Is healthcare a right? why or why not?

[M14 Shooter]

Why does the Social Security Act exist when it's not mentioned in the Constitution?

You didn't answer my question.

If the power to tax for the common defense and the general welfare necessarily creates the power to provide for the common defense and the general welfare -- why did the people that wrote the constitution bother enumerating the powers of Congress other than the 1st and last?

 

[Diuretic]

You didn't answer my question.

You'll have to ask it again, it was lost in the discussion.

If the power to tax for the common defense and the general welfare necessarily creates the power to provide for the common defense and the general welfare -- why did the people that wrote the constitution bother enumerating the powers of Congress other than the 1st and last?

I'm not sure if that makes a lot of sense. As I see it there are two possibilities here:

1. The constitution was written so that it could never be changed.
2. The constitution was written so that it could be changed as needed.

Which of the two possibilities do you favour?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You'll have to ask it again, it was lost in the discussion.



I'm not sure if that makes a lot of sense. As I see it there are two possibilities here:

1. The constitution was written so that it could never be changed.
2. The constitution was written so that it could be changed as needed.

Which of the two possibilities do you favour?

It Obviously CAN be changed, IT specifies HOW. The problem is that it ALSO SPECIFIES what power the Government has. Once again JUST for you, the Government is limited by the Constitution, It only has the powers given it by the document. ALL other powers belong to either the States or the people, as specifically mentioned in the 9th and 10th Amendment.

The Government does not just get to make up new powers, it MUST go before the people with an amendment to grant the Government that power. The dodge is the stretching of the specific clauses of power in the Constitution.

 

[Diuretic]

Two words - Supreme Court.

 

[Threedee]

The role of the Supreme Court in this area is stupid. The meaning of the Constitution should never change. What changes is additions made to it by amendment. After the passage of the 14th Amendment, people decided to play dumb and pretend the amendment meant something it didn't or didn't mean what it was clearly intended to at all. The Court played a huge role in that and has done so ever since. Now of course, there are other areas of the Constitution since then where the SC is deliberately obtuse when "addressing" for the sake of politics.

At the same time, its hardly deniable that the SC's word has become law. To that extent, I contend that we no longer have a Constitution and what we do follow, we follow out of pretence. A document that can be re-interpreted ("living") is certainly not a constitution as it/we claim.

 

[Diuretic]

The role of the Supreme Court in this area is stupid. The meaning of the Constitution should never change. What changes is additions made to it by amendment. After the passage of the 14th Amendment, people decided to play dumb and pretend the amendment meant something it didn't or didn't mean what it was clearly intended to at all. The Court played a huge role in that and has done so ever since. Now of course, there are other areas of the Constitution since then where the SC is deliberately obtuse when "addressing" for the sake of politics.

At the same time, its hardly deniable that the SC's word has become law. To that extent, I contend that we no longer have a Constitution and what we do follow, we follow out of pretence. A document that can be re-interpreted ("living") is certainly not a constitution as it/we claim.

"Stupid" isn't the issue - the issue is authority. Does the Supreme Court have the authority to pronounce on constitutional interpretation? I think it does - note the qualifier please, I "think" it does - not "it should" or "it shouldn't".

Now I can see the discussion going into the black-letter law v interpretation black hole. With all due respect black holes suck in all the light they can and that's where this thread will go if we're not careful.

Unless you can bring the dead back to life then you have to accept that the constitution is going to be interpreted. Yes, amendments do alter it but they alter it in the same manner that a hotrod looks different when someone puts body panels on it. Amendments are additions and I suppose they have to be in line with the accepted understanding of the constitution or the Supreme Court would strike them down (assuming the court has the authority to do so).

I find it hard to believe that a group of intelligent, visionary men such as the founders of the constitution would have bequeathed it to the infant nation intending it to be strictly interpreted according to the language, the culture, the mores and the totality of the new society when it was written. Even while the ink was drying there were debates over its interpretation but those were, I think, broader and more constructive than the current squabble between the black letter conservatives and the interpretationist progressives.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"Stupid" isn't the issue - the issue is authority. Does the Supreme Court have the authority to pronounce on constitutional interpretation? I think it does - note the qualifier please, I "think" it does - not "it should" or "it shouldn't".

Now I can see the discussion going into the black-letter law v interpretation black hole. With all due respect black holes suck in all the light they can and that's where this thread will go if we're not careful.

Unless you can bring the dead back to life then you have to accept that the constitution is going to be interpreted. Yes, amendments do alter it but they alter it in the same manner that a hotrod looks different when someone puts body panels on it. Amendments are additions and I suppose they have to be in line with the accepted understanding of the constitution or the Supreme Court would strike them down (assuming the court has the authority to do so).

I find it hard to believe that a group of intelligent, visionary men such as the founders of the constitution would have bequeathed it to the infant nation intending it to be strictly interpreted according to the language, the culture, the mores and the totality of the new society when it was written. Even while the ink was drying there were debates over its interpretation but those were, I think, broader and more constructive than the current squabble between the black letter conservatives and the interpretationist progressives.

The court can do NOTHING to a legally proposed and legally passed amendment. NOTHING. The Court derives its power from the Constitution, and that power is not very clearly defined in regards who gets to interpret the document. The Supreme Court made the decision it would interpret it and our third President let that stand for political reasons.

Within reason it is in fact a good thing. One should not argue that the Other branches should have the sole power to determine if their acts are Constitutional, defeats the whole idea of checks and balances. The problem is when the court does not intrepret but creates from whole cloth new meanings and new powers in the Constitution, doesn't matter who they create the powers for, the people, the Courts, the Legislature or the Executive. THAT is NOT the power of the Courts.

Roe vs Wade is a perfect example of such an illegal action. Allowing the Government to create whole new powers not given in the Constitution is another.

It is simple, Abortion is not a "right" , Education is NOT a power of the Federal Government, Social Security is NOT a power of the Federal Government, on and on.

The Constitution is meant to LIMIT the Government, NOT make it Omnipotent. The entire PURPOSE was to ensure the Federal Government had specific CONCRETE limits and that only the States and the people could give it more.

 

[Diuretic]

RGS - thanks, that's a very informative post.

Now, on Roe v Wade, I understand that it was an interpretation of the privacy clause? And wasn't it the case that the law in Tx was struck down because it was in violation of due process/privacy or something similar. I'm going from memory, to be blunt I can't be bothered wading through a pile of Googles on the case, so if I'm wrong then no worries, I'll stand corrected.

I'm learning a lot here, this is good.

 

[Psychoblues]

Have you ever been corrected here, doc?

RGS - thanks, that's a very informative post.

Now, on Roe v Wade, I understand that it was an interpretation of the privacy clause? And wasn't it the case that the law in Tx was struck down because it was in violation of due process/privacy or something similar. I'm going from memory, to be blunt I can't be bothered wading through a pile of Googles on the case, so if I'm wrong then no worries, I'll stand corrected.

I'm learning a lot here, this is good.

Enjoy your time here and don't take too much of the critisism personally!!!!!!!

 

[Diuretic]

Have you ever been corrected here, doc?




Enjoy your time here and don't take too much of the critisism personally!!!!!!!

PB I think I've been corrected a few times and that's fine, it's a learning experience. And nah, I don't take it personally, I mean a bit of biffo on the board is always on the cards, it's just if it gets really out of hand it gets, well, boring.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm not sure if that makes a lot of sense.

It does.
But it appears the relevant conversation has been lost from recent memory, so it doesnt have tbe necessary context.

 

[Diuretic]

It does.
But it appears the relevant conversation has been lost from recent memory, so it doesnt have tbe necessary context.

That's very true. Context is extremely important and I have to admit that I find I have to go back and read through a thread I've been in to try and pick up the flow again and it's not that easy. Anyway, it's been interesting and educational for me.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Why do I ask? To me it seems to be the most fundamental part of why some advocate for universal health care and why some advocate for privatized healthcare. Every candidate on the dem ticket has a plan of some type for of universal or government run healthcare. So I have to think that most of them think it is a right. By extension then people basically have the right to good health it would seem.

The problem I have with it being a right is the concept of a 'right' itself. A 'right' like the right to free speech or right to bear arms is something that is provided you without any cost or requirment to obtain access to. You don't have to earn the right to free speech or pay a fee when you want to speak. The conundrum I have with healthcare is if it is your right, that is you are under no personal responsibility to provide it for yourself, then who's responsibility is it, and why? If I'm not paying for the services somone else must be. According to Hillary anyway that will be increased taxes on the rich. But wait healthcare is a right, so why should the rich be expected to pay for it? It's a right so isn't it suppossed to be free to them as well? Why should they be worried about their own health as well as those that can't pay for it?

Rush had a caller on today who was a female physician and basically asked the same question. Why is she, a provider of a service like any other service, expected to provide it a reduced rate or free all together? You can't control all aspects of your health anymore than you can control all aspects of your car working, but we expect people to pay to have their own car fixed even if not responsible for the problem, yet some have this expectation that when 'shit happens' where your health is concerned it's suppossed to be free to get 'fixed'.

I've never heard of anyone having to sell their house to pay for a broken car.

 

[Taomon]

Why do I ask? To me it seems to be the most fundamental part of why some advocate for universal health care and why some advocate for privatized healthcare. Every candidate on the dem ticket has a plan of some type for of universal or government run healthcare. So I have to think that most of them think it is a right. By extension then people basically have the right to good health it would seem.

The problem I have with it being a right is the concept of a 'right' itself. A 'right' like the right to free speech or right to bear arms is something that is provided you without any cost or requirement to obtain access to. You don't have to earn the right to free speech or pay a fee when you want to speak. The conundrum I have with healthcare is if it is your right, that is you are under no personal responsibility to provide it for yourself, then who's responsibility is it, and why? If I'm not paying for the services somone else must be. According to Hillary anyway that will be increased taxes on the rich. But wait healthcare is a right, so why should the rich be expected to pay for it? It's a right so isn't it suppossed to be free to them as well? Why should they be worried about their own health as well as those that can't pay for it?

Rush had a caller on today who was a female physician and basically asked the same question. Why is she, a provider of a service like any other service, expected to provide it a reduced rate or free all together? You can't control all aspects of your health anymore than you can control all aspects of your car working, but we expect people to pay to have their own car fixed even if not responsible for the problem, yet some have this expectation that when 'shit happens' where your health is concerned it's suppossed to be free to get 'fixed'.

We have the right to be able to afford sufficient healthcare. I do not believe it is fair nor is it even Democratic to allow Insurance conglomerates to fleece the public, the working classes and the poor, for coverage.

I can live without Universal healthcare so long as it is affordable and right now, it is not. So much so that many people simply go without, which cripples local economics as many people go to emergency rooms for everything that ails them - without the benefit of preventive care.

 

[sl33zy]

no doubt our health system suxxors bad! there are far more then what congress ect. thinks without insurance. and the pre existing bull sh!t, too short, chubby ect. is all a "SCAM" to get the average persons money, anyone can see this if you look for it.



Nothing wrong with the quality of our health care far as the treatment, but there are way too many hands in the pot wanting money.



would i goto "somwhere else" to get treatment i can afoard, no,

would i go if i was going to die and couldnt affoard it here, yes

would i go if one of my children were on there death bed, yes, providing i couldnt get it here or affoard it. Mr. Moore aside, our health care insurance is hosed up, all about the money.



im told im too short for my weight, so there for, im paying like up in 100's more if i get covered at all, im not fat by any means, im very stout and have no medical conditions, is that fair?



is it fair that illegal a$$holes here getting food stamps that WE work for and most of us have to get get drug screened to get? and they dont? AND get covered as well will little to no $. Have a friend that works at Walmart and she couldnt count how many mexicans come through her checkout line with all the food stamps, card ect that cant speak a bit of english.



ive seen sicko and it is an eye opener to somone like me who has alot of the same stories as some in the show, so its not all "lies". we dont need to goto another country to get health care, are "so called" goverment needs to enforce a new system that covers "AMERICAN PEOPLE" all of them.



hate seeing what our country is doing to itself in this department.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Coming, as I do, from a nation that provides health care for all through the national health service I would like to offer my two panneth worth.
It should be provided by the government for all without discrimination.It is enjoyed as a right by those living and working in Britain.For all of it's failings, of which there are many it is still, far and away the best way to ensure peace of mind for all people.Those rich enough to afford it can always opt to take out health insurance or pay privately, it may ensure an earlier appointment but doesn't necessarily mean better care.
To pay for this, money is deducted at source from wage earners, this is called national insurance and goes toward the health service, sickness benefit and unemployment benefit.The amount deducted is determined by the size of the wage packet.

Hate to break it to you, but this is completely untrue.

Healthcare is NOT "enjoyed as a right" by those living and working in Great Britain. The government is not actually under any legal obligation to provide you any care, and if they decide NOT to provide you with a treatment, there's no recourse. Not a damned thing you can do about it.

Interestingly enough, there is only one occasion anywhere in the world in which a medical treatment is a legal right the government is required to provide and its citizens are entitled to receive, and for which they can sue their government. The treatment is dialysis for chronic renal failure. The country which provides it as a legally-enforceable right? The United States.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I am not wedded to Hillary care...I am wedded to the idea that the richest strongest country on the face of the earth ought to be able to find some way to provide healthcare to ALL its citizens.

Why?

 

[Cecilie1200]

RGS - thanks, that's a very informative post.

Now, on Roe v Wade, I understand that it was an interpretation of the privacy clause? And wasn't it the case that the law in Tx was struck down because it was in violation of due process/privacy or something similar. I'm going from memory, to be blunt I can't be bothered wading through a pile of Googles on the case, so if I'm wrong then no worries, I'll stand corrected.

I'm learning a lot here, this is good.

What "privacy clause"?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Okay, folks. Forgive me, but I'm going to drag this back to the basic question asked in the title. Is healthcare a right?

The relevant definition of "right" in this case is this:

something to which one has a just claim: as a: the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled <voting rights> <his right to decide> b (1): the interest that one has in a piece of property &#8212;often used in plural <mineral rights> (2)plural : the property interest possessed under law or custom and agreement in an intangible thing especially of a literary and artistic nature <film rights of the novel>

So we have to ask ourselves: does every person in this country have a just claim or just entitlement to healthcare services, regardless of ability or willingness to pay for them? Does every person in this country have a "property interest" in medical services provided by another person, regardless of ability or willingness to pay?

I'd have to say that in both cases, the answer is no. While basic medical care is certainly a necessary component to a good life, as are nutrition and adequate shelter on an even more basic level, and one can reasonably expect a modern, industrialized nation to have these things available for its citizens to access, that does not make any of them a right, something which someone is entitled to have merely by the fact of their existence.
Too many people in our society today equate "good to have" with "right to have". It is a moral and compassionate thing to want people to have those things that improve the quality and length of their lives. But if we as a society choose to provide those things, that still does not make them a "right" those people are entitled to; they are charity. I need food even more than I need medical care. Do I have a right to be fed? No, I still have to purchase the food, or get someone to choose to give it to me as a charitable act. It belongs to someone else, and I do not - I CANNOT - have a just claim on or entitlement to someone else's property. So it is with medical care.

 

[tigerbob]

Why do I ask? To me it seems to be the most fundamental part of why some advocate for universal health care and why some advocate for privatized healthcare. Every candidate on the dem ticket has a plan of some type for of universal or government run healthcare. So I have to think that most of them think it is a right. By extension then people basically have the right to good health it would seem.

The problem I have with it being a right is the concept of a 'right' itself. A 'right' like the right to free speech or right to bear arms is something that is provided you without any cost or requirment to obtain access to. You don't have to earn the right to free speech or pay a fee when you want to speak. The conundrum I have with healthcare is if it is your right, that is you are under no personal responsibility to provide it for yourself, then who's responsibility is it, and why? If I'm not paying for the services somone else must be. According to Hillary anyway that will be increased taxes on the rich. But wait healthcare is a right, so why should the rich be expected to pay for it? It's a right so isn't it suppossed to be free to them as well? Why should they be worried about their own health as well as those that can't pay for it?

Rush had a caller on today who was a female physician and basically asked the same question. Why is she, a provider of a service like any other service, expected to provide it a reduced rate or free all together? You can't control all aspects of your health anymore than you can control all aspects of your car working, but we expect people to pay to have their own car fixed even if not responsible for the problem, yet some have this expectation that when 'shit happens' where your health is concerned it's suppossed to be free to get 'fixed'.

I don't think it's a right, but which of us wants to see decent, hardworking people suffer because they can't afford the appropriate insurance?

I see your point with the car / health parallel. But cars don't suffer. And you can always buy another car.