Is Health Care a Right?

OzNurse69 · Jan 30, 2003

Originally posted by Susy K
We can't deduct our kids for tax purposes as we don't have any.\

Susy, (slightly off topic here --) are you saying that you can actually use children as a tax deduction in the US?? We can't even claim childcare here, as it is apparently not "an expense incurred in earning an income" -- (so tell me what it is, then?? :eek: Boy, no wonder your economy is screwed!!

OzNurse69 · Jan 30, 2003

Btw, with regard to the original question:

Is health care a right? -- NO

SHOULD health care be a right? -- YES

JMHO

duckboy20 · Jan 30, 2003

I think that Universal Health care should be put in to place in America. There are, however, pro's and con's to implementing it in the US. Pros: Everyone has access to equal healthcare no matter how much money they make, like it is mentioned above. The government has the capability to do this with taxes. If they would implement a flat tax rate of 10% no matter what the income, they would be exploding with money and not know what to do with it because the people lucky enough to make millions of dollars would now have to pay what they should and the low class person would pay 10% which would equal out to less than what they are paying now. It could be done. The cons, on the other hand, are that since America is a melting pot and has no regulation whatsoever on who can access healthcare, such as illegal immigrants, it would still be abused as it is today by people who are not citizens and not paying taxes and their part for access to healthcare. Yes it should be done and could be done, the government needs to regulate quite a bit better.

kmchugh · Jan 30, 2003

No one has responded to a point I made a while ago, but I buried it in another post, so I'll give it the spot light in this post. Those of you who feel health care is a right, feel free to rebut.

The initial question was "Is healthcare a right?" Before we get into that question, consider a couple of our other rights:

Speech: I am free to hold any political view, distasteful or not, and publically espouse that view without fear of governmental retribution. The cost of this right to others? Zero. If you don't like what I have to say, you are free to debate me, or simply walk away if you don't want to hear it.

Religion: I am free to worship (or not) any way I see fit. Cost to others? Again, zero. My religious beliefs are my own business, and the government has no right to interfere so long as my practice of religion does not violate law or infringe on the rights of others.

There is the central theme here. I have rights, but my rights cannot infringe on the rights of others. None of our rights outlined in the constitution extend to allowing us to violate the rights of others, and for good reason. If such a thing was allowed, then we would be in a position where the courts would be in a constant state of decision about whose rights were paramount.

Now, consider that the constitution gives me the right to "pursue happiness." Suppose in that pursuit, I want to amass wealth. I am, within the tax laws, allowed to do so to the best of my legal ability. But, a universal health care plan, regardless of what we are told elsewhere, will cost the US money. That money does not come from trees, the government gets it by taxing the citizenry. Hence, my right to pursue happiness is infringed upon by someone elses "right" to health care.

I know, we are already taxed to support government, provide for the common defense and the security and peace of the homeland, but these are also allowed for as duties of the government in the constitution. They provide for the common good. Without them, the point of pursuing happiness becomes moot, because every tin pot dictator will come along and kick over our apple cart. Universal health care provides for the good of some, at the expense of others.

The point is that the rights intended in the constitution were there as freedoms. They do not have cost, and in order to grant one person those rights, we do not have to impose a burden on someone else. Universal health care does not pass this simple test, no matter how you try to explain it. In other words, health care ain't free. In order to grant one person the "right" of access to health care, you must impose on someone else the burden of paying for that right.

Logically, then health care cannot be a "right."

Responses?

Kevin McHugh

Q. · Jan 30, 2003

Originally posted by OzNurse69
Susy, (slightly off topic here --) are you saying that you can actually use children as a tax deduction in the US?? We can't even claim childcare here, as it is apparently not "an expense incurred in earning an income" -- (so tell me what it is, then?? Boy, no wonder your economy is screwed!!

Oz,

Yes here in the United States, people can use their children as tax deductions, therefore, keeping more of their earned income to themselves. So, since I don't have any kids, I can't deduct them and therefore give up more of my money than my counterpart with kids.

As far as your system over there, why is our economy screwed if your system is the one not allowing you to claim childcare expenses? Maybe I am not understanding your posts.

Q. · Jan 30, 2003

Originally posted by kmchugh
Responses?

Kevin McHugh

Yep. Agreed.

In all seriousness, your post was very logical.

researchrabbit · Jan 30, 2003

I think a lot of vets (some of whom were drafted) will tell you that your liberties are not "free". Their rights were interrupted (sometimes permanently) in order to provide rights to others. Not to mention that if they didn't lose lives or health, sometimes return only to find they've lost their livelihood.

Q. · Jan 30, 2003

Originally posted by researchrabbit
I think a lot of vets (some of whom were drafted) will tell you that your liberties are not "free". Their rights were interrupted (sometimes permanently) in order to provide rights to others. Not to mention that if they didn't lose lives or health, sometimes return only to find they've lost their livelihood.

And as a result, we got rid of the Draft. Anyone else, including Kevin, who volunteered for military service did so by choice, therefore I don't see how their rights were violated.

semstr · Jan 30, 2003

Well, IMHO, it is difficult for all of us, coming from totally different countries, with very different health-policies, to understand each other.

For me it is hard to understand, that a country known for its technoligiies and medical on the top universities, where we send our sick too, paid for by the local insurances here, can't or won't take care of their own, not so very fortunate citizens.

On the other hand, it might be hard for you to understand, that we pay a mountain of taxes every month, in order to give other citizens of our country the possibility to be unemployed and still have health-insurance. Or for every mother- to- be, a doctor pre- and postnatal (plus pediatricians for her child) even when she never worked in her whole life.

Our systems are abslotutely in contrast with each other, but I think we can all learn, by comparing and asking each other questions.

fergus51 · Jan 30, 2003

Kevin and Susy, my most respected conservatives:), especially:

What about some kind of mandatory contribution to health care system? When I went to college the student society had a dental plan. Either I had to show that I had my own dental plan or I was forced to pay into theirs and be covered. Why not somehing like that, where the uninsured in America have to have some basic coverage somehow, even if it means paying into medicare?

As far as your question about universal health care costs of the non-paying infringing on your rights: It already does now. Is it wrong? Sure, I'll give you that. It sucks. Unfortunately that's the reality right now, without universal care. The current system rewards those who choose not to work and contribute and allows it to continue without even trying to lower costs.

WashYaHands · Jan 30, 2003

What about some kind of mandatory contribution to health care system? When I went to college the student society had a dental plan. Either I had to show that I had my own dental plan or I was forced to pay into theirs and be covered. Why not somehing like that, where the uninsured in America have to have some basic coverage somehow, even if it means paying into medicare?

In the US, this is already done. The specific government deductions from our paychecks include Federal income tax, Social security tax (FICA) and Medicare tax.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled debate.

Linda

Venti Cappucino · Jan 30, 2003

Originally posted by WashYaHands
In the US, this is already done. The specific government deductions from our paychecks include Federal income tax, Social security tax (FICA) and Medicare tax.

However... there's a lot of folks who aren't covered under Medicare and Medicaid, who either cannot afford insurance or it isn't offered through their job.