• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is healthcare a right?

The fact that healthcare is a right doesn't mean that medical careis mandated or that medication will be forced.

Where does this claim come from. The SCOTUS has already ruled that we cannot be forced to be medicated against our will.

ABA

In California, and now in many states, children who are not vaccinated are not allowed to attend school. they are also removing "religious and belief exemptions", and making it even harder to get a doctor's exemption.


I'm against such mandated laws. I know, the kids are supposed to be homeschooled, but many cannot afford to do that.
 
Your facts have no authority in these parts.

Thats cuz they're inconvenient.

I'd love to see the look on his face when sees how wrong he is. lol
 
Thats cuz they're inconvenient.

I'd love to see the look on his face when sees how wrong he is. lol

He is just going to claim that you are interpreting what you read the wrong way. I'm just getting in with my prediction before it happens so I can actually take credit for having done so.....lol
 
In California, and now in many states, children who are not vaccinated are not allowed to attend school. they are also removing "religious and belief exemptions", and making it even harder to get a doctor's exemption.


I'm against such mandated laws. I know, the kids are supposed to be homeschooled, but many cannot afford to do that.
Homeschooling is dangerous and counter productive and should not be permitted, except in extremely rare instances.

Until there is some proof that there is a problem with vaccines I support their requirement in public schools. I was concerned with vaccines when this claim was first mentioned in the early 1990s but information proved that it was wrong.
 
The ruling in US v. Butler is opposite to what you are claiming.


You are wrong.

I provided a direct link to both Supreme Court cases. You obviously didn't bother to read either. Your source is bogus, as usual.
 
I was wrong. It should have been per person and not per family. Are you satisfied now?

OK, but $8K per person is $24K per (3 person) household annually or $2K/month in M4A premiums. I know that my girlfriend and I could not afford to spend $16K/year on M4A premiums with our combined incomes of under $40K/year.
 
See Post #42 above. Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 grants Congress the power to levy taxes for the purpose of the general welfare. They may not do whatever they please in the name of the general welfare, but only levy taxes for that purpose.

As Thomas Jefferson put it in 1791 when discussing the issue of the National Bank:


Which, not surprisingly, sounds very much like what the Supreme Court ruled in 1936.

The situation has changed since 1791. Slavery was legal in 1791 as well. Marbury v. Madison (1803)had not yet been decided when Jefferson wrote that.

What is it that you are afraid of with universal healthcare?
 
What is "healthcare," first of all?

Modern medicine becomes increasingly technological, and increasingly expensive. Does every human being have a right to the latest high tech medical interventions? No matter how expensive?

What is the limit, and is there any limit?

If we are going to have universal health care, it should be basic emergency interventions. That's all I want. Not everyone believes in mainstream modern medicine. We should NOT all be forced to pay for it. I would rather not pay high taxes so all Americans, no matter how irresponsible they are about their own health, can have expensive mainstream interventions.

If we ever get universal healthcare, I hope it will include health education.

Even in countries with universal healthcare, they have limits on what is covered by public healthcare. Its just impractical to give unlimited healthcare to everyone. What we need is a practical healthcare system that reduces the overall costs while covering everyone affordably.
 
OK, but $8K per person is $24K per (3 person) household annually or $2K/month in M4A premiums. I know that my girlfriend and I could not afford to spend $16K/year on M4A premiums with our combined incomes of under $40K/year.

How much do you spend now on healthcare?
The current average appears to be 10k per per per annum. If MfA was $8k per person, then that would be a significant savings.
 
Even in countries with universal healthcare, they have limits on what is covered by public healthcare. Its just impractical to give unlimited healthcare to everyone. What we need is a practical healthcare system that reduces the overall costs while covering everyone affordably.

We could have complete coverage and it likely would be cheaper than the current system. Costs go down with more people in the plan.
 
The situation has changed since 1791. Slavery was legal in 1791 as well. Marbury v. Madison (1803)had not yet been decided when Jefferson wrote that.

What is it that you are afraid of with universal healthcare?

What part of United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936) were you not able to grasp? Nothing changed between 1791 and 1936. Why would you think the US Constitution suddenly means something different today than it has for the last 230 years?
 
OK, but $8K per person is $24K per (3 person) household annually or $2K/month in M4A premiums. I know that my girlfriend and I could not afford to spend $16K/year on M4A premiums with our combined incomes of under $40K/year.

Even with a good catastrophic plan, a 10 day hospital stay is gonna cost you more than that 16K, so its not like your saving money in the worst case scenario. And lets not even talk about the fact that if you are worried about paying that premium, its pretty safe to assume that you don't have the money saved up to pay your portion of the stay even after the plan kicks in anyway.
 
I provided a direct link to both Supreme Court cases. You obviously didn't bother to read either. Your source is bogus, as usual.

Butler isn't what you claimed it was. The courts didn't support your claim.
In an opinion written by Justice Roberts, the majority declared the Act unconstitutional because it attempted to regulate and control agricultural production, an arena reserved to the states. Congress’ Spending Power (Article I, Section 8) is restricted to situations in which it is being used for the general welfare of the people. Agricultural production historically lies beyond the authority of the federal government to regulate. Although Congress does have the power to tax and appropriate funds, in this case those activities were "but means to an unconstitutional end.” That is, Congress was using the spending power as an enforcement mechanism to control activity that was completely within the authority of the states. Thus, the Act violated the Constitution.
 
See Post #42 above. Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 grants Congress the power to levy taxes for the purpose of the general welfare. They may not do whatever they please in the name of the general welfare, but only levy taxes for that purpose.

As Thomas Jefferson put it in 1791 when discussing the issue of the National Bank:


Which, not surprisingly, sounds very much like what the Supreme Court ruled in 1936.

Jefferson and Madison lost that debate. Washington and Hamilton went on to create the First National Bank in 1791. And congress first mandated health care in 1798....meaning there is a precedent for congress to mandate health care insurance and it was set by the founders themselves.

A Little Perspective: Congress First Mandated Health Care in 1798
 
Jefferson and Madison lost that debate. Washington and Hamilton went on to create the First National Bank in 1791. And congress first mandated health care in 1798....meaning there is a precedent for congress to mandate health care insurance and it was set by the founders themselves.

A Little Perspective: Congress First Mandated Health Care in 1798

You forget the Supreme Court rulings. The federal government cannot mandate "universal" anything on the States, and General Welfare is not a power granted to Congress.

As attested by the fact that 32 States have refused to allow State Exchanges for the unconstitutional Affordable Healthcare Act. There are only 12 State Exchanges, and 6 Exchanges shared between the States and the federal government. All of those States who willingly violate the US Constitution, naturally, are run by Democrats. Of the 32 States that refuse Exchanges, 28 of them are challenging the constitutionality of the Affordable Healthcare Act to the Supreme Court as we speak.
 
Butler isn't what you claimed it was. The courts didn't support your claim.

Follow the link I provided and stop posting your bogus Wikipedia sources. Until you have actually read the decision you will remain clueless and not worthy of a response.
 
Follow the link I provided and stop posting your bogus Wikipedia sources. Until you have actually read the decision you will remain clueless and not worthy of a response.

#63 isn't from Wiki.

{{meta.fullTitle}}


What is your main opposition to enacting universal healthcare?
 
I'm not confusing anything. My girlfriend and I now spend about $3,200/year on our Medicare part B premiums alone and that only covers 80% of any outpatient care after our annual deductibles (about $400) are met. We make under $40K/year combined so that is far more than 4% of our income being spent on Medicare premiums alone - we now spend at least 10% of our combined incomes on medical care costs.

We're on Medicare part B and spend about $3200 a year, too. The payments are for Part B's Medicare Advantage which covers the 20% that Medicare A doesn't cover. I have AARP's United Healthcare Medicare Complete Plan 2 which has zero deductibles if I go to a doctor that accepts Medicare. But I'm going to change to another plan because the one I currently have requires referrals...and I don't want to do that. Both my husband and I have pensions and SS so we're not hurting financially. But if prices keep going up that may change.
 
You forget the Supreme Court rulings. The federal government cannot mandate "universal" anything on the States, and General Welfare is not a power granted to Congress.

As attested by the fact that 32 States have refused to allow State Exchanges for the unconstitutional Affordable Healthcare Act. There are only 12 State Exchanges, and 6 Exchanges shared between the States and the federal government. All of those States who willingly violate the US Constitution, naturally, are run by Democrats. Of the 32 States that refuse Exchanges, 28 of them are challenging the constitutionality of the Affordable Healthcare Act to the Supreme Court as we speak.

The Supreme Court Says the Health Care Mandate is a Constitutional Tax

The Supreme Court Says the Health Care Mandate is a Constitutional Tax | Tax Policy Center


Article one, Section 8 says congress has the power to provide for the general welfare....through laying and collecting taxes.
 
He is just going to claim that you are interpreting what you read the wrong way. I'm just getting in with my prediction before it happens so I can actually take credit for having done so.....lol

Nope...he's still denying the welfare clause. lol Some people never learn, I guess.
 
The Supreme Court Says the Health Care Mandate is a Constitutional Tax

The Supreme Court Says the Health Care Mandate is a Constitutional Tax | Tax Policy Center


Article one, Section 8 says congress has the power to provide for the general welfare....through laying and collecting taxes.

You are correct, the Supreme Court did hold that the mandate "penalty" in the Affordable Healthcare Act was a tax. Congress does indeed have the constitutional authority to levy taxes. That was never disputed. What Congress does not have is the unlimited power to do whatever they please for the General Welfare. The General Welfare is the purpose, not a power. Taxation is the power, for the purpose of the General Welfare.
 
You are correct, the Supreme Court did hold that the mandate "penalty" in the Affordable Healthcare Act was a tax. Congress does indeed have the constitutional authority to levy taxes. That was never disputed. What Congress does not have is the unlimited power to do whatever they please for the General Welfare. The General Welfare is the purpose, not a power. Taxation is the power, for the purpose of the General Welfare.

I can agree with that. :thumbs:
 
Yeah what? If one has to work in order to provide these things for themselves and their dependents (or do without) then how are they "rights"?

According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, spearheaded by the US in 1948 and subsequently signed by most nations of the world, access to healthcare is a right- along with food, clean water, and a basic education.

During World War II, the Allies adopted the Four Freedoms—freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from fear, and freedom from want—as their basic war aims.[8][9] The United Nations Charter "reaffirmed faith in fundamental human rights, and dignity and worth of the human person" and committed all member states to promote "universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion".[10]

When the atrocities committed by Nazi Germany became fully apparent after World War II, the consensus within the world community was that the United Nations Charter did not sufficiently define the rights to which it referred.[11][12] A universal declaration that specified the rights of individuals was necessary to give effect to the Charter's provisions on human rights...

British representatives were extremely frustrated that the proposal had moral but no legal obligation.[20] (It was not until 1976 that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights came into force, giving a legal status to most of the Declaration.)...

The Universal Declaration was adopted by the General Assembly as Resolution 217 on 10 December 1948 in Palais de Chaillot, Paris, as the third United Nations General Assembly was held there.[21] Of the then 58 members[22] of the United Nations, 48 voted in favour, none against, eight abstained[23][24] and Honduras and Yemen failed to vote or abstain.[25]

The meeting record[26] provides firsthand insight into the debate. South Africa's position can be seen as an attempt to protect its system of apartheid, which clearly violated several articles in the Declaration.[23] The Saudi Arabian delegation's abstention was prompted primarily by two of the Declaration's articles: Article 18, which states that everyone has the right "to change his religion or belief"; and Article 16, on equal marriage rights.[23] The six communist countries abstentions centred around the view that the Declaration did not go far enough in condemning fascism and Nazism.[27] However, Eleanor Roosevelt attributed the abstention of Soviet bloc countries to Article 13, which provided the right of citizens to leave their countries.[28]

Other countries only gained sovereignty and joined the United Nations later,[31] which explains the relatively small number of states entitled to the historical vote, and in no way reflects opposition to the universal principles

Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Wikipedia

So ironic that this document, originally spearheaded by the US and its allies as a response to the horrors of Nazi Germany, and opposed initially only by the Soviet bloc countries, South Africa under apartheid, and Saudi Arabia, are now so under siege right here at home. Sad.
 
Last edited:
Does every human being have a right to the latest high tech medical interventions? No matter how expensive?

No, only the ones who pay for it with their taxes.

End thread.
 
According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, spearheaded by the US in 1948 and subsequently signed by most nations of the world, access to healthcare is a right- along with food, clean water, and a basic education.



So ironic that this document, originally spearheaded by the US and its allies as a response to the horrors of Nazi Germany, and opposed initially only by the Soviet bloc countries, South Africa under apartheid, and Saudi Arabia, are now so under siege right here at home. Sad.

These rights were first enunciated by FDR in 1941. They were beautifully captured by Norman Rockwell in these 4 famous paintings:

In his State of the Union address on 6 January 1941, Roosevelt warned against a threat to the very survival of the United States: “I address you, the members of the 77th Congress, at a moment unprecedented in the history of the Union. I use the word ‘unprecedented’ because at no previous time has American security been as seriously threatened from without as it is today.”
Roosevelt was speaking almost exactly 11 months before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941 that forced America into the second world war – yet his State of the Union address is clearly a war leader’s speech. Calling for massive rearmament and unequivocal support for countries fighting fascism, Roosevelt argues that democracy itself is in peril: “Every realist knows that the democratic way of life is at this moment being directly assailed in every part of the world – assailed either by arms, or by secret spreading of poisonous propaganda by those who seek to destroy unity and promote discord in nations that are still at peace.”

Rockwell takes Roosevelt’s speech and turns its manifesto for global democracy into four homely and moving everyday moments. Their appeal is visceral: to parents wanting their children to be safe, to people happy to get a good meal after the privations of the Great Depression. His warm realist style allows him to lodge Roosevelt’s ideals in the hearts of his audience. Yet to do this, he narrows the message. He is the artist of small-town America, and he translates Roosevelt’s internationalism into that cosier language. Rockwell makes the four freedoms look innately American.
Oddly enough, that weakness has become a strength. For it is Rockwell’s American freedoms that are in danger. Trump’s agenda seems to demand a direct clash with American liberalism and American liberties. Either he will destroy American freedom or it will destroy him. Look at Rockwell’s paintings. Will these freedoms endure?

Norman Rockwell's Four Freedoms remind us what the US has to lose | Art and design | The Guardian
 
Back
Top Bottom