If one were to read the Constitution one would realize that the Constitution does not grant anyone freedoms, liberties, or rights. The Constitution only protects freedoms, liberties, and rights from transgressions on part of the government. A right is something that is inherent to the individual, comes from that individual, and is maintained by the individual. You are born with such rights like the right to speak freely, the only thing that can be done to that right is to have it infringed. No one can grant a right to another, only limit or impede the exercise of that right.
Healthcare is a human invention that does not exist in the natural environment. Only through the work of others and through the taking of resources from one party and giving to another does healthcare exist. You cannot force someone to give effort and resources to another and call that a right. In the absence of human intervention the individual would live their lives and succumb to the natural forces which would act upon their bodies.
Do I think we should provide preventative care and basic primary care? Sure. Do I think that we can? Maybe. Do I think that healthcare is a basic human right? Absolutely not.
I think the problem is that when you make healthcare a priviledge rather then a right, the health of people who cannot afford care suffers. Wealth and social class are the biggest factors that determine the health of a person in the United States. People should not be sick and dying simply because they are poor.
So what particularly do you feel lacks "muster" please expound...it must "matter" if you are consigning me to nothing more than a polemic response...
See post #86
Every one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence was an englishmen subject to the laws of the king. The penalty for treason in 1776 was hanging and had the revolution not been won they would have hung. The idea that a government's power derives from the consent of the people was unheard of. Locke was extremely influential on Jefferson and the idea that man had rights irrespective of a particular king evolved over several hundred years of english common law. Paine broke it down for average man with his pamplet "Common Sense". Were the colonists not good enough to rule themselves? The monarchy viewed all this as nonsense as they needed revenue to pay for english armies stationed to protect the colonists. The struggle against a monarchy left them deeply suspicious of any strong central federal power and they intentionaly placed checks and balances in the constitution to hinder any future would be tyrant. This whole thread started over the question of healthcare as a right and as I've pointed out there is a mechanism in our federal system to obtain it. But the proponents of healthcare as a constitutionaly gauranteed right refuse to follow the process.
Every one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence was an englishmen subject to the laws of the king. The penalty for treason in 1776 was hanging and had the revolution not been won they would have hung. The idea that a government's power derives from the consent of the people was unheard of. Locke was extremely influential on Jefferson and the idea that man had rights irrespective of a particular king evolved over several hundred years of english common law. Paine broke it down for average man with his pamplet "Common Sense". Were the colonists not good enough to rule themselves? The monarchy viewed all this as nonsense as they needed revenue to pay for english armies stationed to protect the colonists. The struggle against a monarchy left them deeply suspicious of any strong central federal power and they intentionaly placed checks and balances in the constitution to hinder any future would be tyrant. This whole thread started over the question of healthcare as a right and as I've pointed out there is a mechanism in our federal system to obtain it. But the proponents of healthcare as a constitutionaly gauranteed right refuse to follow the process.
Yes... yes interesting... yet as usual the "meat", the gist of the matter is the selective forgetting concerning enslavement and slaughter. These "heroes" replaced the (tyranny) they so wanted to be free from with more of the same...yet they (and apparently some people here) act as if this is some great feat we should bow down to forever...are we not a dynamic species...I guess I can understand where the callousness concerning the downtrodden(today's healthcare debate) comes from...and again...power from consent of the people...you cannot have it both ways..if you define it as that based in that context, then you are calling "the people" this select few that had the power...and yes to be "simple" or even "polemic" these were the rich white guys...In other words if something is based on a destructive and horrific premise, how can it be called just and why ever should it be accepted in this time?
Specializes in Education, FP, LNC, Forensics, ED, OB.
Gonna step in a little bit here.
The debate has gotten a little off-topic and into areas that if continued, will require a new thread topic. So, let's get back to the original topic, o.k.??
as long as there is a capitalism based society those with money will always be better off and have better choices. there will be better drs, hospitals and meds for them . here or else where. just like the free lunch or free section 8 apartments do not hold a candle in equality to what others have. it will mever be the same care for all. even in communist countries there will be underground systems and capitalism is what drives progress and what motivates those "evil selfish pharm companies and hotel hospitals". how is the end of life approached in countries with gov administered health care? or when there is a grim prognosis? not sure.
But, can't there at least BE healthcare? And, I don't mean the ER for everything. An actual ability to go to the appropriate doctor for your problem? No elective surgeries, or all the other things that more well off people can afford. But, the ability to get treated for an illness or injury and the ability to do preventative medicine?
The Middle Class, is paying for medical care for everyone except themselves, and to which they have no access to.
Deport ALL illegal aliens, at THEIR EXPENSE, use that money for the Middle Class to obtain health insurance, improve our schools, balance the Federal Budget. REVOKE birthright citizenship, and end anchor babies.
Has anyone looked at what Illegal Aliens are costing this counry, in welfare benefite, food stamps, free K-12 Public education, medical care, etc? It is Criminal what this country is spending on these leeches.
And the American Citizens are suffering for it. There is PLENTY of money to adeaquately support and care for AMERICAN CITIZENS. The problem is how our politicians choose to spend it.
A "right" is whatever we the people decide it is. We've got all sorts of "rights" in today's modern world that weren't an issue (or perhaps even imagined) at the time the Constitution was penned.
Either way, who cares of the Constitution grants people the right to access to health care? We can create new social services that are perfectly legal within the Constitution (social security, medicare/medicaid, food stamps, public schools, etc) that aren't explicitly listed. The absence of mention in the Constitution is not proof that something is UNconstitutional.
Personally, I feel that one of the core responsibilities of our government is to assist in protecting the people from threats, domestic or foreign. If there was a terrorist threat that killed 45,000 Americans a year, you wouldn't object to the government taking action, would you? Replace the word "terrorists" with "preventable/curable diseases". Why is it so wrong not to want our family, friends, or neighbors to die because of lack of access to health care?
Also consider the larger cost to society when a % of the population cannot get health care. Those are the people who use hospital ED as doctors offices because they're suffering and know no doctor will see them. They're the ones who miss extra days at work because they can't get treatment, costing employers money. They're the ones who end up having hospitals pay to amputate a foot or do a kidney transplant because, when they got a common disease such as diabetes, they could never get proper preventative care. What is the cost to that person's children, employer, or family when they die young from a curable cancer? How much does it cost to give the remaining now-single parent food stamps and other social services, when one of the breadwinners in the household dies? What's the cost to the next generation of kids who grow up with one parent bedridden, disabled, or dead -- from a preventable disease? Why do we as a society wait until someone is dying at the door of a hospital to offer any care at all? Wouldn't have been cheaper to give the education & preventative care/screening a year ago than wait for the person to have a MI and (at hospital expense) get a bypass?
*4!#6
222 Posts
I think the problem is that when you make healthcare a priviledge rather then a right, the health of people who cannot afford care suffers. Wealth and social class are the biggest factors that determine the health of a person in the United States. People should not be sick and dying simply because they are poor.