• 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!

Is health care in the US a right?

Is health care a right?


  • Total voters
    53
  • Poll closed .
How so?



And you think handing it over to the government will stop this? The most bloated corrupt can't balance a budget org to ever exist? :doh



We need reform to make medical costs reasonable. We don't need Obama care.

What would you suggest?
 
For those who believe health care is a 'right' I'll pose the following question...

Do I have a 'right' to any health care I elect? Or is my 'right' to health care limited to the care that the government deems fit? For instance, is a heart transplant a 'right?' Is liposuction a 'right?' Is a prescription for Viagra a 'right?' Or is my 'right' limited to a visit with my local doctor to discuss these options?

:confused:

Here's what you are missing, people will pay a premium even for the public option, thus they are paying in money regardless. Some will not pay, but those folks are not paying now and are using the ER to gain access to healthcare, and tax payers cover that NOW. The government WILL NOT DETERMINE your healthcare, doctors will. That is in all three bills. Finally, you submit to a system now where the insurance company determines what proceedures you may and may not have! Sorry to burst your bubble.
 
What would you suggest?

Answering my questions would be nice...

How are free clinics "increasing the burden on the shrinking middle class?"

Do you think handing healthcare over to the government will stop...

"Until there is REAL reform that ends the doubling of medical costs every decade, then we are in store for the end of the Middle Class. As costs continue to rise, as wages stay stagnant, more and more will slip into the category of uninsured, this will increase the burden on those remaining until the whole thing collapses." - tlmorg02
 
It's funny I have been watching the votes. Every time a person on the forum votes no, mysteriously the yes gets another invisible vote.

Liberal honesty at work. :roll:
 
I don't think it is a defined by the Constitution in any way.

The Constitution does not grant or define your rights. That is a common misconception. The Constitution primarily restricts the powers of government. Your rights are based in the principle of self ownership. Only totalitarian nations have constitutions that grant and define (thus limit) rights.

Now obviously though self ownership gives you the right to say what you want, be who you want, do with your body what you want, enjoy the fruits of your own labor and so on, one can't argue that self ownership entitles them to health care. So health care if it is a right is not a right that stems from self ownership.

So if health care is a right, it is a right based in the moral notion of Human Rights or Humanitarian Law. Humanitarian law is much different than self ownership in that humanitarian law can actually compel action by an individual. For example, if you witness an accident you are compelled by humanitarian law to assist a victim that needs your assistance. Let's say a child is seriously injured and comes to your door asking for help. If you do nothing and allow them to simply bleed to death on your lawn without doing anything or contacting emergency services, you can be prosecuted simply because you did nothing. In such a case, that child would have a right to assistance by you even though that right obviously is not derived from self ownership. Its a human right, based in humanitarian law rather than self ownership and just like many other rights we enjoy, its found no where in the constitution because as I pointed out, the constitution does not grant rights, it primarily restricts the powers of government.

So the real question is whether or not health care is a human right. Emergency care is almost universally held to be a human right. A hospital cannot deny you treatment for life saving care because life saving care is considered to be a human right even if you cannot afford it.

Now some have pointed out that a need is not necessarily a right and used housing and food as an example. The problem with that argument is that its not as black and white as they would like it to be. For example, if we had tens of millions of Americans that could not afford housing or food, we would probably be reevaluating as a society how we provide housing and food. The reason for this is that it is implicit in the social contract that underlies all free societies that basic human needs have to be accessible to the majority of the individuals in that society. The individual does not have the right to be given free food in a society where the vast majority of people can afford food for themselves. However, if the availability and cost of food were such that a significant percentage of people could not afford it, then the general welfare of the people kicks in and the society due to human rights is compelled to find some sort of a solution whether its public or private.

So the point in all of this is that whether or not health care is a right is not simple enough to be summed up in a bumper sticker slogan.
 
Last edited:
Answering my questions would be nice...

How are free clinics "increasing the burden on the shrinking middle class?"

Do you think handing healthcare over to the government will stop...

"Until there is REAL reform that ends the doubling of medical costs every decade, then we are in store for the end of the Middle Class. As costs continue to rise, as wages stay stagnant, more and more will slip into the category of uninsured, this will increase the burden on those remaining until the whole thing collapses." - tlmorg02

I have already answered these questions, but let me try again. The free clinics and the lot are paid for, by guess who, TAX PAYERS!!!!! As jobs are lost to both hard economic times, and increasingly outsourcing, the number of people partaking of these services will increase. This leads to a higher tax burden on those still working. By the way, the insurance companies you protect outsource at a rapid rate to India, also contributing.

Now, as anyone with the internet can readily find, worker wages have been virtually stagnant since the 1960's and only increasing slightly with inflation. As people have to continuously pay the bill of the free clinics and the lot, while paying for the extreme cost of high private insurance, which continues to rise constantly (doubling every ten years), they have less free capital. As more and more slide into the ranks of the free clinic people, those remaining will suffer further until it all collapses. Because I can guarantee you, insurance companies will never reduce premiums.

A government backed option will end the monopoly that Wellpoint and Humana have on the American people and create the environment necessary for the private insurers to streamline and make cuts necessary to competiting, much like UPS and Fed-Ex have to outcompete the postal service. More people, even the poor will be able to afford one of these plans and the ranks on the free clinic line will be reduced. Not to mention jobs created as the government backed insurance will have to keep customer service and claims processing right here in the good ol' USA. Do you now understand?
 
It's funny I have been watching the votes. Every time a person on the forum votes no, mysteriously the yes gets another invisible vote.

Liberal honesty at work. :roll:

I am a wide open Yes voter!;)
 
I hope you felt the same way when the right-winged stacked court approved imminent domain and the socialist practice of taking people's lands so that corporations could build on them for the sake of profits.

I am against imminent domain for private usage(that also includes universities as well). It is an abuse of what it was intended for. If a corporation or company really wants that piece of property then he should pay the owner what the owner wants,not the forced cheapest price possible.Supply and demand is a two street not a one way street.
 
You are confusing socialist and capitalist.

Their is nothing socialist about the government stealing property for a private corporation to make money, nothing at all. It is capitalism, and yes it stinks sometimes.

Oh! SO if the government steals for the wealthy, you are ok with that and that is capitalism. But if it takes from the wealthy it is socialism. Gotcha!;)
 
The Constitution does not grant or define your rights. That is a common misconception. The Constitution primarily restricts the powers of government. Your rights are based in the principle of self ownership. Only totalitarian nations have constitutions that grant and define (thus limit) rights.

Now obviously though self ownership gives you the right to say what you want, be who you want, do with your body what you want, enjoy the fruits of your own labor and so on, one can't argue that self ownership entitles them to health care. So health care if it is a right is not a right that stems from self ownership.

So if health care is a right, it is a right based in the moral notion of Human Rights or Humanitarian Law. Humanitarian law is much different than self ownership in that humanitarian law can actually compel action by an individual. For example, if you witness an accident you are compelled by humanitarian law to assist a victim that needs your assistance. Let's say a child is seriously injured and comes to your door asking for help. If you do nothing and allow them to simply bleed to death on your lawn without doing anything or contacting emergency services, you can be prosecuted simply because you did nothing. In such a case, that child would have a right to assistance by you even though that right obviously is not derived from self ownership. Its a human right, based in humanitarian law rather than self ownership and just like many other rights we enjoy, its found no where in the constitution because as I pointed out, the constitution does not grant rights, it primarily restricts the powers of government.

So the real question is whether or not health care is a human right. Emergency care is almost universally held to be a human right. A hospital cannot deny you treatment for life saving care because life saving care is considered to be a human right even if you cannot afford it.

Now some have pointed out that a need is not necessarily a right and used housing and food as an example. The problem with that argument is that its not as black and white as they would like it to be. For example, if we had tens of millions of Americans that could not afford housing or food, we would probably be reevaluating as a society how we provide housing and food. The reason for this is that there it is implicit in the social contract that underlies all free societies that basic human needs have to be accessible to the majority of the individuals in that society. The individual does not have the right to be given free food in a society where the vast majority of people can afford food for themselves. However, if the availability and cost of food were such that a significant percentage of people could not afford it, then the general welfare of the people kicks in and the society due to human rights is compelled to find some sort of a solution whether its public or private.

So the point in all of this is that whether or not health care is a right is not simple enough to be summed up in a bumper sticker slogan.

And what does this have to do with my statement? It is not a bumper sticker slogan, and it is not part of the general welfare as the majority is just fine. We have free medical care as I pointed out.

All legalize does is gum up the works and make simple issues complicated.
 
I am against imminent domain for private usage(that also includes universities as well). It is an abuse of what it was intended for. If a corporation or company really wants that piece of property then he should pay the owner what the owner wants,not the forced cheapest price possible.Supply and demand is a two street not a one way street.

Thanks for being a person who actually sticks to their principles regardless of the wealth of those in question. Many here who argue for the side of conservatism only extend their claims to those who do not make millions per year.
 
It's funny I have been watching the votes. Every time a person on the forum votes no, mysteriously the yes gets another invisible vote.

Liberal honesty at work. :roll:

I am sure that if you didn't make the votes public then we would be seeing 20-60 votes for yes.
 
Thanks for being a person who actually sticks to their principles regardless of the wealth of those in question. Many here who argue for the side of conservatism only extend their claims to those who do not make millions per year.

I do not think Blackdog ever said he was for it.
 
And what does this have to do with my statement? It is not a bumper sticker slogan, and it is not part of the general welfare as the majority is just fine. We have free medical care as I pointed out.

All legalize does is gum up the works and make simple issues complicated.

The majority is not just fine. We have tens of millions of Americans that are uninsured, at least 25 million Americans that are under-insured, health insurance premiums increasing at 4 times the rate of inflation, and health care expenses being the number one reason for bankruptcy in this country.

The question was "Is health care a right?". Obviously health care is a human right based in humanitarian law otherwise you could be denied life saving care. If health care was not a human right, you could bleed to death in front of a hospital if you were uninsured. Its a human right whether people want to admit it or not.

That is not to say that just because health care is a human right means that the federal government should step in an provide it for everyone though. That is a different question altogether.
 
Last edited:
Oh! SO if the government steals for the wealthy, you are ok with that and that is capitalism. But if it takes from the wealthy it is socialism. Gotcha!;)

You can read correct? I said...

"You are confusing socialist and capitalist.

Their is nothing socialist about the government stealing property for a private corporation to make money, nothing at all. It is capitalism, and yes it stinks sometimes.
" - blackdog

Now please point out where I said or even implied any of the stupidity you just defecated above. :roll:
 
You can read correct? I said...

"You are confusing socialist and capitalist.

Their is nothing socialist about the government stealing property for a private corporation to make money, nothing at all. It is capitalism, and yes it stinks sometimes.
" - blackdog

Now please point out where I said or even implied any of the stupidity you just defecated above. :roll:

How is what you said, and imminent domain not socialist. The government takes private land in order to provide more jobs. That is socialist. I apologize if your intent was not to give approval, but as you seem to use socialism as a beacon of evil and say that stealing from the individual for that of a corporation is capitalist and may stink, but that's the system, it appeared that you had no beef with that.
 
Last edited:
Now please point out where I said or even implied any of the stupidity you just defecated above. :roll:

Please tell me what the difference is. If you take from the wealthy insurance companies and provide insurance for everyone, opposed to taking land from a individual to give it to a company saying that you are doing it to benefit the highest number of people. They are two sides of the same coin.
 
The majority is not just fine. We have tens of millions of Americans that are uninsured, at least 25 million Americans that are under-insured, health insurance premiums increasing at 4 times the rate of inflation, and health care expenses being the number one reason for bankruptcy in this country.

And we have 200,000 that are, how is that not the majority?

The question was "Is health care a right?". Obviously health care is a human right based in humanitarian law otherwise you could be denied life saving care. If health care was not a human right, you could bleed to death in front of a hospital if you were uninsured. Its a human right whether people want to admit it or not.

Says you. Many disagree..

Health Care Is Not A Right

"Let's begin by defining our terms. A right is a principle that specifies something which an individual should be free to have or do. A right is an entitlement, something you possess free and clear, something you can exercise without asking anyone else's permission. Because it is an entitlement, not a privilege or favor, we do not owe anyone else any gratitude for their recognition of our rights...

That freedom is a vital need, not only for doctors but for patients. It is only in a context of freedom that one person's need is not a threat to others. It is only in a context of freedom that genuine benevolence among people is possible. It is only in a context of freedom that the medical progress which has brought so many benefits to all of us can continue.

The problems of our current system were caused by government. More government is not the solution. But we must oppose the expansion of government control in principle, by rejecting spurious claims of a "right" to health care, and insisting on our genuine rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.
" - Is There a Right to Health Care?

Now that we know many disagree with your assessment, lets move on.

That is not to say that just because health care is a human right means that the federal government should step in an provide it for everyone though. That is a different question altogether.

You start calling something a "right" like the left is doing and the flood gates open. You cannot deny this.
 
Last edited:
How is what you said, and imminent domain not socialist.

Because by it's nature it is not.

The government takes private land in order to provide more jobs. That is socialist.

No. The government takes the land and gives it to a private company to get the increased taxes. That is capitalism.

I apologize if your intent was not to give approval, but as you seem to use socialism as a beacon of evil and say that stealing from the individual for that of a corporation is capitalist and may stink, but that's the system, it appeared that you had no beef with that.

Since when is "stealing" a positive thing?

No biggie.
 
Last edited:
Please tell me what the difference is. If you take from the wealthy insurance companies and provide insurance for everyone, opposed to taking land from a individual to give it to a company saying that you are doing it to benefit the highest number of people. They are two sides of the same coin.

And what does this have to do with my statement?
 
Health care IS a right here in Australia. Do not turn it (UHC) into the "monster". It is a humane and sensible thing to embrace.

Ironic some of you are going to have to be forced to do the right thing.

Why do you have to be forced to do what's right?

Why do you have to make such a damn racket in order to embrace what is humane and correct?

Shoot me down, tell me to run back to my own country, whatever, but seriously, how mean-spirited can some of you be?

Try opening your minds and hearts a little. Stop with the ridiculous "gun to the head" analogy. And try to see past yourselves - it will be good for your souls.

Don't make God come down and beat you round the heads for being so untoward and ungenerous towards your fellow men / women.

If you want your nation to be great, be benelovent, give a stuff about others, don't just go to church. Sacrifice for others! Care!

(Rant Over)


Do you think food is a right?

Do you think shelter is a right?

Do you think a job is a right?


I think in a civilized, wealthy society, there should be enough compassion and intellect to allow all the right to be able to seek medical attention. The fact that many do not see this, simply shows me how much farther humanity has to evolve. Some of you are not far removed from barbarians.

Compassion is not my number one concern. I want a healthy working population.

It's possible to strongly support a policy that provides health care for everyone while still not thinking that it's a "right." I like the idea of everyone having food, but I don't think it's a right.
 
And we have 200,000 that are, how is that not the majority?

At any given time, 47 million Americans do not have insurance. 25 Million Americans are under-insured. 43 Million Americans are on Medicare. Millions more are on either SCHIP or Medicaid.

Right now private insurers are at best only servicing half of Americans and for those, premiums are increasing at 4 times the rate of inflation. Its a broken system.

Says you. Many disagree..

If health care is not a human right, then why can't you be denied life saving care if you can't afford it?
 
Do you think food is a right?

If tens of millions of Americans could not afford food, would you consider it to be a crisis?

Do you think shelter is a right?
If tens of millions of Americans could not afford housing, would you consider it to be a crisis?

Do you think a job is a right?
If tens of millions of Americans could not find work, would you consider it to be a crisis?

If health care is not a human right, then why can't you be denied life saving care if you cannot afford it?

I just don't think the question as to whether health care is a right or not is nearly as cut and dry as you are trying to make it.
 
Last edited:
And what does this have to do with my statement?

You are saying one is capitalist and the other socialist. I say both are the same, regardless if you call them socialist or capitalist.
 
At any given time, 47 million Americans do not have insurance. 25 Million Americans are under-insured. 43 Million Americans are on Medicare. Millions more are on either SCHIP or Medicaid.

It is not the majority. Medicare is government health care, so 43 million Americans are already under Obama care.

Right now private insurers are at best only servicing half of Americans and for those, premiums are increasing at 4 times the rate of inflation. Its a broken system.

I absolutely agree and we do need to do something to fix it. I don't see the government taking it over as the right thing.

If health care is not a human right, then why can't you be denied life saving care if you can't afford it?

Simply put it is the right thing to do. This does not make it a right.
 
Back
Top Bottom