Is healthcare a right or a privilege II

No.

There's only two things in the Constitution that are specifically named to be paid for with taxes. The national debt and the defense of the nation.



Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.

 

At the risk of sounding like a Monty Python clip, education, roads, sanitation, law enforcement, etc? Seems to me that you already accept that you pay taxes for a lot of things that aren't explicitly mandated by your Constitution. Why not therefore healthcare?

 

I like all of those things. But don't believe that I have a right to them.

 

My statement has NOTHING to do with the government. It is my faith in the Lord Jesus Christ that is behind my support for providing health care for the needy. What is behind your opposition?

 

Why not groceries? Gas for autos? Cell phones?

At what point will you say the government has no right to take your money and transfer it to another person for a particular good or service?

Free tickets to professional sports events? Artwork for home decoration for low income people? Dining at a fine restaurant?

Why not just have a guaranteed minimum income of say, $40,000 a year for everyone and let them fend for themselves?


Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.

 

Which is why we have political parties and elections so that the people can decide where that line is drawn. It's called democracy folks.

 

That's an answer to a different question. I was asking why Americans - clearly, since no-one seems to be advocating that you shouldn't pay taxes for them, whatever the Constitution does or doesn't say about them - pay taxes for those but not healthcare

 

Exactly. Which is why I see classifying healthcare as a right as merely a tactic for stifling debate on the issue.

 

So your belief that healthcare is a right has nothing to do with the government? So you believe the government should never provide healthcare?

I'd say your position is definitely linked to your beliefs on how the government should operate. Let's be honest here.

 

NO, I see it as a starting point in a civilised society. Having established this as a maxim, we can then have the debate about how that is to be funded.

 

See, you just illustrated my point quite succinctly. I don't have to say any more. Thank you.

 

I don't see it as stifling the debate at all; the debate as to funding can still be had

 

But what if someone wants to debate ending free, government provided healthcare? By asserting a right, you've taken debate off of the table.

(And personally, I'm not opposed to a safety net. And changing our 16 trillion deficit to a 16 trillion surplus would cause me to change how charitable I believe my nation should be. )

 

Matt, the US government spends about two-and-a-half times the amount your country does on healthcare, primarily Medicaid and Medicare. But the US spends over fifty times the amount your country on defense, and, with all respect, your healthcare system is awful and is nothing to emulate.

think I'll take a page from your book and play devil's advocate. You know the old thing about having an Air Force even though it's not mentioned in the US Constitution, but what about the general welfare clause? This:

to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

some of these people are saying a modern-day interpretation of the phrase "general welfare" means a national healthcare plan Lenin would be proud of if he were alive today.

 

We do more with less arguably.

 

Hmm, well, since my government has acknowledged a right to bear arms, it should make arms available for free to the public.

 

It's my Christian belief that we should act to help the needy. Read MAT 25:21-46.

Mat 25:40
And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

This is as real as it gets.

 

So forget about interstate highways, bridges, inspection of aircraft and food, protection from Wall Street excesses which led to the near depression in 2007, the entire system of justice, supporting scientific advances, the space program, helping senior citizens (let them die), law enforcement, air traffic control, building standards for housing (let them fall apart), support for public education (we can fall further behind), etc. Yours is an untenable position. Do you want to wake up tomorrow morning to see that all of these have gone away? Some of the radical right are proposing that we return to private toll roads with toll booths every 10 miles. Sound like an advance into the future? The framers of the Constitution specifically said they it was designed to change as circumstances change and it did with Amendments. How many of them envisioned aircraft flying at 40,000 feet carrying 400 passengers or a nuclear bomb?

 

First, who here has said that we shouldn't help those in need?

Are you saying that someone can't support charitable giving in regards to healthcare without first acknowledging some sort of right to healthcare? That's a load of baloney.

Creating a right to healthcare is merely a debate tactic intended to limit debate on how/when/why government should be in the healthcare business.

 

But, as you said, you have the right to bear arms and the government don't fund that: having a right doesn't necessarily mean the method of funding exercise of that right is set in stone.