Do People Have a Right to Healthcare

I think "the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" at least indicates that there is a reasonable expectation for access to affordable healthcare of some reasonable standard. I don't think it is a right to infinite MRI's or instant access to any physician you choose-- not that anyone here is arguing it is, just trying to rope off the extreme.

Access doesn't mean free. I do not believe healthcare operates well as a free market, and there are potential solutions in some sort of national plan. There will always be room for private sector medicine. We already collectively spend a lot more per person than any other country for less than excellent results. Receiving specific medication or treatment is not a right, but I do think we have a right to a society and government that strives for the well-being of one another -- which includes avoiding undue burdens as well. It's obviously complicated. In a magical world where everyone was either working, raising children, or earnestly pursuing work, I truly doubt this would be controversial.

I also believe we are approaching a point in time where the grasshoppers in our midst will become less and less burdensome as human labor becomes less relevant to the economy. Hard to say what that will ultimately mean for society, but there are some pleasant possibilities that I hope society chooses to figure out.

 

Is it the life, the liberty, or the pursuit that says you have a right to healthcare?

 

Well this has been a good talk I've just read through. I agree with the cotton-Norris consensus. No inalienable right to healthcare but a noble minded country should work to make sure it's affordable. we're all going down at some point. Some will have the luxury of going fast. For those that are unfortunate enough to go slow, it'd be nice not to go bankrupt in the process.

 

Laughed

 

What do you mean? I said reasonable expectation of access to healthcare, based on life, liberty and the pursuit. If you can't get care some people won't be living long. If you can't access basic care your liberty may be greatly impaired. Probably wouldn't be too happy with no access to health care if you are not well, either. Does that equate to a right to healthcare? Not precisely, but it is a reasonable expectation that this will be worked towards. I don't think it is more unreasonable or radical than a fair trial or representation in government is.

 

The part in bold is what I was wanting. You equate it with a fair trial and government representation, but aren't those things expressly described in the Constitution? Healthcare existed when the Bill of Rights was written. Why not include that if it's so important? And as far as life extension, the simple truth is that for most of Americans (those not diagnosed with an illness that absolutely requires medication to treat) access to a doctor is going to mean a lot less than diet and exercise for their general health.

 

Times have changed. I don't think healthcare was ~17% of the the GDP in 1789.

 

Nothing has changed regarding the fundamentals, just the perception.

 

Please explain or expound on what you mean.

 

I'd take a hose to the bucket.

Sent from my R1 HD using Tapatalk

 

That's about all there is to be done

 

I'd bet agriculture was a bigger component than that at the time. There were no laws specific to that in the Bill of Rights. The line from the Declaration of Independence was written about 15 years prior to the Bill of Rights. I'd think the founding fathers had time to consider the finer points and include them were they deemed necessary.

 

I think the founding fathers would have been against making it a right.

 

Mind you, I have changed my view on healthcare being a right. Why I consider it a moral imperative is this:

I can grow my own food. I cannot take out my own spleen if it is about to rupture.

 

Moral imperative is not really problem for me. As far as legal documents, I'm not so sure they have anything to do with moral imperatives. Hence, I am not a fan of pointing to government documents as a justification for distributing healthcare.

 

You have a ouija board or something? What would their thoughts be on assuming nothing that happened over 200 years would change circumstances?

 

I think they were flesh and blood, and lived in the 18th century.

 

Agriculture was commerce and property then. The FFs said PLENTY about commerce and property in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

 

Then I would think citing Thomas Jefferson's words probably isn't the best strategy.

 

Hence, why I used the term specific. Commerce and property are not at all specific terms.