Is healthcare a right? why or why not?

[task0778]

If it's not against the law. Maybe I should have added that caveat, your rights stop when they conflict with someone else's or when the public good is infringed upon. IOW, you don't get to break the law.

That seems a bit arbitrary to me. So you're saying that any of the rights you've enumerated could easily be taken away simply by outlawing them.

And I guess you're correct, rights are precisely what the law says they are. So if the law declares healthcare to be a right, it's a right.

I don't think rights can be taken away, that is one of the hallmarks of a right that distinguishes it from a service or privilege or anything else. However, they can be mitigated or limited somewhat in the best interests of society. And gov't cannot declare healthcare or anything else to be a right for the simple reason that laws can be repealed but rights can't.

Rights are totally dependent on laws. The Constitution can be amended and that includes striking right granting amendments. Other rights are dependent on interpretations of the Constitution. An example is the right for a woman to choose and abortion. That can be changed and so can something as solid as the 1st, 2nd, etc. amendments.

True, the Constitution can be amended and some amendments could be repealed, but not the Bill of Rights. We know the 18th amendment was removed by the 21st, but that was not a a right granting amendment.

 

[Flopper]

Still not a right !

Correct, but it is in the process of becoming a quasi one. That is why the failure of Congress to repeal the ACA and trump's failure to repeal or replace was so important and game changing. It has become an entitlement that Americans have accepted and support. Is Social Security a right? It may not be a right, but there is little chance of it disappearing. The same thing is happening to healthcare.

But the "quasi" is the problem. Or rather the lack of understanding regarding what rights are, and why they are important. I think most people today define a "right" as "something everyone should have" and don't perceive the fundamental difference between a service like health care and things like freedom of speech or freedom of association.

What about a service like that provided by police and firefighters? Is that a right?

We often speaks of rights guaranteed by the US constitution or federal laws but states also guarantee certain rights such as voting rights, rights to an education, and right to privacy.

 

[dblack]

Still not a right !

Correct, but it is in the process of becoming a quasi one. That is why the failure of Congress to repeal the ACA and trump's failure to repeal or replace was so important and game changing. It has become an entitlement that Americans have accepted and support. Is Social Security a right? It may not be a right, but there is little chance of it disappearing. The same thing is happening to healthcare.

But the "quasi" is the problem. Or rather the lack of understanding regarding what rights are, and why they are important. I think most people today define a "right" as "something everyone should have" and don't perceive the fundamental difference between a service like health care and things like freedom of speech or freedom of association.

What about a service like that provided by police and firefighters? Is that a right?

Not in my view; a Right is inherent, a choice a person makes to speak, worship, assemble, etc., without needing permission from anyone else. You don't pay for it like you with a service like the police and firemen.

By that definition, would smoking crack not also be a right?

Yes. But not one currently protected by government.

 

[Political Junky]

Correct, but it is in the process of becoming a quasi one. That is why the failure of Congress to repeal the ACA and trump's failure to repeal or replace was so important and game changing. It has become an entitlement that Americans have accepted and support. Is Social Security a right? It may not be a right, but there is little chance of it disappearing. The same thing is happening to healthcare.

But the "quasi" is the problem. Or rather the lack of understanding regarding what rights are, and why they are important. I think most people today define a "right" as "something everyone should have" and don't perceive the fundamental difference between a service like health care and things like freedom of speech or freedom of association.

What about a service like that provided by police and firefighters? Is that a right?

Not in my view; a Right is inherent, a choice a person makes to speak, worship, assemble, etc., without needing permission from anyone else. You don't pay for it like you with a service like the police and firemen.

By that definition, would smoking crack not also be a right?

Yes. But not one currently protected by government.

Yet

 

[dblack]

Still not a right !

Correct, but it is in the process of becoming a quasi one. That is why the failure of Congress to repeal the ACA and trump's failure to repeal or replace was so important and game changing. It has become an entitlement that Americans have accepted and support. Is Social Security a right? It may not be a right, but there is little chance of it disappearing. The same thing is happening to healthcare.

But the "quasi" is the problem. Or rather the lack of understanding regarding what rights are, and why they are important. I think most people today define a "right" as "something everyone should have" and don't perceive the fundamental difference between a service like health care and things like freedom of speech or freedom of association.

What about a service like that provided by police and firefighters? Is that a right?

No. Those are services provided by government, not rights.

 

[Yarddog]

I don't mind looking silly, I've gotten used to it over the years

I answered your question but I'll answer the re-phrased question too.

Why should society ensure that healthcare is available? Because it actually does strengthen society as opposed to promoting the interests of only those who can actually afford healthcare. You mention "breeding dependency on government". Does that mean that people shouldn't rely on government for anything?

Certainly not. I believe the government should provide things for people that they can't provide for themselves. That's a big blanket statement I understand but I think it applies to most things. The government should provide national security for example, ensure the safety of it's citizenry through police, provide healthcare and generally help those that can't help themselves. But for the sake of society's betterment I think a line needs to be drawn between the truly indigent we shoudl provide for and the unwilling to provide for themselves. I just don't see a very productive society in one that has learned over time that all of their basic needs are going to be taken care of by someone else, do you? Asked a different way, why is it not your responsibility to provide for your own healthcare needs?

Picking up the slack for or helping those who cannot help themselves does not need to be linked to the elective Health Care Insurance others of us choose to pay. There are other means but the US government under Obama was all to willing to want to pry into the health care decisions of every American.

 

[dblack]

Still not a right !

Correct, but it is in the process of becoming a quasi one. That is why the failure of Congress to repeal the ACA and trump's failure to repeal or replace was so important and game changing. It has become an entitlement that Americans have accepted and support. Is Social Security a right? It may not be a right, but there is little chance of it disappearing. The same thing is happening to healthcare.

But the "quasi" is the problem. Or rather the lack of understanding regarding what rights are, and why they are important. I think most people today define a "right" as "something everyone should have" and don't perceive the fundamental difference between a service like health care and things like freedom of speech or freedom of association.

What about a service like that provided by police and firefighters? Is that a right?

We often speaks of rights guaranteed by the US constitution or federal laws but states also guarantee certain rights such as voting rights, rights to an education, and right to privacy.

Yes. The term has many different applications. But the kind of rights protected by the Constitution are inalienable liberties - not claims on services.

 

[dblack]

If it's not against the law. Maybe I should have added that caveat, your rights stop when they conflict with someone else's or when the public good is infringed upon. IOW, you don't get to break the law.

That seems a bit arbitrary to me. So you're saying that any of the rights you've enumerated could easily be taken away simply by outlawing them.

And I guess you're correct, rights are precisely what the law says they are. So if the law declares healthcare to be a right, it's a right.

I don't think rights can be taken away, that is one of the hallmarks of a right that distinguishes it from a service or privilege or anything else. However, they can be mitigated or limited somewhat in the best interests of society. And gov't cannot declare healthcare or anything else to be a right for the simple reason that laws can be repealed but rights can't.

Rights are totally dependent on laws.

They're not dependent on the government - they're dependent on free will. The government merely chooses to protect a given right, or not. The government can violate a right, but it can't take it away from a person.

Most people frame the concept of inalienable rights as a 'thou shalt not' kind of thing - as a commandment from on high that such and such a freedom shall not be violated. But that totally misses the point. Inalienable rights aren't sacrosanct, they're simply an inherent by-product of human free will. It's not that government can't stop someone from exercising inalienable rights - they most certainly can. It's that the capacity to exercise rights - the power to think and act - can't be taken from us. It's what we are.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

You went off the rails when you thought it should be "provided to" people, rather than available for them to acquire themselves.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Still not a right !

Correct, but it is in the process of becoming a quasi one. That is why the failure of Congress to repeal the ACA and trump's failure to repeal or replace was so important and game changing. It has become an entitlement that Americans have accepted and support. Is Social Security a right? It may not be a right, but there is little chance of it disappearing. The same thing is happening to healthcare.

But the "quasi" is the problem. Or rather the lack of understanding regarding what rights are, and why they are important. I think most people today define a "right" as "something everyone should have" and don't perceive the fundamental difference between a service like health care and things like freedom of speech or freedom of association.

What about a service like that provided by police and firefighters? Is that a right?

We often speaks of rights guaranteed by the US constitution or federal laws but states also guarantee certain rights such as voting rights, rights to an education, and right to privacy.

Yes. The term has many different applications. But the kind of rights protected by the Constitution are inalienable liberties - not claims on services.

Judge Andrew Napolitano had an excellent column about this just yesterday.

Is Health Care a Right or a Good?


"Is health care a right in America?

In a word, no. Rights are either natural immunities -- existing in areas of human behavior that, because of our nature, must be free from government regulation, such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as well as speech, the press, religion, travel, self-defense and what remains of privacy -- or legal claims that we qualify or bargain for, such as the right to vote, which the Constitution presumes, and the right to use your property to the exclusion of all others and the right to purchase a good that you can afford.
But the federal government cannot create a right that the Constitution does not authorize. It can't constitutionally transfer wealth from taxpayers or employers to others and then claim that the others have a right to the continued receipt of the transfers. The Supreme Court has ruled that even Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are government largesse that Congress could terminate because no one has a right to them."

"Yet under the Constitution, health care is not a right; it is a good -- like an education or a gym membership. You work hard, you decide what goods to purchase. If government gives you the good, that does not magically transform it into a right."

Can we nominate this guy for the next Supreme Court seat?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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 can actually address this. Employers became responsible for providing health insurance as an employment benefit because during WWII, government took control of wages and limited the amount of money an employer could offer to entice new applicants. Employers therefore had to start offering other incentives. The government then cemented the plan in place by making it tax-deductible for the employers, a perk that individuals do not get if they purchase their own insurance.

There is no particular reason that it must continue to be done this way, except for the fact that people have become accustomed to it, and are unable to fathom doing things a different way.

 

[Cecilie1200]

__________________
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.

Hospitals are more than willing to work with people on this subject (assuming that one is honorable enough to not want to stiff them). They will be more than happy to set up a reasonable payment plan for you, they will work with you to fill out the forms to apply for Medicaid if you need that, and many hospitals have free clinics for the indigent. If they don't, they can definitely tell you where to find one.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I happened to agree with this and is another concept that I find truly fascinating. Healthcare costs have become so expensive in this country that it is now the expectation of employers to provide an insureance plan to their employees. Again, paying for my healthcare isn't their responsibilty anymore than it is yours.

Originally health care was provided by some employers as a tool for recruitment and retention. It has since, I believe, been coded into law, requiring certain sized employers with certain types of employees to provide it. ( I think thats right, correct me if I am wrong) In other words Government creeped in and took over.

Yup, you are correct.

 

[Cecilie1200]

But many of those mechanisms are already in place. Even if your homeless and on the street, if you are in urgent need of healthcare you will get it regardless of ability to pay. Most states have some form of state sponsored health care with premiums that are quite reasonable or downright cheap.

As screaming somewhat alluded to there has to be an option other than Hillary care that allows poeple to maintain the level of power they have in regards to their healthcare options and still make it affordable. The plans that we know some about already take significant power and choice away from the individual. Edward's plan would require that people visit the doctor once a year. Hillary's plan allows for private options but those makeing more than $250k a year will have an extra tax added to their plans to help fund a system that, implicitly admitted by such a tax, is of less quality than private plans. That tax is on top of the higher tax rates she has propossed for all wealthy americans to pay for her plan who most likely won't be using it at all.

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.

I always get chills down my spine when leftists start throwing around words like "should" and "ought".

Learn the difference between "healthcare" and "health insurance", and contemplate the possibility of not being such a helplessly dependent infant.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The reality is that large employers can better afford health care for their employees because of their work force SIZE. Insurance is cheaper for large groups , not so cheap for small groups and nearly impossible for single families.

A change needs to occur where single families can get into some kind of group so that costs go down.

There are already groups who have formed collectives for buying health insurance for people with atypical jobs. Right now, they're mostly unions, since leftists in government give unions concessions on behavior that regular people don't get. How much do you want to bet such groups would proliferate if health insurance was a free market?

 

[Cecilie1200]

We have certain rights in this country, among them are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and the right to private property. We do not have the right to food, clothing, housing, and utilities. Nor to health care.

The right to life for instance does not mean others must provide you with food and a house. It means you have the right to earn and provide those things for yourself in order to have a life. It does not mean you get to take what others earn for their own lives. Taking from others is taking their life.

The right to pursue happiness is exactly that -- the right to pursue -- not to receive---which means you must take action to get that happiness in life -- you can't just sit there like a putz and expect others to provide you with happiness in the form of health care, food, clothing, whatever. If it was a "right" of yours to receive things from others, then others would become rightless in the sense that they would be forced to give up some of their right to pursue their own happiness. Essentially they become your slaves. Slavery or serfdom is not moral.

It is your right to action that makes the US the greatest in the world and the most rich and powerful. You can own your own property and you are not beholden to anybody else. You are not a slave to others nor to the State. The whole "entitlement" thing is what is destroying America. The more we succumb to it, the more we become serfs to the government.

The truth is government can't "give" us working folks anything because we are the government. All government can do is take what you worked for and then turn around and give it to someone else. That's called redistribution of wealth or socialism. Taking over an industry by the State is socialism. Health care is an industry. If America socializes health care that is a major step to becoming a Socialist country. If that happens, American rights as stated in the Constitution will be curbed and this country will no longer be as free.

Do you live in a society or a landmass populated by individuals?

What has that to do with anything?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

A right is a freedom that you can exercise. We all have the right to health care.

However, government exists to protect your rights, not provide the means to exercise them. If you have a right to something, it does not mean that you have the right to expect others to pay for it.

This is true. I have a right to freedom of speech and the press, but that doesn't mean I have a right to expect the government to buy me a printing press or a megaphone.

 

[Cecilie1200]

We live in a country that places an extremely high value on life and the avoidance of pain. Therefore, it is only logical that every man, woman, and child should have equally sufficient health care. The ones who are against giving everyone health care are those who don't know anyone without health care.

So what you're saying is that you believe that if people want something, it's "only logical" that the government should automatically provide it to them at taxpayer expense?

No one is against people having access to healthcare, Chuckles. We're against the idea that we are obligated to provide it to other people at no expense or inconvenience to them, or that the government should mandate how WE receive healthcare in order to provide it to them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why should you be forced to pay for the health care of others?

The real question is, why should you HAVE to be forced? I always find it extremely interesting that America claims to be a Christian nation and that it is nearly impossible to get elected unless you are a Christian, yet has a decidedly un-Christian approach to the sick and elderly.

Regardless of that fact, what the government compels you to pay taxes for is, essentially, your choice because the people make those decisions. If the people vote in people who will enact legislation that compels you to pay taxes for healthcare for all, well then thats all the justification that's necessary isn't it. And unfortunately the American people are moving closer, not further away from, agreement with some system of nationalized healthcare.

All the arguments of "well pay for it yourself" mean diddly squat when you realize that those in the top tax bracket DO NOT NOT pay for healthcare. They almost always have the best health coverage provided by their employers. It is the working poor who both pay taxes AND have to pay for their own healthcare because their plans are inadequate. Again, if corporations would stop raising their CEO and upper management salaries and concentrated on taking care of their workforce, the government wouldnt have to step in. But corporations are only interested in profit, not morality so the government has to step in and say.

Lastly, NO ONE who opposes gay marriage on religious terms can oppose nationalized healthcare. Christ doesn't even mention homosexuality, but he certainly had a message about how the wealthy should relate to the sick and the poor. So if we're making marriage law around Christianity we sure as better be making nationalized healthcare around a Christian model as well.

May I ask you a question? Are you, personally, a Christian? Devout believer in the existence of God and His moral directives?

I ask because I'm curious as to the origin of your appeal to Christian moral authority in order to demand something that is in no way compatible with the actual Bible.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If it's not against the law. Maybe I should have added that caveat, your rights stop when they conflict with someone else's or when the public good is infringed upon. IOW, you don't get to break the law.

That seems a bit arbitrary to me. So you're saying that any of the rights you've enumerated could easily be taken away simply by outlawing them.

And I guess you're correct, rights are precisely what the law says they are. So if the law declares healthcare to be a right, it's a right.

I don't think rights can be taken away, that is one of the hallmarks of a right that distinguishes it from a service or privilege or anything else. However, they can be mitigated or limited somewhat in the best interests of society. And gov't cannot declare healthcare or anything else to be a right for the simple reason that laws can be repealed but rights can't.

Rights are totally dependent on laws. The Constitution can be amended and that includes striking right granting amendments. Other rights are dependent on interpretations of the Constitution. An example is the right for a woman to choose and abortion. That can be changed and so can something as solid as the 1st, 2nd, etc. amendments.

True, the Constitution can be amended and some amendments could be repealed, but not the Bill of Rights. We know the 18th amendment was removed by the 21st, but that was not a a right granting amendment.

Actually, it is technically as possible to repeal any of the Bill of Rights as it is to repeal any other Amendment.