The United States of America has positioned itself as the champion of the rights of the oppressed people of the world. If US can recognize inalienable rights of all members of the human race to a foundation of freedom, justice and peace; and to use our military to defend those rights then we must provide our own citizens access to basic healthcare.
I think some basic forms of health care are vital in any developed society. Knowing that you can go into a hospital if there is something fundamentally wrong with you, is an important part of creating a well-connected and vibrant society. I think having the resources to care for the sick, but not using it, would lower our moral standing overall.
The government can spend a trillion dollars on a war to keep us "safe", but if they spend a penny on healthcare, that' s socialism? We need protection from viruses more then we need protection from terrorists! The government is supposed to care about its citizens. Nobody asks to be born, and nobody asks to be sick. Only government officials deserve healthcare? I think not!
The 9th reads "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." If interested, I can provide cases that show the intent of this amendment was to preserve rights that weren't specifically enumerated because certain rights did not occur to them at the time. Yes, the founding fathers that were proponents of state rights and were concerned about overreach when drafting the bill of rights. Even proponents of a strong federal government were in general in favor of a bill of rights. A good question to ask is whether the founding documents or their supporting/explanatory documents mention healthcare. I doubt anything like that exists, but that is specifically why the 9th amendment exists, rights may not be denied specifically because they were not enumerated. It seems like a high mountain to climb, but anyone that can argue that they are pro-life and the sanctity of human life is protected in the constitution both on its face and in its intent would be hard pressed to argue that health care should not be provided by the state. While the 6th amendment does lay out the right to an attorney, it wasn't until Gideon v. Wainright that the state had to foot the bill. Because as one may ask, why should the attorneys provide their labor and services if one can't afford it? Well, because if the 6th calls for it, and the person can't pay, how can you honor the 6th amendment? It would take a court case establishing that each person has a right to healthcare under the 9th just as the right to an attorney is provided in the 6th for the same reason, a person's life is at stake. Now all of this is from a legal/constitutional stand point, from a logical and emotional standpoint, which admittedly is unfortunately far less relevant to some than others, there are certain things we will all face in this wacky ride called life, birth, sickness, and death, what better thing to call a fundamental right than to extend a service that every single last person in this country will face? I suppose we won't agree that there are just certain commodities/services that shouldn't be left to the free market. For example, would you agree with the statement that I can't afford a Ferrari therefore I am not entitled to own one is analogous to I can't afford life saving surgery, therefore I am not entitled to it? Surely, there must be some distinction here.
Healthcare is a fundamental right and should be treated as such. People should not have to go broke or worry about their bills when they want to go to the doctor. It should be free to do so, people are getting sick and not doing anything about it because they are broke.
If we treat our people like crap why would they do good things for us. I know I wouldn't. Basic health care should be a right not a privilege because we have a right to life liberty and the persute of happiness. And if that's in the constitution then it should be a law.
If our world would only realize that our most precious resource on this planet is Ourselves. Then we would begin to learn to respect and take care of each other as "Humans". If you don't think so than the word Human should not apply. If our goal is to be the best "Humans" that we can be, then our health has to be our number one priority. Without health we have "Nothing". Being a Human is what sets us apart from the animal world. It is inhumane to not provide health care to All other humans. This should come first, before we do anything else in this life that we have been so blessed with.
Universal Health Care should be treated as the cost of doing business in the USA. Our Country is basically a business. We make products we use and sell here and around the world. In order to make sure that business runs smoothly, we need a nation of healthy workers. It makes good business sense and it makes good financial sense.
If you have a good health care system, you will save money with preventative care and the system will be borne over the entire country, and not on the backs of any specific group, like businesses. And it appears that our founding Fathers had the same thought. From our Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
How can you have any of those without your health?
Many countries have this written into their constitutions. Many are adding it. We should too. It makes sense.
Although I think everyone should have healthcare, I don't think a government run system is the answer. I'm a dual citizen (Canada and America) and In my province (Quebec), health care is a disaster. It takes me two to three months to get a doctor's appointment. When you do get it, the doctor takes care of one issue and one issue only (it's the doctor's policy) as they get paid per patient they see. It depends on the doctor, but some doctors see 10-12 patients an hour, although the average is probably closer 6-8 (10 minutes of time with the doctor). Even then doctor's still go on strike due to their poor pay (This is rare and hasn't happened in a while, but the sentiment is definitely still there). Where I live, which is a college town with rural surroundings, we have a huge hospital which serves 130,000-170,000 people (a lot less then it could) and it is one of the fastest hospitals in the province, but if you have a moderate injury (non-lethal cut, broken nose, etc...) it can take 4-5 hours to get treatment because people flood the free emergency rooms with trivial "injuries", like the sniffles. In Montreal, it's actually faster to drive into Ontario and get treatment at one of the less crowded border hospitals than it is to wait upwards of 10 hours! The same injury in America would take no more than 30 minutes. Although we do have a side by side private system, it is unpopular, not due to the cost, but because the government has essentially cornered the market on insurance and paying taxes for the insurance (which is mandatory) as well as paying for private insurance, which is redundant (which due to the limited amounted of buyers the cost is higher). Something that is more popular than ever is private clinics that won't even take any insurance and just take cash upfront. These clinics don't have 12 month (maybe on the high side but not uncommon) waiting times for X-rays, specialist visits, surgery, or any other uncommon procedure. To a lot of people, the several thousands of dollars that these operations can cost is well worth it instead of dying while waiting for treatment. The only service that works well is the dental service, and there is no government interference there. If government were to get involved it would have to, instead of taking over hospitals and clinics, offer competing insurance to people who are disadvantaged and negotiate drug costs, which is what is killing Medicare Medicaid. This insurance would not be free, but rather at cost to the government and could be paid by these people's taxes.
I have other issues with the government becoming over involved with its citizen's lives, as to reduce cost. Quebec is a great example, as alcohol and cigarettes are consumed here like its nobody's business, in spite of insanely high regulation and taxes on both of them.
People has the right to *SEEK* healthcare, it does not imply people have the right to *demand* healthcare at no cost. Healthcare is a service and so you have the right to go seek it, and the provider have the right to charge you for that service. Nobody should be forced to provide healthcare at no cost.
The reason why healthcare is so expensive is because the provider has to charge those that paid to cover the cost of those that don't or default. EMTALA should be abolished as should Medicaid and CHIP. Put the responsibility to pay back to the individual seeking healthcare or his/her parents.
Free means someone else is paying for it. Free Healthcare will bankrupt
the rich or the middle class or both. Our tax rate will increase by a lot
Our tax rate is 50%. This rate itself is unacceptable.How could businesses succeed if this is the tax rate.The answer is we must not
giveaway healthcare and cut taxes.
Most people confuse this issue. People have the free will to access healthcare, as they would any other product or service. The health care system reserves the right to charge for products and service, just as would any other business. However, health care seems to be the only industry to be demonized for expecting payment or even a little profitability. The federal government's "gift" of the EMTALA mandate has skewed this entire issue. While a good intentioned piece of legislation, the American public has confused the intent of EMTALA, the obligation of the ER to provide a medical evaluation, stabilization and plan of care prior to discharge, with a right to any kind of health care and no obligation to pay at any time they want it. Complicating the issue is that healthcare is the only product and service where people die if not available to them. Does this make it a right? No necessarily. It makes it a crucial service.
Health care for children should be a right, same as education. Once you're an adult there is no reason your fellow citizens should be compelled to deliver a service of this magnitude to another, just for being alive.
We have a right to pursue our own healthy (or unhealthy) lifestyle. Why should the healthy be forced to subsidize the ones who make poor decisions, the smokers, the obese, the lazy who never exercise.
I can see MAYBE some exceptions made for people with unavoidable illness due to genetics, and I already mentioned children who are not always in a position to take proper care of themselves. But in general no it is not a right.
Fundamentally a right is something one can have without any action by another. A person has a fundamental right to free speech. A person has a right to voice their opinion. That person does not need someone else to "do" something in order to voice their opinion. That person just needs to voice it.
A person as a right to bear arms. If you want to bear a weapon, you can go out and buy one (or in some instances make one), but again, no one has to "do" anything. Similarly, you do not have a right to a handgun. Society is not and should not be compelled to give you one (but you can go out and by one if you so desire).
Healthcare is not a right, because someone else has to "do" something. The healthcare provider must give you their service. You have a right to be as healthy as you can (eating right, exercising, etc.) but the moment that someone else is compelled by the government to provide you with their time, service, resources, money, etc their right to their own property is violated.
Government (by the consent of the governed) can mandate what it wants. They can tax and spend as they see fit. If the people want to provide the money to others so that they can afford healthcare, then so be it. However, it still doesn't make healthcare a right.