Is Healthcare a Right?

[Perianne]

ObamaCare has been taken to the Supreme Court once already for repeal. However, the fate of the law hinges on King V Burwell, a case focusing on the legality of subsidies. The Supreme Court has heard arguments for King V Burwell, but hasn’t ruled on the case yet.


http://obamacarefacts.com/supreme-court-obamacare/

In your opinion, should healthcare be a right, that is, paid for by others if you can't afford it?

[fj1200]

^Nothing is a right if it requires the force of law to take from one to give to another.

[darin]

If Healthcare becomse a fundamental right - Car care must as well.

Health insurance went from a benefit - something people can afford because it's a good idea, to something equating with food, shelter, and all that. Travesty. Honestly leads to the economic and social unrest our nation faces today. And it will get worse because the more "free" shit people get, the less-able they are to provide for themselves and the more they demand.

When you give free shit to somebody at a level of, say 5, people's norm becomes 5. When productive, non-lazy citizens start living at level 8, the "free" level 5 people start rioting and protesting and demanding level 8 becomes THEIR new normal, too. Not by virtue of contributions to society, but by the fact they are alive.

There's no hope. :(

[Little-Acorn]

Something I wrote many years ago:

What Are Our "Rights"?

You hear an awful lot about our "rights" these days. And justly so-- our rights, in this country, are our most valuable possession, outside of life itself. And some people say that our basic rights, are even more important than life. When Patrick Henry defiantly told the British government during colonial times, "Give me liberty or give me death!", he was stating that he considered a life without liberty, to be worse than no life at all (death).

So, what are our rights?

The Declaration of Independence mentions a few, and implies that there are others. So does the Constitution-- in fact, it names many, and categorically states that those aren't the only rights people have.

The Declaration says that among our rights, are "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". It also says that these were given to us "by [our] Creator". Take that as you will, depending on whatever religious outlook you hold. But one of the implications is that, wherever our rights came from, they were NOT granted us by government, or by our fellow men at all. We had them long before government existed. And these various government documents simply say that government cannot take them away or interfere with them.

Here we refer, of course, only to normal law-abiding citizens. The Constitution contains the phrase "except by due course of law" in many places. If you rob someone, assault him, destroy his property, murder him etc., then you can legitimately be deprived of liberty (you go to jail), property (you get fined), or even life in some extreme cases (Death Penalty). Outside of such lawbreaking, your rights are held inviolate.

But today, our "rights" seem to be multiplying without end. This is not necessarily bad-- as we said, rights are extremely valuable. But, are we getting ahead of ourselves, granting to ourselves so many things under the name of "rights"?

"Old Rights"

Some are pretty indisputable, such as the ones mentioned in the Declaration. The ones mentioned in the Constitution, especially in the first ten Amendments (which was even called the "Bill of Rights" by its authors), are similarly vital... though they seem to be undergoing a methodical erosion. Freedom of religion, right to peaceably assemble, freedom of speech and of the press, the right to keep and bear arms, etc. all are very basic, and it is scary to think of trying to exist in a country in which any of these do not exist.

New "rights"

But lately we have heard about other "rights", such as the right to work, the right to decent medical treatment, the right to a decent standard of living. These all sound salutary-- what kind of society would we have, if working for a living were forbidden, decent health care were forbidden, etc.?

But there is a big gap between "forbidden" and "compulsory". The rights found in the country's founding documents, are compulsory, to the extent that we all have them whether we want them or not (who wouldn't want them?), and no one can take them away.

What about, say, the right to decent medical treatment? Those who favor this "right", point out that they don't necessarily mean the rare, exotic, super-expensive treatments; nor "elective" procedures such as cosmetic liposuction or a luxury suite in the hospital. They usually mean that, if you get sick or injured, you have the "right" to have a doctor look at you, make sure the problem isn't unusually dangerous, and administer the routine treatments needed to help you on the way back to good health. An absence of such routine treatment, could occasionally put your life in peril, obviously-- a simple broken bone could lead to infection if untreated, and possibly far more. But there are differences between the "Old Rights", as we've called the ones in the founding documents, and these "New 'Rights'".

Your "right to life" protects something that no man gave you-- you simply had it, from the day you were born. Nobody had to go to extraordinary effort to create it for you, outside of natural processes that move forward on their own without deliberate effort or guidance by humans, government, etc.

Same with the "right to liberty". You were your own man, as it were, the day you were born. Nobody had to go to special effort to create that status for you. In fact, they would have had to go to considerable effort to take those things away, by deliberately coming to you and killing you; or by building a jail and imprisoning you etc. If they leave you alone, you have life and liberty, and can pursue happiness. They have to work at it to deprive you of those things.

The Difference in the "New 'Rights'"

But this isn't the case with what we've called "New 'Rights'". In order for you to get the kind of routine medical treatment its advocates describe, somebody has to stop what he is doing and perform work for you-- the doctor who examines you, the clerk who sets up your appointment, the people who built the office or hospital where you get treatment.

If this routine medical treatment is to be called a "right" on par with our "Old Rights", doesn't that mean that you must be given it when needed? And doesn't it follow, then, that others must be compelled to do the normal things needed to treat you?

Uh-oh.

How does this compulsion upon those others (doctors, clerks etc.) fit in with THEIR rights? They "have" to treat you? What if their schedules are full-- do they have to bump another patient to make room for you? What if they were spending precious quality time with their families-- do they have to abandon their own kids, to fulfill your "right" to treatment that only they can give? Doesn't this fit the description of "involuntary servitude"?

This is an important difference between the rights envisioned by the country's founders, and the new "rights" advocated by more modern pundits. In order to secure your "old rights", people merely had to leave you alone... do nothing to bother you. in fact, they were required to. But these new so-called "rights", required that people go out of their way to actively contribute to you.

And that "requirement", in fact violates THEIR rights-- specifically, their right to liberty. They must be left free to live their lives as THEY chose-- free from compulsion to come and help you out. If they want to help you, that's fine-- often it's the decent and moral thing to do. But they cannot be forced to help you, no matter how much you need the help.

These new "rights", are in fact not rights at all. They are obligations upon others, imposed on them without their agreement or consent.

Beware of announcements that you have the "right" to this or that. Ask yourself if this "right", forces someone else to do something for you, that he didn't previously agree to. If it does, it's not a "right" possessed by you. It's an attempt by the announcer, to force others into servitude... an attempt, in fact, to violate the others' rights.

[Perianne]

Little-Acorn

That is brilliantly stated. Thanks.

[Caliban]

Does one really want to make life or death dependant on the size of one's bank account? I will never be comfortable with that. It goes against every moral instinct of the civilized human being.

Do you REALLY want to be a society that points to a person of wealth and says: 'You can afford this expensive cancer treatment or antibiotic, you get to live', while it points to a person of far more limited means and says 'You don't have the money for this expensive new cancer treatment or antibiotic; sorry, you are to suffer a slow, painful and degrading death'.

I reject such immorality.

[fj1200]

I reject such immorality.

You answered a different question; HC is not a right.

[Caliban]

You answered a different question; HC is not a right.

Is there a right to live?

[fj1200]

Is there a right to live?

The top three are life, liberty, and property so yes but you're stating that the right to life involves being able to take the property (and services) of another.

[Caliban]

The top three are life, liberty, and property so yes but you're stating that the right to life involves being able to take the property (and services) of another.

What stands highest in the hierarchy of values? Life or property?

You can't have property without life, but you can have life without property.

Life is the absolute precondition for every other right.

So, yes, without hesitation: i would alienate a portion of property to preserve a life.

[Gunny]

Does one really want to make life or death dependant on the size of one's bank account? I will never be comfortable with that. It goes against every moral instinct of the civilized human being.

Do you REALLY want to be a society that points to a person of wealth and says: 'You can afford this expensive cancer treatment or antibiotic, you get to live', while it points to a person of far more limited means and says 'You don't have the money for this expensive new cancer treatment or antibiotic; sorry, you are to suffer a slow, painful and degrading death'.

I reject such immorality.

Your sense of morality is neither human instinct, nor an inherent right.

[fj1200]

What stands highest in the hierarchy of values? Life or property?

You can't have property without life, but you can have life without property.

Life is the absolute precondition for every other right.

So, yes, without hesitation: i would alienate a portion of property to preserve a life.

They are equal. Besides your "right" to life is predicated on another individual not having the right to take it from you. Nobody is keeping HC from anyone but some advocate taking property from one to give to another.

It's one thing to advocate that society should provide for those less fortunate but it's quite another to mandate something a right. As pointed out mandating that something be a right involves an ever expanding definition of what can be taken from one and given to another. I have a right to aspirin... I have a right to dialysis... I have a right to a heart transplant... I have a right that Medicare extend the life of grandma at great extent for one more month so that I can feel better about myself...

[Gunny]

The top three are life, liberty, and property so yes but you're stating that the right to life involves being able to take the property (and services) of another.

You have the Right to breathe just so long as you can maintain it. That's about it.

[Gunny]

What stands highest in the hierarchy of values? Life or property?

You can't have property without life, but you can have life without property.

Life is the absolute precondition for every other right.

So, yes, without hesitation: i would alienate a portion of property to preserve a life.

And all you ever get out of life is death. If you want to go to morality, then taking from someone who goes out and earns/fights/sweats/works for what he has to pay for someone who won't is BS.

[Caliban]

You have the Right to breathe just so long as you can maintain it. That's about it.

That's why human societies and states evolved in remote prehistory: to help each other continue to breathe as long as possible, which is easier to do collectively than individually.

[Gunny]

That's why human societies and states evolved in remote prehistory: to help each other continue to breathe as long as possible, which is easier to do collectively than individually.

I prefer the individually thing. Your idea interrupts the natural progression of survival of the fittest.

[fj1200]

That's why human societies and states evolved in remote prehistory: to help each other continue to breathe as long as possible, which is easier to do collectively than individually.

Fallacy alert. I'm pretty sure that they "helped" each other without the need for some pie-in-the-sky notion of HC as a right. And nobody is stating that people won't be helped unless HC is declared a right.

[Caliban]

And all you ever get out of life is death. If you want to go to morality, then taking from someone who goes out and earns/fights/sweats/works for what he has to pay for someone who won't is BS.

I'm not even talking about those who won't, primarily, i'm talking about those who do.

Prior to the early to mid-20th century the vast majority of the labouring classes had no recourse whatsoever: steelworkers, miners, construction workers, lumberjacks, fishermen, you name it. They were one injury or illness away from complete ruination for themselves and their entire families. Old age, in England, for a man or woman who worked hard all his life, usually meant a squalid death in the workhouse. These are people who worked hard all their lives.

But it's ok that they die horribly of easily preventable or treatable diseases: at least they have their 'liberty'.😁

[Caliban]

Fallacy alert. I'm pretty sure that they "helped" each other without the need for some pie-in-the-sky notion of HC as a right. And nobody is stating that people won't be helped unless HC is declared a right.

Given the level of medicine prior to the modern age (mid 19th century) it was probably healthier to stay AWAY from a doctor than to see one. That state of affairs no longer applies. Therefore, access to health care today being essential to the maintenance of life, i hold that it is a right. The only question remaining is, how best to ensure this right.

[Gunny]

I'm not even talking about those who won't, primarily, i'm talking about those who do.

Prior to the early to mid-20th century the vast majority of the labouring classes had no recourse whatsoever: steelworkers, miners, construction workers, lumberjacks, fishermen, you name it. They were one injury or illness away from complete ruination for themselves and their entire families. Old age, in England, for a man or woman who worked hard all his life, usually meant a squalid death in the workhouse. These are people who worked hard all their lives.

But it's ok that they die horribly of easily preventable or treatable diseases: at least they have their 'liberty'.

I have no problem helping those who cannot help themselves. Unfortunately, those who won't help themselves seem to far outweigh those that can't. I have no sympathy for those that won't.

A good example would be illegal immigrants. They come over here, take our money and give NOTHING to the social infrastructure. They get paid cash and don't pay taxes. Yet, they can't be turned away for medical treatment. WE, the LEGAL US citizens, foot that bill.

[Caliban]

I prefer the individually thing. Your idea interrupts the natural progression of survival of the fittest.

Radical individualism is as much a pipe dream and dead end as socialism is. Neither ever existed, neither ever will exist, at least in the manner their adherents imagine it.

[fj1200]

Given the level of medicine prior to the modern age (mid 19th century) it was probably healthier to stay AWAY from a doctor than to see one. That state of affairs no longer applies. Therefore, access to health care today being essential to the maintenance of life, i hold that it is a right. The only question remaining is, how best to ensure this right.

The best that you can hold is that it's a privilege granted by government. You can't take away rights and nobody is advocating removing access to health care. Nevertheless you could attempt to answer your question; how best to provide this privilege?

[Gunny]

Radical individualism is as much a pipe dream and dead end as socialism is. Neither ever existed, neither ever will exist, at least in the manner their adherents imagine it.

There's nothing radical about my individualism. I just don't want my individualism paying for your VERY REAL socialism.

[Balu]

If Healthcare becomse a fundamental right - Car care must as well.

Health insurance went from a benefit - something people can afford because it's a good idea, to something equating with food, shelter, and all that. Travesty. Honestly leads to the economic and social unrest our nation faces today. And it will get worse because the more "free" shit people get, the less-able they are to provide for themselves and the more they demand.

When you give free shit to somebody at a level of, say 5, people's norm becomes 5. When productive, non-lazy citizens start living at level 8, the "free" level 5 people start rioting and protesting and demanding level 8 becomes THEIR new normal, too. Not by virtue of contributions to society, but by the fact they are alive.

There's no hope. :(
Here in Russia we have 100% obligatory, free of charge medical insurance covering your visiting doctors, all operations for vital signs and prescriptions of your doctor. For example а couple years back I had an operation on hip replacement, with further 24 day rehabilitation in a sanatorium. 5 meals and all the necessary procedures included.
These are birthmarks our accursed Soviet past. And I really liked this. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/laugh2.gif

[Caliban]

The Canadian and much of the British health care system are socialist. They are not examples anyone should aspire to. The pre-Obamacare American medical system was a confused, inefficient mess. Also not a model to aspire to. Obamacare took that mess and made it a dog's breakfast, thermonuclear DISASTER.

However, there are some countries that have managed to strike the right balance between public and private health care, above all Germany and France.

Any reform of health care should study and emulate those models first.

[fj1200]

The Canadian and much of the British health care system are socialist. They are not examples anyone should aspire to. The pre-Obamacare American medical system was a confused, inefficient mess. Also not a model to aspire to. Obamacare took that mess and made it a dog's breakfast, thermonuclear DISASTER.

However, there are some countries that have managed to strike the right balance between public and private health care, above all Germany and France.

Any reform of health care should study and emulate those models first.

I agree wholeheartedly with your first paragraph. Not so much the rest. My solution to our current HC mess is massive deregulation. Massive regulation led to the problems pre-ACA and ACA did it no favors. We need to strip away the problems before adopting solutions.

[Gunny]

The Canadian and much of the British health care system are socialist. They are not examples anyone should aspire to. The pre-Obamacare American medical system was a confused, inefficient mess. Also not a model to aspire to. Obamacare took that mess and made it a dog's breakfast, thermonuclear DISASTER.

However, there are some countries that have managed to strike the right balance between public and private health care, above all Germany and France.

Any reform of health care should study and emulate those models first.

You can't strike a balance here because of the overwhelming number of people who abuse the system. In the end, the middle class is STILL paying for it. I'd be okay with Obamacare if it was funded by a 20% pay cut for all elected officials in DC and any of their appointees.

[darin]

Here in Russia we have 100% obligatory, free of charge medical insurance covering your visiting doctors, all operations for vital signs and prescriptions of your doctor. For example а couple years back I had an operation on hip replacement, with further 24 day rehabilitation in a sanatorium. 5 meals and all the necessary procedures included.
These are birthmarks our accursed Soviet past. And I really liked this. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/laugh2.gif

Uh. How the hell is that "Free"????? Does Russia not pay its medical people or medical equipment-makers?

[Little-Acorn]

Is there a right to live?

No. There is a right to not be killed by somebody else, whether maliciously or through carelessness. But that's as far as it goes.

If you're swimming in a lake and you drown, your rights have not been violated, because you did not have the right to life.

If you quit your job, have no money, and spend the next few weeks sitting on your butt doing absolutely nothing, you'll probably starve to death or die of thirst etc. But again your rights have not been violated, because you did not have the right to life.

[aboutime]

Uh. How the hell is that "Free"????? Does Russia not pay its medical people or medical equipment-makers?


dmp. Sounds just like our Government Dependent citizens here who get everything for free, or they riot, cause more trouble, or VOTE for Democrats to maintain their "It's not fair because I am a lifelong victim" agenda.

Wonder if anyone even bothers to ask "Who's paying for this?":laugh:

[DLT]

http://obamacarefacts.com/supreme-court-obamacare/

In your opinion, should healthcare be a right, that is, paid for by others if you can't afford it?

No. Where does it end, if so? Answer: it doesn't end. The idiot left will continue to redistribute the wealth of the middle class down to their constituents until there is no middle class remaining. At that point we will have only two classes, just like in dictatorships and communist hellholes. The ruling rich elite and the poverty-enslaved masses. That is the fundamental transformation that Obama meant when he was campaigning. Too bad most Americans are too stupid to have recognized it for what it was....

a threat.

[DLT]

dmp. Sounds just like our Government Dependent citizens here who get everything for free, or they riot, cause more trouble, or VOTE for Democrats to maintain their "It's not fair because I am a lifelong victim" agenda.

Wonder if anyone even bothers to ask "Who's paying for this?":laugh:

The Obama Gimmedats don't care who has to pay for their stuff as long as someone ELSE does.

Case IRL: A friend of mine still in Houston was standing in line at a Valero. This black woman turns around to him and says "Gimme 70 cents". Apparently, she was 'short' of change. Now she didn't ask him politely. She basically demanded it. He told her he didn't have any change....at which point she said "you got something jingling in your pocket there....ain't that change?". He pulls out his keys. At which point, the idiot goes out to the car to demand the $$$ from her baby daddy (I'm guessing here)....making everyone in line have to wait for her fat, stupid @ss. THIS is the disease America is now infected with. Entitlement-minded RUDE morons.

[Balu]

Uh. How the hell is that "Free"????? Does Russia not pay its medical people or medical equipment-makers?
Sure it pays. It pays from the budget. The medicine is free for patients, nor matter they work or not.
I don't want to mislead you, there is also a "payed medicine" as an obligatory insurance doesn't cover the full spectrum of medical service.

[aboutime]

Sure it pays. It pays from the budget. The medicine is free for patients, nor matter they work or not.
I don't want to mislead you, there is also a "payed medicine" as an obligatory insurance doesn't cover the full spectrum of medical service.

Balu. You should have just stayed quiet. Who do you think puts all that FREE money in the Budget? Does money grow on VODKA tree's?

[Balu]

Balu. You should have just stayed quiet. Who do you think puts all that FREE money in the Budget? Does money grow on VODKA tree's?
The budget is filled by taxation of all sorts of economical activity. You thought I am not aware of it? :)
I've already told that medicine is free for patients, no matter they work or not.

[aboutime]

The budget is filled by taxation of all sorts of economical activity. You thought I am not aware of it? :)
I've already told that medicine is free for patients, no matter they work or not.

But you always manage to avoid, or gloss over WHERE the funds from TAXATION comes from? Do you have VODKA tree's where money grows naturally, or is it a Socialist Experiment...Printing Money whenever you need it?

[Balu]

But you always manage to avoid, or gloss over WHERE the funds from TAXATION comes from? Do you have VODKA tree's where money grows naturally, or is it a Socialist Experiment...Printing Money whenever you need it?

I've already told that EVERY economical activity is subject to taxation as well as EVERY income of individuals is. These are the sources to form up budgets of different levels. And many things, such as medicine, education, defense etc are financed from the budgets of this or that level. I never spoke about "bread tree" to feed all your needs. Then, along with free medicine we have a private one, which acts on their own income and they both are competing.

[aboutime]

I've already told that EVERY economical activity is subject to taxation as well as EVERY income. These are the sources to form up budgets of different levels. And many things, such as medicine, education, defense etc are financed from the budgets of this or that level. I never spoke about "bread tree" to feed all your needs. Then, along with free medicine we have a private one, which acts on their own income and they both are competing.


Never mind. Sorry I bothered to ask. You sound like our Obama.

[Balu]

Never mind. Sorry I bothered to ask. You sound like our Obama.
Your questions don't bother me at all. On the contrary, I am glad to let you know about as more. I am speaking about what we REALLY HAVE in Russia. If your Resident tells the same things, it meas that this is his vision to handle the problem of medicine in your country. :)

[Surf Fishing Guru]

http://obamacarefacts.com/supreme-court-obamacare/

In your opinion, should healthcare be a right, that is, paid for by others if you can't afford it?

Healthcare is not a right if one is using the definition of a "right" as the framers understood it.

I'll share my beliefs about what rights are and how the concept has been perverted and hijacked by the modern left.

The modern left is fond of throwing around the term "rights" in a way that denigrates the true meaning. According to the modern left, we have NO right to keep and bear arms, but we do have the right to affordable housing, a living wage, college education, health care and prescriptions, internet access etc, etc, etc . . . .

The purpose of this Orwellian new-speak is to redefine our rights into a fuzzy, moldable menu of services, privileges and entitlements.

Upon our display of various ID cards, filling out the proper forms and payment of license fees, a bureaucrat can stamp “APPROVED” and our benevolent government will bestow our rights upon us. Unfortunately, with that mindset comes the acceptance of the situational denial or outright removal of those "rights" (for our own good of course).

Our rights are NOT a list of services that government provides for us.

Nor are they tangible commodities that the government compels others to provide to us.

When discussing "rights" you must understand that there are two generations of rights. The first generation, embodied in the American Revolution and the U.S. Constitution, led to restrictions on the state's interference in the lives of citizens and having their personal, civil and political rights respected by law.

As Balu, our Soviet friend reminds us, the second generation began in 1917, with the revolution in Russia. As a result of that revolution, economic, social, and cultural rights emerged. By nature, these two generations of rights assume very different roles for the state.

Much of the modern left's agenda consists of "second generation rights." (These rights are also the agenda of the UN.) Those "rights" convey a romantic idea of how the state should take care of us, about how we, as an organized state can somehow provide human dignity and "help" citizens live a decent life. This conditioning instills a misconception that except for the benevolence of those that govern us, we would have no rights.

Those of us who embrace the US Constitution must reject that because we claim our rights are inherent and exist merely from being born. Our rights do not flow from the compact that establishes government nor do the provisions in the Bill of Rights grant us our rights. The Bill of Rights grants nothing. That enumeration is only a partial list of pre-existing rights that a citizen must possess to ensure that government is their servant, not their master.

The modern left has spent much time and energy to "legitimize" 20th century communitarian ideals as being in agreement or worse, even represented in our Constitution. This has entailed denigrating the fundamental structure (as being a charter of conferred powers) and principles of the Constitution and scrubbing from the consciousness of Americans, the original definition of rights.

Government's duty regarding rights, is to not make or enforce any law violating them. Those who embrace second generation rights demand that government is instead the provider but that trades away liberty, for as we see with Obamacare, the power of the state is comprehensive and control is integrated into nearly every facet of life.

Of course there is no Constitutional authority for Obamacare. The promoting of such policies is destroying federalism and the republican form of government guaranteed in the Constitution.

Not that such trivial things matter anymore. Obama has proven he will ignore the courts and nobody cares. Sadly, those of us who vote for the government to leave us alone are quickly being outnumbered by those who vote for the government to take care of them.

[Little-Acorn]

Your questions don't bother me at all. On the contrary, I am glad to let you know about as more. I am speaking about what we REALLY HAVE in Russia. If your Resident tells the same things, it meas that this is his vision to handle the problem of medicine in your country. :)

You are probably right in that Obama's vision matches the Russian government's.

And you say that like it's a GOOD thing. :cuckoo: