Is healthcare a right? why or why not?

[mattskramer]

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.

Uh. Read what M14 Shooter says at the bottom of post # 214:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=611855&postcount=214

Read what M14 Shooter says at the bottom of post # 205

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=611624&postcount=205

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?

I think that we agree here. Those who can afford to take care of themselves should be required to do so. Yet, based on my interpretation of M14’s comments, M14 thinks that those who can’t take care of themselves better find a friend, family member, or charity, or die in the street. That is where he and I disagree.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Uh. Read what M14 Shooter says at the bottom of post # 214:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=611855&postcount=214

Read what M14 Shooter says at the bottom of post # 205

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=611624&postcount=205




I think that we agree here. Those who can afford to take care of themselves should be required to do so. Yet, based on my interpretation of M14’s comments, M14 thinks that those who can’t take care of themselves better find a friend, family member, or charity, or die in the street. That is where he and I disagree.

You have consistantly argued through out this thread that the Government should provide health care to people irregardless of ability to pay. Now you want to claim other wise?

 

[mattskramer]

You have consistantly argued through out this thread that the Government should provide health care to people irregardless of ability to pay. Now you want to claim other wise?

I think that you inferred that. I don’t think that I ever said that people should be given health care coverage by the government even when they can afford to pay for it themselves. Please direct me to a post where I said that government should provide health care to people irregardless of ability to pay. On the other hand, M14 explicitly stated that those who can’t afford health care better find a charitable person or suffer the consequences.

On the contrary, in many places within this thread I say focused on those poor sick people who can’t afford to pay for their health care.

 

[Bern80]

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.

That really didn't make any sense.

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.

No you can't and no it isn't. History has shown that very few governments served the common good for one. You can't make an obligation out of nothing. The morality of something is not a component of someone is or isn't obliged or responsible for.

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.

As I said to Matts this particular point needs to be dropped because no one is debating it. No is debating (that I can tell) that gov't shouldn't help those that need help. We are debating whether there is an obligation for government to pay (with my money) for the healthcare of people that are capable of providing it for themselves.

No it the mark of society that is unwilling to accept risk. That is certainly an option I suppose. We can legislate that government take care of us from cradle to grave. But there are consequences of that. Primarily that it will prevent the society from reaching it's full potential. It will breed apathy and complacency. Behavior is taught over time. If government teaches people they don't need to be responsible for aspects of their lives, then people won't be responsible for aspects of their lives. It's that simple. Is that reall a 'good' thing?

Now you're changeing terms from obligation to what one has the right to ask for. You have the right to ask for pretty much anything you want. The person you ask however is under obligation to meet your request in only very specific circumstances.

In this case the request would be "provide me healthcare" To which I would have some questions which in your response I would ask that you answer as succinclty as possible:

why?

You have more control over your health than me, why should I be mroe responsible than you for it?

You seem perfectly capable of providing for this need on your own, why should I provide it for you?

 

[mattskramer]

As I said to Matts this particular point needs to be dropped because no one is debating it. No is debating (that I can tell) that gov't shouldn't help those that need help. We are debating whether there is an obligation for government to pay (with my money) for the healthcare of people that are capable of providing it for themselves.

M14 certainly is debating it. Uh. Hello. Read post # 301. Read post # 301.

 

[Bern80]

M14 certainly is debating it. Uh. Hello. Read post # 301. Read post # 301.

No he isn't. He is argueing whether they are obligated to or better put whether some have an entitlement to it. Not whether they should or shouldn't. There's a very distinct dfference.

Also interesting that you chose this one relatively trivial point (compared to the actual subject) an no others to respond to.

 

[Diuretic]

This is interesting.

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.

Okay, got it. As the US is a federation of states then the states have to decide on the amendment that might be proposed. Who can propose an amendment?

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.

Yes, a court must always have reference to the original intention of the legislature in deciding on a case. But "law" can be made in various ways because "law" isn't just legislation. The effect of legislation can be changed simply by the decision of a superior appellate court.

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.

Yes, any constitution that isn't a living document is going to end up being ossified.

 

[Diuretic]

That really didn't make any sense.

Contract Law 101.

No you can't and no it isn't. History has shown that very few governments served the common good for one. You can't make an obligation out of nothing. The morality of something is not a component of someone is or isn't obliged or responsible for.

That didn't make sense

As I said to Matts this particular point needs to be dropped because no one is debating it. No is debating (that I can tell) that gov't shouldn't help those that need help. We are debating whether there is an obligation for government to pay (with my money) for the healthcare of people that are capable of providing it for themselves.

Good stuff. Yes, it's much better to focus on the method. But you're still not taking the point that the government spends taxes, not your money.

No it the mark of society that is unwilling to accept risk. That is certainly an option I suppose. We can legislate that government take care of us from cradle to grave. But there are consequences of that. Primarily that it will prevent the society from reaching it's full potential. It will breed apathy and complacency. Behavior is taught over time. If government teaches people they don't need to be responsible for aspects of their lives, then people won't be responsible for aspects of their lives. It's that simple. Is that reall a 'good' thing?

That's a bit of a blanket statement, about society being unwilling to accept risk. Society should ameliorate risk. That's why societies fund police forces and fire departments and hospitals and so on. That's not breeding dependence.

Now you're changeing terms from obligation to what one has the right to ask for. You have the right to ask for pretty much anything you want. The person you ask however is under obligation to meet your request in only very specific circumstances.

I was trying to blunt the repeated claim that those of us on this side of the argument are saying there's a "right". That's an obfuscation from some of our opponents. There is no "right". I hold there is an obligation from government to its citizens. But I'm happy to drop that in the interests of keeping the discussion on how a scheme is to be funded - as you have already indicated.

In this case the request would be "provide me healthcare" To which I would have some questions which in your response I would ask that you answer as succinclty as possible:

why?

You have more control over your health than me, why should I be mroe responsible than you for it?

You seem perfectly capable of providing for this need on your own, why should I provide it for you?

I need to make the point that my argument on that aspect of it is this. That government exists. That government has obligations towards the citizens. That when a citizen is born then he or she automatically enters into the social contract, even though they are an infant (back to Contracts 101, infancy is a defence to a breach of contract action but it doesn't apply to the social contract), simply by being a citizen they have rights and the government has obligations towards them.

In the last couple of points you make. I say again. I'm not arguing that you have an obligation to anyone to look after them. You don't (except as the law provides). I am not arguing that you have an obligation towards me (hypothetically speaking) for my health care. That makes your point moot.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If you had read Article 5 I linked to you would have seen that there are 2 methods for proposing an amendment. Congress can do it ( the most common) or the several States Legislatures can do it.

The threshold for proposal is lower than for passage. It requires 2/3 of both houses to propose or 2/3 of the State legislatures.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You really should read the Constitution, even with all its amendments it is not a very large document. It is clear and precise.

 

[Diuretic]

I did read the material at the link.

I'm just waiting for the Texas Two Step to start

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

I didn't say it had been amended 27 times w/o congress, only that it had been amended 27 times.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I did read the material at the link.

I'm just waiting for the Texas Two Step to start

I prefer the green apple quick step myself.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

IIRC, you asked why Congress/the Government cannot do something that's not in the Constituion. Such a thing would be extra-constitutional.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

I didnt say they protected your rights personally and individually -- they protect your rights by protecting societal interests, enforcing the law, keeping the peace and all the rest of it.

One thing thet certainly do not do is PROVIDE you with the means to exercise your rights.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

IIRC, you asked why Congress/the Government cannot do something that's not in the Constituion. Such a thing would be extra-constitutional.

He can not seem to grasp the whole " The Government only has stated powers" part. To be expected, in his Country the Government can do ANYTHING they want for any reason. They have no limits imposed on them at all. The people have no basic promise of rights in writing and no Constitution at all. He is simply used to the no limits type of Government.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think that we agree here. Those who can afford to take care of themselves should be required to do so. Yet, based on my interpretation of M14’s comments, M14 thinks that those who can’t take care of themselves better find a friend, family member, or charity, or die in the street. That is where he and I disagree.

We also disagree on slavery:
I think that all forms, manifestations and instances of slavery are reprehensible, unacceptable, contemptable assaults on liberty.

You think it is OK, at least sometimes.

 

[Diuretic]

I prefer the green apple quick step myself.

- when ya gotta go......

 

[Diuretic]

IIRC, you asked why Congress/the Government cannot do something that's not in the Constituion. Such a thing would be extra-constitutional.

So why amendments?

 

[Diuretic]

I didnt say they protected your rights personally and individually -- they protect your rights by protecting societal interests, enforcing the law, keeping the peace and all the rest of it.

One thing thet certainly do not do is PROVIDE you with the means to exercise your rights.

It's tricky isn't it? To ensure that society functions properly the police are given conditional immunity from infringing on the natural rights of citizens.