Healthcare isn't a constitutional right, but a human right

[UtahDan]

What do we mean by a "right" to health care? If we mean "right" in the sense of a natural right then we are talking about a certain aspect of our life being free from interference. I know that no one means people ought to have a right not to have others prevent them from securing the health care they want, but I think it is important to point out that when we list it among things like life liberty and property a freedom from interference IS for the most part what we are talking about with those.

So, essentially, what I think is meant is a right to have health care provided you by others, or even more to the point, the right to take the property of others so that you can purchase health care.

So I would ask, does anyone think it is a "natural right" to take the property of others to purchase health care? Do we abolish the government, as Jefferson suggests we should with natural rights, upon its failure to secure that particular right?

I know it is a silly question, just trying to focus the debate.

[frank ryan]

UD I don't know if that directed at me, but yes I do. I pay taxes that to support local schools (which I have no problem with) but isn't similar to what you are cautioning about? I can call the police and fire regardless of my income, and within reason I can call them over and over again all paid for by others.
I don't know how to fix health care but in my opinion we need to even if it means taking a
titch more from me and some of you uber-men atlas shrugged types.
I don't think it should be free but everyone should get it. I doubt very much that jefferson would have sided with the status quo let the fat and lazy poor die crowd, but I could be wrong.

[thesaint258]

I do think healthcare (at least basic) is a right. Along the same lines as having access to police and fire services, not to mention basic education.
Imagine if the US had no public education system, it would a daunting, massive problem to install (I'm not trying to debate whether public ed is good or not)
I'm also not caught up with healthcare being free or being done by the government, although I must admit that having a government bureaucrat in charge is not more frightening by having a corporate profiteer.
Right now there is a huge swath of people who don't have access. And I know because I have been there.

Before I comment, I want to make sure I understand your point correctly. Do you mean that a right to healthcare is just like the right to education?

[frank ryan]

Before I comment, I want to make sure I understand your point correctly. Do you mean that a right to healthcare is just like the right to education?

There are paralells. Do you disagree?

[thesaint258]

There are paralells. Do you disagree?

Well, yes because there isn't a federal right to education.

[frank ryan]

Well, yes because there isn't a federal right to education.

I think we have a right to education, enshrined in law or not. And I don't want to get in "the how shitty the public schools are debate" but I would not want to live in a country without a public school system.

[thesaint258]

I think we have a right to education, enshrined in law or not. And I don't want to get in "the how shitty the public schools are debate" but I would not want to live in a country without a public school system.

I don't think education is a right at all. I think it's a good thing that has a lot of social value, and that we, as a society, have determined that it's worth our time, money, and effort to provide education. I don't believe, however, that people get to demand that I pay for them to go to school, just like I don't believe people get to demand that I pay for them to have healthcare.

[frank ryan]

I don't think education is a right at all. I think it's a good thing that has a lot of social value, and that we, as a society, have determined that it's worth our time, money, and effort to provide education. I don't believe, however, that people get to demand that I pay for them to go to school, just like I don't believe people get to demand that I pay for them to have healthcare.

Thanks for sharing your point of view.

[Babs]

1. Whether "the rest of us" should have to pay for access for the poor is a red herring, as we already do.

As ERC points out, the uninsured show up at the ER for a twelve-year-old's sore throat, claiming it's an emergency; they get a script for an antibiotic for strep; the family doesn't pay the 700 dollar bill; the hospital hikes up the fees for the rest of us to cover the cost. Estimates of this "invisible tax" on the rest of us are several thousand dollars per family, per year.

2. Whether health care is a right is irrelevant and a distraction from the issue at hand.

The real questions are:

a) whether a healthier populace is economically and otherwise advantageous for society

and, assuming an affirmative answer to a),

b) whether it is possible to produce a healthier populace in a more efficient and effective manner than with the model we currently use.

The heart of the issue is not the rights of man. It's not who pays for what. The heart of the issue is whether it's possible and feasible for a nation of this size and demographic to improve the health of its citizenry via a different model. And the truth is that I don't think anyone really knows.

[frank ryan]

1. Whether "the rest of us" should have to pay for access for the poor is a red herring, as we already do.

As ERC points out, the uninsured show up at the ER for a twelve-year-old's sore throat, claiming it's an emergency; they get a script for an antibiotic for strep; the family doesn't pay the 700 dollar bill; the hospital hikes up the fees for the rest of us to cover the cost. Estimates of this "invisible tax" on the rest of us are several thousand dollars per family, per year.

2. Whether health care is a right is irrelevant and a distraction from the issue at hand.

The real questions are:

a) whether a healthier populace is economically and otherwise advantageous for society

and, assuming an affirmative answer to a),

b) whether it is possible to produce a healthier populace in a more efficient and effective manner than with the model we currently use.

The heart of the issue is not the rights of man. It's not who pays for what. The heart of the issue is whether it's possible and feasible for a nation of this size and demographic to improve the health of its citizenry via a different model. And the truth is that I don't think anyone really knows.

I don't think you could find a worse model in the industrialized world. I don't have the answer but there has to be something better.

[JohnnyLingo]

1. Whether "the rest of us" should have to pay for access for the poor is a red herring, as we already do.

And when universal healthcare is a reality in our country, the argument will be "whether or not we should have universal healthcare is a red herring, as we already do."

What's wrong with discussing ways to reverse the status quo, instead of just accepting it as unchangeable?

[Babs]

I don't think you could find a worse model in the industrialized world.

There is considerable evidence to that effect. But the U.S. has five times as many people as any of the countries we usually use for comparison. We really don't know how those models would transpose from a population of 60 million to a population of 300.

As you suggest, the question is not really whether our system is lacking. The question is how to go about improving it.

[Babs]

What's wrong with discussing ways to reverse the status quo, instead of just accepting it as unchangeable?

I'm sorry lingo. Now you're just being silly. You realize what you just said? You're suggesting just leaving people who can't afford care without - deny them and their kids access to any care whatsoever, because no one else is going to pick up the tab.

[All-American]

1. Whether "the rest of us" should have to pay for access for the poor is a red herring, as we already do.

As ERC points out, the uninsured show up at the ER for a twelve-year-old's sore throat, claiming it's an emergency; they get a script for an antibiotic for strep; the family doesn't pay the 700 dollar bill; the hospital hikes up the fees for the rest of us to cover the cost. Estimates of this "invisible tax" on the rest of us are several thousand dollars per family, per year.

2. Whether health care is a right is irrelevant and a distraction from the issue at hand.

The real questions are:

a) whether a healthier populace is economically and otherwise advantageous for society

and, assuming an affirmative answer to a),

b) whether it is possible to produce a healthier populace in a more efficient and effective manner than with the model we currently use.

The heart of the issue is not the rights of man. It's not who pays for what. The heart of the issue is whether it's possible and feasible for a nation of this size and demographic to improve the health of its citizenry via a different model. And the truth is that I don't think anyone really knows.

See, here is the heart of the matter. The question is not whether healthcare is a natural right. By definition, it is not. The question is whether or not we want to make it a civil right.

[JohnnyLingo]

I'm sorry lingo. Now you're just being silly. You realize what you just said? You're suggesting just leaving people who can't afford care without - deny them and their kids access to any care whatsoever, because no one else is going to pick up the tab.

No, I'm not.

And really, is saying someone is "silly" any less offensive than saying they are stupid? I know it's in vogue on CUF lately, but maybe we can rethink it.

I've outlined this before, but I think we can better take care of the poor through individual, voluntary giving through churches and other local organizations rather than relying on taxes and forced taking through the federal government/hospitals taking the hit and passing on the cost to everyone.