Is healthcare a right? why or why not?

[Flopper]

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.

If you work for a company with a lot of employees it's usually a lot cheaper than individual insurance since it's negotiated and the employer usually pays a portion of it.

 

[Mac1958]

No, it's not a freakin' "right".

Whenever somebody wants something, they claim they have a freakin' "right" to it. The word is overused.

Health care for everyone is not a "right". It is, however, good economics and a moral obligation of an advanced society.
.

 

[Onyx]

Rights are whatever the fuck we say they are

 

[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.

If you work for a company with a lot of employees it's usually a lot cheaper than individual insurance since it's negotiated and the employer usually pays a portion of it.

Except that if health insurance was a free market, people would form their own groups to negotiate for insurance. People with unusual jobs and employers do that now: for example, the Screen Actors Guild.

 

[dblack]

Rights are whatever the fuck we say they are

You can say that about any word or concept. Make up whatever meaning like. Fine with me. Just define it before you start using it thus. Otherwise, what's the point?

 

[Onyx]

You can say that about any word or concept. Make up whatever meaning like. Fine with me. Just define it before you start using it thus. Otherwise, what's the point?

A right is defined as a moral entitlement, and there is no such thing as a moral entitlement.

The problem is that this is a debate centered around a social construct, and arguments shouldn't be made on the basis of social constructs. If you want to argue that ensuring everyone has healthcare would be for the good for each individual and the greater society, then fine.

 

[task0778]

Far as I'm concerned, a Right is inherent, it is not given to you by the gov't nor legitimately taken away. It can however be constrained for the public good: for instance you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded room. In the case of health care, we are talking about a service provided by someone to someone else, for which they are or should be compensated. Is there any other 'right' like that? We are all free to speak, write, worship, assemble, etc as we please with no cost to anyone else. But not health care, it may be a moral obligation or an entitlement proscribed by gov't, but it is not a right IMHO.

 

[dblack]

You can say that about any word or concept. Make up whatever meaning like. Fine with me. Just define it before you start using it thus. Otherwise, what's the point?

A right is defined as a moral entitlement, and there is no such thing as a moral entitlement.

The problem is that this is a debate centered around a social construct, and arguments shouldn't be made on the basis of social constructs. If you want to argue that ensuring everyone has healthcare would be for the good for each individual and the greater society, then fine.

Hmm... I don't follow. If a right is whatever you say it is, what is it that you're saying it is? Are you going with "a moral entitlement"? If so, I agree with you. That's kind of silly. It's certainly not what I mean when referring to inalienable rights.

 

[IsaacNewton]

"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe.
- Frederick Douglas -

 

[ScienceRocks]

Should be!

Healthcare = more healthy people and that means more working people to grow our economy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Should be!

Healthcare = more healthy people and that means more working people to grow our economy.

Which still in no way makes it MY responsibility to make them healthy.

 

[Flopper]

No, it's not a freakin' "right".

Whenever somebody wants something, they claim they have a freakin' "right" to it. The word is overused.

Health care for everyone is not a "right". It is, however, good economics and a moral obligation of an advanced society.
.

The ninth amendment to constitution states that that there are other rights that may exist aside from the ones explicitly mentioned, and even though they are not listed, it does not mean they can be violated. There are federal or state laws that recognize a right to privacy, right to an education, and right to vote. We have far more rights than those enshrined in the constitution.

Ninth Amendment - Kids | Laws.com

 

[task0778]

No, it's not a freakin' "right".

Whenever somebody wants something, they claim they have a freakin' "right" to it. The word is overused.

Health care for everyone is not a "right". It is, however, good economics and a moral obligation of an advanced society.
.

The ninth amendment to constitution states that that there are other rights that may exist aside from the ones explicitly mentioned, and even though they are not listed, it does not mean they can be violated. There are federal or state laws that recognize a right to privacy, right to an education, and right to vote. We have far more rights than those enshrined in the constitution.

Ninth Amendment - Kids | Laws.com

No, it's not a freakin' "right".

Whenever somebody wants something, they claim they have a freakin' "right" to it. The word is overused.

Health care for everyone is not a "right". It is, however, good economics and a moral obligation of an advanced society.
.

The ninth amendment to constitution states that that there are other rights that may exist aside from the ones explicitly mentioned, and even though they are not listed, it does not mean they can be violated. There are federal or state laws that recognize a right to privacy, right to an education, and right to vote. We have far more rights than those enshrined in the constitution.

Ninth Amendment - Kids | Laws.com

The Constitution doesn’t mention education and the Supreme Court has concluded that education is not a fundamental right under it.

The Supreme Court resolved this issue 40 years ago in a case about the means of financing the public elementary and secondary schools in San Antonio, Texas, called San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973).

By a 5-4 decision, with Justice Lewis Powell writing for the majority, the court found that “the Texas system does not operate to the peculiar disadvantage of any suspect class” and that education “is not among the rights afforded explicit protection under our Federal Constitution. Nor do we find any basis for saying it is implicitly so protected.”

 

[task0778]

It is my opinion that social issues like health care, education, housing, and the like are not fundamental human rights. They might be a moral obligation or imperative, but a gov't mandate does not make any of those things a right because anything the gov't can give or takeaway is by my definition not a right.

 

[dblack]

It is my opinion that social issues like health care, education, housing, and the like are not fundamental human rights.

It's really hot a matter of opinion. It's a matter of definition. If, as most people who claim "health care is a right" are doing, you define a right as "something government should provide people" - then a right is potentially anything. If, on the other hand, you're to inalienable freedoms, then health care is clearly not a right. It's a service.

 

[Flopper]

No, it's not a freakin' "right".

Whenever somebody wants something, they claim they have a freakin' "right" to it. The word is overused.

Health care for everyone is not a "right". It is, however, good economics and a moral obligation of an advanced society.
.

The ninth amendment to constitution states that that there are other rights that may exist aside from the ones explicitly mentioned, and even though they are not listed, it does not mean they can be violated. There are federal or state laws that recognize a right to privacy, right to an education, and right to vote. We have far more rights than those enshrined in the constitution.

Ninth Amendment - Kids | Laws.com

No, it's not a freakin' "right".

Whenever somebody wants something, they claim they have a freakin' "right" to it. The word is overused.

Health care for everyone is not a "right". It is, however, good economics and a moral obligation of an advanced society.
.

The ninth amendment to constitution states that that there are other rights that may exist aside from the ones explicitly mentioned, and even though they are not listed, it does not mean they can be violated. There are federal or state laws that recognize a right to privacy, right to an education, and right to vote. We have far more rights than those enshrined in the constitution.

Ninth Amendment - Kids | Laws.com

The Constitution doesn’t mention education and the Supreme Court has concluded that education is not a fundamental right under it.

The Supreme Court resolved this issue 40 years ago in a case about the means of financing the public elementary and secondary schools in San Antonio, Texas, called San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973).

By a 5-4 decision, with Justice Lewis Powell writing for the majority, the court found that “the Texas system does not operate to the peculiar disadvantage of any suspect class” and that education “is not among the rights afforded explicit protection under our Federal Constitution. Nor do we find any basis for saying it is implicitly so protected.”

As the 9th amendment makes clear, there can be rights that are not spelled out in the US Constitution. They can be specified in laws both federal and state. 10 states have right to privacy laws. Many states address the right to an education in the their constitution. Every state either in their constitution or state laws establish the right to vote.

 

[Flopper]

It is my opinion that social issues like health care, education, housing, and the like are not fundamental human rights.

It's really hot a matter of opinion. It's a matter of definition. If, as most people who claim "health care is a right" are doing, you define a right as "something government should provide people" - then a right is potentially anything. If, on the other hand, you're to inalienable freedoms, then health care is clearly not a right. It's a service.

It's matter of definition.
A right can be either a moral or a legal entitlement. It can be in a constitution or in law making it a legal entitlement. However, it can also be a moral or fundamental right, that may or may not be enshrined in law.

 

[dblack]

It is my opinion that social issues like health care, education, housing, and the like are not fundamental human rights.

It's really hot a matter of opinion. It's a matter of definition. If, as most people who claim "health care is a right" are doing, you define a right as "something government should provide people" - then a right is potentially anything. If, on the other hand, you're to inalienable freedoms, then health care is clearly not a right. It's a service.

It's matter of definition.
A right can be either a moral or a legal entitlement. It can be in a constitution or in law making it a legal entitlement. However, it can also be a moral or fundamental right, that may or may not be enshrined in law.

Uh huh. The purpose of government, according to Jefferson et. al., is to protect inalienable rights - inherent human free will.

We can quibble over definitions all day long, but this all really comes down to how we conceive of the purpose of government. Is it there to protect our freedom? Or to score entitlements for goups with influence?

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

Only with a Constitutional Amendment

 

[Cecilie1200]

It is my opinion that social issues like health care, education, housing, and the like are not fundamental human rights.

It's really hot a matter of opinion. It's a matter of definition. If, as most people who claim "health care is a right" are doing, you define a right as "something government should provide people" - then a right is potentially anything. If, on the other hand, you're to inalienable freedoms, then health care is clearly not a right. It's a service.

It's matter of definition.
A right can be either a moral or a legal entitlement. It can be in a constitution or in law making it a legal entitlement. However, it can also be a moral or fundamental right, that may or may not be enshrined in law.

"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.

Of course, the federal government has been creating expectations that it calls rights for centuries. To stay in office, members of Congress bribe the rich with bailouts, the middle class with tax cuts and the poor with made-up rights to all sorts of things.

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." - Judge Andrew Napolitano

Gosh, WHO should I believe? It's a puzzler.