Please read the supporting links for this discussion in the first comments after the intro,  as it clearly explains the question.  Did Thomas Jefferson , in framing the Constitution, leave  the opening for defining rights in our Constitution? Is healthcare a right or a privilege?

Many commentators have defined healthcare as a privilege  Websters offers this definition:

privi·lege (priv′ə lij, priv′lij)

noun

1. a right, advantage, favor, or immunity specially granted to one; esp., a right held by a certain individual, group, or class, and withheld from certain others or all others


2. a basic civil right, guaranteed by a government


3. an option, as a put or call, to buy or sell a stock

Definition of a Right  websters

noun

1. what is right, or just, lawful, morally good, proper, correct, etc.


2. 
   
   
   
   1. that which a person has a just claim to; power, privilege, etc. that belongs to a person by law, nature, or tradition the right of free speech
   
   
   2. an interest in property, real or intangible
   
   
   
   

The US Social Contract and Health Care

Posted by dwsnyderbelousek on 08/14/09 10:27 PM
Last updated 08/14/09 10:49 PM

<!-- AddThis Button BEGIN --> <!-- AddThis Button END -->
[Older: Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness...and Health Care]

Yes, libertyspirit, I do realize what I have argued. This is the standard position of the natural law tradition: it is the legitimate function of government to protect the right to life, and to do so equally for all persons (i.e., equal protection of the laws, as the US Constitution puts it).

But back to the point. My question remains unanswered: where is the error in the argument? If one accepts the premises of natural law theory, which I assume most libertarians (following Locke) do accept, then why not accept the conclusion?

And what is all this talk of "coercion" and "force" that keeps being repeated? Am I to understand that libertarians regard legislation as essentially oppression (a crime against liberty) and taxation as essentially theft (a crime against property)? What has happened to the consent of the governed?

The very liberal theory of political authority advocated by Locke, and accepted by libertarians, legitimizes both legislation and taxation. The just powers of government derive from the free consent of the governed, so the theory goes; and free individuals grant their consent for the sake of protecting and preserving their common natural rights, which include (according to Locke): life, health, liberty and property. Insofar as legislation and taxation receive the consent of the governed (expressed through the majority vote of elected representatives) and are aimed at securing our common rights, neither violates the rights to liberty and property.

Therefore: Legislation establishing a public health insurance option subsidized by taxation, as long as it is enacted with the consent of the governed (expressed through the majority vote of elected representatives), does not necessarily involve "coercion" or "force" any more than does public education or national defense, both of which are supported by taxation, enjoy the consent of the governed, and are intended to serve the common good.

Why should we think of health care in any different terms than public education or national defense? The question here is evidently not one of philosophy: a public health insurance option is no more contrary to natural law than a public education system or a national defense system. The real question, it seems to me, is whether we, the people of this nation, shall decide that health care is to be an essential element of our social contract, on a par with national defense and public education, or not. 

To put it another way: the preamble of the US Constitution states that "We the people" have established this constitution "in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."  The question in the health care debate concerns the constitutionally legitimate function of our government to "promote the general welfare."  We as a nation decided generations ago that public eduction was to be included in "the general welfare." Access to public education is now an essential element of our social contract; and denial of equal access to public education is a violation of a constitutionally guaranteed civil right.  The question before us is this: shall we do for health care as we have done for education, establish universal access through a public insurance option?

Various reasonable arguments might be made for why not, but that doing so would violate liberal political principles founded in natural law theory and instituted through constitutional government is not one of them.

Therefore my readers, friends and foes, Liberals and Conservatives here is my , nay our dilemma...

Right to life folks say unborn is human being,  and it has rights.

Health care for all folks say healthcare is a right.

Mother is carrying the unborn and she must take care of the unborn since it is human and has rights , she may not willfully kill it.

If you murder a mother carrying the unborn it counts as two murder charges because the unborn has rights too.

The mother must have access to good health care to insure the right of the unborn to life, if she only has a privilege to healthcare and she cannot afford it and she developes pre-ecclampsia, diabetes, incompetent cerivx , folate deficiency etcetc and the unborne is at risk, then the government is not insuring the rights of the unborn this would against the constitution since government must provide for our rights.

Therefore the government must create a special exception to give health care to pregnant women except that would be unconstitutional under the Equal protection clause>>>SOOOOO

If I believe in government insuring healthcare for all is a right I must become anti abortion.

But if you believe in pro-life you must support happily and vigorously universal healthcare for all under our Constitution.

Talk amongst yourselves.. 

Mr. Brown,

I agree, the unfortunate concern for the wealthy by people in a profession who will never be paid what they are worth is sad.  i have a family friend who is ridiculously wealthy, much of it made by opening and running Fox stations in the early days and they laugh at the way the masses buy into the propoganda they feed them everyday.  They manipulate folks to vote against their own self-interest and the benefit of society to generate shareholder profits and wealth for the few.  Much of that wealth is invested out of the country and does not benefit our middle class.

I do hope we can get past this time where there is so much venom and lies from the party out of office.  The party of NO, by the way that is their stated position.  No ideas, no innovation, no enlightenment.

You are right, i have too many times seen folks have to leave a hospital unable to get all their care or afford all their meds.  I've known 30 people in 10 years who had to choose eating dog food or their meds.  Good samaritans only help for so long then they have no other way to make ends meet on a fixed income.  Really, in the greatest wealthiest country on earth we can't do better?

mrbrownrn49 says ...

I used to watch Fox news until it became the National Enquirer of the broadcast news programs. It follows the Rupert Murdoch algorithm for tawdry and sensationalized "news". His New York Post newspaper is the English version of many Mexican newspapers that have to rely on shock value, splattered in catchy font on the front page. I know where a lot of this propaganda comes from.

The short outburst by a GOP congressman during the speech by the POTUS speaks volumes. These are tactics by a desperate party. In another topic I have asked repeatedly - with a conservative GOP congressional majority from 1994 to 2007, and a super conservative GOP administration in the White House from 2000-2008, why did they not enact their supposedly sound fiscal policies that they now tout so loudly? What was their better idea for health care and why did they wait until now to do something about it?

The deficits by Obama are larger than those he inherited from his predecessor. That can be expected given the global economic situation. But prior to Obama, Mr. Bush ran the largest deficits in the history of our country by far. The largest deficit builder before GWB was his father, George HW Bush. The prior records were set by Ronald Reagan. Being history this cannot be refuted. Yet the Fox News fans parrot the Fox News commentators' calls of "Tax and spend Dems".

W inherited a budget surplus from Clinton that he quickly turned into a record deficit. Of course that is Clinton's fault. How, I am not sure, but know in your heart that Fox news has said it is so.

Clinton did strike at those responsible for the USS Cole by sending over 30 cruise missiles. One hit the home camp of Osama Bin Laden who just happened to be visiting another terrorist camp.

Clinton repeatedly informed W that Saddam was not his problem but that Osama was. W dismissed his repeated attempts to catch him up on the terror situation.

But take it from the GOP. All the problems in this country have nothing to do with the GOP and all the years W and his daddy ran the show and the GOP controlled Congress. No they are the problems created since 2007 by the Dems and now since 2008 by Obama.

You cannot talk sensibly to nonsensical people. But thank you for your efforts.

It sad to think there are so many misquided souls out there.  REMEMBER these are just opinions and this is your's not the facts.  It is definately slanted to one side.... LEFT.  Right is Right.

My opinion is Texas should secede and take you with it, Catgirl.  Not an insult or a snide comment just a sincere wish for you to go with the rest of the Great state of Texas and run your own government and see how well your social experiment goes without the nasty Feds involved.  Adios Amigo!

Kelly you surprise the living heck out of me. You commend Obama for the job he has done so far. I am simply amazed at that coming from you given what you say about some topics.

On the interruption of his speech. That shows how far we have come in America that a mentally deficient person can be elected to Congress. See? We do have rights. And most Republicans quickly moved away from that pinhead with none of them supporting how he hollered that out.

His mama and daddy should be ashamed. What the heck - they are probably used to his Tourette's and accept him for what he is.

It is a sad statement that a topic with a title as interesting as this, and with the ground we could cover in it, people in nursing on this site prefer to play afternoon scrabble and other junk. I think some stuff like that is relaxing and not everything has to be serious. As I said before it is a sad statement on nursing when deserving subjects go wanting for a lack of participation while the mind numbing topics go overboard.

Good try and hopefully somebody else will pick it up a bit here.

RNprogressive says ...

Well the congressman from South Carolina is a hero to the Joe the Plumbers of this world and several more, he is having his burst of fame.  Really an amazing moment. 

Yes, kellyj did good in appreciating your post.  Reasoned discourse has its' advantages.

And yet, his outburst galvanized opposition to him in South Carolina.  His opponent is raising three times as much money as Wilson is for the 2010 election.  If Wilson had kept his mouth shut, his opponent would not be doing so well.

Wilson is bragging on YouTube about how much money he is raising, and ignoring the steamroller headed right for him.  South Carolinians are quickly becoming disgusted with the outrageous behavior of their elected officals--first Gov. Sanford, now this guy.

status quo meaning leaving it how it is ...i am not for that  at all.  However i would like to support the collective by doing my part and if in doing my part i am able to provide healthcare for 50 million well that's great . but just how much they squeeze me is going to be the true litmus test here.  In my opinion if yu want to go all the way with the social justice model than why not start by spreading the wealth? Madam Pelosi is the richest person in Congress i believe maybe we could start with her estate and then her lifestyle if  we are truely talking social justice here its rights as laid out by the natural law theory.

kellyj says ...

status quo meaning leaving it how it is ...i am not for that  at all.  However i would like to support the collective by doing my part and if in doing my part i am able to provide healthcare for 50 million well that's great . but just how much they squeeze me is going to be the true litmus test here.  In my opinion if yu want to go all the way with the social justice model than why not start by spreading the wealth? Madam Pelosi is the richest person in Congress i believe maybe we could start with her estate and then her lifestyle if  we are truely talking social justice here its rights as laid out by the natural law theory.

EEAaahh.  Confiscate private property?  Why, Comrade Kelly!

Seriously though, I can understand your frustration with Pelosi.  I don't know who's more of an impediment to progress, Pelosi or some ultraconservatives.

Only the really radial liberals want that kind of wealth redistribution. 

What I want to see is an end to corporate welfare.  Wall Street gets tons of incentives, tax breaks, and bailouts that I never get.  That's the reason why 1% of the population controls 50% of the wealth.

RNprogressive says ...

The US Social Contract and Health Care

Posted by dwsnyderbelousek on 08/14/09 10:27 PM
Last updated 08/14/09 10:49 PM

<!-- AddThis Button BEGIN --> <!-- AddThis Button END -->
[Older: Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness...and Health Care]

Yes, libertyspirit, I do realize what I have argued. This is the standard position of the natural law tradition: it is the legitimate function of government to protect the right to life, and to do so equally for all persons (i.e., equal protection of the laws, as the US Constitution puts it).

But back to the point. My question remains unanswered: where is the error in the argument? If one accepts the premises of natural law theory, which I assume most libertarians (following Locke) do accept, then why not accept the conclusion?

And what is all this talk of "coercion" and "force" that keeps being repeated? Am I to understand that libertarians regard legislation as essentially oppression (a crime against liberty) and taxation as essentially theft (a crime against property)? What has happened to the consent of the governed?

The very liberal theory of political authority advocated by Locke, and accepted by libertarians, legitimizes both legislation and taxation. The just powers of government derive from the free consent of the governed, so the theory goes; and free individuals grant their consent for the sake of protecting and preserving their common natural rights, which include (according to Locke): life, health, liberty and property. Insofar as legislation and taxation receive the consent of the governed (expressed through the majority vote of elected representatives) and are aimed at securing our common rights, neither violates the rights to liberty and property.

Therefore: Legislation establishing a public health insurance option subsidized by taxation, as long as it is enacted with the consent of the governed (expressed through the majority vote of elected representatives), does not necessarily involve "coercion" or "force" any more than does public education or national defense, both of which are supported by taxation, enjoy the consent of the governed, and are intended to serve the common good.

Why should we think of health care in any different terms than public education or national defense? The question here is evidently not one of philosophy: a public health insurance option is no more contrary to natural law than a public education system or a national defense system. The real question, it seems to me, is whether we, the people of this nation, shall decide that health care is to be an essential element of our social contract, on a par with national defense and public education, or not. 

To put it another way: the preamble of the US Constitution states that "We the people" have established this constitution "in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."  The question in the health care debate concerns the constitutionally legitimate function of our government to "promote the general welfare."  We as a nation decided generations ago that public eduction was to be included in "the general welfare." Access to public education is now an essential element of our social contract; and denial of equal access to public education is a violation of a constitutionally guaranteed civil right.  The question before us is this: shall we do for health care as we have done for education, establish universal access through a public insurance option?

Various reasonable arguments might be made for why not, but that doing so would violate liberal political principles founded in natural law theory and instituted through constitutional government is not one of them.

Therefore my readers, friends and foes, Liberals and Conservatives here is my , nay our dilemma...

Right to life folks say unborn is human being,  and it has rights.

Health care for all folks say healthcare is a right.

Mother is carrying the unborn and she must take care of the unborn since it is human and has rights , she may not willfully kill it.

If you murder a mother carrying the unborn it counts as two murder charges because the unborn has rights too.

The mother must have access to good health care to insure the right of the unborn to life, if she only has a privilege to healthcare and she cannot afford it and she developes pre-ecclampsia, diabetes, incompetent cerivx , folate deficiency etcetc and the unborne is at risk, then the government is not insuring the rights of the unborn this would against the constitution since government must provide for our rights.

Therefore the government must create a special exception to give health care to pregnant women except that would be unconstitutional under the Equal protection clause>>>SOOOOO

If I believe in government insuring healthcare for all is a right I must become anti abortion.

But if you believe in pro-life you must support happily and vigorously universal healthcare for all under our Constitution.

Talk amongst yourselves.. 

 

 

RNprogressive... Did you compose that?? .. SMOKIN' Hot

SEVOFLURANE says ...

Therefore my readers, friends and foes, Liberals and Conservatives here is my , nay our dilemma...

Right to life folks say unborn is human being,  and it has rights.

Health care for all folks say healthcare is a right.

Mother is carrying the unborn and she must take care of the unborn since it is human and has rights , she may not willfully kill it.

If you murder a mother carrying the unborn it counts as two murder charges because the unborn has rights too.

The mother must have access to good health care to insure the right of the unborn to life, if she only has a privilege to healthcare and she cannot afford it and she developes pre-ecclampsia, diabetes, incompetent cerivx , folate deficiency etcetc and the unborne is at risk, then the government is not insuring the rights of the unborn this would against the constitution since government must provide for our rights.

Therefore the government must create a special exception to give health care to pregnant women except that would be unconstitutional under the Equal protection clause>>>SOOOOO

If I believe in government insuring healthcare for all is a right I must become anti abortion.

But if you believe in pro-life you must support happily and vigorously universal healthcare for all under our Constitution.

Talk amongst yourselves.. 

 

 

Let's not confuse the health care and abortion issues.

First of all, it is illegal to pay for abortions with federal money, so if the public option is passed it will not cover abortions.

and speaking of the poor double taxed and screwed middle class of which i am a part of i'm here to say that i am NOT feeling the love.  in the case of taxation in order to make more money for the screwed up state i live in i just paid 938 bucks to register my two cars ! one of which i drive once a week !! what happend is when my registration came i failed to see that the late fees accrue WEEKLY ! meaning my reg is up in Sept but for each week of september that i wait to pay it i get fined 43bucks!! so paying at the end of the month in which my reg expires i paid almost 200 bucks in fines !!! doesn't this mean your car is really only registered for 11 months not 12?GEEZ so once again these increase in fees hit me directly in the paycheck.  what a bunch of poop! if this is how my state plans to make up its huge deficit than we are in real trouble! i am lucky enough to have employee sponsered health care so maybe that's the trade off but wow i sure was shocked by those new dmv fees !!YEEOWWW

In North Carolina I get a double whammy.  Not only did I have to pay big bucks to 1) register my vehicles,  and 2) title my vehicles, I had to 3) pay property tax on my vehicles!  The county gets to hit me with property tax on my 2 cars every year, in addition to what I pay the state to register it.

Medicare is not a failure,  Fraud exists as it does in many private companies and better safe guards should be instituted, however the following article supports the benefits medicare has given to our society.  Additionally the SCHIP program with federal funding cares for our poor children very  well as long as the states administer it wisely and provide their share of funding unlike in Texas under Gov GWB.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090729_the_marvel_that_is_med...