Is healthcare a right? why or why not?

[madasheck]

Is national defense a right?

Is transportation infrastructure a right?

Is legal protection and law enforcement a right?

No, these are all government responsibilities. In some cases, they involve government protecting our rights - but they're not the rights themselves. Politically protected rights are freedoms.

Another perspective on this, that I think libertarian types tend to take for granted and may not be obvious to others, is that the whole idea of calling out individual rights in the constitution (ie the Bill of Rights) was to specify that government was not allowed to make laws violating them. They are restrictions on government - "Congress shall make no law ...". In that light, how does a "right to health care" make any sense? Would we be saying that government is restricted from preventing us from getting health care?

But that being said, providing health care is a very positive thing. It's not socialism or some hint of totalitarism. Conservatives are neatly trying to obliterate the discussion with the scare tactics. Having a health care plan improves the quality of life in this country, bottom line.

 

[manifold]

Is national defense a right?

Is transportation infrastructure a right?

Is legal protection and law enforcement a right?

No, these are all government responsibilities. In some cases, they involve government protecting our rights - but they're not the rights themselves. Politically protected rights are freedoms.

Another perspective on this, that I think libertarian types tend to take for granted and may not be obvious to others, is that the whole idea of calling out individual rights in the constitution (ie the Bill of Rights) was to specify that government was not allowed to make laws violating them. They are restrictions on government - "Congress shall make no law ...". In that light, how does a "right to health care" make any sense? Would we be saying that government is restricted from preventing us from getting health care?

In other words, they are things for which the government spends money, taxpayer money. So how would spending taxpayer money to provide healthcare be conceptually different?

 

[dblack]

But that being said, providing health care is a very positive thing. It's not socialism or some hint of totalitarism. Conservatives are neatly trying to obliterate the discussion with the scare tactics. Having a health care plan improves the quality of life in this country, bottom line.

That depends entirely on what the plan is.

 

[dblack]

Is national defense a right?

Is transportation infrastructure a right?

Is legal protection and law enforcement a right?

No, these are all government responsibilities. In some cases, they involve government protecting our rights - but they're not the rights themselves. Politically protected rights are freedoms.

Another perspective on this, that I think libertarian types tend to take for granted and may not be obvious to others, is that the whole idea of calling out individual rights in the constitution (ie the Bill of Rights) was to specify that government was not allowed to make laws violating them. They are restrictions on government - "Congress shall make no law ...". In that light, how does a "right to health care" make any sense? Would we be saying that government is restricted from preventing us from getting health care?

In other words, they are things for which the government spends money, taxpayer money. So how would spending taxpayer money to provide healthcare be conceptually different?

It wouldn't. It's just question of whether we want to make health care a government responsibility or not. And there are good arguments on both sides of that debate. My point, in this thread, is that it's worse than inaccurate to call health care a 'right'.

 

[Euro]

Is national defense a right?

Is transportation infrastructure a right?

Is legal protection and law enforcement a right?

No, these are all government responsibilities. In some cases, they involve government protecting our rights - but they're not the rights themselves. Politically protected rights are freedoms.

Another perspective on this, that I think libertarian types tend to take for granted and may not be obvious to others, is that the whole idea of calling out individual rights in the constitution (ie the Bill of Rights) was to specify that government was not allowed to make laws violating them. They are restrictions on government - "Congress shall make no law ...". In that light, how does a "right to health care" make any sense? Would we be saying that government is restricted from preventing us from getting health care?

In other words, they are things for which the government spends money, taxpayer money. So how would spending taxpayer money to provide healthcare be conceptually different?

Taxpayer money will remove much of the bureaucracy and the administration that Obamacare causes. To much money dries out in admistration and bureaucracy in the US healthcare system. Taxes can also be collected through a consumption tax on unhealthy things like alcohol and cigarettes instead of increasing the income tax that much. Gasoline can also be taxed to finance it, that way you stimulate people to walk,cycle etc. and not use the car. Their is much potential in taxing consumption in US, gasoline is ridioulsly cheap and taxing here could be an alternative to taxing personal income.

I think it would be easier if you’ll set a maximum amount that people have to pay before the governments gets involved. Lets say if you spend more than 800$ on a year on medical treatment, the government steps in and covers what comes over 800$. The problem in USA is you for instance get cancer you’ll go bankrupt.

In my country we have a very aggressive tax on tobacco that covers much of the healthcare. 20 cigarrettes costs 15$+ and that gives the government large tax incomes that it can put into the HC budget. And every time the HC costs for the government grows, they just put an extra tax on smoking to cover it. Much of the healthcare can be covered with consumption taxes on unhealthy things. It’s not nesccesccay to increase the income tax that much, if you can put consumption taxes on unhealthy things.

E.g. who spends most money in a socialized medicine system. People that smoke, are fat, alcoholics. Tax them instead at will become more fair to those that lives healthy lives

 

[dblack]

No, these are all government responsibilities. In some cases, they involve government protecting our rights - but they're not the rights themselves. Politically protected rights are freedoms.

Another perspective on this, that I think libertarian types tend to take for granted and may not be obvious to others, is that the whole idea of calling out individual rights in the constitution (ie the Bill of Rights) was to specify that government was not allowed to make laws violating them. They are restrictions on government - "Congress shall make no law ...". In that light, how does a "right to health care" make any sense? Would we be saying that government is restricted from preventing us from getting health care?

In other words, they are things for which the government spends money, taxpayer money. So how would spending taxpayer money to provide healthcare be conceptually different?

Taxpayer money will remove much of the bureaucracy and the administration that Obamacare causes. To much money dries out in admistration and bureaucracy in the US healthcare system. Taxes can also be collected through a consumption tax on unhealthy things like alcohol and cigarettes instead of increasing the income tax that much. Gasoline can also be taxed to finance it, that way you stimulate people to walk,cycle etc. and not use the car. Their is much potential in taxing consumption in US, gasoline is ridioulsly cheap and taxing here could be an alternative to taxing personal income.

I think it would be easier if you’ll set a maximum amount that people have to pay before the governments gets involved. Lets say if you spend more than 800$ on a year on medical treatment, the government steps in and covers what comes over 800$. The problem in USA is you for instance get cancer you’ll go bankrupt.

In my country we have a very aggressive tax on tobacco that covers much of the healthcare. 20 cigarrettes costs 15$+ and that gives the government large tax incomes that it can put into the HC budget. And every time the HC costs for the government grows, they just put an extra tax on smoking to cover it. Much of the healthcare can be covered with consumption taxes on unhealthy things. It’s not nesccesccay to increase the income tax that much, if you can put consumption taxes on unhealthy things.

E.g. who spends most money in a socialized medicine system. People that smoke, are fat, alcoholics. Tax them instead at will become more fair to those that lives healthy lives

This raises what I consider one of the strongest arguments against making health care a responsibility of government. People eager to use the power of the state to tell others how to live will seize on the expenses incurred as a ready excuse for micro-managing our lives.

 

[Truthseeker420]

Healthcare and education should be a right for all Americans.

 

[gallantwarrior]

That leads to the answer "Get a job that offers it."

Which leads me to the following:

Why should an employer be responsible? They have enough costs already so why should they be burdened with more costs? A big corporation with a very big workforce is going to be faced with a huge bill for health insurance if it's included in a labour contract. Of course those costs are passed on to the consumer which means if you buy a Chevvy then you're paying extra so that GM can pay for the health insurance for the UAW members on its payroll.

I would argue that spreading the cost on a social basis is far better. Toyota is a much more competitive auto corporation than GM because, among other things, it's not burdened with a massive health insurance bill for its employees.

I would venture that an employer should not necessarily be held responsible for providing health care either. But provision of such a benefit might be used to attract and retain employees of the desired training and character.

 

[Euro]

This raises what I consider one of the strongest arguments against making health care a responsibility of government. People eager to use the power of the state to tell others how to live will seize on the expenses incurred as a ready excuse for micro-managing our lives.

Smoking,high alcohol consumption and unhealthy living is what costs the system money. I think if you first choose to have socialized medicine, it is most fair to tax on unhealthy consumption rather than on income. Their is no one that says you can’t smoke or drink, but you’ll be taxed heavily for your consumption. Food is quite cheap and healthy food, fruit,vegetables are tax free. So you’ll get stimulated to buying fruit,vegetables etc. instead of alcohol and cigarettes.

So if you live a healthy life not smoking,drinking etc. you don’t pay that much for HC. At the same time you make the labour force more productive by providing cheaper fruit,vegetables and expensive alcohol and tobacco.

 

[dblack]

This raises what I consider one of the strongest arguments against making health care a responsibility of government. People eager to use the power of the state to tell others how to live will seize on the expenses incurred as a ready excuse for micro-managing our lives.

Smoking,high alcohol consumption and unhealthy living is what costs the system money. I think if you first choose to have socialized medicine, it is most fair to tax on unhealthy consumption rather than on income. Their is no one that says you can’t smoke or drink, but you’ll be taxed heavily for your consumption. Food is quite cheap and healthy food, fruit,vegetables are tax free. So you’ll get stimulated to buying fruit,vegetables etc. instead of alcohol and cigarettes.

So if you live a healthy life not smoking,drinking etc. you don’t pay that much for HC. At the same time you make the labour force more productive by providing cheaper fruit,vegetables and expensive alcohol and tobacco.

Yeah. I get what your talking about and I'm opposed to it. Coercion is coercion. Whether it's implemented via a jail sentence, a fine, or a tax penalty is immaterial. I want a government that makes it possible for us to get along, living our lives as much as possible the way we want. Not one that takes up the mission of "stimulating" me toward someone else's version of the "good life".

 

[manifold]

Healthcare and education should be a right for all Americans.

And free weed and titties.

 

[madasheck]

Is national defense a right?

Is transportation infrastructure a right?

Is legal protection and law enforcement a right?

No, these are all government responsibilities. In some cases, they involve government protecting our rights - but they're not the rights themselves. Politically protected rights are freedoms.

Another perspective on this, that I think libertarian types tend to take for granted and may not be obvious to others, is that the whole idea of calling out individual rights in the constitution (ie the Bill of Rights) was to specify that government was not allowed to make laws violating them. They are restrictions on government - "Congress shall make no law ...". In that light, how does a "right to health care" make any sense? Would we be saying that government is restricted from preventing us from getting health care?

But that being said, providing health care is a very positive thing. It's not socialism or some hint of totalitarism. Conservatives are neatly trying to obliterate the discussion with the scare tactics. Having a health care plan improves the quality of life in this country, bottom line.

That depends entirely on what the plan is.

In general terms, though, it does.

 

[dblack]

Is national defense a right?

Is transportation infrastructure a right?

Is legal protection and law enforcement a right?

No, these are all government responsibilities. In some cases, they involve government protecting our rights - but they're not the rights themselves. Politically protected rights are freedoms.

Another perspective on this, that I think libertarian types tend to take for granted and may not be obvious to others, is that the whole idea of calling out individual rights in the constitution (ie the Bill of Rights) was to specify that government was not allowed to make laws violating them. They are restrictions on government - "Congress shall make no law ...". In that light, how does a "right to health care" make any sense? Would we be saying that government is restricted from preventing us from getting health care?

But that being said, providing health care is a very positive thing. It's not socialism or some hint of totalitarism. Conservatives are neatly trying to obliterate the discussion with the scare tactics. Having a health care plan improves the quality of life in this country, bottom line.

That depends entirely on what the plan is.

In general terms, though, it does.

Disagree. In general terms, there are good plans and there are bad plans. PPACA is an example of the latter.

 

[madasheck]

No, these are all government responsibilities. In some cases, they involve government protecting our rights - but they're not the rights themselves. Politically protected rights are freedoms.

Another perspective on this, that I think libertarian types tend to take for granted and may not be obvious to others, is that the whole idea of calling out individual rights in the constitution (ie the Bill of Rights) was to specify that government was not allowed to make laws violating them. They are restrictions on government - "Congress shall make no law ...". In that light, how does a "right to health care" make any sense? Would we be saying that government is restricted from preventing us from getting health care?

That depends entirely on what the plan is.

In general terms, though, it does.

Disagree. In general terms, there are good plans and there are bad plans. PPACA is an example of the latter.

Why do you think so?

 

[dblack]

In general terms, though, it does.

Disagree. In general terms, there are good plans and there are bad plans. PPACA is an example of the latter.

Why do you think so?

Because it ignores the real problems in favor of indulging government and corporate ambitions. It combines the worst of both worlds. It throws us all under the rule of the bureaucratic state, dictating what kinds of insurance plans we can buy - indeed, forcing us to buy them. And then hands us all off to for-profit corporations as so much cattle in trade. It takes a model for financing health care that is a proven failure (corporate, group health insurance) and doubles down, demanding that everyone get on board a sinking ship.

Three years ago I was hopeful. Health care is such a mess that I didn't really think congress could make it worse. They proved me wrong.

 

[Euro]

This raises what I consider one of the strongest arguments against making health care a responsibility of government. People eager to use the power of the state to tell others how to live will seize on the expenses incurred as a ready excuse for micro-managing our lives.

Smoking,high alcohol consumption and unhealthy living is what costs the system money. I think if you first choose to have socialized medicine, it is most fair to tax on unhealthy consumption rather than on income. Their is no one that says you can’t smoke or drink, but you’ll be taxed heavily for your consumption. Food is quite cheap and healthy food, fruit,vegetables are tax free. So you’ll get stimulated to buying fruit,vegetables etc. instead of alcohol and cigarettes.

So if you live a healthy life not smoking,drinking etc. you don’t pay that much for HC. At the same time you make the labour force more productive by providing cheaper fruit,vegetables and expensive alcohol and tobacco.

Yeah. I get what your talking about and I'm opposed to it. Coercion is coercion. Whether it's implemented via a jail sentence, a fine, or a tax penalty is immaterial. I want a government that makes it possible for us to get along, living our lives as much as possible the way we want. Not one that takes up the mission of "stimulating" me toward someone else's version of the "good life".

3But isn’t it better to finance it this way than through income as you do in your Obamacare deal?
I don’t know how they do it in your Obamacare, but if they smoke, drink or are fat don’t they have to pay a higher premium? Obamacare is also inefficent and causes a lot of bureaucracy that makes it more expensive.

You’ve already had medicare and medicaid for a long time in US that you as a taxpayer have payed for. Don’t you want the people that uses medicare and medicaid that you pay for to live healthy so the costs stays low and your tax? I’m sure most of the cost in US HC is because of administration and bureaucracy, why not do something with that?

The alternative is to remove all programs Obamacare,medicaid,medicare,Romenycare etc. I don’t understand why US like to have so many programs that causes so much bureaucracy and adminstration. Why not get rid of all programs or choose to have one program that covers all, that will give less bureaucracy and make it more streamlined.

Of course it costs much when you have so many diffrent programs that must be administrated.

 

[ShackledNation]

Healthcare is a service produced and provided by certain individuals who studied biology and the medical field to offer such a service to other people. These providers use their labor and their bodies to provide healthcare.

If I have a right to healthcare, then I am entitled to someone else's body. I have a right to forcefully coerce the doctor into giving me his labor. Do any of you claiming healthcare is a right truly believe that you have a right to control the bodies of other people, and that they have a right to control your's? I doubt it.

No, healthcare is not a right. We have a right to exchange our own labor and property for healthcare. We have a right to find ways to obtain healthcare. But we have no right to healthcare itself anymore than we have a right to control the body of another human being.

 

[dblack]

But isn’t it better to finance it this way than through income as you do in your Obamacare deal?
I don’t know how they do it in your Obamacare, but if they smoke, drink or are fat don’t they have to pay a higher premium? Obamacare is also inefficent and causes a lot of bureaucracy that makes it more expensive.

You’ve already had medicare and medicaid for a long time in US that you as a taxpayer have payed for. Don’t you want the people that uses medicare and medicaid that you pay for to live healthy so the costs stays low and your tax? I’m sure most of the cost in US HC is because of administration and bureaucracy, why not do something with that?

The alternative is to remove all programs Obamacare,medicaid,medicare,Romenycare etc. I don’t understand why US like to have so many programs that causes so much bureaucracy and adminstration. Why not get rid of all programs or choose to have one program that covers all, that will give less bureaucracy and make it more streamlined.

Of course it costs much when you have so many diffrent programs that must be administrated.

I'd rather not have government running health care at all - so 'remove all programs' would be best. That said, I don't have big problem with safety nets for the down and out - if that's truly what they are. The problem with health care, is that our abuse of the insurance model, and generally unrealistic expectations, have driven health care inflation through the roof. To the point that everyone now wants to be in on the 'safety net' action.

The frustrating thing is, we could provide basic health care as a public service without grossly violating individual rights. But that's just not how Washington operates. Corporatism carries the day, and pretty much any move our government makes functions to centralize power and serve the interests of corporate lobbyists. That's one of the main complaints of the 'occupiers' and their right on target in that criticism (though vague and misguided in their proposed solutions).

With regard to your question about a desire to control the health habits of medicare and medicaid recipients, the answer is 'no'. If we can't provide a government service to people without forcing them to give up their freedom, we shouldn't provide it at all. As I've said, that's my biggest concern with increasing state control over our health care. It will likely lead to increasing government control over our lives, even our personal habits.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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'.

What is the role of our Federal Government? A good question and one sure to evoke emotions from the Libertarian right. GWB stated it is the role of the Feds to protect the citizens of the U.S. from those who want to harm us (those damn 'Islamo Fascists').

Personally I've never been threatened by an Islamo Fascist, but I've had step throat which might have killled me without proper medical attention and antibiotics. Fortunately I had medical insurance provided by my employer and I survived (much to the dismay of some of the echo chamber).

We pay taxes to support nations around the world, friend and foe alike; and grant benefits, tax credits, special no bid contracts and such to favorite businesses and corporations; our defense and state department budgets are predicated on our need for oil and we make friendships with dictators who kill their own citizens out of this need. All of this at an enormous cost of treasure and sadly blood. We don't need to do this.

The taxpayer pays for the cost of health care too, generally in local or state taxes to care for those not fortunate enough to have insurance; So the taxpayer pays twice, for his/her own and for the single mom who works two part time jobs to recieve care for herself and her kids; for the heroin addict and prostitute; for the Vietnam Vet unable to Prove his injury or illness was service connected (thank you Ronald Reagan) and for tourists and other visitors to our land here legally or otherwise.

Let's not forget those without insurance wait before seeing a doctor. Such waits result in greater long term cost, generally, for early detecton of disease is the best indicator of eventual wellness.

So is health care a right? If we go by the Bush doctrine it is. Kill me by bomb or kill me by a disease transmitted by air or water or cough and I'm still dead.

It is also common sense for the Government (i.e. We the People) to provide preventative health care to all citizens. In this way we will limit the cost of treating advance disease, still allow private insurance companies to market their products and citizens to buy insurance based on their good health and not when they have an existing condition. Seems like a win-win to me.

 

[ShackledNation]

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'.

What is the role of our Federal Government? A good question and one sure to evoke emotions from the Libertarian right. GWB stated it is the role of the Feds to protect the citizens of the U.S. from those who want to harm us (those damn 'Islamo Fascists').

Personally I've never been threatened by an Islamo Fascist, but I've had step throat which might have killled me without proper medical attention and antibiotics. Fortunately I had medical insurance provided by my employer and I survived (much to the dismay of some of the echo chamber).

We pay taxes to support nations around the world, friend and foe alike; and grant benefits, tax credits, special no bid contracts and such to favorite businesses and corporations; our defense and state department budgets are predicated on our need for oil and we make friendships with dictators who kill their own citizens out of this need. All of this at an enormous cost of treasure and sadly blood. We don't need to do this.

The taxpayer pays for the cost of health care too, generally in local or state taxes to care for those not fortunate enough to have insurance; So the taxpayer pays twice, for his/her own and for the single mom who works two part time jobs to recieve care for herself and her kids; for the heroin addict and prostitute; for the Vietnam Vet unable to Prove his injury or illness was service connected (thank you Ronald Reagan) and for tourists and other visitors to our land here legally or otherwise.

Let's not forget those without insurance wait before seeing a doctor. Such waits result in greater long term cost, generally, for early detecton of disease is the best indicator of eventual wellness.

So is health care a right? If we go by the Bush doctrine it is. Kill me by bomb or kill me by a disease transmitted by air or water or cough and I'm still dead.

It is also common sense for the Government (i.e. We the People) to provide preventative health care to all citizens. In this way we will limit the cost of treating advance disease, still allow private insurance companies to market their products and citizens to buy insurance based on their good health and not when they have an existing condition. Seems like a win-win to me.

It is common sense to wear protection when having sex if you don't want to have children. Should government mandate that all people wear condoms?

It is common sense that smoking cigarettes is bad for your health. Should government outlaw tobacco? Alcohol? Marijuana?

It is common sense that exercising each day is good for us. Should government require us to exercise each day?

Many things seem to be common sense. But that in no way justifies the use of government force.