• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Healthcare in the US

Rexedgar

Rexedgar

Yo-Semite!
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
63,143
Reaction score
52,794
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Do you consider healthcare a right?
I would like to hear more than just opinions. Did the framers of the Constitution allow for this eventuality when they penned the document? If you feel healthcare should be a right, what restrictions would there be, if any? I heard a comment from a member of Congress saying something to the effect, "that I have the right to buy a Rolls Royce, just don't have the finances to do so responsibly." "Who knew it could be so hard?"
 
Rexedgar said:
Do you consider healthcare a right?
I would like to hear more than just opinions. Did the framers of the Constitution allow for this eventuality when they penned the document? If you feel healthcare should be a right, what restrictions would there be, if any? I heard a comment from a member of Congress saying something to the effect, "that I have the right to buy a Rolls Royce, just don't have the finances to do so responsibly." "Who knew it could be so hard?"
Click to expand...

Like anything else it is about the ability to wordsmith. Where in the constitution did the frameworkers state the federal government should make drugs illegal? They didn't. That was an interpretation later that the government did. The same goes for healthcare that law makers did some fancy wordsmithing to justify.

So short answer, do I think healthcare should be a right? No. Do I think the government should spend money on healthcare? Yes.
 
I think healthcare in US should be universal like it is in Europe. Americans pay high taxes and the country is rich enough to enable universal healthcare to all its citizens. Australian Medicare should be an example of how universal healthcare should be in a developed country.
 
Rexedgar said:
Do you consider healthcare a right?
I would like to hear more than just opinions. Did the framers of the Constitution allow for this eventuality when they penned the document? If you feel healthcare should be a right, what restrictions would there be, if any? I heard a comment from a member of Congress saying something to the effect, "that I have the right to buy a Rolls Royce, just don't have the finances to do so responsibly." "Who knew it could be so hard?"
Click to expand...

As most things in the US, you have negative rights.
A right in that sense sure, but in the positive sense, no.

Even if you adopt a positive right to medical care, you're still going to have objections to how much of it you can get.
 
Sorry, Rex, to piggy back on your thread, but it seemed like a good opportunity to ask something that's been bugging me... You guys spend a crap ton on your military...like, far more than anyone else in the world, by a long shot. Presumably this is to defend your citizenry, and that's great, no issue there, for the moment...

However, when it come to defending your citizenry in a far more fundamental way, their *actual health*, there is massive pushback, and from folks who I never see complain about the cost of protection on the military side, despite the fact that health issues are far more common than foreign invasions.

How come?
 
OlNate said:
Sorry, Rex, to piggy back on your thread, but it seemed like a good opportunity to ask something that's been bugging me... You guys spend a crap ton on your military...like, far more than anyone else in the world, by a long shot. Presumably this is to defend your citizenry, and that's great, no issue there, for the moment...

However, when it come to defending your citizenry in a far more fundamental way, their *actual health*, there is massive pushback, and from folks who I never see complain about the cost of protection on the military side, despite the fact that health issues are far more common than foreign invasions.

How come?
Click to expand...

We spend so much on our military because we protect way more than our citizens.
We protect our client states as well.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
We spend so much on our military because we protect way more than our citizens.
We protect our client states as well.
Click to expand...

Sure, sure, however the budget breaks out. But my question is more to do with why do opponents of single payer health care get so vexed about having to spend their tax dollars paying for someone else's hospital bills, but have no problem sharing the costs of defending them against invasions that never come, or for the protection of client states?
 
OlNate said:
Sure, sure, however the budget breaks out. But my question is more to do with why do opponents of single payer health care get so vexed about having to spend their tax dollars paying for someone else's hospital bills, but have no problem sharing the costs of defending them against invasions that never come, or for the protection of client states?
Click to expand...

It's not about dollars, most of the time, it's about the principles laid out in our type of government.
America adopted a form of French liberalism, while most of the rest of Europe, Canada, Aus, etc. adopted British liberalism.

It's a different concept of what the purpose of government is supposed to be.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It's not about dollars, most of the time, it's about the principles laid out in our type of government.
America adopted a form of French liberalism, while most of the rest of Europe, Canada, Aus, etc. adopted British liberalism.

It's a different concept of what the purpose of government is supposed to be.
Click to expand...

Thank you, that's a really good response, actually...gives me something to check out. Thanks for not ripping me a new one for asking the question...can't always take that for granted around here. ;)
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
We spend so much on our military because we protect way more than our citizens.
We protect our client states as well.
Click to expand...

Don't forget that we have to defend every other nation out there as well.
 
OlNate said:
Sure, sure, however the budget breaks out. But my question is more to do with why do opponents of single payer health care get so vexed about having to spend their tax dollars paying for someone else's hospital bills, but have no problem sharing the costs of defending them against invasions that never come, or for the protection of client states?
Click to expand...

Providing for the defense of the nation is the role of government.
Making sure you can run to the doctor when you sneeze is not.

The problem is that for me it is cost prohibitive. I cannot support my family with the government taking half my check.
The taxes I pay now are bad enough.
 
OlNate said:
Thank you, that's a really good response, actually...gives me something to check out. Thanks for not ripping me a new one for asking the question...can't always take that for granted around here. ;)
Click to expand...

Just for some looking into.
The French liberalism I'm talking about coincides with Bastiate, Tocqueville, Say, etc.

The French themselves eventually adopted a form of British liberalism.

I different concept of rights, obligations, etc.
Although the USA is not absolute in it's regard for French liberalism, we've adopted a great deal of the other kind.
 
OlNate said:
Sorry, Rex, to piggy back on your thread, but it seemed like a good opportunity to ask something that's been bugging me... You guys spend a crap ton on your military...like, far more than anyone else in the world, by a long shot. Presumably this is to defend your citizenry, and that's great, no issue there, for the moment...

However, when it come to defending your citizenry in a far more fundamental way, their *actual health*, there is massive pushback, and from folks who I never see complain about the cost of protection on the military side, despite the fact that health issues are far more common than foreign invasions.

How come?
Click to expand...

And there is that lobby thing!
 
Rexedgar said:
Do you consider healthcare a right?
I would like to hear more than just opinions. Did the framers of the Constitution allow for this eventuality when they penned the document? If you feel healthcare should be a right, what restrictions would there be, if any? I heard a comment from a member of Congress saying something to the effect, "that I have the right to buy a Rolls Royce, just don't have the finances to do so responsibly." "Who knew it could be so hard?"
Click to expand...

For all intents and purposes life saving care is always a right so in the end its a pointless debate. If you show up at a hospital and you are having a heart attack, you will be treated, even if it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat you, regardless of whether you have insurance or not. The reason being is that we don't have Charles Manson in charge of admitting and thus no one will just turn you out to die in the street (and since the 1980s it would be illegal anyway).

So in the end, its a question of how we are going to pay for it.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
For all intents and purposes life saving care is always a right so in the end its a pointless debate. If you show up at a hospital and you are having a heart attack, you will be treated, even if it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat you, regardless of whether you have insurance or not. The reason being is that we don't have Charles Manson in charge of admitting and thus no one will just turn you out to die in the street (and since the 1980s it would be illegal anyway).

So in the end, its a question of how we are going to pay for it.
Click to expand...

If you turn up at the ER with tuberculosis, or typhoid, or some other infectious disease, do they treat your immediate problem and release you to infect others, or do they admit you for several days to eliminate the infection entirely?
 
Manc Skipper said:
If you turn up at the ER with tuberculosis, or typhoid, or some other infectious disease, do they treat your immediate problem and release you to infect others, or do they admit you for several days to eliminate the infection entirely?
Click to expand...

I think in those cases they are legally obligated to treat your immediate problem to the extent you are no longer to others health. I could be mistake on that, good question though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom