Is healthcare a right? why or why not?

[Diuretic]

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

Okay, point taken, but where is it prohibited from doing so?

 

[Diuretic]

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.

Good, that's settled with understanding. Please don't see this as a some sort of stupid attempt at triumphalism. You vote for the candidate that you believe will spend taxes fairly. No problem with that, it makes perfect sense.

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.

I think I understood, I think I may have been putting another proposition, although in a clumsy manner.

You know this is really coming down to the old what is a good society question. Not that it's a bad thing, it's good to stand back and re-assess our society (not that I'm asserting you and I share a society).

In your good society individuals are responsible for themselves. In my good society individuals are similarly responsible for themselves. In my good society government doesn't tell someone how to live their life, except that the legislature can pass laws for the common good. I suspect your good society isn't that much difference (I'm hypothesising the good society here of course, not referring to the real ones). In my good society if someone is in need of help then they should expect that help, not as a crutch but as a hand extended. Creating a dependent society is as much a tyranny as any dictator.

Now, health policy should be seen in that light, that philosophy. I'll leave that there because you may wish to make a point about this yourself.

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.

Should a good society try to eliminate all risk? No, why try the impossible? Should a good society be attempting to ameliorate risk, yes it should. A good society's government should be on guard the whole time against various risks. Each government department should be working on identifying and reducing risk, to a large extent that's what government is about. If you disagree then explain to me why the Food and Drug Administration hasn't been dismantled.

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'm fine with an abstract discussion where one world looks like this and one world looks like that and it's then possible to limit the comparisons but, with all due respect, that has to be established and understood.

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

What was the question again?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Okay, point taken, but where is it prohibited from doing so?

LOL, did you not listen at all about the Constitution? The Constitution does not give the Federal Government the power to do it. Thus it can not.

 

[Diuretic]

LOL, did you not listen at all about the Constitution? The Constitution does not give the Federal Government the power to do it. Thus it can not.

I'm not denying that (just noting the circularity of the argument in passing), I'm merely asking for evidence

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I'm not denying that (just noting the circularity of the argument in passing), I'm merely asking for evidence

I have already at least twice linked to the enumerated powers of Congress. Must I cut and past them also? None of the enumerated powers gives the Federal Government the right or power to provide this service. If the Federal Government wants to do this and the people agree then an Amendment must be passed allowing them the power.

 

[Diuretic]

I'm doing my reading assignment. I'm also doing the reading assignment that Doug set us all in the conservatives/libertarian thread. Hey it's better than watching the crap they have on tv here

 

[Diuretic]

Okay, I read it.

Now, where does it say it's unconstitutional for government to fund healthcare?
That is what we're discussing isn't it? There are so many sub-threads it's a bit difficult to follow all of them.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Okay, I read it.

Now, where does it say it's unconstitutional for government to fund healthcare?
That is what we're discussing isn't it? There are so many sub-threads it's a bit difficult to follow all of them.

Once again. the Constitution does not specify what the Federal Government can NOT do, it specifies what it CAN do. There is something like 18 enumerated powers of the Congress. Not one of which gives the Federal Government the authority or power to provide health care to the citizens of the several states.

The relevant section.... http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Be so kind as to show me the clause that covers providing health care to private citizens of the United States. I will admit that in the case of Washington DC and the military the Government does have said authority.

The closest thing you will find is the term general Welfare of the United States. But that is not what was meant by said term and I doubt you find anyone in congress claiming it is what gives them authority to act on health care.

None of the Amendments passed cover it either, shall I list all of them too?

 

[Diuretic]

So, can the states legislate to provide health care to their citizens?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So, can the states legislate to provide health care to their citizens?

Depends on their Constitution, but I would venture to say it is a lot easier to change a State Constitution then a Federal one.

 

[Diuretic]

Depends on their Constitution, but I would venture to say it is a lot easier to change a State Constitution then a Federal one.

Yes I think it would be, smaller population and all of that. Canada has provincially organised health care and while that might work for them (given they've got a bigger population than my country and Canada is far larger in land mass than Aus) I wonder if it's that smart a move. But I would think local politics plays a part in it, as it does anywhere.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Okay, I read it.
Now, where does it say it's unconstitutional for government to fund healthcare?

Because the Cosntituion does not provide the power to do so.
Thus, to do so, would be extra-constitutional, and then by necessity, unconstiutional.

 

[mattskramer]

Because the Cosntituion does not provide the power to do so.
Thus, to do so, would be extra-constitutional, and then by necessity, unconstiutional.

I guess that this thread moved on to discuss the Constitution (what is allows, does not allow and ways to change it). I understand that it can be changed by a vote of the people or congress. This is just not much of an interest for me. My interest is in seeing if there is a absolute, consistent way to determine if some general something is politically or ethically right or wrong / good or bad. Anyway, carry on.

 

[jillian]

Okay, I read it.

Now, where does it say it's unconstitutional for government to fund healthcare?
That is what we're discussing isn't it? There are so many sub-threads it's a bit difficult to follow all of them.

It doesn't...

I find it interesting, though, that no one has addressed the deeper issue. Congress has voted itself lifetime health coverage. Even if someone leaves office, I believe they are STILL covered by government health insurance. Yet, none of the people here calling health care "socialist" or "welfare" have any problem with it.

Again, we voted for them. Why NOT provide Americans with the same coverage as the people who supposedly represent us already have?

 

[Bern80]

Okay, I read it.

Now, where does it say it's unconstitutional for government to fund healthcare?
That is what we're discussing isn't it? There are so many sub-threads it's a bit difficult to follow all of them.

I think the easiest way to wrap one's head around the constition and government powers is that the framers did it rationally. The idea was to figure out the best way to keep government from abusing power.

The best way to do that is to right a document in terms of what it CAN do rather than what it CAN'T. There is less room for abuse of power if it is undertood that these are things gov't CAN do. It is assumed anything not written the gov't has no power to do. The reverse would be to list what government CAN'T do which would be horribly problematic. Now government CAN do whatever it wants outside of the things it CAN'T do. Gov't power would only be limited by their imagination then.

 

[Bern80]

It doesn't...

I find it interesting, though, that no one has addressed the deeper issue. Congress has voted itself lifetime health coverage. Even if someone leaves office, I believe they are STILL covered by government health insurance. Yet, none of the people here calling health care "socialist" or "welfare" have any problem with it.

Again, we voted for them. Why NOT provide Americans with the same coverage as the people who supposedly represent us already have?

It's a really bad argument for one thing. It's the argument of 5 year old that whines to his mom about not haveing a toy and using the rationale that he should get it because Billy down the street has it.

Further it isn't a 'deep' issue either. It isn't exacltey unfair either. None of them know how long they're going to be in office for one thing. Thus they don't know how long they will have health insurance of some type. Your why NOT question shows you haven't thought about the ramification of such an idea at all. If we had the same healthcare plan they all did we would not being paying for it through taxes, it would be completely free. That would be a logisitcal nightmare.

 

[jillian]

It's a really bad argument for one thing. It's the argument of 5 year old that whines to his mom about not haveing a toy and using the rationale that he should get it because Billy down the street has it.

No. It's an argument about our priorities and what we're willing to spend money on. Why is it welfare to give health insurance to children but not to Congress people?

And you have no answer, as usual, so resort to rudeness and arrogance, which is clearly has no basis.

 

[Bern80]

I think I understood, I think I may have been putting another proposition, although in a clumsy manner.

You know this is really coming down to the old what is a good society question. Not that it's a bad thing, it's good to stand back and re-assess our society (not that I'm asserting you and I share a society).

In your good society individuals are responsible for themselves. In my good society individuals are similarly responsible for themselves. In my good society government doesn't tell someone how to live their life, except that the legislature can pass laws for the common good. I suspect your good society isn't that much difference (I'm hypothesising the good society here of course, not referring to the real ones). In my good society if someone is in need of help then they should expect that help, not as a crutch but as a hand extended. Creating a dependent society is as much a tyranny as any dictator.

Now, health policy should be seen in that light, that philosophy. I'll leave that there because you may wish to make a point about this yourself.

The problem is 'common good' is a very slippery slope. That isn't very far from "we know what's best for you and we're going to legislate that you do it." For example in our state, the state wide smoking ban went into effect (just this past week I believe) for the 'common good'. A law that somehow conveniently skipped over the notion of private property rights. If a bar owner wants to allow smoking in his bar, why should he not be allowed to?

The other problem is this "if someone is in need of help then they should expect that help".

Know they shouldn't. Because what you have essentially stated is that the determing factor in whether it is my obligation to help an individual is that individual's condition. It may seem like semanitcs, but it's a key point. I don't want a society where people feel they are entitled to things or have the right to expect other or people to provide them with things. I want a society where those who can take responsibility for themselves do and we help those that can't, not out obligation or force, but because we're a compassionate society.

It comes down to what attitudes do you want to foster and encourage in a society. We obviously want to encourage and foster compassion for the less fortunate. The problem is that attitude can't be forced (legisltated) onto people. You either are compassionate or you're not. Legislating that someone less fortune has the right to expect something of me elimates to positive atitudes. Compassion and graciousness. I am not going to be compassionate to someone who'm i am forced to help. I do it because I have to. there's no atitude one way or the other. And by the same token the person I helped isn't going to be gracious because he knows I have to help him.

By forcing these atitudes, by saying you have the right to expect help when you need it. You are increasing the chance of negating the very atitudes in people you were seeking to create (garciousness, compassion). What reason doesn a man who can expect help have to be gracious? What reason does a man who is obligated/forced to help someone have to feel compassion?

Should a good society try to eliminate all risk? No, why try the impossible? Should a good society be attempting to ameliorate risk, yes it should. A good society's government should be on guard the whole time against various risks. Each government department should be working on identifying and reducing risk, to a large extent that's what government is about. If you disagree then explain to me why the Food and Drug Administration hasn't been dismantled.

I have said why I disagree several times. In comes down to what it is reasonable to expect of individuals and what is efficient. Is it effiecient for each individual to test out drugs on their own to make sure they work and won't hurt you. Of course not. So an entity was created to do that.

You can think of it I think in terms of raising a child. When they are very little sometimes they wake up and cry (several times a night). Is it best for the child that you go in and rescue him or her everytime you here a peep? No. You aren't leave them out of cruelty, you leave them so that you can show them the world doesn't end when you're not around.

 

[Bern80]

No. It's an argument about our priorities and what we're willing to spend money on. Why is it welfare to give health insurance to children but not to Congress people?

And you have no answer, as usual, so resort to rudeness and arrogance, which is clearly has no basis.

No one is saying it is welfare to give health insureance to children. Don't enter into debates with me by makeing unfounded assumptions about my position.

And Actually I did answer the question if you read the second paragraph. I'll recap quick for you.

You asked why we don't extend the same healthcare that our congressmen get to all citizens. I answered by saying first the dynamics of their job warrents it and two to institute such a program to the nation as a whole would have serious logisitcal problems.

 

[jillian]

No one is saying it is welfare to give health insureance to children. Don't enter into debates with me by makeing unfounded assumptions about my position.

And Actually I did answer the question if you read the second paragraph. I'll recap quick for you.

You asked why we don't extend the same healthcare that our congressmen get to all citizens. I answered by saying first the dynamics of their job warrents it and two to institute such a program to the nation as a whole would have serious logisitcal problems.

I don't think they deserve insurance from their employer after they leave their employment any more or less than the rest of us do.

Logistical problems shouldn't be a bar to doing the right thing. This country shouldn't be letting people go uninsured. It shouldn't be letting people forego medical treatment until they are untreatable. It shouldn't be letting people choose between buying their medications and eating or paying their rent. Last I checked, there were 5 million more people without health insurance than prior to Bush's presidency. That number is much higher now, though I don't know by how much.

Do I think people should have a choice in terms of whether they avail themselves of private physicians or government health care? Absolutely. Same as I make a choice to use physicians who are not on my insurance plan and have to go out of pocket.