Is good health a right or a privilege for an American citizen?

By SemiPundit on 07.15.09 10:08 am

Privilege. Even if it were a right the government does not have the authority to guarantee the means to that right.

You have the right to free speech but the government does not have to provide you with a publishing company to express it.

You have a right to property but the government does not the authority to provide it. Although with the current Congress they have usurped other property holder’s rights through illegal eminent domain to seize your property and redistribute it to another private entity or in the case of the auto companies, disregard contract law.

You have a right to bear arms but the government does not have the authority to provide you with a firearm. You have to provide the means to obtain one.

Rights come from God and may be guaranteed by government but the means by which individuals may exercise those rights are left to the individual.

By Rick Forman on 07.15.09 12:16 pm

“Is good health a right or a privilege for an American citizen?”

Depends on whom you ask. Apparently, those currently in charge believe that healthcare, housing, loans, pre-K, cellphones(?), racism, double-standards and even the punishing of success are rights.

By Ty on 07.15.09 3:02 pm

Do an unborn fetus and the pregnant mother have a right to healthcare during gestation, or is it also a privilege?

By SemiPundit on 07.15.09 4:33 pm

Does the so called right to “freedom of choice” entitle that same mother to compel other citizens to pay for her abortion up and until the time of birth? What about the right of the fetus to life and liberty?

When you turn a right into a privilege or entitlement you infringe on the rights of others.

By Rick Forman on 07.15.09 8:56 pm

Nope. According to the Left, an unborn fetus is not living. And, by the way, we already have tons of national and local support for pregnant women without having to resort to destroying our healthcare system.

By Ty on 07.16.09 12:04 pm

Hopefully the blue dogs wont succumb to the pressure that is for sure going to be implied by Pelosi. This health care bill is disastrous, but there is hope. There is an extremely strong movement against it, and the only reason it is getting rushed through is because POTUS sees his slipping numbers and knows if its going to pass, it has to be now. There is strong opposition, even on the Democratic side. Rep. Phil Gingrey gave a great speech on the floor the other night if anyone saw it.

I believe that the only reason that Tanner was allowed to vote against cap and trade was the Pelosi knew she could win without his vote. He is definitely one of the more left leaning blue dogs.

Frank Crocker
Axioma Tennessee

By Frank Crocker on 07.16.09 12:19 pm

The 1000 page health care bill begins with the government declaring health care a “right”. Sounds very benevolent of the Potentates of the Potomac. Should read entitlement. It doesn’t take long, by page 16, to see the entanglements that come with that new right. For on that page the bill restricts the means to exercise that right declaring it illegal for a citizen to enter into a legal contract for private health insurance.

If I have a right to health care as the government claims then why is that right not absolute? Why is the only means to exercise that right through the government? When the only means to exercise a right is through the government it becomes a privilege or entitlement. Because at any time, as on page 16 the government can rescind it whereas the government can not rescind rights.

People believe they have a right to social security. After all the government stated that it believes people should have a right to a retirement safety net. But the Supreme Court has upheld that social security is not guaranteed therefore it is a privileged entitlement.

By Rick Forman on 07.17.09 7:18 am

go figure, its going to cost the federal government more money…

CBO Says So

By Frank on 07.17.09 2:18 pm

I have a right to most anything I can afford. If the poor and chronically stupid have a “right” to healthcare, then don’t I also have that same “right” to the same level of free government crap? You can discriminate against people by treating them differently and picking and choosing which rights certain groups have or don’t’ have based on certain criteria. Poverty? Skin color? Sexual orientation? Job? (Congress)

In this country, a poor man can stand on the corner and say the exact same thing I do having a job. That is part of the 1st Amendment and a right (notice the omission of quotation marks). That is equal treatment under the law.

“Oh but some people can’t afford the same quality healthcare as the rich.” Using that same logic, I can’t afford a Ferrari. Since some are favored by the government and showered with free stuff, can we claim equal protection? I have said it before; the Knoxville Police Department has a starting pay rate of just over $27,000 per year. An individual, that has nothing wrong with them other than the fact that they just don’t care about what happens to them in life, is eligible for up to just over $26,000 in FREE CRAP!! Who needs the dang lottery? Between WIC, food stamps, cell phones, Medicaid, and the like, who needs to work anymore?

Now lets look at the how the “give the country away” libs want to handle this: they want to tax that police officer a little more and give the lazy just a little more? Why would they want to do this? There are two reasons. 1. They want the government to have all the power, they look at the Constitution as a problem instead of a solution. That poor excuse for a president actually wanted the Constitution to have amendments granting the GOVERNMENT rights over the people!!!! So don’t lecture me on how great this all is and how he just wants to “help the children”, that shield that most politicians and ALL libs hide behind. 2. This type of program and the others like “Cap and tax” will just send money to the poor that don’t have to pay a damn dime for it and then vote for whoever slops them. Yes, I called them pigs. Those who don’t work and just expect to be rewarded for existing are just that: pigs.

I, for one, have not seen these piles of bodies that these power hungry, anti-freedom fanatics claim are stacking up outside of emergency rooms. Why haven’t I seen them? Because they aren’t there. What I do see is how corrupting and backwards our government already is with healthcare. Do we really want the same people that run the Veterans Administration and their hospitals running our healthcare? Go ask a Vet what kind of care they get from the VA and then look at the fact that current soldiers and their family members are often eligible for breast enhancement! Yes, we can’t address various issues for our aging vets but we sure can worry if a female soldier is comfortable with her body and feels “hot enough” for combat.

If you want to impress me, get government out of my life. No one should be assuming responsibility for my life but me, and certainly not those elitists that no longer deal in reality in DC. Show me that Ted Kennedy’s level of care is what I will get and that they won’t raise my taxes and we’ll talk, until then stay out of my wallet. Don’t you still have a bunch of stimulus cash to play monopoly with?

By BCB on 07.18.09 7:35 am

I am not referring here to any kind of right to material gain. I simply asked, without really receiving a response, if an unborn fetus and that child’s mother are entitled to care for their health. It appears that the answer is “no”.

If indeed an unborn fetus is entitled to adequate care, then are all other citizens similarly entitled? Given that condition, it would appear that they do under the equal protection clause.

By SemiPundit on 07.20.09 10:27 am

I guess if you consider a right to not be murdered at taxpayer expense as “health care” then maybe you have a point.

By the way Semi (and to get back on topic), your pal Bernie Sanders is unwilling to vote himself to become a victim of Obamacare:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124786946165760369.html

What’s that you were saying about Sanders “having a greater regard for fellow citizens”? Apparently, he doesn’t want to associate with the mere peasants like you and me.

By Eric Holcombe on 07.20.09 2:59 pm

I can recall a time when I read the WSJ with some amount of confidence and appreciation for quality of reporting. No more. It is a Rolls Royce that is being used to plow turnips.

That said, I wouldn’t vote for a stunt bill like that either. Coburn used up the last little bit of class he had when he pulled a Desi Arnaz impersonation on judge Sotomayor (is he trying to take the heavyweight gaffe belt from Biden?).

Sanders has appeared on the first hour of Thom Hartmann’s show (on XM167 or online streaming, 3-6PM) every Friday for years. He takes questions during the entire hour from callers of all kinds and is not afraid to interact with them, both pro and con. He’s on the right track.

On the other hand now, seriously, does an unborn fetus have not only a right to be protected against being dissected in utero, but to medical care that will give him or her the best possible conditions to be born healthy?

Does a wounded combat veteran have a right to health care related both to his or her wounds and to long-term general health?

By SemiPundit on 07.20.09 3:46 pm

Plowing turnips, maybe – but they can’t manufacture Sanders’ vote. I’m sure you have noticed that many politicians talk a good game, but when it comes time to actually vote their talk, something else happens. Maybe you can give Sanders a call on that radio show and ask him why Obamacare is good enough for us but not for him. I don’t understand why him voting forced healthcare on the citizenry is not a “stunt”, but voting it for the Congressional elite is.

No one has a “right” to medical care as I understand American rights to be. That is, they are inalienable and endowed by God, not by government. They should have the liberty to seek after health care – to purchase it or work for it or learn how to perform it and take care of themselves. Perhaps even have the freedom to accept help from their fellow man with no repercussion from the government. They should have the liberty to not be forced into a government-monopolized version of “health care”. There should not be forced benevolence in the form of taxes that remove her ability to seek her own health care in order to give it to someone else. Having said that, I also consider the Law of God greater than that of man. Jesus said: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
As a believer, I should be willing to help that person in need, but I shouldn’t force you to do it in my stead. That may ease my conscience, but it still isn’t loving my neighbor.

The case of the combat veteran is a false dilemma. His health care is a condition of his voluntary contract for service to the government. It doesn’t come free and against his will. If the combat veteran were a pregnant mother, she would receive the same health care as agreed. This is like asking if you have a “right” to a set of tires after you pay Walmart $500 for a set of Goodyears. You have the right to make the private contract with another party without interference from the government. The government(law) should only assist if either party will not keep their end of the contract so that restitution is made. It should not tell you what kind of tires (or how many) you are allowed buy or when the government thinks you need them. It should not tell WalMart how many they can sell or at what price or whom they may sell them to and what their income levels need to be.

By Eric Holcombe on 07.21.09 8:00 am

Obama health care reform proposal has nothing to do with the French system that was voted number 1 health system in the world.
Obama health care is nothing more than a total control of Washington on the money spent on health in this country.
With his smile and his sweet talk , Obama is trying to make us swallow a deadly pill.
The bill needs to be read from line 1 to the end and whoever is interested in knowing better how the system works in some european countries should go on the net and educate him or herself on other health systems

By Rosine Ghawji on 07.29.09 12:27 pm