Is health care a right or a privelege?

No, I meant what I said; "most affordable". Whereas you post liberal opinions, I post rational thoughts based on rational evidence; you should try it sometime.

http://healthblog.ncpa.org/why-cant-the-market-for-medical-care-work-like-cosmetic-surgery/

The bottom line is that unless healthcare and health insurance once again become consumer based entities, we will never again have affordable healthcare or affordable health insurance.

 

The only correlation between rights and the Constitution is the Constitution (more specifically the Bill of Rights) mandates that all rights be protected. The first 8 Amendments protects specific rights and the 9th Amendment protects all other (unenumerated) rights. The 10th Amendment limits the powers of government to those specifically granted to it by the Constitution. Or conversely, prohibits the federal government from acquiring powers not granted to it by the Constitution.

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." - Thomas Jefferson, principle author of our founding document (and ironically, a slave owner)

If that were true, the government can decide anything within its agenda is a "compelling interest" and use that pretext to override the Bill of Rights. The 10th Amendment however states otherwise (nothing in the 10th Amendment says anything about any exception). Unfortunately, there's no realistic provision in the Constitution to enforce the Constitution on the government. So in practice government regularly tramples on the Bill of Rights (i.e. it always concocts a "compelling interest").

 

What country does that?

 

You are confusing rights with the budget. They are separate issues

 

Do you have a right for me to service you?

 

For the types of services listed in my link, the US does that, and I suspect a number of other countries as well. So the question is not "what country does that", but why don't countries do more of it. Or more broadly, why do so many expect health insurance to cover every minutia of our healthcare needs, when all it does is raise the cost of healthcare.

The simple reality is that the more we are willing to pay out-of-pocket, outside of insurance and government bureaucracy, the more affordable healthcare will become for all.

 

And yet no country will fully adopt this model. For a reason

 

Yes, it doesn't create votes.

 

I guess you are screwed then....unless you prefer dictatorship? Lol

 

Okay you clearly missed an obvious problem with your view of rights. If the 9th Amendment gives me a "right to healthcare" does it also give me a "right to a 4k tv" or a "right to a Lamborghini" etc. etc.

Your opinion seems to be that we have a right to EVERYTHING barring "compelling interest." Should the government just buy us everything imaginable since we have a right to all of it?

In other words, I can take your view on the 9th Amendment and logically apply it in such a way that the government has to buy everybody everything imaginable.

 

So I have a right to force you to provide me medical care?

 

If a law is passed that everyone gets a 4k tv then it would be constitutional. Absolutely. I look forward to the bill

 

Okay, so healthcare is not a right until a bill is passed by the American Congress, and only pursuant of your interpretation of the Constitution, correct?

 

Scotus could do it too.

 

The twin markers of a civilised society, and one which has evolved beyond "dog-eat-dog", is healthcare and education for all.

 

I guess we'll just have to be uncivilized.

 

Life, Liberty and the pusuit of happiness are directly dependent on health, making healthcare a right. No one can lawfully deprive you of it.

Having others provide it for you is a privaledge. You cannot force other people to provide you a product or a service. That is called slavery.

If you want to do the research and learn how to 'fix' yourself, you can and should be allowed to do it (which is partially why blocking self medication, aka the war on drugs is unconstitutional). If you want someone else to do the work (and the research) for you, you are obligated to pay them for it unless they will voluntarily do it for free.

I also think the government restricting people from practicing medicine without a liscence is also unconstitutional and counterproductive to the cause of healthcare proliferation. I fully support established, accredited liscencing institutions existing for the purposes of creating a trusted, reliable, accountable system for quality healthcare, but restricting competition from outside thst system undermines the quality and affordability of that system. You can keep your liscenced health care professionals without restricting people from competing alternatives.

 

We require public teachers to teach. They are not slaves. Healthcare can work the same way

 

do they teach without pay? are they allowed to quit if they decide they are unhappy with the arrangement?

 

Too bad the democrats are more worried about providing health insurance and not actual healthcare. One day my fellow leftards will realize that big corporate subsidies will never really work in favor of the little guy.

 

Of course they are not slaves. But the people who pay property taxes to pay their salaries under threat of having their property seized (especially those with no children to educate) could be argued to be slaves.

 

No we pay them and they can quit anytime. Just like socialized medicine

 

No they are not. No one forces you to buy a house.

 

The only property of 'real' value in owning is land. Its the source of all other property or resource. Just because the govt monopolized the land by taxing *all* of it doesnt mean we *volunteer* to pay taxes by buying it. Its still coersion.

 

That's America. The door leaving the country is wide open