In last night's Democratic debate, someone (I forget just who it was) declared that healthcare is "a human right." I have heard this previously. But this begs the question: Even if it is true--and I have some serious reservations about it--does a "human" right trump a constitutional right? In other words, if it could be positively demonstrated that healthcare is, indeed, a human right--but not that it is a constitutional right--which is really of greater importance? Please discuss.
The Constitution does not mention healthcare, but the Declaration of Independence states "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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men". So the Declaration of Independence unequivocally links these rights to the obligations of government, and the Constitution lays out our government structure and its obligations. The notion of a "right" indicates that a right must be provided for by some government-enforced conditions, like funding, protections against infringement, and conditions necessary for the right to be enjoyed. Many details are necessary for the right to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be realized. And yet the individual realization of those rights cannot, themselves, be guaranteed equally. But the condition in which a person would be able to achieve and realize those rights must be provided and guaranteed. No government can guarantee a person's life; they may suffer a fatal accident, for example. But government must provide protections from murder in the form of laws and enforcement and funding the costs of that enforcement through taxation as provided in the Constitution. One very obvious contributor to a person's ability to realize life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is their health. Without adequate health, a person may not live when they could have with medical care, or they may not enjoy the liberty to write a book, paint a picture, watch a sunset, or sit in a garden and listen to the birds without medical care, or they may not be able to enjoy the pursuit of happiness if they are in pain or must remain in bed due to absence of medical treatment that would have enabled them to get about. And there are many conditions that would deprive a person of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness it the condition is not treated, like diabetes, cancer, inflamed bowel, gastritis, and hundreds of other afflictions. Government, then, is responsible for providing the conditions by which people may achieve and realize life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And one of those conditions is the fair distribution of access to medical care. Hence access to healthcare is a moral human right that must also be codified as a legal human right by government. And so government is obligated, as presented above, to fund access to healthcare for the reasons given so as to guarantee access to healthcare as a right. The Declaration of Independence asserts it and the Constitution provides the means.
By the way, the Supreme Court has ruled that the first obligation of a corporation is to maximize profits for shareholders. And that is achieved in the health insurance industry by taking in as much money as possible, and paying out as little as possible. The business model is not suitable for the distribution of health insurance then due to conflicts of interest.
I am not a Liberal, and this is one more reason I am not a Conservative. Abandoning people who need help is inhumane. Hundreds of thousands of people die each year in USA due to lack of Medical Insurance.
I am not quite sure just how the "right" of one person must be subsidized by others--or how it may involve some sacrifice by others. (And remember, please, when we speak of government's paying for something, we are really speaking of the taxpayers paying for it.) And I really do not believe that the Framers understood "rights" in this way, either.
"Right of one person"? Who? Can you name that person? How about the "right" of a person to get his car fixed without paying for it? Is insurance only ok if it is provided by a profitable company? The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness requires government funding just as does a person's right to a fair trial by a jury of his peers. Consider the taxpayer cost of our judicial system, hearings, trials, prisons, etc. Not all rights are without cost. (Please don't insult me by suggesting I may not realize that government runs on taxpayer dollars.) I think your next step may be for you to explain how you believe the Framers understood rights.
I would assert that the Framers understood rights--as Barack Obama once declared (and I do not often refer to him as my standard)--as "negative" rights. That is to say, the rights named in the Constitution, and its amendments, are rights of the people to be free from government interference--not rights of the individual to expect a handout from government.
How about the right to a fair and speedy trial by a jury of your peers ..... --delivered by government? How about being provided with the chance of realizing the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by receiving Medicaid, Medicare, SNAP, etc.? Or do you believe all the government must do is to not interfere with seeking life, liberty, and happiness and there is no need to actively prevent others from depriving some people of those rights and no need to create a more level playing field so a person's accident of birth or genetic infirmities don't deny them of those rights? And if so, why? I already detailed my reasons for government funding of some rights but you didn't refute any of it with reasoning and/or facts that I recall. You just re-asserted your opposite view. Shall we call it quits and just "agree to disagree"? Is that where we are with this? I mean, you did want to discuss this.
Did the Framers really believe that we should, as a nation, embrace the basic philosophy of The New Deal (FDR) and The Great Society (LBJ)? But please let me reiterate--and I sincerely hope that you will not simply ignore this--even if healthcare truly is a human right, does that trump a constitutional right in America? If you cannot (or, at any rate, do not) answer this, then you are just tap dancing around the question presented in the OP. I am not aware of the Constitution's speaking of the need to "create a more level playing field." Or do you believe that we have outgrown the Constitution, and should, therefore, go beyond it, when it does not directly comport with liberal, twenty-first-century orthodoxy? What I wanted to discuss is whether human rights trump constitutional rights in America. So far, you have declined to address this matter.
Did the Framers say that all women of the state of Alabama should be denied access to abortion? Did they believe that a president should be allowed to own and operate a business while in office? Do you see where I'm going with this? Are they mutually exclusive? Can't a constitutional protection or right dictate a human right? The S.C. has ruled in favor of civil rights. How do civil rights relate to constitutional rights and human rights? It is not necessary to limit our laws to simply repeating the words of the Constitution. We are free, under the Constitution, to permit legislators to pass any law as long as it does not violate the Constitution. The declaration of healthcare as a lawful human right does not seem to me to violate the Constitution. Indeed, as I originally laid out, I see the Constitution supporting it. I am not aware of the Constitution referring to the need for capitalism. Oh. Well... should we eliminate any notion of there being a right to privacy since that is beyond what the Constitution provides? Maybe we should also eliminate the Air Force since the Constitution doesn't mention it.
Not. So, a right is the ability to engage in an activity without government interference and with no cost to anyone for the activity. The bill of rights deals only with these true natural rights. Health care cannot be a right because it costs someone plenty to engage in it. It is a privilege or a benefit or something other than a right.
Are you saying that your right to a speedy trial by a jury of your peers is not really a right because the government provides it and funds the costs from taxpayer revenue?
No. A speedy trial costs the people no more than a deferred one. Nobody gives anything up for people to exercise the right. Sadly, nobody gets a speedy jury trial in this country any more.
So then assuring people of their rights sometimes has a cost. Thanks for reversing your position on this.
Health insurance should be the same as car, house, public liability or any other insurance. Everyone pays in and the unlucky ones who need it get the benefit. Those who don't need it should thank their luck. Whether individuals foot the bill or the government does it through tax is a choice to be made. For sure, getting decent medical care is something that any civilised country should give its people.
The Constitution, to the best of my knowledge, does not mention abortion at all. "Human rights"--as defined by some--can, indeed, be antithetical to constitutional rights; especially if healthcare is to be embraced as a human right. When this is actually the case, which should trump the other? And why? And what do you mean, exactly, by the High Court's ruling "in favor of civil rights"? Yes, we are. But the question--which you seem to be tap dancing around--is this: When constitutional rights come into conflict with human rights, which should take precedence in America? You have still not answered this basic question. And I am really not hopeful that you will do so. The only way that I might imagine your coming to this conclusion is if you take a very broad view of the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution. But I take a very narrow view. (Perhaps this is why I very much like justices Thomas, Alito, and--new to the High Court--Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.) This is not even a serious rebuttal; so it really does not deserve a serious answer. The "right to privacy" has often been embellished--as, for instance, by the Warren Court, in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) and its successor, Roe v. Wade (1973). As for eliminating the Air Force, that is downright silly. Airplanes did not even exist in the late eighteenth century. But the need for medicine did; and there was not established, then, some sort of free healthcare in America.
Well, you asked "Did the Framers really believe that we should, as a nation, embrace the basic philosophy of The New Deal (FDR) and The Great Society (LBJ)? My reply is the same: the Constitution, to the best of my knowledge, does not mention FDR or The New Deal. There's no point in you mentioning that, however, if you're not going to present and defend such views. But it's never actually the case. Didn't the S.C. rule in favor of civil rights on more than 20 occasions? Oh, but I have..... with every post. There is no conflict. Then you can imagine me coming to that conclusion. Good. And I posted that view in detail. I don't doubt that. Good. I feel the same way about your objection to a "level playing field". But "right o privacy" is not mentioned in the Constitution. Are you saying that if the S.C. upholds a right to healthcare that you'll change your view of it then? Regarding the Air Force, you have advocated some things that the Constitution doesn't mention and weren't issues at the time of its writing, like the New Deal. And you've opposed the notion of rights as anything positive.... i.e. as something... anything.... that the government would have to provide. But the Constitution provides a right to a trial by a jury one one's peers, and that certainly costs plenty to provide. So you've allowed things that are within the meaning of the Constitution and costs money, while objecting to other things that are also Constitutional and cost money, and the difference seems to be strictly your own personal partisan preferences. You've also rejected the notion that any rights specifically provided in the Constitution is a "negative" and so doesn't cost anything of anyone. But I mentioned your right to a trial by a jury of your peers in post 6 but you didn't touch it in your post #7. You're going to have to be a bit more forthcoming and fair about my posts and your responses to keep my interest.
