During the October 7 debate between Obama and McCain, they were asked if healthcare was a right, a responsibility or a privilege. McCain answered that it was a responsibility, and Obama answered that it was a right. I tend to agree with McCain, but I think people are responsible for their own health, with the government supplementing in cases where there is hardship. It is not the government's "duty" to provide healthcare.

This is where the law stands today:



Will the law be changed? Will Obama change the law? Should it be changed?

I would say, what do you think, but you already think wrongly so why bother

Money should not be the link between life and death

ever wonder why Steve Jobs has the #1 most deadly illness in the world, yet he has lived for years and years and years

could it be he is a billionaire?

what does he pay for that has kept him alive all this time, while everyone else who has what he has died?
(pictures of human sacrifice and blood sucking like Twilight come to mind) just asking

I'll take these separately.

Responsibility: Responsibility is an ambiguous term....if we have a responsibility to provide it, it already implies a moral imperative to do so.


Priviledge: We're not talking about the priviledge of obtaining a license here, and the ability to pass some test and drive on State or National highways. The implication here being only if you can afford healthcare, can you have access to it. The other implication is that insurance companies have some "right" themselves to deny you needed medical care based on pre-exisiting conditions, or their determination that they won't cover a procedure, or that they might drop insurance coverage altogether. Somewhere in this mix we've lost the ability for Physicians to properly diagnose and treat individuals.


Right: This is where I stand on the issue. Every citizen should be able to be treated for illness or to receive preventitive care in a wealthy nation such as ours. They should not be forced to die because a provider will not pay for a transplant or because they have exclusions to their care. On an economic basis, we are paying more than most countries for healthcare and getting less quality care. It is a major expense to business that can cause failure of that particular business.


Ask yourself this question: Is it morally acceptable for Congressional leaders to have the best quality medical care in the country at the expense of the taxpayer and to let these taxpayers and citizens not receive the care they need?


It is the same if we ask can people survive without food or water? There are basic necessities that are required to sustain life and the quality of life.

Healthcare is a RIGHT. One should not have to choose between health or illness, life or death. Everyone has the RIGHT to live a healthy life. Responsibility implies capability. Not all persons have the capability of providing for themselves, therefore government has the responsibility to intervene to insure our rights as human beings and as American citizens because government has the capability to insure our rights.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

It is the individual's right and obligation to strive for wellness. It is the groups right and obligation to
care for its members, including health care.

You'll get an argument on constitutional rights, but you can argue back that it is a human right. Or you could say that it was an entitlement for those objecting to the concept of "rights."

Even in terms of responsibility we could parse the ideas of individual responsibility or social responsibility. If someone determines that this is an individual responsibilty, then they are leaving out all those people, who because of poverty or lack of proper care or lack of adequate coverage are unable to receive healthcare except for emergencies. This cost of the uninsured and underinsured is still born by the taxpayer. And it is actually more costly to us because had they received proper initial care we would not be dealing with advanced illness, like diabetes for instance.

If we decide, and properly so I think, that it is a social responsibility, then we have the moral imperative to sustain life and to provide healthcare for everyone. This leads us to the concept of it being a human right, and, in fact, an entitlement.

Very well said.

Ditto.

The socialist in me says that healthcare is a right. But that's just a moral bias.

The rights that should be guaranteed at a minimum:

1) The right to know the risks under the freedom of information act. That would at least give the patient the power to spend money for the sake of health a little more wisely.
2) The right to have occupational safety put before profiteering in their workplace.
3) The right to a safe living environment so that health risks are exclusively the domain of the citizen/patient.

I see it as a basic human right.

When society fails to provide for the basic human rights of its members, it has failed imho. Society can never truly progress while it leaves basic human needs of its members unmet.

It is not the U.S. government's duty to provide healthcare because WE,THE PEOPLE never delegated that to it, and for good reason ...

In New York State, pursuant to section 3 of ARTICLE XVII of OUR NYS Constitution, entitled Social Welfare, it states in clear and unequivocal language as follows:

§ 3. The protection and promotion of the health of the inhabitants of the state are matters of public concern and provision therefor shall be made by the state and by such of its subdivisions and in such manner, and by such means as the legislature shall from time to time determine.

end quotes

That was in 1938, at a time when there were many deaths in NYS as a result of water-borne illnesses and such ...

THE PROTECTION AND PROMOTION OF THE HEALTH OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE STATE ARE MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN ...

PROVISION THEREFORE SHALL BE MADE BY THE STATE ....

Thereafter, in New York State in 1996, in Ricky Brown et al. v. State of New York, 89 NY2d 172, the New York State Court of Appeals stated in yet more clear and unequivocal language as follows:

“Constitutions assign rights to individuals and impose duties on the government to regulate the government’s actions to protect them.”

“Implicit in this reasoning is the premise that the Constitution is a source of positive law, not merely a set of limitations on government.”

end quotes

CONSTITUTIONS IMPOSE DUTIES ON THE GOVERNMENT ...

So in NYS, at least by constitutional decree from WE, THE PEOPLE to OUR "state", the protection and promotion of the public health in New York State is a DUTY of OUR "state" ....

It is not a duty of the U.S. government, because we never gave that right to the U.S government ...

We gave that duty to OUR "state" government ...

You would think that Obama at the minumum would be aware of this, since he is alleged to be a constitutional scholar of some sort or other ....

As to John McCain, other than him saying over and over "THE MAC IS BACK, I never heard much intelligible out of him, especially concerning constitutions and healthcare .....

And so ...

In public health circles, NiteOwl, a "society" that leaves basic human needs of its members unmet is not considered civilized ...

Basic public sanitation is and has been considered for a couple of thousand years as one of the barest essentials of "civilized" society ....

And so ...

Where does it say that everyone has a right to a healthy life?

Where does it say they don't have a right to EQUALITY?

If there is a drug to save people from a hideous disease, money should not stop someone from getting it.

If so, then I demand the rich give up their money and their right to it, and pass it on down to the poorest of the poor.
If money talks, then the rich should get NOTHING at all. It is good for the rich's heart, to pass their seat on the Titanic Life Boats to a poor person who would go down in the ship and drown without it.

Time for a takeover of priorities. Payback is a wonderful thing.

It's like those 3 rich idiots with the car companies
They come begging for money in their private jets

In a different country, they would have been marched to a dark room and executed for their audacity.

And find a mere worker who could do better to take over (as they can't do any worse than those big3idiots.

Same concept.

Beamer do you agree with what I said should be guaranteed at minimum?

PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEER: The term public health engineer SHALL mean a person who applies engineering principles for the detection, evaluation, control and management of THOSE FACTORS IN THE ENVIRONMENT WHICH INFLUENCE MAN'S HEALTH .....

- Title 10, New York Code of Rules and Regulations, Section 11.100

What are the "basic human rights" and where are they enumerated?

Don't you think that rich people have worked hard so they can have money? Most have. People work hard so they can have more economic liberty.

I'm not sure what you mean by the first right, but I agree with the second and third.

Those things are a right in NYS by law, billfmsd ...

In the New York State Constitution for people who are citizens of New York State ...

It doesn't ...

It is implied, however ...

And that right to a healthy life that is implied in there goes back at least 2,000 years in time ...

Are we the most ignorant generation on the face of the earth in the last 2,000 years?

the majority of the rich don't work hard at all.
They got connections. That is the only difference between poor and rich

connections-like the silent one that runs through all of your threads lately

The poor workers work hard for nothing and no benefits.

If the poor workers stopped working, the rich wouldn't know how to get the product that sells their business.

AS said, the big 3 a-hole execs should have been taken to a public square and the panel should have executed them and said-
now, let's get 3 who care about the little guy, not the $$$$$
And if the next 3 don't cut the mustard, take them out.

Time enough at last to end this crap.

Why should anyone get a bonus in a company that is begging for money to stay alive?

Why should drugs be free in some countries and cost 100times more than it should here in the US?

Why should someone with AIDS who now can live a normal age with the medication, die as soon as their insurance runs out?
If you have the medicine, all should get it for free.
That is what good people should want.

and someone only needs $4million to last a lifetime.

Anything over that should be passed down to someone else.

Who the hell needs to have a billion dollars in their portfolio. They couldn't spend it if they tried in 75 years.

I don't want medicine, graham ...

Am I therefore a bad person?

you are free not to take it.

But it should be there if you do want some. With NO pricetag.

We should pay for it when we can, when we are in need, then it is given to us. Like in France. Pass it down. Works fine over there.

I think the government has a duty to protect people from other citizens, business operations, pollution, etc. so that they can pursue a healthy lifestyle. But saying that people have a right to healthcare means that citizens of a particular country have a duty to provide healthcare for other people living there. It's coercive, and I don't believe that is part of the social contract.

I don't believe healthcare is a "right" or a "privilege". I do believe the government has the moral responsibility to intervene on behalf of Americans who are being denied coverage for preexisting conditions and to make healthcare more affordable so that working Americans are not financially crushed if they face a heal crisis. I think it's the government's moral responsibility to make sure that all children are fully covered so that they can have full access to preventative care and medical care, including eye and dental.

Read the thread in the link if you haven't already.

Many people have connections or inheritance and don't have to work, but most people work hard for their money. I work with people, some of whom make a lot of money, and they work very hard.

So ...

Are you denying the New York State Constitution has validity, then, amy ...

Or are you limiting what you are saying to the delivery of health services?

Or what?

The New York Constitution and every other Constitution in the U.S. does not guarantee healthcare for citizens.

Would you prefer a feudalistic society or an altruistic one ?

This is where conservatism gets in its own way. We can only progress as a society when we all progress. The overall goal of society should be to improve the conditions for ALL its members and not simply to create a society of haves and have-nots.

The basic human rights imho include, in addition to civil rights and equality under the law and equal treatment within society, food, clothing, shelter and health and education. Nobody should have to go without these basics... and all should be expected to contribute to the degree that they can.

Here we have some basic common ground, Beamer ...

I think that that is the implication that I mentioned ...

How does the NYS constitution address healthcare? I haven't read every post on this thread...I just stuck in my opinion....

I believe that you are in fact quite incorrect here ....

Or qualifiedly incorrect, anyway ...

It all comes down to what you are defining as "healthcare" ...

WHAT ARE YOU DEFINING AS HEALTHCARE?

Where in the Constitution did it originally say that a woman should have a right to vote? We amended our Constitution to provide that right. We could do so, if we choose to include a right to health. But barring any such amendment, if we at least agree to a moral responsibility to provide every human being care, then it can be accepted as a human right.

It is if people make it a part of the "social contract" which is their constitution ...

All laws are coercive in nature ...

I agree that it would be better for society if all children have access to full healthcare, including eye and dental. Therefore, I am willing to pay for that out of my taxes. However, I am not willing to pay for the healthcare of children whose parents come to this country illegally. That is the responsibility of the people and the governments of their own countries.

I don't know if I agree with your other beliefs, but am open to discussing those two issues - people with preexisting conditions who are denied coverage, and people who suffer tremendous financial hardship because of a health crisis.

Unless I get a job with a large company having a large insurance pool, I cannot get health care. Period.

The health insurance companies are telling me to F* off and die. Period.

But that is the way life is. Only the strong survive, and the weak SHOULD die off, because they are inferior.

Besides, if someone gets sick, God must be punishing them. Why go against God's will and help someone who God is obviously punishing?

Good points...I see the health care industry as a "business"...well, of course it is....so, I think the government has the responsibility to intervene when our health care services are far too costly for most Americans.

"FULL COVERAGE" is a meaningless term ...

You presume all of these "full services" will be available equally to everybody everywhere in America ....

That is not so ...

And making people have to pay for insurance does not make it so ...

Insurance is not healthcare ...

Insurance is merely a promise, however empty, to pay for health care SHOULD IT BE AVAILABLE ...

That's it ...

And so ...

What kind of life is an unhealthy life? A reasonable interpretation implies that one's life should be a healthy one.

I don't know where you work, but I believe, with the system we have today, even if it remains unchanged in other areas, that the government should at least require employers to join pools with other employers so that they can provide basic healthcare for workers.

The question of if it's a "right" or a "privilege" is important because laws are written and judged based on those premises. And without laws, the government has no justifications for it's actions, leaving it powerless or chaotic at best.

How do you feel, amy, about people without access to healthcare from their employer joining pools with other workers (this can or cannot be administered by the government) to obtain basic insurance coverage (or basic care), yet wealthier people having access to better healthcare - e.g. expensive procedures, expensive testin?

Here is where it had to start, amy ...

People have to tell THEIR government what they want in the form of a constitutional directive ...

Those two capital-letter phrases right above here are what made all the public health laws in NYS follow ...

And those laws provide for healthcare to be made available to ALL state residents in an efficient and effective manner ...

THAT IS A GUARANTEE, probably the best we shall ever get in an imperfect world ...

And so ..

Hard working Americans who have health coverage can be financially ruined if hit by a catastrophic illness. If a person has a preexisting condition and they never were able to afford good health coverage why should they be denied if they are finally able to get affordable coverage? Today, many of the drugs and tests needed by very ill people are exorbitantly expensive. Shouldn't they have access to those drugs and tests or should only the very wealthy have access?
Illegal immigrants need to have access to medical care...the adults as well as their children because if some illnesses, like TB, go undetected and untreated it presents a serious health hazard to all Americans.