Is healthcare a right? why or why not?

[usmcstinger]

Those who support Obamacare should know that the law has no severabiliy clause. Which means: If any part of the law is ruled unconstitutional, the entire law becomes unconstitutional.

 

[madasheck]

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.

I don't buy the government bureaucracy argument. I don't see any other way to solve the problem without involving them and still keep the rates down. Yes, it uses group insurance, but it also dictates certain provisions and premium rules. It's not the devil that some have made it to be, IMO.

 

[Grandma]

Of course it's a right.
You can't pursue anything, including hapiness, without it -so why wouldn't it be a right guaranteed by the Constitution?

How stupid was that ?

People has been pursuing happiness for hundreds of years without health insurance.

What a moron.

Health insurance hasn't been around for hundreds of years.

 

[Greenbeard]

Those who support Obamacare should know that the law has no severabiliy clause.

Doesn't matter.

 

[dblack]

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.

I don't buy the government bureaucracy argument. I don't see any other way to solve the problem without involving them and still keep the rates down. Yes, it uses group insurance, but it also dictates certain provisions and premium rules. It's not the devil that some have made it to be, IMO.

What do you mean you "don't buy the government bureaucracy argument"? I asserted that a government bureaucracy would dictate what kind of insurance we must buy. What part of that are you disputing?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

You might want to look up the definition of "socialism", Sparky. "Totalitarianism", too.

I do like the intriguing concept of "Conservatives are trying to obliterate the discussion by introducing viewpoints other than mine inot it", though. I never cease to be amazed by the many, MANY ways leftists can find to insist that only their opinions should be allowed.

Having government healthcare for everyone degrades the quality of life in a country, bottom line. Why don't you assholes just pick a country with cradle-to-grave government healthcare and move there, instead of trying to force your utopian bullshit on people who don't want it? Why does the whole entire world have to fit your grand design?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Of course it's a right.
You can't pursue anything, including hapiness, without it -so why wouldn't it be a right guaranteed by the Constitution?

How stupid was that ?

People has been pursuing happiness for hundreds of years without health insurance.

What a moron.

Health insurance hasn't been around for hundreds of years.

And now that it exists, you just can't live your own freaking life without someone else shelling out to give it to you immediately?

 

[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?

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.

You might want to look up the definition of "socialism", Sparky. "Totalitarianism", too.

I do like the intriguing concept of "Conservatives are trying to obliterate the discussion by introducing viewpoints other than mine inot it", though. I never cease to be amazed by the many, MANY ways leftists can find to insist that only their opinions should be allowed.

Having government healthcare for everyone degrades the quality of life in a country, bottom line. Why don't you assholes just pick a country with cradle-to-grave government healthcare and move there, instead of trying to force your utopian bullshit on people who don't want it? Why does the whole entire world have to fit your grand design?

Thanks for the non-answer. How does everyone having the means to be in decent health degrade the quality of life?

 

[ShackledNation]

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.

You might want to look up the definition of "socialism", Sparky. "Totalitarianism", too.

I do like the intriguing concept of "Conservatives are trying to obliterate the discussion by introducing viewpoints other than mine inot it", though. I never cease to be amazed by the many, MANY ways leftists can find to insist that only their opinions should be allowed.

Having government healthcare for everyone degrades the quality of life in a country, bottom line. Why don't you assholes just pick a country with cradle-to-grave government healthcare and move there, instead of trying to force your utopian bullshit on people who don't want it? Why does the whole entire world have to fit your grand design?

Thanks for the non-answer. How does everyone having the means to be in decent health degrade the quality of life?

You assumption that government is the best means for providing healthcare to everyone is simply incorrect. It is obvious that if everyone had access to decent healthcare the quality of life would be improved. But it is not at all obvious that using government to do so will achieve the results you desire. In fact, looking at the current US system of massive government involvement in healthcare pre-Obamacare (FDA, AMA, Medicare, Medicaid, countless mandates, abusive patents in pharmaceuticals, insurance companies in bed with government--the list goes on) it should be obvious that government in healthcare is a disaster.

Say I want to provide healthcare for my town. I decide to go into every small or big business with a gun, and demand all of the cash in the store and in the wallets of the customers. I take all of the money out of every register and every pocket of every person I come across. I then use that money to provide healthcare to the poor. That, in essence, is exactly what government run healthcare is. Do you not find anything wrong with that?

 

[madasheck]

You might want to look up the definition of "socialism", Sparky. "Totalitarianism", too.

I do like the intriguing concept of "Conservatives are trying to obliterate the discussion by introducing viewpoints other than mine inot it", though. I never cease to be amazed by the many, MANY ways leftists can find to insist that only their opinions should be allowed.

Having government healthcare for everyone degrades the quality of life in a country, bottom line. Why don't you assholes just pick a country with cradle-to-grave government healthcare and move there, instead of trying to force your utopian bullshit on people who don't want it? Why does the whole entire world have to fit your grand design?

Thanks for the non-answer. How does everyone having the means to be in decent health degrade the quality of life?

You assumption that government is the best means for providing healthcare to everyone is simply incorrect. It is obvious that if everyone had access to decent healthcare the quality of life would be improved. But it is not at all obvious that using government to do so will achieve the results you desire. In fact, looking at the current US system of massive government involvement in healthcare pre-Obamacare (FDA, AMA, Medicare, Medicaid, countless mandates, abusive patents in pharmaceuticals, insurance companies in bed with government--the list goes on) it should be obvious that government in healthcare is a disaster.

Say I want to provide healthcare for my town. I decide to go into every small or big business with a gun, and demand all of the cash in the store and in the wallets of the customers. I take all of the money out of every register and every pocket of every person I come across. I then use that money to provide healthcare to the poor. That, in essence, is exactly what government run healthcare is. Do you not find anything wrong with that?

You're overstating the case a little with the gun imagery. But if that's the case, using your argument, it'd be wrong to be paying taxes for basics like roads and bridges, right?

 

[ShackledNation]

Thanks for the non-answer. How does everyone having the means to be in decent health degrade the quality of life?

You assumption that government is the best means for providing healthcare to everyone is simply incorrect. It is obvious that if everyone had access to decent healthcare the quality of life would be improved. But it is not at all obvious that using government to do so will achieve the results you desire. In fact, looking at the current US system of massive government involvement in healthcare pre-Obamacare (FDA, AMA, Medicare, Medicaid, countless mandates, abusive patents in pharmaceuticals, insurance companies in bed with government--the list goes on) it should be obvious that government in healthcare is a disaster.

Say I want to provide healthcare for my town. I decide to go into every small or big business with a gun, and demand all of the cash in the store and in the wallets of the customers. I take all of the money out of every register and every pocket of every person I come across. I then use that money to provide healthcare to the poor. That, in essence, is exactly what government run healthcare is. Do you not find anything wrong with that?

You're overstating the case a little with the gun imagery. But if that's the case, using your argument, it'd be wrong to be paying taxes for basics like roads and bridges, right?

Government enforces all of its policies with the threat of violence. I wish that were overstating the case, but it is not. To honestly answer your question, yes: taxation to pay for government roads and bridges follows the same principle.

That is what led Thomas Paine to say "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."

 

[Political Junky]

Every civilized nation feels that health care is a right, with the exception of the United States.

 

[ShackledNation]

Every civilized nation feels that health care is a right, with the exception of the United States.

Nice try.

 

[beagle9]

It is a right? probably not. Is it something that the richest most powerful nation on earth ought to provide to its citizenry? I would say so.

That's getting to it I suppose. So why do you think we ought to? Why is a society that simply provides things to people with no expectation of responsibility better than a society that ask its citizenry to have a level of responsibility to provide for it's own well being?

I hate to bring up Rush again because the left loves to just pick him apart but he noted that that mentality, where we do things that just feel good and right is an example of a sentiment of people who's hearts are disconnected from their brains (what makes sense vs. what feels good). It feels good to say we 'ought to provide poeple free healthcare'. But is that really what's best for the growth of a society? Is it really best that a society over time learn that it can be dependant on others for what they need rather than take responsibility for providing it to themselves?

What people keep forgetting here, is that if we were a society that could trust our brothers to run it like it should be run as we once had it more so in the olden days, then we could allow competition in the ways of healthcare to flourish and bring the cost down for all, otherwise let the market take care of it right(?) but since we moved into a trend of having greed and corruption creep into just about anything and everything these days, as pertaining to crooks getting nice and fat off of an already government subsidized healthcare system, by exploiting it's gargantuion size and complexities in which create holes the size of Texas to be taken from by these thieves, then the question should be "how do we continue to provide or allow the private sector to provide healthcare that is subsidized by the government for the government to the citizenry, if it can no longer be trusted to do so in a trustworthy and affording way anymore ? It is not the government that is the enemy, but rather it is simply a government response to an industry who allowed corruption to go wild in it, thus causing hundreds of thousands of average citizens to no longer be able to afford a decent plan or get covered, and this all due to the free market corruption that was building long before Obama took office.. Hillary tried to address it during Clintons stay, but was beaten back by a super strong health care lobby at that time, for whom had never been challenged like that before, thus only delaying the inevitable up until now.

The problem with Republicans I am sad to say, is that they won't or can't speak the truth about this situation, thus giving Obama an edge over them, because they keep running with their heads in the sand (hoping the people will remain stupid or something), or they are being controlled by their handlers on and on in the situation. They have got to break free or Obama wins again without a contest..

I pay $40.00 dollars a week for single poor basic coverage right now (highest deductible), and that is outragous to say the least, and my daughter who has a two year old, and is struggling to make it (taking everything she has to make it from month to month), and yes she has a food stamp subsidy also, where as she has a job making $9.00 dollars and hour, drives an old 1980 beater car that keeps breaking, pays $600.00 dollars a month in rent, has a lightbill of on average $350.00 a month, no big screen, no cable, no nintendo's, $105,00 a week in daycare etc. and is now getting calls from a collection agency about some hospital bills where she had to take the baby to the doctor, and then on to the hospital.

Ha, the politicians they worry about college kids being in debt? What about working class young adults having it hard? The collection agency was on the phone telling her to bum money from us her parents, who is also struggling in life right now as well, then they suggested she go and take out a credit card to pay them, and on and on it went this phone call, until I got mad and told her to just hang up on them finally.. Hell is gonna be full come judgement day, and for those who try to politically dupe us today, well they are going to be surprised when that day comes, because there will be no more spinning and hiding for them anylonger... The gig will be up... Christians some of them call themselves ????? Lets see what God thinks of those who hide behind that label, but work for the devil instead.

 

[madasheck]

You assumption that government is the best means for providing healthcare to everyone is simply incorrect. It is obvious that if everyone had access to decent healthcare the quality of life would be improved. But it is not at all obvious that using government to do so will achieve the results you desire. In fact, looking at the current US system of massive government involvement in healthcare pre-Obamacare (FDA, AMA, Medicare, Medicaid, countless mandates, abusive patents in pharmaceuticals, insurance companies in bed with government--the list goes on) it should be obvious that government in healthcare is a disaster.

Say I want to provide healthcare for my town. I decide to go into every small or big business with a gun, and demand all of the cash in the store and in the wallets of the customers. I take all of the money out of every register and every pocket of every person I come across. I then use that money to provide healthcare to the poor. That, in essence, is exactly what government run healthcare is. Do you not find anything wrong with that?

You're overstating the case a little with the gun imagery. But if that's the case, using your argument, it'd be wrong to be paying taxes for basics like roads and bridges, right?

Government enforces all of its policies with the threat of violence. I wish that were overstating the case, but it is not. To honestly answer your question, yes: taxation to pay for government roads and bridges follows the same principle.

That is what led Thomas Paine to say "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."

If government is an intolerable evil, then your arguments suggests we don't need it. But we do, no matter how much we love it or hate it. And government assisted health care is part of that equation, whether we like it or not.

 

[logical4u]

If healthcare is provided, the one that is provided for will serve (SERVE) the provider. That is not a right, that is maintaining an investment (the slave).

 

[ShackledNation]

You're overstating the case a little with the gun imagery. But if that's the case, using your argument, it'd be wrong to be paying taxes for basics like roads and bridges, right?

Government enforces all of its policies with the threat of violence. I wish that were overstating the case, but it is not. To honestly answer your question, yes: taxation to pay for government roads and bridges follows the same principle.

That is what led Thomas Paine to say "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."

If government is an intolerable evil, then your arguments suggests we don't need it. But we do, no matter how much we love it or hate it. And government assisted health care is part of that equation, whether we like it or not.

My argument suggests it is a necessary evil at best, an intolerable one at worst. If we need government, it does not follow that we need government healthcare, or that we should even want it.

But I must ask you the following question, and I am not implying that government should not exist. Why do we need government?

 

[beagle9]

__________________
Save the wails...no, really, save the wails...
Reply With Quote



I am in a lot of places of business. I hear things. I know that the availability of healthcare is becoming less available to those who work. I have healthcare because my wife is a successful CFP and retail financial services investment person in a closely held company. My adopted daughter, who is 20, remains on our insurance because it is cheaper to keep her in school that to pay her premiums.

Just go get a job is not the answer. I would be able to get alone by by hook or by crook because I have access to a Veteran Administration HMO for which I pay a minuscule amount monthly.
lic
The President just recently quipped that healthcare is available to everyone in the country . . . "Just go to an emergency room." What!? Are they free. Did they fall thru a crack in space/time for the benefit of uninsured sick earthlings?

technically, no. Practicallty, yes. If you need an ER you will be seen and treated whether you can pay or not. If you can't pay what is the hospital gonna do. When was the last time you heard that a hospital sued someone who couldn't pay their ER bill?

We have been fortunate in this country to have had a functioning public health service until just recent times. Noone (I like the Scots phrase) cares a wit about public health until some fast moving plague (generic sense) threatens the insured and uninsured alike. If this country comes to experience a catastrophic event of something like Katrina/\n, then the need for a seamless medical system will become quite evident in a very short time. It those who think for the moment and the next quarters dividends, that will be caught quite short when they are standing in line with "those poor people" to have their traumas tended. A major disaster will level the playing field pretty quickly.

This is a complete falsehood. Again if you need medical treatment in this country you will be treated whether you can pay or not. It's the law.

Always the reply about emergency room healthcare for the poor, as if that is the answer always in this class warfare type setting, in which gets created by this sort of speak on and on... What you speak of is constant dependency for the poor upon the government, instead of giving them some dignity, liberty and decency finally when it comes to their most personal possession which is their life, and this by adding them to the most fundemental service that ones life depends upon, in which is to have "medical care" that each and everyone one in this nation should recieve on an equal and fair opportunity basis..

Hey let all other forms of capitalism flourish, but take the service that determins whether one lives or dies off of the market finally, and this is all due to having sadly this difference in the quality of care based upon ones pocket book through class warfare, in which makes up the current situation, and thus we should make it available by right to all who are Americans here finally, and this as far as the nessesities go, but also make sure that it does not give the incentive for people to mass create babies without anyway to take care of them (happened in the past and still is happening), except that the system do it for them in which would be wrong, and so yes this would be my only objection to an all out no holds bar free system without rules regarding ones wrecklace actions in life, just like I am with an all out open border the same, where as speed bumps can be installed responsibly in everything we do ya know.

 

[Gadawg73]

What we have now is Americans treating health care as their right.
Group health care employer paid for insurance: "I get mine for free so I might as well use it" is about as socialistic attitude as there ever is.
Medicare, Medicaid: SOCIALISM
75% of ALL prescriptions now are paid for by government.
There are varying figures on how much of the 18% of GNP we now spend on health care is now paid for or subsidized by government but it is approaching 50%.
American health care NOW is about as socialistic as it gets and it SUCKS.
But of course we have, BY FAR, the best disease care in the world.
The entire health care model is set up for that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

You might want to look up the definition of "socialism", Sparky. "Totalitarianism", too.

I do like the intriguing concept of "Conservatives are trying to obliterate the discussion by introducing viewpoints other than mine inot it", though. I never cease to be amazed by the many, MANY ways leftists can find to insist that only their opinions should be allowed.

Having government healthcare for everyone degrades the quality of life in a country, bottom line. Why don't you assholes just pick a country with cradle-to-grave government healthcare and move there, instead of trying to force your utopian bullshit on people who don't want it? Why does the whole entire world have to fit your grand design?

Thanks for the non-answer. How does everyone having the means to be in decent health degrade the quality of life?

Why don't you take a good, hard look at the standard of living in one of those countries that has cradle-to-grave government healthcare - or even the level of care available - and see if you can figure it out?

There are some things the government must do, because they are the purpose for which government exists. But you never actually IMPROVE anything but getting the government involved in it.