person turns 13, he is to be executed, would you agree that such people should be executed when they become that age? If it is in the constitution and is consistent with other parts of the Constitution, then it must be okay. Though I am discussing ethics and politics, I am not arguing the Constitution.

 

[mattskramer]

Either you really don't understand the difference between the words "provide" and "protect", or you're being deliberately obtuse.

Either way, you're done here.

Police provide service and protect. Health care provides service and protects. I guess that you give up. I win.

 

[Bern80]

Police provide service and protect. Health care provides service and protects. I guess that you give up. I win.

There is a difference between protecting and babysitting. It is also more reasonable to expect people to be responsible for their healthcare than it is to expect people to protect themselves from crimes.

 

[mattskramer]

There is a difference between protecting and babysitting. It is also more reasonable to expect people to be responsible for their healthcare than it is to expect people to protect themselves from crimes.

I don’t see that there is that much of a difference. If I’m expected to buy my own health care then I expect others to buy their own guns and security systems.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I don’t see that there is that much of a difference. If I’m expected to buy my own health care then I expect others to buy their own guns and security systems.

You haven't a clue what powers the Government has and has not, but to be expected from someone like you. Comparing health care to defense and police and fire is ignorant on its face. But do keep making these ignorant comparisons.

 

[Bern80]

I don’t see that there is that much of a difference. If I’m expected to buy my own health care then I expect others to buy their own guns and security systems.

Consider those expectatinos meat than. We already do that. Many people choose to have extra protection such as security systems and guns. The government doesn't pay for either of those. A police force serves the purpose of enforceing laws. If you want to make this silly argument that well if government isn't obligated to provide healhcare then they shouldn't provide a police force you may want to thing a little harder about the ramifcations of that. If you get rid of police there is no point in haveing laws.

Basically what this comes down to is what we can reasonably expect of capable people. Is it unreasonable to expect people to be responsible for their healthcare?



I just don't get why people can make sense out of makeing other people responsible for somehting they have no control over? Especially when you the individual has more control over their health than anyone. yet it's the right thing to make someone else responsible for it? I don't think so.

 

[Diuretic]

27 times. What's your point?

Sometimes a question is just a question. 27 times it's been amended without Congress? Does that mean that there was a referendum on a question 27 times in US history?

 

[Diuretic]

From Marbury, where it speaks of limits:



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?

No I argued that the constitution isn't a limited document, therefore the question of acts being extra-constitutional doesn't come into it. I will argue that the constitution is an establishing document and government can do certain things which are in line with the intention of the constitution and I think it's the role of the US Supreme Court to ensure that is the case.

 

[Diuretic]

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.

If you come to my store and look at a lettuce I have for sale there's no obligation on you to do anything other than what the law allows (ie not to steal my lettuce). If you want a lettuce I'm happy to sell you one but we're going to have to do the dance of the contract. My putting my lettuce out for your inspection is an invitation to treat, you make me an offer, I'll accept it, I'll take your money as consideration and I'll complete the contract by giving you the lettuce. You are now the proud owner of a lettuce. The only obligations in that relationship arose when I accepted your offer. We were then bound by the law of contract.

When you take a job and earn money you are bound by law to pay taxes. That's a legal duty.

You have no obligation towards me for anything by your taking a job (given that I'm not your employer) and paying taxes.

That argument isn't valid, no matter how many times it's repeated.

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?

Sure I can make an obligation out of something simply because it's a good thing to do, government is predicated on being there for the common good.

As far as responsibility. It's the mark of an adult in western societies that they are independent. Children are dependent, adults are independent. But that doesn't mean an adult gives up the right to ask for an receive assistance when it's needed. That's the mark of a co-operative society.

 

[Diuretic]

...........

-Police protect the rights of the people;
-Having a police force does not force anyone to provide the means for others to exercise their rights.

So... how are the police relevant to the discussion?

That's not entirely correct, the police don't exist to protect the rights of the people and that's settled law in the US since a case where a woman sued the local police department for failing to protect her from domestic violence and it was held that the police aren't under a specific obligation to any individual. They are there to protect societal interests, to enforce the law, to keep the peace and all the rest of it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No I argued that the constitution isn't a limited document, therefore the question of acts being extra-constitutional doesn't come into it. I will argue that the constitution is an establishing document and government can do certain things which are in line with the intention of the constitution and I think it's the role of the US Supreme Court to ensure that is the case.

Once again, for clarity. The Courts can not create laws, they can not create Government powers. All they are supposed to do is rule on Laws that already exist. They also took for themselves and the other two branches allowed it, the right to rule on the Constitutionality of acts and laws. To act as a go between for the other two Branches.

The Constitution is crystal clear. The Founders were also CRYSTAL CLEAR. The Federal Government ONLY has the powers GRANTED directly by the Constitution. Further the Congress knows this and it is why they claim one of the listed powers as covering all the illegal acts they do. No Congress has ever passed a new power into law and claimed they could do so out of thin air, they always justify it by stretching one of the enumerated powers in the Constitution. Their favorite one being the Commerce Clause.

You see the Government has the right and the power to enact and enforce any law to cover any power they are granted. That too is listed in the section on enumerated powers of the Congress.

 

[Diuretic]

Once again, for clarity. The Courts can not create laws, they can not create Government powers. All they are supposed to do is rule on Laws that already exist. They also took for themselves and the other two branches allowed it, the right to rule on the Constitutionality of acts and laws. To act as a go between for the other two Branches.

The courts can't enact legislation. The courts can create law because law isn't simply legislation.

The courts can't create government powers because only the legislature can do that. The courts can limit government powers by passing judgement on enabling legislation.

No, they're not supposed to rule on laws that already exist. Courts can and do make law. Marbury v Madison is an example.

Yes, the courts are one of the three branches of government that are involved in the separation (and balance) of powers.

The Constitution is crystal clear. The Founders were also CRYSTAL CLEAR. The Federal Government ONLY has the powers GRANTED directly by the Constitution. Further the Congress knows this and it is why they claim one of the listed powers as covering all the illegal acts they do. No Congress has ever passed a new power into law and claimed they could do so out of thin air, they always justify it by stretching one of the enumerated powers in the Constitution. Their favorite one being the Commerce Clause.

You see the Government has the right and the power to enact and enforce any law to cover any power they are granted. That too is listed in the section on enumerated powers of the Congress.

Why are there amendments to the constitution?

 

[mattskramer]

Consider those expectatinos meat than. We already do that. Many people choose to have extra protection such as security systems and guns. The government doesn't pay for either of those. A police force serves the purpose of enforceing laws. If you want to make this silly argument that well if government isn't obligated to provide healhcare then they shouldn't provide a police force you may want to thing a little harder about the ramifcations of that. If you get rid of police there is no point in haveing laws.

The government pays for the basic police force. We can still have laws without a tax supported police force. There are such things as “citizens arrest”. One can hire his own security personnel. Laws would still exist.

Basically what this comes down to is what we can reasonably expect of capable people. Is it unreasonable to expect people to be responsible for their healthcare?

I am not talking about your average responsible citizen of sound mind and body. I am talking about the severely mentally and physically handicapped and about people who run into a string of bad luck and hard times – who may need a brief helping hand.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The courts can't enact legislation. The courts can create law because law isn't simply legislation.

The courts can't create government powers because only the legislature can do that. The courts can limit government powers by passing judgement on enabling legislation.

No, they're not supposed to rule on laws that already exist. Courts can and do make law. Marbury v Madison is an example.

Yes, the courts are one of the three branches of government that are involved in the separation (and balance) of powers.




Why are there amendments to the constitution?

You can not be serious? The document allows for amendments because the founders understood times change and there is a need for the document that gives authority and power to the Government must be able to change also. BUT the power to change it RESTS with the people, not the Congress.

An amendment gets proposed ( there are several ways this can happen) and then 3/4 of the States must ratify the amendment for it to go into effect. And the amendment must be ratified by the will of the people and with in a set time limit ( usually 7 years). That means with in 7 years 37 States must vote on and approve of the Amendment for it to be added to the Constitution.

Judges are NOT supposed to "make" law. Only the legislature has that power. They are to determine the intent of and the breadth of an existing law. And they are supposed to do so based on the intent of the legislature that created said law.

If the Constitution had no means to be Amended it would be worthless, every so many years an all new document giving power to the Government would have had to be drawn up. Once again in this country the PEOPLE through representatives run the Country. Even before the Constitution the PEOPLE ran the Confederation through their State Governments. The People, not the Government are supreme.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Article 5 covers Amendments. The purpose being to ensure the Constitution remained relevant as time passed and conditions changed.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A5.html

And there are 2 methods for States to approve an amendment, one is by a vote of the people ( referendum) and the other is by the vote of the State's Legislature. Article 5 stipulates that when Congress or the States propose the Amendment the method of ratification must also be stipulated.

The time allowed for passage is also stipulated at that time. Though not specifically addressed in the Constitution. Currently it is 7 or 8 years, though at least one failed amendment was extended at least once in an effort to pass it.

 

[Bern80]

I am not talking about your average responsible citizen of sound mind and body. I am talking about the severely mentally and physically handicapped and about people who run into a string of bad luck and hard times – who may need a brief helping hand.

This particular point needs to be put to rest. No one that I am aware of in this thread is arguing that the government shouldn't help people who need help.

What I am talking about ('i' being the starter of thread) is an examination of why those who are capable (and should) of providing for their own healthcare should expect government to take care of it for them.

That is what I am focusing on. Why is it 'good', 'right', 'moral' for prefectly capable people to expect another, who has even less control over someone elses health, to be responsible for that person's health?