Is healthcare a Civil right?

Is healthcare a civil right?

I was a bit shocked today to see many on DU arguing that its not. Just curious what most folks here think.

as to whether its a right.

Location only matters on whether that right is recognized.


Everyone here would agree that freedom of speech is a civil right.

Thats true even in the most repressive regime, but it's just not recognized there.

Big whopping difference there.

Is robbing the poor to give to the rich a civil right?

And its a quite reasonable one if you wanna start a thread on it. Point me to it and I'll join ya there.


My question is very simple.

Civil right? yes or no.

That makes perfect sense. The US is supposed to be a civilized country.

Rights are not something you have to rely on others to provide TO you, it is a service. This is dumbing down what rights truly are. You can argue that it is the right thing for a compasionate society to provide, but it is not a right.

Extra cheese? :hi:

or some other bullshit like that? If that is the case then doesn't the military provide that right to you?

That is technically an entitlement.

Then again, what would Americans know about rights, these days? A couple of airplanes hit the twin towers and "poof" you throw away basic elements of your free society.

someone to provide something TO you?

"Rights are not something you have to rely on others to provide TO you, it is a service."

True you have the right to a jury of your peers and the right to counsil. These are just provision to ensure your pre-eminate right to a fair trial. If you didn't have counsil you most likely wouldn't understand the laws and how they apply to you as you try defend yourself.

Generally the Constitution provides "negative rights". That means that most rights fit the format of "the government cannot do X to you." "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of the press" and so on. Almost all Constitutional rights are framed negatively.

"Positive rights" have been experimented with in Europe, South Africa and certain international covenants. They say, "The government must do X for you" -- for example, provide education or health care.

Ultimately, the right to counsel is actually a negative right. It is not that they have to provide counsel; it's that "the government can't try you for a crime unless you have counsel." For most of our history that was meant merely to mean that if you had and could afford a lawyer, they could not exclude your lawyer and make you face trial without one.

In the 60s, the SCOTUS went further and said it was meaningless to simply provide a right to counsel without actually providing counsel to poor defendants. But this positive right remains sketchy as a positive right. It's more along the lines that you can't be tried unless a lawyer is found for you one way or the other.

without this right.

Being tried in and of it self isn't negative, it's a neutral, as a trial could be considered positive or negative, some people relish their day in court, and while being tried for a crime isn't positive as in being considered innocent, it isn't as negative as being executed or imprisoned by the state without a trial.

The right to counsel and Sixth Amendment in general must be considered in the same light as insurance against unjust trial and imprisonment, appointed counsel may not be in the same league as high priced legal representation but nonetheless it represents a floor of legal protection.

Apparently the wording of the Sixth Amendment suggests the Founders considered it a positive right, possibly as everything being relative, what came before them was much more brutal.

Article VI; "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which districts shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

I've looked up every definition of the word "enjoy" in the dictionary and can find no negative connotations.

I'm of the belief that if every American for so long as they live whether guilty of a crime or not can have guaranteed legal insurance spelled out as a civil right; not just of representation but of the entire process, then surely having every American; (the vast majority being innocent) covered with life saving medical insurance as a civil right by the state; (not profit driven corporations) isn't too much of a stretch for an advanced nation such as our own to consider; indeed we're behind most of the developed world in this regard, as in spite of leading in health care spending our ranking is dismal.

If an Amendment needs to be passed, I'm all for it, but if as you say Constitutional rights are almost always or can only be framed in the negative, then I believe approaching or obtaining the lofty goals as enshrined in the totally positive Preamble will be exceptionally illusory and frustrating for the American People as a whole; aka "perfect Union."

LMFAO yeah tell that to a black man who wasn't allowed to vote. Or had to drink from a different fountain than whites. Or tell it to a gay couple that wants to marry but can't.

You are quite confused my friend.

LMFAO yeah tell that to a black man who wasn't allowed to vote. Or had to drink from a different fountain than whites. Or tell it to a gay couple that wants to marry but can't.

Those people all have the rights you mention.

Their rights have been infringed.

and well said

rather they were reserved for us in our Constitution - like the right to free speech, the right to assemble, or to bear arms.

I think most of us, however, are hoping for health care to become an entitlement - like Social Security or Medicare.

They are quite different in my mind -- rights and entitlements.

that's like saying there is no right to education. there is. it is recognized as a basic human right. if you'd like...we can rephrase the question so it's more in line with you framing: the right to not die because you are poor.

:evilfrown:

If we call the premiums a tax, doesn't that make everything OK? Afterall, no one has a right to refuse paying taxes.




:-)

That's pretty much settled. Even most people who are opposed to reform wouldn't say it's not a civil right.

The question at hand is how much of an ENTITLEMENT should health care be, who is entitled, and how should that entitlement be paid for.

what should be the minimum? You can't do anything about getting bad genes but what about irresponsible behaviors?

IT's a right.

It is the mission statement, not the the governing laws. The laws start at Article 1. The Articles contain the laws to achieve those ideals laid out in the preamble. Notice the words 'in order to' in the preamble, they are very important.

at least in my way of thinking, if we are forcibly subjected to the restrictions of the states (in the general term: federal, state, county, city, etc.) AND in the course of our lives forced to pay taxes to those states, then there should be significant benefits to us the participants as compensation. One of the benefits should be health care. That's my view of it, rather than it being some kind of inalienable right that humans are born with by nature.

It may not be a human right, but it's certainly a reasonable expectation from the society which our labor has created.

Having it subsidized with public money constitutes an entitlement.

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

It's difficult to have life and liberty, and be happy if you're in pain and suffering, or going broke trying to avoid them...

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are listed among the "unalienable rights" of man.

Therefore, healthcare is a civil right...

edited for clarification

"Charters of Freedom."

Therefore, freedom requires healthcare to be a civil right...

Sorry. If other people have to provide something to you, you don't have a right to it. Rights are something you're born with, and which can only be infringed.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And I assume you mean a fundamental civil right. There is no provision in the Constitution that grants health care as a right.

If there is, please just post that provision and you can end the debate.

In some countries, health care has been declared to be a Constitutional right. One of those countries is South Africa. The US is not one of those countries. It would be nice if we were one of those countries, but we are not.

OTOH, some state constitutions go further than the federal constitution in granting so called "economic" or "welfare" rights. The NYS Constitution, for example, makes housing a state constitutional right.

Also, an ordinary statute can create "statutory rights." They are rights under the statute, but the statute can be repealed, so it is not a fundamental right. So for, example, Medicare and Medicaid create health rights for qualifying individuals. But those are not universal rights, because they don't apply to everyone, and as mentioned above, they rely on statutes that create programs and are not constitutional or civil rights. For example, the federal forestry statute create statutory rights of logging companies under certain circumstances to log the national forests; that doesn't mean that logging companies have fundamental logging rights.

Health care does not have to be a "right" for a democratically elected government to decide to provide it universally. For example a clean environment is a great thing for us to strive for, but it is provided as democratic statute making, not as a right. Same with health care.

All rights were presumed to already exist at the time it was written. All rights continue to exist except for those that have been curtailed through due process of law.

been cutting you slack all these years, you should thank me.



:-)

:sarcasm:

Rights are established in the Constitution and court cases.

"Where there's a right, there's a remedy." If you don't have a remedy, then you don't have a right.

for lack of access due to lack of money or lose all your wealth.

and guarantees made as part of the social contract.

If we ultimately have UHC in the United States, it will be a guarantee under the conditions spelled out in the enacted law.

but to distinguish "statutory rights" from "fundamental rights" we tend to call the former "entitlements." Statutory rights or entitlements can be taken away, and as you say are provided "under the conditions spelled out in the enacted law."

of citizenship.

'from my dead cold hands' says it all.

Some 'mericans would rather be dead from lack of healthcare, than unarmed.

its either a right,or its not.

but it is necessary for equality and opportunity.
health CARE not insurance

It is however a human right and a social responsibility Americans should respect. Wishing really hard that every citizen in the US had equal access to affordable, quality healthcare does not make it a civil right of our country. That would actually require massive work and protest by the populous of this country to gain such a right.

Also, requiring citizens to pay private insurance companies to obtain health insurance is not an affirmation that healthcare is a civil right in the United States.

Article 25

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

That's pretty much a given. Well, unless you're a Republican that is.

But as with slavery and now the death penalty, we will be the last hold out to recognize such.

really says something about our country and the people in congress.I'll bet my last peso most of us treat our dogs better than we do our fellow citizens.Yes I am guilty too,take my three dogs to the groomer monthly,feed them food that a homeless person would consider great,but we can't or want demand that the law makers(some law breakers)are too busy accepting bribes to pass a humane law for the less fortunate among us.

So I voted yes. But I would have liked the opportunity to vote for it being a human right.

Many things are "rights", even some specifically spelled out in the Constitution. But just because something is a "right" doesn't mean it should be free of cost. We do need health care reform to make those costs reasonable.

I could exercise my right to free speech be publishing a newspaper. That doesn't mean the government should subsidize or provide me with a newspaper at taxpayer expense so I can exercise that right.

I could exercise my right to keep and bear arms. That doesn't mean the government should provide me with a firearm to do so. I would have to purchase my own firearm with my own money even though it is a right.

Health Care costs should be affordable. Everyone has a "right" to health care but the cost is the problem. Bring the costs down and people will be able to exercise that right by their own means. Apparently soon we will also have the right to send money to the insurance companies under threat of legal trouble.