Americans do not have a "right" to health insurance

[Thunder]

That's right. I said it.

I do not believe that health-insurance is a "right", like Freedom of Speech, Religion, Association, etc.

However..I do believe that every American having health insurance is GOOD for our economy, our society, and our future.

Millions of Americans go bankrupt, because of health-care costs.

Millions of Americans foreclose on their mortgages, because of health-care costs.

Millions of Americans buy less stuff, because of health-care costs.

This is bad for our economy, prolongs the recession, and creates a negative cycle of national and economic health for our country.

Therefore, regardless of their not being a "right" to health-care insurance, its still a damn good idea, for us all to have it.

It will make us stronger, healthier, smarter, and more productive.

What kind of patriotic American..would be against that?

[Beerina]

Well, I'm glad someone recognizes the difference between real rights and government-provided benefits.

Your "right" is your right to do something unfettered by government interference. It does not, and cannot, impose a positive duty on someone else to provide you with something.

You have a right to seek a job -- you do not have a right to be provided with a job by forcing people to hire you. You have a right to seek and pay for health care -- you do not have a right to be provided health care by forcing others to pay for it, or to give it to you directly (doctors.)

Now if it's a good idea for the government to provide such as a benefit, as well as related issues like the propriety of it w.r.t. the scope of government and the Constitution, those are other issues separate.

[Thunder]

some people believe that health-care is a right.

do i have the right to a band-aid? naaa.

do i have the right to a blood-transfusion? naaa.

but, is it good for our society and economy as a whole, to have a healthy population? i do believe so. and is it worth it for our tax dollars to help people buy health-insurance?

i do believe so. a healthier America is a better & stronger America.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Now if it's a good idea for the government to provide such as a benefit, as well as related issues like the propriety of it w.r.t. the scope of government and the Constitution, those are other issues separate.

And best I can tell, the case for the reform bill was this stuff that you consider a "separate" issue and not the idea that healthcare is a constitutional right.

In fact, I don't think I have heard anyone argue that healthcare is a constitutional right.

Parky, are you arguing against a straw man?

[JoeTheJuggler]

some people believe that health-care is a right.

Do you have any evidence of this claim? I don't think even the most vociferous proponents of healthcare reform claim that it is a right (the way you mean it--as in a constitutional right).

Instead, I think the arguments have been closer to the other reasons you provided. (ETA: and more about the problem that someone with a serious condition that requires expensive medical treatment can't possibly pay into the system anywhere near what he will need to take out. So to some degree or another, we need to set up a system where we pay in based on our ability to pay in, and we take out based on our need. I'm pretty sure the majority of Americans would have preferred a single payer system based on tax revenues rather than what we got, but even so, the alternative to some system that addresses the problem I described is basically to let the unfortunate suffer and die needlessly.)

For one thing, if healthcare were actually a right, there would be no need for the contentious bill that is going to be signed into law today.

[Thunder]

Parky, are you arguing against a straw man?

no. I am confident that many Liberal-Progressives in the USA believe that health-care is a right.

http://www.nhchc.org/humanright.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/health-care-is-a-right-no_b_212770.html

I'd like to say it is a right, but I do not believe it is. I am not obliged to make sure my fellow countrymen are healthy.

But I do think its a great idea to have a healthy country. I believe it ends up helping me in the long run.

[JoeTheJuggler]

no. I am confident that many Liberal-Progressives in the USA believe that health-care is a right.

http://www.nhchc.org/humanright.html

I'd like to say it is a right, but I do not believe it is. I am not obliged to make sure my fellow countrymen are healthy.

But I do think its a great idea to have a healthy country. I believe it ends up helping me in the long run.

I think now you're guilty of equivocation.

In the OP you made it clear that you were talking about constitutional rights (like freedom of speech and so on). What you're citing is a different use entirely of the term "right". The page you linked to cites the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights which is not a statement of legal rights. It's actually more a statement of goals.

On the page you cite is a link to a document called "“The Right to Health Care in the United States: What Does it Mean?” That document gives the answer most clearly when it says:

Health care policy needs to be about the right to health. The current debate over health care reform tends to bog down in ideological disputes and arguments over economic efficiency. In contrast, a human rights approach would focus on the underlying*purpose of the health care system. The core human rights demand is for outcomes consistent with internationally-recognized standards—regardless of whether the health system is private or public. Framing health care reform as a matter of right establishes a mechanism for government accountability and encourages public participation in the decisions that affect our lives and well-being.

This clearly is not using the term "right" the way you introduced it in the OP. This is a statement of a goal. (Or rather a goal for an approach to healthcare policy.) It is not someone claiming there is a constitutional right to healthcare.

If you want to use the term "right" consistently, the people you're citing are saying that healthcare ought to be a right, not that it is. (ETA: in that bolded subheading, the "needs to be" really means "ought".)

Again, if they really believed it were a right, there would be no need for any legislation to change the status quo. Just assert the right that already exists.

[dropzone]

I know that the Declaration of Independence is not law, but it does describe the core beliefs under which this country was created: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.If the Right to Life people can use it to support not aborting embryos I can see no reason why it can't be used to support the current HCR bill or even UHC. A clump of cells should not be accorded more rights than you or I.

[volatile]

Well, I'm glad someone recognizes the difference between real rights and government-provided benefits.

*cough*

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=150486&page=14

[Thunder]

let me rephrase what i am saying:

i do not believe there is either a Constitutional right to health-care......or a universal human right to health-care.

but i do believe that a healthier nation is a better nation. making sure folks in Botswana are healthy and fed, is not my problem.

[volatile]

or a universal human right to health-care.

Why not?

[psychictv]

I do not believe that health-insurance is a "right", like Freedom of Speech, Religion, Association, etc.

Well, I'm glad someone recognizes the difference between real rights and government-provided benefits.

Personally I don't believe in natural rights and it surprises me that anyone on a skeptical forum would. The only rights we have are those given to us by the law. We certainly don't have an absolute legal right to health care in this country but many other countries do give their citizens such a right. This new health care legislation did expand on our health care rights though.

It's also important to distinguish between care and treatment. Under the UK's NHS, citizens have the right to be diagnosed by a doctor, but they don't have a right to receive any treatment they desire.

[volatile]

Personally I don't believe in natural rights and it surprises me that anyone on a skeptical forum would. The only rights we have are those given to us by the law. We certainly don't have an absolute legal right to health care in this country but many other countries do give their citizens such a right. This new health care legislation did expand on our health care rights though.

It's also important to distinguish between care and treatment. Under the UK's NHS, citizens have the right to be diagnosed by a doctor, but they don't have a right to receive any treatment they desire.

Exactly.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Personally I don't believe in natural rights and it surprises me that anyone on a skeptical forum would. The only rights we have are those given to us by the law. We certainly don't have an absolute legal right to health care in this country but many other countries do give their citizens such a right. This new health care legislation did expand on our health care rights though.

I think this is more or less the point I've been trying to make. Someone claiming that we ought to have a right to healthcare is asking for a change in laws and policies.

It is not the same as saying we already have a right to healthcare.

And again, I go back to Parky's OP. The examples are all rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. I suppose he could have been speaking of some notion of natural rights and just so happened to have selected examples of legal rights.

But I would say even people who use the natural rights argument (including the founding fathers who borrowed the idea from Locke and framed it in language as "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights") were really using that language to say what ought be and not what is.

If these so-called natural rights really were inalienable, there would have been no need to guarantee them in legal form. They basically fought a revolution over the idea that people here weren't being granted rights that they ought be granted.

[Bikewer]

Lest we get into a semantic argument as to what a "right" is...

I was listening to NPR's "The World" yesterday, and they were reporting on the international reaction to our health care bill.
The reporter said that it was rather the case among the "industrialized" nations that they were incredulous that so little was being done, and that they generally did see universal health-care as a "right".
The overall reaction was that this bill was a step in the right direction, but a small one. The reporter pointed out that though some of these nations did have "government provided" healthcare, others, like Germany, had built up theirs working closely with the private sector and private insurors.....

Since we have not descended to the point where the poor and indigent are merely told to go home and die when sick or injured, we are all paying for their treatment now, in the form of inflated health-provider bills and higher insurance premiums.

[Leif Roar]

While I don't think health care is a right, I do believe that we, both as individuals and as a society, have a moral obligation to provide it to those who need it when we can. As individuals this obligation mostly manifest as a duty to provide first aid in emergencies, and as a society it manifests as an obligation to provide some degree of universal health care, pursuant to constraints and available resources.

[Ziggurat]

That's right. I said it.

I do not believe that health-insurance is a "right", like Freedom of Speech, Religion, Association, etc.

Does this mean you've discovered the difference between positive and negative rights, and noticed that the constitution only protects negative rights?

Millions of Americans go bankrupt, because of health-care costs.

I've seen similar claims made quite often. But I've only seen one study to back up the idea that health-care costs were driving much of the bankruptcy filings, and the study was absolute crap.

Millions of Americans foreclose on their mortgages, because of health-care costs.

I haven't seen any studies to back up this claim.

Millions of Americans buy less stuff, because of health-care costs.

I hate to have to break this to you, Parky, but that will always be true, and almost axiomatically so as long as Americans receive health care.

[volatile]

While I don't think health care is a right, I do believe that we, both as individuals and as a society, have a moral obligation to provide it to those who need it when we can. As individuals this obligation mostly manifest as a duty to provide first aid in emergencies, and as a society it manifests as an obligation to provide some degree of universal health care, pursuant to constraints and available resources.

Unless you believe in natural rights, the part of your paragraph I've highlighted doesn't make sense with the rest of what you've written.

It sounds like you do think healthcare is (or, more accurately ought to be) a right.

[Leif Roar]

Unless you believe in natural rights, the part of your paragraph I've highlighted doesn't make sense with the rest of what you've written.

It sounds like you do think healthcare is (or, more accurately ought to be) a right.

No, I think there is a subtle difference in that by considering it a duty to provide rather than a right to receive, triage becomes unproblematic. We can't deny a suspect in a criminal trial legal counsel just because we don't have enough lawyers (he has a right), but we can deny someone treatment because we don't have enough doctors (we have a duty).

[Sunsneezer]

Here, health care is public and is considered a fundamental right. Even those who are critical of the system, or propose that the private sector be more involved, are agreeing with that.
How can it be ethical to deny care to a person who is suffering from a treatable ailment?

[DC]

Healt care is regarded a right here.

[volatile]

No, I think there is a subtle difference in that by considering it a duty to provide rather than a right to receive, triage becomes unproblematic. We can't deny a suspect in a criminal trial legal counsel just because we don't have enough lawyers (he has a right), but we can deny someone treatment because we don't have enough doctors (we have a duty).

No, you're confusing natural rights (which don't exist) with legal rights (which do, subject to the legal context). The two examples you cite are of legal rights - defined by the legal structures. Duties and rights are not mutually exclusive, either practically or philosophically.

Put it this way - a criminal suspect has a right to a trial because that is defined in the legal system of the country involved. That's no different from the right to healthcare - both are defined by statute and common law.

[Thunder]

I've seen similar claims made quite often. But I've only seen one study to back up the idea that health-care costs were driving much of the bankruptcy filings, and the study was absolute crap.


http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/bankruptcy.medical.bills/

[drkitten]

Your "right" is your right to do something unfettered by government interference. It does not, and cannot, impose a positive duty on someone else to provide you with something.


The Supreme Court disagrees. If you don't have a lawyer, the government has a positive duty to provide you with one.

[psychictv]

Does this mean you've discovered the difference between positive and negative rights, and noticed that the constitution only protects negative rights?

Fortunately that distinction does not actually exist within our legal system. It's just another figment of that active libertarian imagination. ;)

[psychictv]

We can't deny a suspect in a criminal trial legal counsel just because we don't have enough lawyers (he has a right), but we can deny someone treatment because we don't have enough doctors (we have a duty).

I'm not sure I see the distinction you're trying to make here. If there aren't enough lawyers, the suspect has to wait until a lawyer is available. Likewise in triage, you are not denied care, you just have to wait according to the severity of your need. If you go to the emergency room for whatever minor affliction, you will eventually get to see a doctor. You may have to wait a very long time but they're not going to turn you away.

[funk de fino]

It's also important to distinguish between care and treatment. Under the UK's NHS, citizens have the right to be diagnosed by a doctor, but they don't have a right to receive any treatment they desire.

They have a right to treatment however.

[psychictv]

They have a right to treatment however.

Only as deemed necessary by their doctor. http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/family_parent/health/nhs_patients_rights.htm#Righttohospitaltreatment

[funk de fino]

Only as deemed necessary by their doctor. http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/family_parent/health/nhs_patients_rights.htm#Righttohospitaltreatment

So whats your point? You have right to be treated for something a doctor diagnoses. If there is nothing wrong you get no treatement. If there is they will give you treatment for it. It may not be the latest experimental treatment but it will be the best the NHS can supply. Sometimes it can be the latest experimental treatment.

You have a right to emergency treatment regardless of what your GP says. Even with my private insurance I have to see my NHS GP for referral first.

ETA -Oh and that claim is wrong anyway. The Doctor refers you to a consultant first and he decides what treatment you get.

[volatile]

So whats your point? You have right to be treated for something a doctor diagnoses. If there is nothing wrong you get no treatement. If there is they will give you treatment for it. It may not be the latest experimental treatment but it will be the best the NHS can supply. Sometimes it can be the latest experimental treatment.

Pssttt.... he agrees with you.

[psychictv]

My point is that some people say we shouldn't have a right to healthcare because it's impossible to give people a right to a service. See upthread where Parky says "do i have the right to a band-aid? naaa. do i have the right to a blood-transfusion? naaa." That's a nonsense argument, because even in countries that have a right to health care, it doesn't work like that. It's not like having a right to health care means you can just go in and demand an x-ray. You have a right to care which means that a doctor decides what treatment is necessary.

I may be explaining this poorly, or getting the specifics of the NHS wrong, but my point is that a right to health care doesn't necessarily mean guaranteed access to all treatments, as the detractors seem to think it implies.

[Leif Roar]

No, you're confusing natural rights (which don't exist) with legal rights (which do, subject to the legal context). The two examples you cite are of legal rights - defined by the legal structures. Duties and rights are not mutually exclusive, either practically or philosophically.

No, I'm not. If I come across the scene of an accident, I have a moral duty to assist and provide first aid -- regardless of whether this duty is enshrined in law or not. If there are too many for me to help, I'm not denying anyone their right by only helping the ones I can help. In this example, there are no rights involved at all -- neither natural nor legal.

Of course, when society implements a system for universal healthcare the only sensible way to do it is to enshrine the system in law, and explicitly set out legal rights and duties. That's just implementation detail, though, and has no bearing on the question if we have a moral duty to provide health care, or have a natural right to receive it or if natural rights exist or not.

[Leif Roar]

I'm not sure I see the distinction you're trying to make here. If there aren't enough lawyers, the suspect has to wait until a lawyer is available. Likewise in triage, you are not denied care, you just have to wait according to the severity of your need. If you go to the emergency room for whatever minor affliction, you will eventually get to see a doctor. You may have to wait a very long time but they're not going to turn you away.

The difference is that if a court is unable to provide a criminal suspect his rights the court is culpable (and since the suspect also has the right to a speedy trial they can't just keep postponing it.) If a surgeon is unable to provide care for a patient, he is not culpable.

[psychictv]

Of course, when society implements a system for universal healthcare the only sensible way to do it is to enshrine the system in law, and explicitly set out legal rights and duties.

That's not the "only sensible" way, it's the only way.

That's just implementation detail, though, and has no bearing on the question if we have a moral duty to provide health care, or have a natural right to receive it or if natural rights exist or not.

No, it's the other way around. Whether or not health care is a right is entirely a question of the legal implementation. Philosophical questions of morality are a fairly irrelevant sideline IMO.

The difference is that if a court is unable to provide a criminal suspect his rights the court is culpable (and since the suspect also has the right to a speedy trial they can't just keep postponing it.) If a surgeon is unable to provide care for a patient, he is not culpable.

Really? You're saying that in countries with UHC systems, doctors are not held liable if it's found that they denied care to somebody who legitimately needed it? I find that hard to believe.

[volatile]

No, I'm not. If I come across the scene of an accident, I have a moral duty to assist and provide first aid -- regardless of whether this duty is enshrined in law or not. If there are too many for me to help, I'm not denying anyone their right by only helping the ones I can help. In this example, there are no rights involved at all -- neither natural nor legal.

Correct.

Of course, when society implements a system for universal healthcare the only sensible way to do it is to enshrine the system in law, and explicitly set out legal rights and duties. That's just implementation detail,

Correct.

and has no bearing on the question if we have a moral duty to provide health care,

Correct, though moral duties are often the philosophical force which propel the creation of legal rights (or discussions about the "oughts" of rights, as the case may be).

or have a natural right to receive it or if natural rights exist or not.

Also correct. Note you say "explicitly set out legal rights". So when you say "healthcare is not a right", you were incorrect, which was the point of initial contention. As you went further to state that a society has a moral duty to create such a right, I don't see why you'd then claim it wasn't a right.

Of course, this same logic applies to the lawyer example you used. Provision of lawyers is also "implementation detail" in exactly the same way; the arguments to provide them are first moral and then legal. So I don't understand by what reasoning you seek to differentiate the two in the way you did, hence my initial rebuttal. I stand by that rebuttal.

[funk de fino]

My point is that some people say we shouldn't have a right to healthcare because it's impossible to give people a right to a service. See upthread where Parky says "do i have the right to a band-aid? naaa. do i have the right to a blood-transfusion? naaa." That's a nonsense argument, because even in countries that have a right to health care, it doesn't work like that. It's not like having a right to health care means you can just go in and demand an x-ray. You have a right to care which means that a doctor decides what treatment is necessary.

I may be explaining this poorly, or getting the specifics of the NHS wrong, but my point is that a right to health care doesn't necessarily mean guaranteed access to all treatments, as the detractors seem to think it implies.

Maybe a mix of both of those and me missing something also. If so I apologise for any confusion.

[volatile]

The difference is that if a court is unable to provide a criminal suspect his rights the court is culpable (and since the suspect also has the right to a speedy trial they can't just keep postponing it.) If a surgeon is unable to provide care for a patient, he is not culpable.

But the system is. You see?

You're not making any meaningful division between your two examples that does not rely on a metaphysical notion of natural rights.

[AvalonXQ]

If the Right to Life people can use it to support not aborting embryos I can see no reason why it can't be used to support the current HCR bill or even UHC. A clump of cells should not be accorded more rights than you or I.

Unless pro-life advocates are arguing that pregnant mothers alone should have government-provided healthcare, I don't see how denying human beings (clumps of cells included) health care but also requiring that human beings (clumps of cells included) cannot be killed by other human beings is giving the clump of cells "more rights".

[volatile]

Unless pro-life advocates are arguing that pregnant mothers alone should have government-provided healthcare, I don't see how denying human beings (clumps of cells included) health care but also requiring that human beings (clumps of cells included) cannot be killed by other human beings is giving the clump of cells "more rights".

Because it's a very internally-inconsistent application of the meaning of the phrase (and concept) "right to life".

[Leif Roar]

Really? You're saying that in countries with UHC systems, doctors are not held liable if it's found that they denied care to somebody who legitimately needed it? I find that hard to believe.

Actually, that's exactly what I'm saying (and I include USA's system of emergency room care in UHC here.) "Denying care to somebody who legitimately need it" is what triage is. Now, health care systems are dimensioned so that usually they are able to provide care to everybody who do need it (to a certain level of care, which varies from system to system,) but if an emergency room is swamped due to a major disaster and half the victims die from lack of treatment while the doctors are busy saving the other half, the doctors are not culpable for being unable to provide care.

This is different from rights. If a court is swamped by a major crime wave (or a cluster of high-resource cases) they can't just provide the rights to half the suspects and forgo them for the other half. They have to provide every subject with his rights or else dismiss the case against him. If they don't, they're culpable. Crime wave or no crime wave.

[Leif Roar]

But the system is. You see?

You're oppsed to the concept of natural right but you want to assign culpability to a system?

A system might be flawed, inefficent or counter-productive, but it's not culpable. You can't put a system on trial.

[AvalonXQ]

Because it's a very internally-inconsistent application of the meaning of the phrase (and concept) "right to life".

There's nothing internally inconsistent about claiming that "right to life" means that no one is allowed to try to kill you.

[volatile]

This is different from rights.

No it isn't, unless you believe in natural rights.

Do you believe in natural rights?

"Rights are just what the legal system of the country you live in (or, more broadly, the international treaties to which it is party) grant you. "Rights" can also be used in explicit or implicit "ought" constructions - "healthcare is a right" is often used with an implicit "ought" in discussions about the American experience - but they cannot exist without legal framework.

This is as true for the right to a fair trial as it is to the right to healthcare.

[volatile]

You're oppsed to the concept of natural right but you want to assign culpability to a system?

A system might be flawed, inefficent or counter-productive, but it's not culpable. You can't put a system on trial.

*sigh*

Why is "putting something on trial" a necessary condition for culpability? And, more broadly - the (say) British legal system grants you a right to healthcare treatment, as defined by law and by convention. If you do not receive that care, you have redress, and this need not be against an individual and it need not even be in "a trial".

Rights are granted systematically. Unless they are provided systematically, they do not exist. Consider this: Imagine a hypothetical country, Fantasyland. In Fantasyland, there is no systematic provision of lawyers; punishment is imposed by regal fiat. Does someone punished in Fantasyland have a right to a lawyer? Not "ought they". Do they?

Of course not. We can argue if they should have a right to a lawyer, but, as things stand, they no not have that right. In your initial post, you said "as a society it manifests as an obligation to provide some degree of universal health care". So, someone ought to have a right to healthcare, just as our hypothetical serf ought to have a right to a lawyer (""as a society it manifests as an obligation to provide some degree of judicial fairness").

There is no difference in either the philosophical or legal frameworks which allows for the distinction you seem to want to make, unless you are conflating some as-yet-undefined category of rights with natural rights (that is, rights that are inherently and not just ought to be available to everyone).

[volatile]

There's nothing internally inconsistent about claiming that "right to life" means that no one is allowed to try to kill you.

There is an inherent contradiction in being so "pro-life" that you're against aborting fetuses, but also being against the provision of care to keep people who have been born, alive.

[AvalonXQ]

There is an inherent contradiction in being so "pro-life" that you're against aborting fetuses, but also being against the provision of care to keep people who have been born, alive.

No, there isn't.
Again, are you claiming that the pro-life movement is generally pushing universal healthcare for pregnant mothers?
There is no inconsistency between saying "we can't kill anyone, even fetuses" and saying "we don't have to pay for health care for anyone, even fetuses". There's no double standard.
I think the problem is that you have this idea of "degrees of pro-life", and that giving any protection to a fetus is "beyond" giving government entitlements to born humans. But it doesn't work that way. We can draw the line between negative and positive rights just fine, with everyone falling on the same side.

[volatile]

There is no inconsistency between saying "we can't kill anyone, even fetuses" and saying "we don't have to pay for health care for anyone, even fetuses". There's no double standard.

I think the problem is that you have this idea of "degrees of pro-life", and that giving any protection to a fetus is "beyond" giving government entitlements to born humans. But it doesn't work that way. We can draw the line between negative and positive rights just fine, with everyone falling on the same side.

You could do that. But it would be inconsistent and hypocritical - it's valuing one life and not valuing another (systematically / ideologically). That's inconsistent.

[AvalonXQ]

You could do that. But it would be inconsistent and hypocritical - it's valuing one life and not valuing another (systematically / ideologically). That's inconsistent.

It's valuing all lives equally, born and unborn.
Unless you think that everyone who believes in laws against murder but doesn't believe in UHC is inconsistent.

[volatile]

It's valuing all lives equally, born and unborn.
Unless you think that everyone who believes in laws against murder but doesn't believe in UHC is inconsistent.

Actually, I do believe that.

[AvalonXQ]

Actually, I do believe that.

Ah. So the "pro-life" issue is a red herring -- this is about believing that any protection of life also requires access to UHC.
The fact is, you think it's inconsistent to believe in a negative right to life but to not believe in a positive right to life.
In fact, there's no inconsistency in protecting someone's right to pursue something themselves without requiring the government give it to them. It's perfectly consistent to pass a law saying the government can't take away food or water, while refusing to pass a law that says the government has to give you food and water.

[volatile]

Ah. So the "pro-life" issue is a red herring

No, it was just what was brought up in this context.

"Pro-life" ceases to make any sense if it is only "pro" some kinds of lives; that's the point (a point which is amplified, by the way, when one of those kinds of lives is definitely a "life" and one which is arguably not, and when the "pro" side are for the ambiguous life but against the unambiguous one).

[AvalonXQ]

It really doesn't make sense to you that someone could support the right of all citizens to drive but not require the government to buy everyone a car, or support the right of everyone to smoke but not require the government to buy their cigarettes?
As was explained on the first page of this thread, a "right" may be nothing more than an assurance that the government will not interfere and will prevent others from doing so; it's not the same as an entitlement for the government to give you something.
The right to life works the same way -- it protects you from having your life taken by others without entitling you to have the government pay for your medical care.

[volatile]

The right to life works the same way -- it protects you from having your life taken by others without entitling you to have the government pay for your medical care.

Put it this way: If you believe in the "right to life" in a natural sense (as many pro-lifers do) then the inconsistency is even more obvious.

This is about deeply-held convictions, isn't it? "Pro-life" is, in its most common form, a position of natrual (God-given) rights. If we're talking in legal / pragmatic terms then you may have a point. But "pro-life" encompasses (usually) a philosophy which establishes the inalienability of human life and the importance of its protection. The contradiction arises in holding that position with some passion and fervour and simultaneously being dismissive of the lives of those without healthcare.

[Thunder]

The GOP believes in the right to life....from conception till birth.

The Democrats believe in the right to life....from birth till death.

Which is better?

:)

[fuelair]

That's right. I said it.

I do not believe that health-insurance is a "right", like Freedom of Speech, Religion, Association, etc.

However..I do believe that every American having health insurance is GOOD for our economy, our society, and our future.

Millions of Americans go bankrupt, because of health-care costs.

Millions of Americans foreclose on their mortgages, because of health-care costs.

Millions of Americans buy less stuff, because of health-care costs.

This is bad for our economy, prolongs the recession, and creates a negative cycle of national and economic health for our country.

Therefore, regardless of their not being a "right" to health-care insurance, its still a damn good idea, for us all to have it.

It will make us stronger, healthier, smarter, and more productive.

What kind of patriotic American..would be against that?Millions of Americans carry and pass on disease because they A) don't follow simple hygiene B) because of high health care costs and the difficulty of finding, affording, getting to the alternatives.
I hope someone, somewhere, in all the research they did has this data and could maybe make it available to those who blindly or, at least, with poor foresight (optometrists, opticians and opthalmologists are no help on this one)forget it's effects on those who do have adequate healthcare and jobs but seem to get sick anyway.:):)

[psychictv]

Actually, that's exactly what I'm saying (and I include USA's system of emergency room care in UHC here.) "Denying care to somebody who legitimately need it" is what triage is.

No, I don't think so. Triage is the process of assessing and prioritizing the need for treatment. Triage is, in fact, health care. If a nurse decides you don't need treatment or that your treatment can wait until another day, then you've received all of the care you're entitled to. At worst, you can say that it's the process of postponing care for someone who legitimately needs it.

but if an emergency room is swamped due to a major disaster and half the victims die from lack of treatment while the doctors are busy saving the other half, the doctors are not culpable for being unable to provide care.

But just as in the legal system, nobody is denied care. Their care might be postponed to the point that they die, and that's an unfortunate distinction between a swamped court and a swamped emergency room. But given enough time they will eventually receive care. If care is actually denied, due to some discriminatory or arbitrary factor like race, then the system will certainly be held culpable.

[AvalonXQ]

The GOP believes in the right to life....from conception till birth.

Try "conception till death" -- unless you believe the GOP is trying to repeal murder legislation.
Again, what the "pro-life" movement is generally looking for is no more than that murder prohibitions also apply to unborn victims. This isn't a double standard, or really a hard concept at all.

[JoeTheJuggler]

"Rights" can also be used in explicit or implicit "ought" constructions - "healthcare is a right" is often used with an implicit "ought" in discussions about the American experience - but they cannot exist without legal framework.


I agree, though I think saying, "Americans do not have a right to health insurance" when you mean "Americans ought not be granted a right to health insurance" is sloppy language. (Or on the other side: saying, "healthcare is a right", when you mean something like "healthcare ought to be a right" is sloppy language.)

The reason is, if you assert a right to something, as you've been saying, you're basically claiming there are already laws that grant you that right. I don't think anyone has ever claimed that healthcare is literally a right in the U.S.

[volatile]

I agree, though I think saying, "Americans do not have a right to health insurance" when you mean "Americans ought not be granted a right to health insurance" is sloppy language. (Or on the other side: saying, "healthcare is a right", when you mean something like "healthcare ought to be a right" is sloppy language.)

The reason is, if you assert a right to something, as you've been saying, you're basically claiming there are already laws that grant you that right. I don't think anyone has ever claimed that healthcare is literally a right in the U.S.

Indeed. I agree 100%.

That said, I think this language is an artefact of natural rights philosophy; it's quite ingrained in our cultural fabric. Even people who explicitly eschew natural rights philosophies unconsciously fall into these formulations, so it's not surprising to see them used by people who may never have consciously examined their attitude to natural rights. I think the "ought" is often implicit.

[JoeTheJuggler]

As for those invoking the "right to life", I think it's been pointed out that the Declaration of Independence doesn't make any current U.S. law. (It was rather a document that justified revolution against the English government at that time.)

But, even as to what that document was referring to, it said that those are the inalienable rights (see above for my quibble with this--I think it actually means that these ought be the inalienable rights) of "all men". Trying to fit everything from conception to birth into this category is an abuse of language. And if the argument is made, as it frequently is, that it's only that which is potentially a human that is granted these rights, then why wait until conception? I think these arguments are actually apologetics; that is, you start from the position that you want to make abortion illegal and try to backtrack and create a logical framework that results in that conclusion. It's not like they're following the premises (or intent of the language in the Declaration of Independence) and trying to see what conclusions it points to.

[JoeTheJuggler]

That said, I think this language is an artefact of natural rights philosophy; it's quite ingrained in our cultural fabric. Even people who explicitly eschew natural rights philosophies unconsciously fall into these formulations, so it's not surprising to see them used by people who may never have consciously examined their attitude to natural rights. I think the "ought" is often implicit.

I agree. As I said earlier, it's obvious that even the founding fathers really meant "ought". If the rights were actually inalienable grants from the Creator, there would have been no need to spell them out in the Bill of Rights, or, for that matter, even to bother with the business of a social contract and creating a government.

[Leif Roar]

No it isn't, unless you believe in natural rights.

Do you believe in natural rights?

I really don't understand why you've decided to focus on natural rights, or why you believe that my views somehow assumes or requires natural rights.

Whether your read the original question as "is healthcare a [natural] right" or as a shorthand for "ought healthcare be a right" (which is how I read it) my answer remains unchanged: "No, but I believe we have a moral duty to provide it."

Unless you feel that the concept of morality somehow assumes them I really don't understand why you feel my position is based on the concept of natural rights.

Do I believe in natural rights? To be honest, I haven't given the question much thought, one way or the other and I'm not particularly well versed in philosophy so I'm not going to try to answer the question of whether they exist or not.

Do natural rights exist? I don't know, and I don't much care. Whether there are rights which arise out of some metaphysical whole cloth, or whether all rights arise out of some combination of evolutionary psychology and culture we still end up with the same practicality of good and bad, rights and wrongs and having to navigate them as best we can.

[Thunder]

I believe we have a natural right to speak our minds, and to not be slaves, and to work towards our goals.

right to health-care? nope.

right to an education? nope.

right to a house? nope.

but i do believe a society is stronger, when its people are fed, healthy, have a roof, and are educated.

[AvalonXQ]

I believe we have a natural right to speak our minds, and to not be slaves, and to work towards our goals.

right to health-care? nope.

right to an education? nope.

right to a house? nope.

but i do believe a society is stronger, when its people are fed, healthy, have a roof, and are educated.

I believe that, too, but I disagree that a large welfare state is the best way to get there.

[psychictv]

I really don't understand why you've decided to focus on natural rights, or why you believe that my views somehow assumes or requires natural rights.

Because if you accept that natural rights don't exist, then the statement "I don't think health care is a right" is nonsense. Legally, it is a right in some countries, so the statement would be incorrect in those cases. And it clearly is not a legal right in the U.S. so it would be a simple statement of fact as related to the U.S. We could change the laws in America to make it a right here too, so again the blanket statement that it's not a right doesn't make any sense.

So what you're basically saying is that you're morally opposed to making health care a legal right. But you haven't really given a convincing argument in support of that opinion.

[Leif Roar]

No, I don't think so. Triage is the process of assessing and prioritizing the need for treatment.

I'm going to have to quibble a little here. Triage is the process of assessing patients and prioritize treatment to maximise the benefits. Granted, in the day to day reality of hospitals that boils down to the same thing, in that the people who need treatment the most are prioritized highest, but in extremes, when the available capacity is overloaded, there is a difference and the most severe cases, the ones that need treatment the most, may be shunted back to let the doctors work on less severe cases with better prognoses.

At worst, you can say that it's the process of postponing care for someone who legitimately needs it.

No, at worst (which admittedly is rare), it means to withhold life-saving treatment from a patient and leave them to die because you know the doctor's time can be better spent on someone with a higher chance of survival.


But just as in the legal system, nobody is denied care. Their care might be postponed to the point that they die, and that's an unfortunate distinction between a swamped court and a swamped emergency room.

I see a difference between "refuse to give" and "fail to provide." Neither the court nor the hospital can "refuse to give" -- legal counsel for the former and life-saving treatment for the latter -- but while the hospital is allowed to fail to provide (due to limited resources or other valid reasons) the court is not allowed to fail to provide.

But given enough time they will eventually receive care. If care is actually denied, due to some discriminatory or arbitrary factor like race, then the system will certainly be held culpable.

Yes, but for the discrimination. If the hospital denied care in a fair and non-arbitrary fashion they would not be culpable.

[Rolfe]

Because if you accept that natural rights don't exist, then the statement "I don't think health care is a right" is nonsense. Legally, it is a right in some countries, so the statement would be incorrect in those cases. And it clearly is not a legal right in the U.S. so it would be a simple statement of fact as related to the U.S. We could change the laws in America to make it a right here too, so again the blanket statement that it's not a right doesn't make any sense.

So what you're basically saying is that you're morally opposed to making health care a legal right. But you haven't really given a convincing argument in support of that opinion.


This.

Rolfe.

[Leif Roar]

Because if you accept that natural rights don't exist, then the statement "I don't think health care is a right" is nonsense.

No, it becomes a conversational short for "I don't think health care necessarily ought to be a right."

So what you're basically saying is that you're morally opposed to making health care a legal right.

Oh please.

[Ziggurat]

Yes, but for the discrimination. If the hospital denied care in a fair and non-arbitrary fashion they would not be culpable.

This is a bit of a quibble, but you're being sloppy here. Triage (the example you gave) is discrimination. What separates discrimination we accept and discrimination we do not accept is not arbitrariness (racial discrimination isn't arbitrary). "Fairness" is closer to the mark, but even that is vague. Legally speaking, the relevant criteria is "interest". Does the body doing the discrimination have a compelling and acceptable interest in that discrimination? In the case of racial discrimination, we generally conclude that since race should be irrelevant to most decisions, racial discrimination is unacceptable. In the case of triage, we are discriminating on the basis of current medical condition, and most people conclude that there is a clear interest in current medical condition when allocating medical care, and that discrimination on this basis is therefore acceptable.

But discrimination is exactly what one does with triage. It is, in fact, the entire point.

[psychictv]

No, it becomes a conversational short for "I don't think health care necessarily ought to be a right."

OK, I can accept that, but more often than not the people who argue that simply say that "health care is not a right" as though that were a self-evident truth that needs no argument to back it up.

Oh please.

Well, clearly we have the ability to manufacture a legal right to health care in the U.S. and it has already been done in other countries. And you say that we have a moral duty to provide it. So where does this third possibility of "health care is not a right" exist? You're saying that it really means "we should not manufacture a legal right to health care in the U.S." But why not?

[psychictv]

No, at worst (which admittedly is rare), it means to withhold life-saving treatment from a patient and leave them to die because you know the doctor's time can be better spent on someone with a higher chance of survival.

But again, that's only ever postponement of care. It's a semantic issue of course, because in the worst of cases the postponement amounts to a death sentence as you rightly point out. Still, if everyone else were taken care of, the doctors would eventually get around to the hard case with the low chance for survival, would they not? What you're describing might be analogous to somebody who dies in prison while awaiting their fair trial. You can't really hold the government responsible for that can you? They eventually would have had their trial.


I see a difference between "refuse to give" and "fail to provide."

But I think what you're describing is "failure to provide in a timely manner, due to an overburdened system." Which is the same in either hospitals or the courts. And in both cases people can die while waiting and consequently never receive the service they were waiting for. Now, if you can prove that the doctors were all out having a smoke break and joking around while somebody died in the emergency room lobby, I would think you could seek some kind of justice. Likewise, if courts fail to provide a fair trial, the defendant can seek recourse.

[Leif Roar]

This is a bit of a quibble, but you're being sloppy here. Triage (the example you gave) is discrimination.

I can't argue with that. "Discrimination" is a word that makes me bite my lip a little whenever I use it in this sense. It's technically inaccurate and incomplete, but it's often the quickest way to get the idea across. (Another word I have the same reaction to when I use it is "racism", although that's more 'generally sloppy' than 'technically imprecise'.)

[peptoabysmal]

One thing has been settled for certain, in America you no longer have the right to NOT have health care.

(Unless you consider paying a penalty for not doing something the same as having the right to not do it.)

[psychictv]

One thing has been settled for certain, in America you no longer have the right to NOT have health care.

Not true. You no longer have the right to not have health insurance. ;)

[peptoabysmal]

Not true. You no longer have the right to not have health insurance. ;)
I stand corrected smart@ss :D

You no longer have the right to not have health care insurance.

The important thing is, you didn't get any rights added, just one taken away.

I agree with the Vice Pres. ... BFD (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2yBRucRe7c).

[JoeTheJuggler]

I believe we have a natural right to speak our minds, and to not be slaves, and to work towards our goals.

It's easy enough to prove that that doesn't exist as a natural right. There are periods in history when people were enslaved.

As several people have been pointing out, if you want to ban slavery, it requires a human law. At best, saying there is a natural right to something is a round-about way of saying there ought to be a law guaranteeing that something.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I stand corrected smart@ss :D

You no longer have the right to not have health care insurance.


And even that isn't true since there are exceptions for people with religious objections or financial hardship.

So this law still did not establish a "right" in this sense.

[psychictv]

The important thing is, you didn't get any rights added, just one taken away.

I disagree. You now have, for example, the right to purchase health insurance even if you have a preexisting condition. We could probably find others too. But at any rate, why does it matter? Why is that the important thing? There are probably millions of laws that only take a right away without adding any rights. So what?

[volatile]

I really don't understand why you've decided to focus on natural rights, or why you believe that my views somehow assumes or requires natural rights.

I was going to reply, but psychictv has already explained it:

Because if you accept that natural rights don't exist, then the statement "I don't think health care is a right" is nonsense. Legally, it is a right in some countries, so the statement would be incorrect in those cases. And it clearly is not a legal right in the U.S. so it would be a simple statement of fact as related to the U.S. We could change the laws in America to make it a right here too, so again the blanket statement that it's not a right doesn't make any sense.

So what you're basically saying is that you're morally opposed to making health care a legal right. But you haven't really given a convincing argument in support of that opinion.

and more succinctly:

Well, clearly we have the ability to manufacture a legal right to health care in the U.S. and it has already been done in other countries. And you say that we have a moral duty to provide it. So where does this third possibility of "health care is not a right" exist? You're saying that it really means "we should not manufacture a legal right to health care in the U.S." But why not?

What you're saying doesn't make sense unless you hold some notion that rights are metaphysical.

[Rolfe]

Where is that bloody thread where we argued the toss about natural rights with Jerome da Gnome for about 15 pages? Reading how he got his backside handed to him could be instructive for some people in this thread.

Rolfe.

[peptoabysmal]

And even that isn't true since there are exceptions for people with religious objections or financial hardship.

So this law still did not establish a "right" in this sense.

I didn't say it established a right, I said it took one away. What you just stated isn't a restoration of that right, but is discrimination based on income or religion. Rights apply to everyone, not just some.

[volatile]

Rights apply to everyone, not just some.

Define "Right" for me.

[Rolfe]

Can you find that thread, Volatile? My search-fu isn't picking it up.

Rolfe.

[volatile]

Can you find that thread, Volatile? My search-fu isn't picking it up.

Rolfe.

Oh, I've tried to remove that whole JdG era from my brain. I'm not ready to revisit it without more therapy....


But yes, here it is: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=104301

[peptoabysmal]

Define "Right" for me.

Specifically... personal rights like life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness etc. Even though I'm not religious, I do lean toward natural rights, but not as a factor of being granted by God, but more as a necessity of nature. You agree to my right to live and I agree to yours and we don't kill each other, which seems natural to me. My right to live does not include the right to force anyone to save my life.

[drkitten]

Specifically... personal rights like life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness etc.

That's not a definition, but a (partial) list.

[psychictv]

I didn't say it established a right, I said it took one away.

But again, so what? Is there some principle that states that laws should only grant new rights, never take existing rights away? Should the legislation that makes murder illegal also include language that grants some other right so as to balance things out? Wouldn't you say that the vast majority of laws essentially "take rights away."? The law almost works that way by definition.

[peptoabysmal]

That's not a definition, but a (partial) list.
How about legal, social, or moral freedoms to act or refrain from acting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights)?

I agree with the part I quoted as a definition.

Going back to my earlier post, I don't believe that rights defined in this way are different for anyone regardless of religion, income, race or gender, so giving low income and religious persons an exemption is not the same as a right.

off topic... mods, is this time out thing new? I hate it.

[Thunder]

a "right" to health-care, or education, or housing, means that you believe someone else has an obligation to pay for it.

when your "rights" infringes on my rights...I have a problem.

when your "rights" creates an obligation for me...I have a problem.

I believe that a healthy, educated, and well-fed population...is good for the economy and good for the country as a whole. but that does NOT mean I am somehow obliged, by some sort of universal code, to feed, house, cure, educate other people.

[peptoabysmal]

But again, so what? Is there some principle that states that laws should only grant new rights, never take existing rights away? Should the legislation that makes murder illegal also include language that grants some other right so as to balance things out? Wouldn't you say that the vast majority of laws essentially "take rights away."? The law almost works that way by definition.

The term for that is "negative rights." Some are saying this bill gives the right to have health insurance, I am saying it takes away the right to not have insurance. If it were a right, it would be applied to all equally and it is not. Some will have exemptions and some will pay more than others.

[psychictv]

a "right" to health-care, or education, or housing, means that you believe someone else has an obligation to pay for it.

So?

when your "rights" infringes on my rights...I have a problem.

What right of yours is getting infringed?

when your "rights" creates an obligation for me...I have a problem.

Why?

but that does NOT mean I am somehow obliged, by some sort of universal code, to feed, house, cure, educate other people.

If you're required by law to feed, house, etc others, then you are obliged by a universal code. That code is called the law.

[Thunder]

If you're required by law to feed, house, etc others, then you are obliged by a universal code. That code is called the law.

i do not believe in a universal "human right", to be fed, housed, clothed, educated, and cured from disease.

I am not a Socialist. I believe in personal responsibility...not being breastfed for life. but I do believe in helping people, cause its the right thing to do and its good for my country.

....not cause they "deserve" it.

[psychictv]

How about legal, social, or moral freedoms to act or refrain from acting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights)?

OK, so "legal" and "social" covers legal rights. As for "moral", who defines that morality, and who enforces the rights?

The term for that is "negative rights."

Personally I don't think that's a valid term or a meaningful distinction, but OK.

Some are saying this bill gives the right to have health insurance, I am saying it takes away the right to not have insurance.

I get that. So what? Why is that a meaningful right to protect?

If it were a right, it would be applied to all equally and it is not. Some will have exemptions and some will pay more than others.

So? Who says rights have to apply equally? Some rights apply only to citizens. Other rights are revoked from people who are felons. Nothing says a law must be applied equally across the board to be considered a right. Men had the right to vote before women did. Does that mean that men didn't really have the right to vote, because the right wasn't applied equally? That doesn't make any sense.

[psychictv]

i do not believe in a universal "human right", to be fed, housed, clothed, educated, and cured from disease.

Well, I don't either, because no such universal rights exist. Some countries provide their citizens with the right to free health care. The U.S. provides its citizens with the right to free education. I don't think anyone here would argue that these rights are universal across all nations.

but I do believe in helping people, cause its the right thing to do and its good for my country.

....not cause they "deserve" it.

WTF is the difference? I mean practically and legally speaking.

[Thunder]

Well, I don't either, because no such universal rights exist. Some countries provide their citizens with the right to free health care.

wrong. its not free. its paid for with taxes.

the USA has tax-payer funded education from 1 through 12th grade for all American children, and tax-payer funded health-insurance for the very poor and elderly.

[peptoabysmal]

OK, so "legal" and "social" covers legal rights. As for "moral", who defines that morality, and who enforces the rights?

It depends on if you believe rights are given by God or nature. I believe that there is a morality that a society generally agrees upon and that morality can change over time.



Personally I don't think that's a valid term or a meaningful distinction, but OK.

We can agree to disagree, heck I'll give this one to you, call it whatever you like.


I get that. So what? Why is that a meaningful right to protect?

I never said it should be protected or not, only that they were losing a right instead of gaining one. Unless you want to say they gained a negative right...


So? Who says rights have to apply equally? Some rights apply only to citizens. Other rights are revoked from people who are felons. Nothing says a law must be applied equally across the board to be considered a right. Men had the right to vote before women did. Does that mean that men didn't really have the right to vote, because the right wasn't applied equally? That doesn't make any sense.
When a right isn't applied equally, it is a privilege. I would say that there was a time that only men had the privilege to vote.

[psychictv]

wrong. its not free. its paid for with taxes.

So change what I said to "Some countries provide their citizens with the right to health care. The U.S. provides its citizens with the right to education." How does that change anything else I said?

[psychictv]

It depends on if you believe rights are given by God or nature.

I don't believe either. Rights are given by law.

I never said it should be protected or not, only that they were losing a right instead of gaining one. Unless you want to say they gained a negative right...

Why even bring it up then? Unless you're implying that losing a right is always bad. And this highlights the problem with concept of "negative rights". You could say we're losing the right to not buy health insurance. Or you could say we're gaining the right to not have to pay for the people who mooch off the system by not buying health insurance and making us all pay when they use the emergency room. It all depends on how you look at it. Slaves gained their right to be full citizens. Slave owners lost their right to own slaves. Right?


When a right isn't applied equally, it is a privilege. I would say that there was a time that only men had the privilege to vote.

So nobody has the right to vote then? Children don't currently have the right to vote so it must still just be a privilege right? Or do you place the cutoff at age 18, in which case, voting was only a privilege for people over 21 until the 26th amendment was added in 1971

[peptoabysmal]

I don't believe either. Rights are given by law.

I don't think law is the ultimate source either. Everything Hitler did was legal in his own country while he was in charge. Legal, social and moral are the parameters I would go on.



Why even bring it up then? Unless you're implying that losing a right is always bad. And this highlights the problem with concept of "negative rights". You could say we're losing the right to not buy health insurance. Or you could say we're gaining the right to not have to pay for the people who mooch off the system by not buying health insurance and making us all pay when they use the emergency room. It all depends on how you look at it. Slaves gained their right to be full citizens. Slave owners lost their right to own slaves. Right?

I might argue that slave owners never had the right to own slaves to begin with, but rather took the privilege by force.
BTW, I don't have a problem with setting up some system whereby legal citizens who are poor can get health care and paying more taxes for that. That is not what the health care bill does. I am saying that this bill is the start of taking more and more rights away from American citizens in the name of the greater good.


So nobody has the right to vote then? Children don't currently have the right to vote so it must still just be a privilege right? Or do you place the cutoff at age 18, in which case, voting was only a privilege for people over 21 until the 26th amendment was added in 1971
You make a good point here. At what age is it moral to let someone vote? How many votes could you buy from children with promises of candy (not too far from what is happening now with the health care reform bill :p)? The qualification has to be IMO legal, social and moral according to what we agree on in society and within those parameters applied equally.

[BeAChooser]

Some countries provide their citizens with the right to free health care. The U.S. provides its citizens with the right to free education.

Nothing is free. There is a cost to everything.

[psychictv]

I am saying that this bill is the start of taking more and more rights away from American citizens in the name of the greater good.

So? You still haven't proven that there is something inherently wrong about taking away a right. When I mentioned that slave owners lost their legal right to own slaves, you tried to claim that they never had such a right. Why is the "right to not purchase health insurance" a fundamentally important right that needs to be protected?

As for your "legal, social, moral" construction, I think we can agree that legal rights exist. What are social rights, and how are they manifested if not through the laws of a society? And what are moral rights? Who bestows them and who protects them? Aren't "moral rights" just a fancy way to say "things that we would like to see made into legal rights?"

[Grizzly Bear]

Nothing is free. There is a cost to everything.

To some it is anyway:
381gFG4Crr8


FTR... I consider this a very extreme case... most people that support this stuff haven't gone this far that I know personally

[FlamingMoe]

I do not believe that health-insurance is a "right", like Freedom of Speech, Religion, Association, etc.
Interesting. Why not? I certainly believe it's a right exactly like those rights. That is, a government has no legitimate authority to prevent an individual from seeking and/or receiving health care, just like it has no legitimate authority to prevent an individual from speaking. (This is a generalization, so spare me any "fire in a crowded theater" comparisons.) However, just as no one has a right to be provided paper upon which to print their opinions, no one has a right to be provided a coronary bypass.

In this sense, it is exactly like the right to free speech.

[Cain]

a "right" to health-care, or education, or housing, means that you believe someone else has an obligation to pay for it.

when your "rights" infringes on my rights...I have a problem.

when your "rights" creates an obligation for me...I have a problem.

I believe that a healthy, educated, and well-fed population...is good for the economy and good for the country as a whole. but that does NOT mean I am somehow obliged, by some sort of universal code, to feed, house, cure, educate other people.

Which echos the standard trope bleated by Beerina early on:
Your "right" is your right to do something unfettered by government interference. It does not, and cannot, impose a positive duty on someone else to provide you with something.

Rights talk is often imprecise and silly, especially when people say "health-care is a right." The main difference here is that libertarians are precise and silly. As I've said many times before, and I can count the coherent replies on one fist -- negative rights necessarily entail positive obligations. If health-care is illegitimate on these grounds, then why isn't government police/military also illegitimate? The anarcho-capitalist is the only truly consistent person on this matter.

The move toward defining freedom as the absence of human interference is the mark of a person beholden to some doctrine or ideology. This is just something that would never occur to a layperson, who in all likelihood has a much richer, if inchoate, definition of liberty. Almost anybody who seriously thinks about individual autonomy for more than five minutes will reject the confident assertions of (so-called) libertarians.

The problem with Americans when it comes to political philosophy is their monochromatic outlook, one which only recognizes the legitimacy of the Constitution and justifying policies in terms of rational egoism.

[psychictv]

The problem with Americans when it comes to political philosophy is their monochromatic outlook, one which only recognizes the legitimacy of the Constitution and justifying policies in terms of rational egoism.

Nonsense. Americans don't have any problems. It's not in the Constitution.

[Cain]

****. You're right. And it would be against their rational self-interest to have problems! *shakes fist* You win again, Madison

[peptoabysmal]

So? You still haven't proven that there is something inherently wrong about taking away a right. When I mentioned that slave owners lost their legal right to own slaves, you tried to claim that they never had such a right. Why is the "right to not purchase health insurance" a fundamentally important right that needs to be protected?

I never claimed that there was anything "wrong" about taking away rights. I claimed that the health care reform bill does not give more rights but takes away rights. The difference may be subtle but is worth paying attention to. Will the government eventually tell us what we can not eat and drink to protect our health (and lower cost)? Don't even think about smoking.

Show me where there was a right to own slaves. IIRC, slaves were considered as property and people were allowed to own property. Abolitionists made the argument that slavery was illegal in the US even before the civil war. Were the abolitionists wrong?


As for your "legal, social, moral" construction, I think we can agree that legal rights exist. What are social rights, and how are they manifested if not through the laws of a society? And what are moral rights? Who bestows them and who protects them? Aren't "moral rights" just a fancy way to say "things that we would like to see made into legal rights?"
Aren't legal rights what we agree on (social) to be right (moral)? Or were they handed to us by some higher power?

[psychictv]

I never claimed that there was anything "wrong" about taking away rights. I claimed that the health care reform bill does not give more rights but takes away rights. The difference may be subtle but is worth paying attention to.

Why? If there's nothing wrong with taking away a right, why is the difference worth paying attention to?

Will the government eventually tell us what we can not eat and drink to protect our health (and lower cost)? Don't even think about smoking.

Ah, so you do think it's wrong to take away one right because you're worried it's a slippery slope toward taking away further rights?

Show me where there was a right to own slaves. IIRC, slaves were considered as property and people were allowed to own property. Abolitionists made the argument that slavery was illegal in the US even before the civil war. Were the abolitionists wrong?

I don't know. If slavery was illegal yet remained widespread for over 200 years, that's a pretty ineffective application of the law. Or to put it another way, a person can hardly be said to have rights in any meaningful sense if those supposed rights were systematically violated for over 200 years.

Aren't legal rights what we agree on (social) to be right (moral)? Or were they handed to us by some higher power?

I'm having trouble parsing that sentence. It almost sounds like exactly what I've been trying to say. That all rights are ultimately legal rights. We think that morally things should be a certain way, so as a society we come together to enshrine those ideas as legal rights.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, I'm glad someone recognizes the difference between real rights and government-provided benefits.

Your "right" is your right to do something unfettered by government interference. It does not, and cannot, impose a positive duty on someone else to provide you with something.

You have a right to seek a job -- you do not have a right to be provided with a job by forcing people to hire you. You have a right to seek and pay for health care -- you do not have a right to be provided health care by forcing others to pay for it, or to give it to you directly (doctors.)

Now if it's a good idea for the government to provide such as a benefit, as well as related issues like the propriety of it w.r.t. the scope of government and the Constitution, those are other issues separate.The latest right wing lie, besides killing babies, is health care reform forces people to buy a private product, something unprecedented and of course, OUTRAGEOUS. :rolleyes:

Catch 22, no public product allowed, but I digress.

Guess what, the government requires you buy fire and police protection, roads, and a military. The government requires you buy education and libraries. The government requires you buy public parks and pollution controls for certain privately owned things which pollute. The government requires you have proper sewer management for your toilet. The government requires you buy trash collection from a private trash company. A few people might be able to get around the last one, but you can't, by law, just let the garbage pile up on your lawn nor can you bury it in your backyard. The government requires you pay for your body disposal out of your estate if you have one when you die.


So this bogus outrage that the health care bill requires some action the government has never done before, the argument is a big FAIL

[Skeptic Ginger]

Do you have any evidence of this claim? I don't think even the most vociferous proponents of healthcare reform claim that it is a right (the way you mean it--as in a constitutional right)....Currently you have a right to be seen and treated in an ED for any medical problem you show up there with. It's hard to imagine any state passing a law overriding this requirement.

If you can show that the men who wrote and voted in the Bill of Rights intended to exclude emergency health care while including the right to bear arms, you might have a case.

I suppose you could argue we really need a new Constitutional Amendment since EDs did not exist when the Bill of rights was drafted.

[Ziggurat]

The latest right wing lie, besides killing babies, is health care reform forces people to buy a private product, something unprecedented and of course, OUTRAGEOUS. :rolleyes:

Catch 22, no public product allowed, but I digress.

Guess what, the government requires you buy fire and police protection, roads, and a military.

1) For the most part your list is not private products.
2) The federal government is not equivalent to state and local governments, it does not have the same constitutional authority or role, but you are conflating them.
3) You're wrong anyways. Existing taxes and mandatory fees are levied on activities or property, and are thus avoidable by refraining from an activity or ownership. A tax levied for NOT engaging in an activity is indeed unprecedented.

[volatile]

Specifically... personal rights like life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness etc. Even though I'm not religious, I do lean toward natural rights, but not as a factor of being granted by God, but more as a necessity of nature. You agree to my right to live and I agree to yours and we don't kill each other, which seems natural to me. My right to live does not include the right to force anyone to save my life.

I mean: define what you think a right is. What defines a "right". Where do "rights" come from? Explain, while you're at it, how and why "rights apply to everyone". Be sure to distinguish "is" from "ought" in your answer.

[DC]

Natural Rights, what on earth is that.

[Darat]

Magic.

[Rolfe]

Oh, I've tried to remove that whole JdG era from my brain. I'm not ready to revisit it without more therapy....

But yes, here it is: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=104301


That's the bunny. Where do "rights" come from? I couldn't get it even knowing the title! Split from another thread when this very same argument started as a derail (and yes, I think it was a healthcare thread originally).

Srsly, that is a 410-post thread which thrashed this entire issue out in detail. Those advocating a faith-based position got their backsides handed to them. Damned if I'm going to start again from square 1. Refer to previous work on this subject, guys.

Rolfe.

[AvalonXQ]

That's the bunny. Where do "rights" come from?

When a mommy right and a daddy right love each other very much, they go privately into one of the penumbras of the Constitution and they create a new baby right, which the Supreme Court announces and grows and nurtures until the baby right becomes a full-grown right all its own.
And that's how your brother Privacy was born.
Now go to sleep.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Specifically... personal rights like life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness etc. Even though I'm not religious, I do lean toward natural rights, but not as a factor of being granted by God, but more as a necessity of nature.

But again, this idea of a "natural right" isn't that such rights exist, but that they ought exist (by human laws).

Nature does not in fact prevent someone from killing another. In fact, it happens quite often. So you actually don't have a natural right to life. In your words, there is no such "necessity of nature". I can be killed, and nature goes on just fine and dandy without me.

Maybe you think nature is such that we ought to have such a right, but then what does the appeal to nature add to the argument? I think you can argue that we ought guarantee the right to life by human laws without the appeal to nature or natural laws.

In fact, if anything, a rational observation of nature seems to argue against this right. (It seems to be in the nature of humans to be aggressive and violent.) It's almost as if we need social norms and laws to rein in nature. It's certain natural for humans to get angry and want to lash out. Of course, it just as much in our nature to repress impulsive behavior and not always lash out. It's also in our nature to use reason to resolve the question of what rights we should guarantee in our laws.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Natural Rights, what on earth is that[?]

Magic.

In fairness, I think most people who talk about natural rights just use it as a rhetorical device to talk about what ought be guaranteed by legal rights.

Even in the Declaration of Independence, it's clear that this is so. If the rights were actually granted by a Creator and were actually inalienable, there would be no need for the very next part:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

What does it mean to have rights that require securing by governments (i.e. law)? Is that any different from saying there are no natural rights and that rights originate in government (i.e. law) whose power derives from the consent of the governed?

[Thunder]

"I have a right to free healthcare"

translation= it is the taxpayer's responsibility to make sure i have health-care. regardless of whether or not I have a job and pay my own taxes.

[Thunder]

"I have a right to a free college education"

translation= it is the taxpayers responsibility to pay for my education, regardless of whether or not i have a job and pay my own taxes.

[psychictv]

"I have a right to not purchase health insurance"

translation= it is the taxpayer and insurance buyer's responsibility to pick up the tab for my unpaid medical bills, regardless of whether or not I have a job and pay my own taxes.

[JoeTheJuggler]

"I have a right to free healthcare"

translation= it is the taxpayer's responsibility to make sure i have health-care. regardless of whether or not I have a job and pay my own taxes.

"I have a right to a free college education"

translation= it is the taxpayers responsibility to pay for my education, regardless of whether or not i have a job and pay my own taxes.
[ETA: And FWIW, if you don't pay your taxes, you can be prosecuted for that crime and not enjoy a whole bunch of rights that most people have. I think maybe you mean, "whether or not I have to pay taxes" or "whether or not I'm someone's idea of a productive member of society". But I'm glad we don't have a government that generally decides who is productive enough to deserve "rights".]


"I have a right to free speech"

translation=it is the taxpayer's responsibility to . . . um. . . nope--doesn't work. [ETA: All I could think of was "to give me speech even though I have nothing to say"]

Your characterization of rights is, at best, incomplete.

I think the question of what rights we should protect and guarantee is ultimately a moral question--that is, reasoning about what it right and wrong. The appeal to "natural rights" in this discussion is the same as an appeal to nature or the naturalistic fallacy (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adnature.html).

Otherwise, it's just supernatural thinking, and not distinguishable from moral reasoning by divine fiat, or, as I've been saying, merely a quaint way of saying something ought be a right, and I think it's so obvious and fundamental that I don't need to prove why.

[Thunder]

Freedom of speech requires no intervention by the govt. It requires the lack of intervention.

Not so, with a so-called right to health-care of a college education. Such rights impose upon the govt. to intervene on your behalf.

[Ziggurat]

"I have a right to free speech"

translation=it is the taxpayer's responsibility to . . . um. . . nope--doesn't work.

Your characterization of rights is, at best, incomplete.

Yes, it is. But I note that you too have skipped over one of the primary reasons your example fails so spectacularly: the distinction between positive and negative rights. Free speech is a negative right. Health care, if it is a right, is a positive right.

Basically the only positive right protected by the constitution is the right to vote. Every other right it protects is a negative right.

[JoeTheJuggler]

"I have a right to not purchase health insurance"

translation= it is the taxpayer and insurance buyer's responsibility to pick up the tab for my unpaid medical bills, regardless of whether or not I have a job and pay my own taxes.

Now there's the accurate parallel!

[AvalonXQ]

"I have a right to not purchase health insurance"

translation= it is the taxpayer and insurance buyer's responsibility to pick up the tab for my unpaid medical bills, regardless of whether or not I have a job and pay my own taxes.

The proper line would be, "I have the right to medical care even if I do not purchase medical insurance".
This is what causes the problem you mention.

[psychictv]

Freedom of speech requires no intervention by the govt. It requires the lack of intervention.

So? All sorts of rights require government intervention. What does that have to do with anything? In the "natural" state of the free market, African people were enslaved. It required the intervention of the government to give them basic rights and freedoms. Another example is the right to private property which wouldn't exist without government intervention. The distinction between positive and negative rights is a bunch of nonsense made up by libertarians.

[Ziggurat]

Now there's the accurate parallel!

Well, no. The available remedy for the implied problem is not confined to making people buy health insurance, one could also simply not pay for others who don't buy insurance. That is, in fact, a much more direct solution, if that's really what one sees as the primary problem.

[Region Rat]

The latest right wing lie, besides killing babies, is health care reform forces people to buy a private product, something unprecedented and of course, OUTRAGEOUS. :rolleyes:

Catch 22, no public product allowed, but I digress.

Guess what, the government requires you buy fire and police protection, roads, and a military. The government requires you buy education and libraries. The government requires you buy public parks and pollution controls for certain privately owned things which pollute. The government requires you have proper sewer management for your toilet. The government requires you buy trash collection from a private trash company. A few people might be able to get around the last one, but you can't, by law, just let the garbage pile up on your lawn nor can you bury it in your backyard. The government requires you pay for your body disposal out of your estate if you have one when you die.


So this bogus outrage that the health care bill requires some action the government has never done before, the argument is a big FAIL

I'm afraid you're off base a little.

Actually, the equivalent solution to your examples would be if the health care bill called for the government to build or buy the facilities (hospital and medical centers), hire the employees (doctors, nurses and staff), and provide the service (medical care) to any citizen upon demand, at no additional cost to the citizen other than the taxes he has paid. That would be similar to the police, fire dept, waste haulers, etc. That is most definately not what the health care bill is all about.

That is quite different than taxing someone if they choose not to purchase a private product to cover the costs of paying a private medical practice for a personal loss.

Also, if I lived a little farther out in the country, I would be on a septic system, not a sewer, and would not be paying the government for public sewage treatment, I would be on well water, and would not be paying a water works for my water. I could take my own trash to the dump at no charge, as many people in my area do. But, this really doesn't matter since all of your examples are not to the point anyway.

And before you get into a snit about me being one of your evil right wingers spouting lies, I'm all for some of the provisions in the package, mostly because they will help my kids. What I don't agree with is forcing people into the system if they don't want to be. If I choose not to participate in the insurance industry scheme and take the risk on of providing for my own health care, I suffer the consequences of my decision. Same as if I drop my Homeowners insurance when my mortgage is paid off, and my house burns down. My loss. Don'y cry for me. But I sure as heck better not come crying to momma if I can't handle it.

[psychictv]

The proper line would be, "I have the right to medical care even if I do not purchase medical insurance".
This is what causes the problem you mention.

I was just referring to peptoabysmal's claim that we're losing the "right" to not buy insurance.

Well, no. The available remedy for the implied problem is not confined to making people buy health insurance, one could also simply not pay for others who don't buy insurance.

Then who pays? Or you're saying doctors and hospitals should turn sick people away?

[AvalonXQ]

Well, no. The available remedy for the implied problem is not confined to making people buy health insurance, one could also simply not pay for others who don't buy insurance. That is, in fact, a much more direct solution, if that's really what one sees as the primary problem.

The problem is the information and timing disconnect. In emergency medical situations, care must be administered before payment can be determined. This is basic medical and logistical reality; I don't see any practical way around this.

[Ziggurat]

Then who pays? Or you're saying doctors and hospitals should turn sick people away?

If the problem is making others pay for the health care of the uninsured, yes. That is indeed the most direct solution.

I don't think that most people view this as the primary problem (and I'm not saying I do either), but the argument I responded to was based on this problem.

[psychictv]

I don't think that most people view this as the primary problem (and I'm not saying I do either), but the argument I responded to was based on this problem.

I think people who have been paying attention recognize that it's a huge problem and one of the major causes of increased health care costs. I also think you're going to have a hell of a time convincing doctors and hospitals to deny care to people in need. It's simply not realistic.

[Ziggurat]

I think people who have been paying attention recognize that it's a huge problem and one of the major causes of increased health care costs.

Is it? How much do uninsured legal residents and citizens really cost the system? For illegal aliens, well, you're not going to get many of them paying for insurance anyways, so it's really only the legal residents and citizens who are important in terms of justifying a mandate.

I also think you're going to have a hell of a time convincing doctors and hospitals to deny care to people in need.

I don't know what you base this on, but 1) I suspect it's easy, and 2) you don't need to. All you really need to do is stop requiring hospitals to provide such care.

[psychictv]

Is it? How much do uninsured legal residents and citizens really cost the system?


"Premiums for employer-provided family health insurance will cost, on average, an extra $922 in 2005 to cover the unpaid expenses of health care for the uninsured, according to a report released today that quantifies such costs for the first time."
http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/newsroom/press-releases/2005-press-releases/press-release-paying-a-premium.html

I don't know what you base this on, but 1) I suspect it's easy, and 2) you don't need to. All you really need to do is stop requiring hospitals to provide such care.

OK, good luck with promoting that system. I'll stick with the one we have now, thank you very much.

[jimbob]

Can you find that thread, Volatile? My search-fu isn't picking it up.

Rolfe.

I quite liked my first post in that thread:

Any discussion of morals has to either come down to an appeal to authority, or virtually aesthetics.

I accept that my morals, however strongly I believe in them, and I do, believe me, ultimately depend on my values, which have as much possibility of being proved correct as a statement "Beethoven is better than Picasso".

Of course, how my values are implemented maybe inconsistent, and can be attacked for inconsistencies, but morals are simply social constructs.

ETA:

Ultimately, if someone asks why I think something is morally right or wrong, my answer will eventually be rooted in "because I believe it to be so". Deists can argue "because a particular God deemed it so, which is also a faith based statement.

[Ziggurat]

"Premiums for employer-provided family health insurance will cost, on average, an extra $922 in 2005 to cover the unpaid expenses of health care for the uninsured, according to a report released today that quantifies such costs for the first time."
http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/newsroom/press-releases/2005-press-releases/press-release-paying-a-premium.html


That figure includes illegal aliens, doesn't it?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Freedom of speech requires no intervention by the govt. It requires the lack of intervention.

Not so, with a so-called right to health-care of a college education. Such rights impose upon the govt. to intervene on your behalf.

Yes--that's the point I was making in showing that your formulation of a "right" was incomplete.

[JoeTheJuggler]

All you really need to do is stop requiring hospitals to provide such care.

I think you'd need to go farther than that. You'd actually need to prohibit hospitals from providing any pro bono care (knowing that they'd be absorbing the costs by passing them on in the form of higher prices to other patients).

I don't think you could or should pass such a draconian law.

[psychictv]

That figure includes illegal aliens, doesn't it?

And?

[Ziggurat]

And?

I already explained the relevance.

[psychictv]

No, you really didn't. You seem to think that illegal aliens don't pay taxes. You also don't seem to understand that if we provided illegal aliens with free health care we would still be paying for their health care, but we'd be paying a far lower amount since they would get cheaper preventative care rather than relying solely on emergency room visits.

[Ziggurat]

No, you really didn't. You seem to think that illegal aliens don't pay taxes.

No. I think illegal aliens will mostly not be buying mandated health insurance.

we'd be paying a far lower amount since they would get cheaper preventative care rather than relying solely on emergency room visits.

Preventive care doesn't lower costs. It may be worth doing on the grounds of improved outcomes, but cost? Sorry, it's a loser there, not a winner.

[psychictv]

Well, anyway, that was one heck of a derail away from the central point that rights can be seen as positive or negative depending on how you frame the situation. I'm not sure why I'm arguing the specifics with you since I'm not even in favor of mandatory private insurance.

[peptoabysmal]

Why? If there's nothing wrong with taking away a right, why is the difference worth paying attention to?



Ah, so you do think it's wrong to take away one right because you're worried it's a slippery slope toward taking away further rights?



I don't know. If slavery was illegal yet remained widespread for over 200 years, that's a pretty ineffective application of the law. Or to put it another way, a person can hardly be said to have rights in any meaningful sense if those supposed rights were systematically violated for over 200 years.



I'm having trouble parsing that sentence. It almost sounds like exactly what I've been trying to say. That all rights are ultimately legal rights. We think that morally things should be a certain way, so as a society we come together to enshrine those ideas as legal rights.

Short answer yes, I'm worried about the slippery slope 1) and 2) I'm not buying into the idea that the government is giving me something great in this bill, but is rather taking away a right. My reasons for thinking this is a slippery slope would drift off the topic of this thread.

Yes we agree on where laws come from, wasn't reading your response properly.

[psychictv]

Can I ask where you think laws come from?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ

[Skeptic Ginger]

1) For the most part your list is not private products.You are cherry picking. I have to buy appropriate sharps container for the syringes I use in my business. I have to buy them from a private company. I have to pay a private company to take my trash from my home in the burbs. I can't keep the trash or bury it in my backyard. Recently our fire department quit transporting patients to the ED if the fire fighters are too busy. If someone is unconscious they will be transported to the hospital in a private ambulance for which the individual will be billed. If I don't clean up my yard, the city can hire someone to do it and bill me for it.


2) The federal government is not equivalent to state and local governments, it does not have the same constitutional authority or role, but you are conflating them.The federal government requires I pay private company to dispose of my unused epinephrine. I cannot dispose of it in the trash. The federal government requires I buy certain safety and smog devices for my car.


3) You're wrong anyways. Existing taxes and mandatory fees are levied on activities or property, and are thus avoidable by refraining from an activity or ownership. A tax levied for NOT engaging in an activity is indeed unprecedented.The tax is levied on people who refuse to pay their share of emergency medical services.


Should they call it a fine instead of a tax? :rolleyes:

[AvalonXQ]

No. I think illegal aliens will mostly not be buying mandated health insurance.

we'd be paying a far lower amount since they would get cheaper preventative care rather than relying solely on emergency room visits.

Preventive care doesn't lower costs. It may be worth doing on the grounds of improved outcomes, but cost? Sorry, it's a loser there, not a winner.

This is the first time I've ever seen it questioned that preventive care is cheaper. Why do you believe that preventive care is a "loser" on costs?

[Meadmaker]

This is the first time I've ever seen it questioned that preventive care is cheaper. Why do you believe that preventive care is a "loser" on costs?

A guy with high blood pressure goes to the doctor, the high blood pressure is detected, he gets put on a course of medication and lives a long life, on medication, until he dies of alzheimer's disease after spending years in a nursing home.

Without that preventive medication, he would have gone out to shovel snow in his 57th year, and dropped dead of a heart attack. Very cheap.

[Darat]

A guy with high blood pressure goes to the doctor, the high blood pressure is detected, he gets put on a course of medication and lives a long life, on medication, until he dies of alzheimer's disease after spending years in a nursing home.

Without that preventive medication, he would have gone out to shovel snow in his 57th year, and dropped dead of a heart attack. Very cheap.

Or alternatively - he suffered a heart attack at 57, was rushed to hospital, had expensive surgery and care, survived but was left disabled so needed round the clock nursing care from the age of 57 until he dies of alzheimer's years later!

[AvalonXQ]

A guy with high blood pressure goes to the doctor, the high blood pressure is detected, he gets put on a course of medication and lives a long life, on medication, until he dies of alzheimer's disease after spending years in a nursing home.

Without that preventive medication, he would have gone out to shovel snow in his 57th year, and dropped dead of a heart attack. Very cheap.

What Darat said. In practice, he doesn't "drop dead"; he receives emergency medical care that costs far more than the blood pressure medication.
It is generally the case that the costs to fix a serious heath problem are much greater than the costs to prevent that problem in the first place.
This is how the provision of affordable nonemergency care can lower costs.

[Beerina]

Personally I don't believe in natural rights and it surprises me that anyone on a skeptical forum would. The only rights we have are those given to us by the law.

This was the genius of the US constitution. There is no "government" per se, that exists, de facto, as to be modified by The People or some suave dictator.

There is only The People, who create a government out of thin air, by mass approval of a written document. The document creates the government, and defines it's powers, stating explicitly that "you shall have these powers, and none others, which apply to these area, and none others", and that The People grant you these powers over their rights, at their whim. And moreover they (and their already-existing states) retain all rights, even those which are not explicitly enumerated in said written document.



Sure, it's also a social convention. But it's a whole lot better than a social convention based on government "granting" you rights. How did those people get the power to grant rights? Why did you give them that power in the first place?

[Ziggurat]

You are cherry picking. I have to buy appropriate sharps container for the syringes I use in my business.

I've already pointed out the difference. This is a requirement which is imposed because of an activity you wish to engage it. That is fundamentally different than a requirement which is imposed regardless of any activity.

I have to pay a private company to take my trash from my home in the burbs.

That's because you own (or rent) a home. It is in this regards equivalent to a property tax. And NOT equivalent to a tax levied for not doing something.

The federal government requires I pay private company to dispose of my unused epinephrine.

Again, a requirement levied because of an activity you choose to engage in. I don't engage in that activity, and I am free of that requirement. We've been over this before.

The federal government requires I buy certain safety and smog devices for my car.

Again, completely contingent upon you buying a car. Which you don't have to do.

The tax is levied on people who refuse to pay their share of emergency medical services.

There is no way to determine what "their share of emergency medical services" is, unless you want to talk about the services they actually use themselves. And like I already pointed out, there are people without insurance who do pay for their emergency medical services. This would tax them even though they already pay. So this argument fails rather plainly.

Should they call it a fine instead of a tax? :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: indeed. Changing the name doesn't change what it is, and fining someone for not doing anything is not exactly an improvement.

[Ziggurat]

This is the first time I've ever seen it questioned that preventive care is cheaper.

That's a shame.

Why do you believe that preventive care is a "loser" on costs?

Because many studies have shown it is.

In the example that Darat gave, he's looking at the costs for one case. But that isn't how you evaluate total costs. You have to look at all cases. The whole point about preventive medicine is that you're spending money on people you don't know are sick (if you knew they were sick, it wouldn't be preventive). Which means you're going to be spending money on people who aren't sick, in order to find and treat people who are sick. That costs money. A lot of money. And while you may spend less money on the people who are sick by catching them early, in general the costs for people who are not sick (typically a much larger pool) outweigh the savings you get for people who are.

There are good cases to be made for preventive care on the basis of improved outcomes. But cost savings from preventive care? That argument generally fails. Preventive care is usually a net cost. It may be a very worthwhile net cost (the benefit per unit cost can be pretty cheap), but you're looking in the wrong place if you expect it to actually save money.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I've already pointed out the difference. This is a requirement which is imposed because of an activity you wish to engage it. That is fundamentally different than a requirement which is imposed regardless of any activity.More cherry picking.


That's because you own (or rent) a home. It is in this regards equivalent to a property tax. And NOT equivalent to a tax levied for not doing something.I doubt a homeless person is going top get stuck with a lack of health insurance tax. This is more of the same. You are trying very hard to find a difference here. You discount anything similar by cherry picking some other aspect where something differs.


Again, a requirement levied because of an activity you choose to engage in. I don't engage in that activity, and I am free of that requirement. We've been over this before.You are ignoring what you can't address.


Again, completely contingent upon you buying a car. Which you don't have to do.The ED has to treat you if you show up there.



There is no way to determine what "their share of emergency medical services" is, unless you want to talk about the services they actually use themselves. And like I already pointed out, there are people without insurance who do pay for their emergency medical services. This would tax them even though they already pay. So this argument fails rather plainly.If you can pay, you can insure yourself.

The rest of your comments are nonsense. I'm sure this rationalizing sounds good to you, clearly you don't like the government making any requirement of you. But to me it just sounds like cherry picking and goal shifting.

Let's take a different approach. You've gone out of your way (along with all the other wishfully thinking right wingers), to define this Congressional action as 'different'. So show us the section in the law which addresses either that this 'different' activity is not allowed, or show us how the wording of the law clearly states it doesn't include this 'different' action.

[Ziggurat]

More cherry picking.

You keep trying to pick particular examples, not me.

I doubt a homeless person is going top get stuck with a lack of health insurance tax.

So your argument is not that government should be limited in its power, but that they will not abuse it? Yeah... sorry, doesn't suffice for me.

This is more of the same. You are trying very hard to find a difference here.

This is more of the same. You are trying very hard to deny a difference here.

You discount anything similar by cherry picking some other aspect where something differs.

No. The differences have been consistent, and it's the difference between taxing or burdening an activity or ownership versus taxing or burdening the lack of an activity. The former is well established. The latter is novel. That difference has been consistent throughout my argument. I'm sorry if you cannot recognize that commonality, but it's always been there, I've pointed it out multiple times, and it's not my fault if you still can't see it.

The ED has to treat you if you show up there.

If that's really the problem, then perhaps we shouldn't require that of hospitals. That's a much more direct solution, isn't it? In fact, the current bill doesn't solve the problem of people becoming a burden on society at all, nor does it even attempt to do so. It just tries to redistribute the weight of that burden in a new way.

If you can pay, you can insure yourself.

Irrelevant to my argument. Why should one be forced to buy health insurance? Your argument was that if one doesn't, then one becomes a burden on society. But this is clearly not always true. Not in principle, and not even in practice.

And if you bring up car insurance, you're an idiot.

[JoeTheJuggler]

The proper line would be, "I have the right to medical care even if I do not purchase medical insurance".
This is what causes the problem you mention.

Seems to me that that's the approach that the individual mandate is supposed to change. In other words, your criticism is about the status quo and not the reform bill.

[JoeTheJuggler]

This was the genius of the US constitution. There is no "government" per se, that exists, de facto, as to be modified by The People or some suave dictator.

There is only The People, who create a government out of thin air, by mass approval of a written document. The document creates the government, and defines it's [sic] powers, stating explicitly that "you shall have these powers, and none others, which apply to these area, and none others", and that The People grant you these powers over their rights, at their whim. And moreover they (and their already-existing states) retain all rights, even those which are not explicitly enumerated in said written document.



Sure, it's also a social convention. But it's a whole lot better than a social convention based on government "granting" you rights. How did those people get the power to grant rights? Why did you give them that power in the first place?
I agree with your broad (and not very controversial) point that the government derives its power from the people. Also, this business of requiring government to "secure" the rights that were said to be inalienably endowed by a Creator is just a way of saying we ought form a government that secures these rights. (Again, a right that wants securing really isn't a right. It's just a fancy and folksy way of saying we think it ought be a right, and we treat that opinion as axiomatic and not something in need of support.)

However, I marvel that people take this strict constructionist attitude (that the federal government only has these specific rights and no others) when it's convenient or expedient, but seem to forget it other times.

By what enumerated power did Bush ban stem cell research? (For that matter, the whole "if the president does it, it's not a crime" theory is antithetical to the notion of government you just spelled out.) By what authority are there federal laws against growing your own pot (http://www.canorml.org/news/fedmmjcases.html) for medicinal use and against partial birth abortions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act)?

I'm pretty sure at least some of the same people who argued FOR those laws (especially Republicans in Congress) are using this enumerated-powers argument AGAINST the healthcare reform bill.

[Meadmaker]

What Darat said. In practice, he doesn't "drop dead"; he receives emergency medical care that costs far more than the blood pressure medication.
It is generally the case that the costs to fix a serious heath problem are much greater than the costs to prevent that problem in the first place.
This is how the provision of affordable nonemergency care can lower costs.


Sooner or later, each of us is going to experience one serious problem that can't be fixed.

The longer it takes for that to happen, the more preventive care we will use in the process.

I'm all for preventive care, but it isn't a societal cost savings. Prolonging life is expensive. Death is cheap.

[Ziggurat]

By what enumerated power did Bush ban stem cell research?

He didn't. He only banned federal spending on stem cell research which didn't use certain existing stem cell lines. I can imagine a possible showdown between the executive and legislative branches on this issue, but there's no question that the federal government in toto has the power to refuse to fund any particular research topic it wants to.

By what authority are there federal laws against growing your own pot (http://www.canorml.org/news/fedmmjcases.html) for medicinal use

I'm in agreement with you on this one.

[psychictv]

I'm all for preventive care, but it isn't a societal cost savings. Prolonging life is expensive. Death is cheap.

Some studies do show that preventive care is more expensive for that reason. The problem is, they don't generally factor in the other costs to society that result from poor health or early death. So it's tough to judge. It's kind of like the studies that show that smokers are actually cheaper to insure because they die earlier.

[JoeTheJuggler]

<snip: a bunch of stuff quibbling about the way I worded my description of Bush's stem-cell research ban> but there's no question that the federal government in toto has the power to refuse to fund any particular research topic it wants to.
By what enumerated power? (The question is really directed to Beerina who said that the document forming our government says effectively "you shall have these powers, and none others, which apply to these area, and none others".)


"you shall have these powers, and none others, which apply to these area, and none others"
I'm in agreement with you on this one.
And you're making my point: that this idea that the federal government (or Congress specifically) only has these certain enumerated powers and no others is used only when you disagree with the legislation. I didn't state that I thought the fed lacks the authority to ban pot growing; I asked by what authority Congress can pass such a law.

I also note that you cropped off the part where I asked the same question about partial birth abortion. By that I take it that you agree with the ban on partial birth abortion and not with the ban on home-grown pot.

I hope you don't try to use the "enumerated powers" argument to distinguish your position on these laws. If so, it's an inconsistent position.

[Ziggurat]

I didn't state that I thought the fed lacks the authority to ban pot growing; I asked by what authority Congress can pass such a law.

According to the supreme court, by the interstate commerce clause. Are you saying that you agree with the incredibly expansive interpretation of the commerce clause given in Gonzalez v. Raich?

I also note that you cropped off the part where I asked the same question about partial birth abortion. By that I take it that you agree with the ban on partial birth abortion and not with the ban on home-grown pot.

No. Rather, I think the pot issue is a clear constitutional overreach, but the abortion issue is much more complicated, and involves questions (like what constitutes a person) which the constitution provides no real guidance on. I'm not taking any particular side on those issues here, because this isn't the thread for doing so.

[JoeTheJuggler]

According to the supreme court, by the interstate commerce clause. Are you saying that you agree with the incredibly expansive interpretation of the commerce clause given in Gonzalez v. Raich?


What I'm saying is that people who use the argument that Congress only has the powers strictly enumerated tend to look their other way when Congress passes laws they agree with (which is what I said).

ETA: Rather, I think the pot issue is a clear constitutional overreach, but the abortion issue is much more complicated, and involves questions (like what constitutes a person) which the constitution provides no real guidance on. I'm not taking any particular side on those issues here, because this isn't the thread for doing so.
I think that's a bit of a dodge. Let's stipulate that a late term fetus is a person. What is the enumerated power that gives Congress the authority to ban partial birth abortions? (Note: that except for a few limited jurisdictions, murder is one of those crimes that is left to the states.)