Is healthcare a right? why or why not?

[manifold]

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.

Reading this again, the second sentence more or less contradicts the first.

What is materially different between taking a right away verses mitigating or limiting it to the point where you're simply not free to do it?

And also, there is considerable disagreement about what constitutes "the best interests of society." For example, most people would agree that banning asbestos was in the best interests of society, but what about bans on the use of trans fats? A lot of disagreement on that one.

 

[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.”

Which might explain why every country that beats the US in education recognizes every child's right to an education and more importantly, centralizes education policy as a key focus of the nation. In this country, the qualify of a child's education depends on each state and local school district, a system that guarantees a wide disparity in qualify and relatively poor overall results.

 

[dblack]

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.”

Which might explain why every country that beats the US in education recognizes every child's right to an education and more importantly, centralizes education policy as a key focus of the nation. In this country, the qualify of a child's education depends on each state and local school district, a system that grantees a wide disparity in qualify and relatively poor overall results.

Control of education is a powerful temptation. You pretty much control the future if you have that.

 

[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.”

Which might explain why every country that beats the US in education recognizes every child's right to an education and more importantly, centralizes education policy as a key focus of the nation. In this country, the qualify of a child's education depends on each state and local school district, a system that grantees a wide disparity in qualify and relatively poor overall results.

Control of education is a powerful temptation. You pretty much control the future if you have that.

And the opposite is true, lack of control and you have no control of the future.

 

[dblack]

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.”

Which might explain why every country that beats the US in education recognizes every child's right to an education and more importantly, centralizes education policy as a key focus of the nation. In this country, the qualify of a child's education depends on each state and local school district, a system that grantees a wide disparity in qualify and relatively poor overall results.

Control of education is a powerful temptation. You pretty much control the future if you have that.

And the opposite is true, lack of control and you have no control of the future.

Exactly. If the goal is for government to control society, it should definitely control education, health care, religion, culture etc...

 

[Flopper]

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 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.”

Which might explain why every country that beats the US in education recognizes every child's right to an education and more importantly, centralizes education policy as a key focus of the nation. In this country, the qualify of a child's education depends on each state and local school district, a system that grantees a wide disparity in qualify and relatively poor overall results.

Control of education is a powerful temptation. You pretty much control the future if you have that.

And the opposite is true, lack of control and you have no control of the future.

Exactly. If the goal is for government to control society, it should definitely control education, health care, religion, culture etc...

No control is anarchy. Too much control destroys personal freedoms. However, neither exist today, at least in education.

Ideally, there should be balance between central control at the federal level and local control. Currently the federal DOE provides practically no central control of education. They do not mandate curriculum. They have no control over teacher qualifications, hiring, school funding, school policies, or assuring the quality of education in schools. 90% of the work done by the DOE falls in two areas:

• Management the Federal Aid to Education Program, including Pell Grants and the huge student loan portfolio.
• Providing services to school districts in interpreting federal education law, civil rights assistance, creation of educational grants, and assisting schools with various WH and Congressional initiates.

 

[dblack]

Ideally, there should be balance between central control at the federal level and local control.

Why? That assumes we need some centralized control. But that's not established. Why is local control a bad thing, or why does it need to be 'balanced' with centralized control?

And another thing ...

You omitted individual control altogether. Does that have any weight on your balance?

 

[task0778]

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.

Reading this again, the second sentence more or less contradicts the first.

What is materially different between taking a right away verses mitigating or limiting it to the point where you're simply not free to do it?

And also, there is considerable disagreement about what constitutes "the best interests of society." For example, most people would agree that banning asbestos was in the best interests of society, but what about bans on the use of trans fats? A lot of disagreement on that one.

I didn't say anything about limiting a right to the point where you're not free to use it. But you can't just do as you please either, there is a very big difference between saying you have no right to free speech and saying your right is limited by saying you can't yell fire in a crowded room for example.

Yes, there is a wide range of opinions over what is in the best interests of society and what isn't. Gun control is an excellent example of that.

 

[dblack]

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.

Reading this again, the second sentence more or less contradicts the first.

What is materially different between taking a right away verses mitigating or limiting it to the point where you're simply not free to do it?

And also, there is considerable disagreement about what constitutes "the best interests of society." For example, most people would agree that banning asbestos was in the best interests of society, but what about bans on the use of trans fats? A lot of disagreement on that one.

I didn't say anything about limiting a right to the point where you're not free to use it. But you can't just do as you please either, there is a very big difference between saying you have no right to free speech and saying your right is limited by saying you can't yell fire in a crowded room for example.

Yes, there is a wide range of opinions over what is in the best interests of society and what isn't. Gun control is an excellent example of that.

And health care isn't.

 

[Flopper]

Ideally, there should be balance between central control at the federal level and local control.

Why? That assumes we need some centralized control. But that's not established. Why is local control a bad thing, or why does it need to be 'balanced' with centralized control?

And another thing ...

You omitted individual control altogether. Does that have any weight on your balance?

Even if each state and district makes the best decision in education for their state or district that is not necessarily the best decision for the nation or even the students because legislators and policy makers do not take into account the implications of the high mobility of the population. Today 25% to 53% of elementary and secondary students will migrate to other states. Within states, students commonly move between districts.

Student migration is difficult enough for students without having to deal with a new curriculum that assumes mastery of topics that he or she was not exposed to in their previous school. At the college level it can be more serious. And then there are the pet projects of legislatures such as seeing that all students take a course in state history, or a course in skills of everyday living. This might sound like a great a idea until the student enter college and find that they the calculus course they skipped to take a required state history class is going to cause them to take calculus as a noncredit remedial class.

In districts where low property taxes or other factors result in few dollars for education and overcrowd schools, student achievement suffers. When these students migrate to other areas in the country that have more attractive job markets, these people find they are less qualified because of their poor education their district or state provided.

I certainly don't believe in complete central federal control of education, nor do I believe in complete local and state. Locally, parents do need some say in how schools are run but we also need to make sure that students get the kind of education they need regardless of where they attended school or where they plan to live and work. In short, we need to standardized curriculum and we need more equity in school funding and that will not happen without some central control at the federal level.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

It is a worth goal...yes.

Is it a right....not at all.

 

[dblack]

In short, we need to standardized curriculum and we need more equity in school funding and that will not happen without some central control at the federal level.

Yeah. That's what you keep saying. Still don't see why "we" need this.

 

[Flopper]

In short, we need to standardized curriculum and we need more equity in school funding and that will not happen without some central control at the federal level.

Yeah. That's what you keep saying. Still don't see why "we" need this.

We need to standardize curriculum, eliminate the disparity in education funding, and encourage the implementation of techniques and policies that have been proven to be effective. None of that is going to happen without some centralized control and leadership.

 

[dblack]

In short, we need to standardized curriculum and we need more equity in school funding and that will not happen without some central control at the federal level.

Yeah. That's what you keep saying. Still don't see why "we" need this.

We need to standardize curriculum, eliminate the disparity in education funding, and encourage the implementation of techniques and policies that have been proven to be effective.

Why? Why do we "need" this? Why do you want to force it on people via government?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Good question. But note: the right to free speech can be interpreted to mean only that the government shall not undertake measures to limit your free speech. Now suppose that every time you tried to speak, someone else stopped you from doing so -- say, by standing next to you with a bullhorn, or bombing your newspaper, or rioting outside your editorial office when you print a cartoon they don't like. Do you have the "right" to demand that the government protect your free speech?

We certainly feel we have the right to demand that the government protect us from criminals, for example. But should we? Do we have a "right" to pursue our lives unmolested by criminal predators?

Also note that on the "right to bear arms", again, this is a kind of negative limitation on the government, not a positive demand that they provide you with arms to bear. However, if someone tried to take away your guns, you would expect the government to ... well, at least to come and carry away their corpse.

So ... are there any "rights" at all which require that the government do something, as opposed to refrain from doing something?

obviously not a right? If it was then more important things like food clothing shelter would also be a right and we'd be a full fledged communist country already, which is of course what treasonous liberals want!!

Our country was founded and grew great with people who wanted to be free not by people who wanted to mooch off others.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

In short, we need to standardized curriculum and we need more equity in school funding and that will not happen without some central control at the federal level.

Yeah. That's what you keep saying. Still don't see why "we" need this.

We need to standardize curriculum, eliminate the disparity in education funding, and encourage the implementation of techniques and policies that have been proven to be effective. None of that is going to happen without some centralized control and leadership.

It's not going to happen with it either.

The real bone cruncher is that you can hardly tutor your kids anymore. The tests are given in a way that bascially says you have to do it this way only. We teach them like dogs and reward them the way we reward dogs.

 

[kellyd]

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?

I live in Canada, with a single payer health care system, and it isn't free. I pay for it with my taxes every year. Because everyone above poverty line pays into it, costs are low to me. The government forces me to pay it, like the local government makes me pay my property tax. This way, everyone gets to use the services that were purchased using our pooled resources. When you insure your car, you benefit from other payees when you total your car. Why is health care any different?

 

[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.

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?

I live in Canada, with a single payer health care system, and it isn't free. I pay for it with my taxes every year. Because everyone above poverty line pays into it, costs are low to me. The government forces me to pay it, like the local government makes me pay my property tax. This way, everyone gets to use the services that were purchased using our pooled resources. When you insure your car, you benefit from other payees when you total your car. Why is health care any different?

Well, for starters, because your personal health is not a public good that is being used by other people, the way most of the things paid for by property tax, for example, are. And car insurance which covers YOUR car in the event of an accident is voluntarily paid for by the car owners. In the US, at least, the car insurance which is mandated by the government is to protect OTHER people's property from your stupidity. You're perfectly welcome to leave your own car's damaged uncovered by insurance if you want to, so long as it's not owned by someone other than you, who is then going to suffer financially for your stupidity.

 

[kellyd]

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?

I live in Canada, with a single payer health care system, and it isn't free. I pay for it with my taxes every year. Because everyone above poverty line pays into it, costs are low to me. The government forces me to pay it, like the local government makes me pay my property tax. This way, everyone gets to use the services that were purchased using our pooled resources. When you insure your car, you benefit from other payees when you total your car. Why is health care any different?

Well, for starters, because your personal health is not a public good that is being used by other people, the way most of the things paid for by property tax, for example, are. And car insurance which covers YOUR car in the event of an accident is voluntarily paid for by the car owners. In the US, at least, the car insurance which is mandated by the government is to protect OTHER people's property from your stupidity. You're perfectly welcome to leave your own car's damaged uncovered by insurance if you want to, so long as it's not owned by someone other than you, who is then going to suffer financially for your stupidity.

But my personal health IS a public good. It enables me to remain in work and be a benefit to society. The more workers fit for work, the better.

 

[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.

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?

I live in Canada, with a single payer health care system, and it isn't free. I pay for it with my taxes every year. Because everyone above poverty line pays into it, costs are low to me. The government forces me to pay it, like the local government makes me pay my property tax. This way, everyone gets to use the services that were purchased using our pooled resources. When you insure your car, you benefit from other payees when you total your car. Why is health care any different?

Well, for starters, because your personal health is not a public good that is being used by other people, the way most of the things paid for by property tax, for example, are. And car insurance which covers YOUR car in the event of an accident is voluntarily paid for by the car owners. In the US, at least, the car insurance which is mandated by the government is to protect OTHER people's property from your stupidity. You're perfectly welcome to leave your own car's damaged uncovered by insurance if you want to, so long as it's not owned by someone other than you, who is then going to suffer financially for your stupidity.

But my personal health IS a public good. It enables me to remain in work and be a benefit to society. The more workers fit for work, the better.

No, your health is a good to YOU. Being forced to support you if you're a non-working leech on society is a detriment to society, but if people are not demanding that you be kept by others like a pet rat in a cage, you really don't matter to anyone but you. And don't think I don't find it VERY suspicious that the same people who are insisting that the non-productive be cosseted are also the ones who keep bleating that the personal, individual health of total strangers is a splendiferous public benefit I'm partaking in on the same level as public roads and police departments.