The law is of supreme importance, or no importance.
Originally Posted by fl0at_
I am perfectly willing to believe that some other obligation to provide healthcare may continue to exist, even despite a lack of legal compulsion.
But what is it, how strong is it, and to what end should it now reach, even in absence of a legal mandate?
Tough, but I think fair, question: Absent the courts ruling that healthcare is a right, does the matter then (and automatically) become a purely moral issue, instead? And if that's true, then the only way to enact any legitimate program to help people is to pass legislation...would be to base the action on what some (perhaps quite rightfully) see as being a purely moral obligation (while, to be fair, many others would disagree and do not).
If so, this discussion is going to make for some strange bedfellows, because just about everyone has argued for / against legislating morality on any number of other issues, but may have to reverse course, here. And I'm not saying that this isn't a (very) good and (very) necessary thing, at all. But it is just so much more gray, in a world that seems increasingly unwilling to acknowledge beyond the black and white.
To prevent the slings and arrows (or to mitigate them), I am willing to say that I do agree with others, that a moral imperative does exist for societies ensuring for the health and safekeeping of its citizenry. Now, what that looks like, what does it cost, who is required to do what, what responsibility does everyone have, what are its limits, etc. etc., are all of the details where this could easily fall apart.
So, how best to decide those things?