Is healthcare a right? why or why not?

[Diuretic]

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.

Did you want to ask me about the situation in my country? I'll answer if you have a question. And for the record, you're off beam but then I don't expect you to know much about our little corner.

 

[Diuretic]

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.

There's slavery and there's slavery....we're all in thrall to something or someone, to one degree or another.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Did you want to ask me about the situation in my country? I'll answer if you have a question. And for the record, you're off beam but then I don't expect you to know much about our little corner.

So other than voting in enough voting members of your parliament to change a law passed, what restriction is there on your Government from making any law for any reason they choose? What document limits the power of your Government? What written document provides any protection for your citizens, grants any rights the Government can not vote to take away?

As for amendments asked and answered, why your hung up on that is beyond me.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So why amendments?

Because, as we all know, sometimes the Constitution, as originally written, does not cover something that needs to be covered.

Note that this doesnt create an argument for the legitimacy of the government deciding to "just do it" regardless of any amendment granting a power to that effect.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Its -not- tricky in that the police do not provide you with the means to exercise your rights.

 

[Diuretic]

So other than voting in enough voting members of your parliament to change a law passed, what restriction is there on your Government from making any law for any reason they choose? What document limits the power of your Government? What written document provides any protection for your citizens, grants any rights the Government can not vote to take away?

I'm glad you asked

We have a bi-cameral parliament (this is federally). The party with the largest number of seats in parliament's lower house is invited to form a government. The government attempts to pass laws and provided it gets a majority vote in both houses they will be able to do so. However they can't do what they like. Our constitution does limit the power of government. But more importantly the English common law does so as well. I won't go on about it but there's a huge corpus of common law going back to Magna Carta and beyond that still has effect in Australia. The High Court of Australia, analogous to your Supreme Court, has an original power of deciding on constitutional questions. So, there's no single document limiting the power of government, there's a mix of statute law, common law and convention which does so.

As for amendments asked and answered, why your hung up on that is beyond me.

Simple. If the constitution can be amended then the Founding Fathers recognised that it wasn't cast in concrete and was immutable. It can be formally amended and its intent can be interpreted by the Supreme Court. It's not a rigid, ossified document in the National Archives. In short, it's more than just a piece of paper.

 

[Diuretic]

Because, as we all know, sometimes the Constitution, as originally written, does not cover something that needs to be covered.

Note that this doesnt create an argument for the legitimacy of the government deciding to "just do it" regardless of any amendment granting a power to that effect.

Yes and yes. Government can't do what it wishes, it has to be within the confines of the intent of the constitution.

 

[Diuretic]

Its -not- tricky in that the police do not provide you with the means to exercise your rights.

That's quite true, but I never said they did.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I'm glad you asked

We have a bi-cameral parliament (this is federally). The party with the largest number of seats in parliament's lower house is invited to form a government. The government attempts to pass laws and provided it gets a majority vote in both houses they will be able to do so. However they can't do what they like. Our constitution does limit the power of government. But more importantly the English common law does so as well. I won't go on about it but there's a huge corpus of common law going back to Magna Carta and beyond that still has effect in Australia. The High Court of Australia, analogous to your Supreme Court, has an original power of deciding on constitutional questions. So, there's no single document limiting the power of government, there's a mix of statute law, common law and convention which does so.



Simple. If the constitution can be amended then the Founding Fathers recognised that it wasn't cast in concrete and was immutable. It can be formally amended and its intent can be interpreted by the Supreme Court. It's not a rigid, ossified document in the National Archives. In short, it's more than just a piece of paper.

The Constitution is of course more than a piece of paper. However the Government can not just assume more powers or stretch clauses beyond any reasonable meaning. They are REQUIRED to submit to the people either through their legislatures or directly to the people amendments to grant or repeal powers granted to the Government.

IT is concrete unless amended. The Government can not usurp powers not specifically given to it by the Constitution, they must try to amend the document and give the people the choice on whether or not the new power is granted.

 

[Diuretic]

The Constitution is of course more than a piece of paper. However the Government can not just assume more powers or stretch clauses beyond any reasonable meaning. They are REQUIRED to submit to the people either through their legislatures or directly to the people amendments to grant or repeal powers granted to the Government.

IT is concrete unless amended. The Government can not usurp powers not specifically given to it by the Constitution, they must try to amend the document and give the people the choice on whether or not the new power is granted.

Yes, that all makes sense to me, agreed on those.

 

[Bern80]

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.

Taxes don't appear out of thin air. They take them from taxpayers (me). So yes, they are spending my money in that they spent what I earned and take part of it that they didn't. I don't have a huge problem with it provided that it is wisely spent (something we should be up-in-arms about already). I simply don't view government control of healthcare by a government that has shown it is amazingly inept and inefficient at running anything a wise use of tax dollars. Especially when for, the most part, our system works.

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.

This doesn't have to be an all or nothing thing. It is perfectly reasonable to support government funding fire departments while not supporting them being the provider of my healthcare. Again it comes down to what reasonable expectations of people are. There has to be a level of personal responsibilty for your needs at some point. The trade off is an un-free society. Again I ask, why is it reasonable to put the responsibilty of your health, something you have more control over then anyone else, onto someone else?

It is not governments job to ameliorate risk either. There job is to to protect us from the things we can't reasonabley be expected to protect ourselves from. Why should citizens provide for their own healthcare? Simple. It's in societies best interest. Are you more or less likely to take care of yourself if you have a financial stake in your health? Are you more or less likely to be complacement if you have the understanding that whatever you do to yourself will be fixed and paid for by some other entity?

This is the deeper, maybe more philosophical question I'm trying to get at. Do you create a better society be ameliorating all risks and burdens? or is a better society one where people struggle through some adversity, take some responsiblity for their lot and life and perservere?

Those are two types of societies you can have. One will breed mediocrity and averageness, but everyone will be relatively okay and have few burdens to deal with. The other will have considerable risks in all facets of life. There will be struggles with things out of your control and some will sink to the bottom based on any number of things. But some will also rise to the top and be their success and contributions to that society will only be limited by their imagination.

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.

I don't really want to drop this because this is the main point. Government isn't some extraneous entity from society. It is part of society, made up of the people in the society. Therefore if you say government is obligated to provide something which it can't do without money, which it can't get without taxing, the obligation does fall on me and the other taxpayers.

We can't discuss how the system will be funded until we discuss who it is going to fund. To me you still seem to be arguing that it should fund everyone, including those that are capable of providing for themselves, are you not?

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.

It isn't moot. If you say government has obligations toward people and those obligations need to be paid for then government tells me I am obligated to those things by collecting taxes from my paycheck.

 

[mattskramer]

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.

Is it slavery for me to pay taxes to a police force when I think that I can do a better ob of protecting myself on my own?

Is it slavery when I feel like abusing my pets but I have to pay taxes to support the ASPCA?

For whatever reason the government thinks justifies it to take my hard-earned money, isn’t it still a form of slavery?

 

[mattskramer]

Its -not- tricky in that the police do not provide you with the means to exercise your rights.

This is where we disagree. Police protect you from bullets just as doctors protect you from diseases. While you may think that we should pay taxes to support police, you might not think that we should pay taxes to support doctors.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Is it slavery for me to pay taxes to a police force when I think that I can do a better ob of protecting myself on my own?

You're still suffering from your deliberate and willful inability to discern the difference between "protect" and "provide". When you are able to make that distinction, get back to me.

 

[mattskramer]

You're still suffering from your deliberate and willful inability to discern the difference between "protect" and "provide". When you are able to make that distinction, get back to me.

Police protect people and provide a service they provide a means for people to continue to live and go for what they want. The same goes for health care. Down at a very basic level, I don’t see the difference. I guess that I just don’t understand it from your perspective. Would you take the time to handhold me and explain it in baby step-by-step fashion as if I were a 12-year-old.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Police protect people and provide a service they provide a means for people to continue to live and go for what they want. The same goes for health care. Down at a very basic level, I don’t see the difference.....

Of course you don't - because to do so negates your arguments.
And you don't want that to happen.

 

[mattskramer]

Of course you don't - because to do so negates your arguments.
And you don't want that to happen.

Nope. Unlike many people here, I have no problem admitting when I’m wrong. I’ve been wrong before in my logic and statements. It happens once in a great while. I don’t know where they are, but there are places on this board where I have said that I was wrong. I just don’t see where I am wrong in this issue.

I see a strong parallel between police service and medical service with respect to taxes. They both provide services. They both help people to live. One stops a bullet and one stops a disease. The functions can be done in the private sector. The functions can be done in the public sector. I just don’t see any significant difference.

 

[Diuretic]

Taxes don't appear out of thin air. They take them from taxpayers (me). So yes, they are spending my money in that they spent what I earned and take part of it that they didn't. I don't have a huge problem with it provided that it is wisely spent (something we should be up-in-arms about already). I simply don't view government control of healthcare by a government that has shown it is amazingly inept and inefficient at running anything a wise use of tax dollars. Especially when for, the most part, our system works.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the issue of taxes.

This doesn't have to be an all or nothing thing. It is perfectly reasonable to support government funding fire departments while not supporting them being the provider of my healthcare. Again it comes down to what reasonable expectations of people are. There has to be a level of personal responsibilty for your needs at some point. The trade off is an un-free society. Again I ask, why is it reasonable to put the responsibilty of your health, something you have more control over then anyone else, onto someone else?

Let me put my point this way. Candidate A says they will not support an expanded health care scheme. Candidate B says they will support such a scheme. Taxpayers who are voters get to pick one. The majority get their wish, everyone continues to pay taxes as usual.

It is not governments job to ameliorate risk either. There job is to to protect us from the things we can't reasonabley be expected to protect ourselves from. Why should citizens provide for their own healthcare? Simple. It's in societies best interest. Are you more or less likely to take care of yourself if you have a financial stake in your health? Are you more or less likely to be complacement if you have the understanding that whatever you do to yourself will be fixed and paid for by some other entity?

I can't agree with your logic here, it's just not following. 'Why should citizens provide for their own healthcare? Simple. It's in societies best interest." If it's in society's best interest then society should ensure it happens and pay for it.

This is the deeper, maybe more philosophical question I'm trying to get at. Do you create a better society be ameliorating all risks and burdens? or is a better society one where people struggle through some adversity, take some responsiblity for their lot and life and perservere?

Patently no government, no society will remove all risks and burdens. Should government help out a citizen when that citizen is in real need is a different question.

Those are two types of societies you can have. One will breed mediocrity and averageness, but everyone will be relatively okay and have few burdens to deal with. The other will have considerable risks in all facets of life. There will be struggles with things out of your control and some will sink to the bottom based on any number of things. But some will also rise to the top and be their success and contributions to that society will only be limited by their imagination.

There are thousands and thousands and maybe more types of society, not two.

I don't really want to drop this because this is the main point. Government isn't some extraneous entity from society. It is part of society, made up of the people in the society. Therefore if you say government is obligated to provide something which it can't do without money, which it can't get without taxing, the obligation does fall on me and the other taxpayers.

We can't discuss how the system will be funded until we discuss who it is going to fund. To me you still seem to be arguing that it should fund everyone, including those that are capable of providing for themselves, are you not?

I'd like to continue with that argument but it keeps getting sidetracked.

It isn't moot. If you say government has obligations toward people and those obligations need to be paid for then government tells me I am obligated to those things by collecting taxes from my paycheck.

No, you're obligated to the government, not its specific functions nor to other taxpayers, at least in the sense of this discussion, that was why I said your original point was moot.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We'll have to agree to disagree on the issue of taxes.




Let me put my point this way. Candidate A says they will not support an expanded health care scheme. Candidate B says they will support such a scheme. Taxpayers who are voters get to pick one. The majority get their wish, everyone continues to pay taxes as usual.



I can't agree with your logic here, it's just not following. 'Why should citizens provide for their own healthcare? Simple. It's in societies best interest." If it's in society's best interest then society should ensure it happens and pay for it.



Patently no government, no society will remove all risks and burdens. Should government help out a citizen when that citizen is in real need is a different question.



There are thousands and thousands and maybe more types of society, not two.





I'd like to continue with that argument but it keeps getting sidetracked.





No, you're obligated to the government, not its specific functions nor to other taxpayers, at least in the sense of this discussion, that was why I said your original point was moot.

The Federal Government has NO POWER to create a health care system paid for by our taxes nor run by the Federal Government.

 

[Bern80]

Let me put my point this way. Candidate A says they will not support an expanded health care scheme. Candidate B says they will support such a scheme. Taxpayers who are voters get to pick one. The majority get their wish, everyone continues to pay taxes as usual.

Everyone continues to pay taxes yes. But candidate A and B determine how they are spent. I vote for the candidate that I believe spends them most fairly.

I can't agree with your logic here, it's just not following. 'Why should citizens provide for their own healthcare? Simple. It's in societies best interest." If it's in society's best interest then society should ensure it happens and pay for it.

Because you aren't understanding. I didn't say healthy people are in societies best interest. I said people being responsible for themesleves (and their healthcare) is in socities best interest.

Patently no government, no society will remove all risks and burdens. Should government help out a citizen when that citizen is in real need is a different question.

You're missing the point. I'm well aware no government or society can eliminate all risk. The question is should they even be trying to.

There are thousands and thousands and maybe more types of society, not two.

That's being a little obtuse in an attempt to not address the point. I'm well aware that there are more the two possible types of societies, hence the absence of the word 'the' before the word 'two' in the first sentence.

I'd like to continue with that argument but it keeps getting sidetracked.

I'll do my best. please answer the question.