Should health care insurance be a right?

Even if itsn't exactly 51% or more it is a huge stain and it adds tremendously to the load. Secondly, I have a member who works with Medicaid that old me Illegals get priority in the system over US citizens to include our seniors who labored in building this country. This is the part of the alien discussion you don't hear much of from the hill but is real just the same.

I googled and found these two articles so I can't vouch for the validity. If you lived in this area you wouldn't doubt the impact it is having on our country. Sure, the GOP wants to advertise a cheap employee that will scrub the toilet or pick our crops but along with that low wage worker we get people with addictions, felons, and communicable deseases since they weren't immunized in their country.

From the first article;

"In addition, the report says, "many illegal aliens harbor fatal diseases that American medicine fought and vanquished long ago, such as drug-resistant tuberculosis, malaria, leprosy, plague, polio, dengue, and Chagas disease.""

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43275

http://www.theamericanresistance.com/issues/health_care.html

I think this is a subject more people should be made aware of before it's too late.

 

Again, you are looking so closely at the effect that you don't see the cause.

There are a lot of hurting people in this country that is causing the effect of large government. I would love to see us focus on the cause so we can develop a more long term cure. How about jobs with benefits? How about decent wages and did I mention keeping jobs in this country?

If we could get america back to work, not only would we spread the tax liability to more wage earning citizens we would also produce more people who can afford more things like health care...

 

Both my brother and I had surjury to correct an Aortic Aneurysm next to out hearts. I was in the hospital for a week and out of work on disability for 7 weeks. What was your experience with your sinus surgery?

 

I believe you're arguing that most American medical problems are because we eat at McDonald's, smoke and don't live a healthy life. I would agree that we need to change our lifestyle. It would be great if that happened. However, that's the way it is. Our medical system needs to treat the patients that are presented to it. If someone who arrives at an emergency room with symptoms of a heart attack who smokes and eats at McDonald's are you suggesting that the hospital should let them die?

 

That's what I thought.

You don't have any.

 

For those who believe universal health insurance/health care should be done, what is your Constitutional basis? I ask out of sheer curiosity. I've never heard the argument grounded in our Constitution and the notion intrigues me.

 

During one debate and an interview with Bill Maher, Paul argued in favor of some form of universal health care and for increased federal funding for health care. We discussed it at length 10 years ago when this presidential campaign started :smilewinkgrin:

I wondered then about the constitutional basis for this thought - hence my previous post/question.

 

Here are the enumerated powers of congress. Particularly note the 1st and the 18th.


Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have the power

1. To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States:

2. To borrow money on the credit of the United States:

3. To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states,and with the Indian tribes:

4. To establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States:

5. To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures:

6. To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States:

7. To establish post-offices and post-roads:

8. To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:

9. To constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme court:

10. To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations:

11. To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water:

12. To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years:

13. To provide and maintain a navy:

14. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces:

15. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions:

16. To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in
the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of
training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress:

17. To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings: And,

18. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.


The "necessary and proper" clause, aka the "elastic clause" has been used by congress to add to the constitution since the first Washington administration. For instance, there is no explicit constitutional prohibition against discrimination, but the "commerce clause" plus the "necessary and proper" clause enabled congress to pass various civil rights laws outlawing discrimination in hotels, restaurants, etc. and see the laws pass court muster. Basically, any law that is necessary and proper to allow congress to fulfill its duties can be construed to be legal.

 

When the country formed our Declaration of Independence suggested a man has three unalianable rights. Life is one of them. Life is also mentioned in the 14th amendment "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". I believe the later more deals with the death penalty.

I believe the Constitution obligates us in life threatening cases to provide care sufficient enough to keep a person alive. This is paid for as part of Medicare and Medicaid so we currently have provisions for this.

Now if I recall right, Medicare is what we count on as part of our SSI.

Medicaid, on the other hand, is the program for low-income, financially needy people. This is what pays for free clinics etc... So it seems to me we already have health programs for the needy which could be self supporting and could work if we could remove all non-qualified people from the budget.

 

Hit a nerve did I? :laugh:

 

Major B
Read an article last night by a constitutional scholar who argued that the "general welfare" clause has become a general catch-all phrase that was never its intent. Just so I don't misunderstand, is it your belief that this phrase allows for a universal health care or universal health insurance?

LeBuick
That phrase is speaking contextually of a person's judicial process and what happens to them under arrest and on trial. I would think it would be a stretch to ground UHC/UHI there. You are correct in that we already have forms of UHI in Medicare/Medicaid (oft overlooked). My question still remains: from whence does this Constitutionally come? (Sorry, got a little Shakesperean there) :laugh:

 

Being obese is a condition that makes a person less healthy in general. Are you saying that the obese should not be treated for serious medical problems? That it's "their problem" because they're fat?

 

Obestity is a common state of Americans today. It makes other conditions worse. It's like not exercising or having high blood pressure. You can't separate the American medical problem fom one of its big conditions. Are you saying that we can? That we need to look at solutions that ignore major causes of the problem? Hardly a logical approach.

 

Did I say that? No. Maybe you should respond to what I have said and not to strawman arguments. :thumbs:

 

Uncalled for. I am not at all in agreement with Dagwood more times than I am in agreement, from what I've read, but you did post on an open debate forum, where anyone and everyone may comment, as they see fit. If you want something said to be private, there is always PM.

Ed

 

Tomvols and others think they can read the constitution and understand its meaning. This concept has no standing in law. Right from the start we were governed by case law i.e. what the judges "say it says."

The Constitution as written and amended gives the judges, not the document final say. The writers could have given the Senate or Congress final say by super majority but they didn't. Was this by intent or by screw up?

 

I agree with Martin's post on page 1. Well said.

I'm not for a "constitutional right" to healthcare. Among other reasons Martin didn't state:

1. With government oversight comes government control. The "lifestyle police" will come out in full force.
2. I'm supposed to trust a government that can't even treat its veterans right? (read: Walter Reed Army Medical Center)
3. Where will the "rights" end? Will I bail out people when they're too irresponsible to stay out of a stupid mortgage (wait: already in the works)? At what point must people be respnsible for themselves?

It kinda stinks, but folks have been getting sick and dying ever since the apple was eaten. And one day, I'll join them and so will you. When I'm ill, I don't want the government taking money from other citizens to pay for my upkeep.

But hey, what do I know.

 

That's a leap.

What I said was that fast food and eating habits contribute more to U.S. mortality rates than lack of medical insurance as you believe.

You said you had proof I was wrong but have refused to produce it.

 

Huh?

You don't think we can understand the Constitution? While I don't think too many constitutional scholars lurk here, we all do have an interest in the document, and some of us do study it (some of us have backgrounds in the law).

Where in the Constitution does is case law established as the anchor for its own interpretation? And case law method uses precedents as guide for future judicial verdict, not judicial interpretation, per se, though the latter certainly emanates from the former. But the earliest jurists didn't have case law to guide them. The framers likely intended the Constitution to guide them. Thus, I disagree with your notion that the framers wanted case law to be what you assert.

Your last paragraph is a bit of non-sequitur.

 

This is what you said:

==Again, another meaningless fact. You assume that our life expectancy rate is directly connected to rates of health insurance. However you have overlooked some major factors. Let's review some of these things that play a role in the life expectancy of the average American:

1. Fast food. When you ride by a KFC, Taco Bell, McDonalds, or any other fast food chain, what do you see? Cars in the parking lot, cars at the drive through, and people shoving that nasty food into their mouths. This leads to obesity, which leads to heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, and even cancer. This reduces people's life expectancy.

2. General diet. What do people eat when they are snacking or cooking at home/work? Junk food. Cookies, candy, hamburger helper, steaks, and other foods like that. All of those things lead to the same health problems as seen in number one and reduces people's life expectancy.

3. Smoking/Drinking. Smoking causes COPD, cancer, emphysema, black lung disease, heart disease, and other health problems that lower life expectancy. Drinking causes liver problems, car accidents, and other such problems.

4. Self doctoring. People get themselves into all kinds of trouble by playing doctor. This includes, but is not limited to, using excessive amounts of over the counter drugs.

5. Laziness. America is, by far, one of the most lazy overweight countries in the history of the world. We sit all day at work, we sit when we get home, and we have very poor diets.

Do I really need to continue? I can.

The point is that insurance is not the main issue when it comes to life expectancy.

I replied:

Being obese is a condition that makes a person less healthy in general. Are you saying that the obese should not be treated for serious medical problems? That it's "their problem" because they're fat?

Yes you at least inferred that.