Is Healthcare a "right" and should it have limits on how much is consumed and by whom?

[tas8831]

No where in our Constitution does it mention the things you cited in the "General Welfare" clause. You are just superimposing your agenda over the meaning to micro-manage the lives of others. My "General Welfare" would be better served by a two week long vacation somewhere, but I don't expect the government to pay for it. .

Let me guess - you totally love the Constitution, right?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I agree that there are pockets in the world that 100% of HIV sufferers do not have access to effective treatment. But, WHO, DWB, AMREF, Global Viral, IMC, Mothers 2 Mothers, Mercy Ship, and many other non-profit, non-Government humanitarian organizations, are still trying to reach that 100% target. I'm sure you're not suggesting that if the results are not 100% effective, that we should no longer address the problems? Unless you can demonstrate the opposite, on average, the majority of HIV victims in Africa, do have access to HIV treatment, and can afford it. In some places cost IS due to scarcity and it is supply that is the problem, but these problems are the exceptions to the rule, not the rule.

Regarding your friend with diabetes. Pressure your representatives as a collective voice, to allow importing animal-derived insulin into the US. Look into private and governmental programs that can help subsidize out of pocket expenses for treatment https://diatribe.org/how-to-get-diabetes-drugs-free . https://www.novocare.com/psp/PAP.html Also look into the cheaper biosimilar alternatives to the generic insulin. Your friend must realize that the system is rigged against him, unless he/she is willing to jump through hurdles and not give up. There are solutions and rewards, for those who are willing to persevere. Please let me know what I can do at this end?

You are too kind. I've forwarded your links to my friend. Thank you so very much!

I'm in no way suggesting that we give up. I use my votes in this regard. It is my hope in the next election that we will have a candidate that will push for universal Medicare in my own country and will be sympathetic to these issues abroad, running on a platform that healthcare is a human right.

 

[BSM1]

Let me guess - you totally love the Constitution, right?

I love not being subjected to the whims of do-gooders who try to get the government to do their dirty work.

 

[Lyndon]

I love not being subjected to the will of selfish people who care about no one but themselves.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

You are too kind. I've forwarded your links to my friend. Thank you so very much!

I'm in no way suggesting that we give up. I use my votes in this regard. It is my hope in the next election that we will have a candidate that will push for universal Medicare in my own country and will be sympathetic to these issues abroad, running on a platform that healthcare is a human right.

There are other options to off-set these artificially/unnecessary inflated cost for insulin treatment. If there is anything else I can do, let me know.

There is only one candidate who also co-wrote and will push for universal Healthcare for all(as well as other progressive social policies). Clearly she is someone who ticks all of my boxes, which include being, presidential, poise. statesperson-like, mature, able to communication effectively, honest, peace loving(no more regime-change wars), fiscally responsible, socially empathetic, intelligent, a war veteran officer(major), experienced, influential, young/energetic, committed, and the only progressive that I have ever seen that can totally disarm Tucker Carlson and leave him speechless and polite. She seems to have a special ability to bring out only the best in the worst of people. A quality we desperately need. The rest are just corporate "talking heads", supporting their own self-interests, or the interests of their donors. For me, my vote is a no brainer for anyone who cares about the future, and the direction of the US. Did you know that we are now the second least respected, and most distrusted nation on the planet? I know this status is a positive for the typical Trumpanzee, just as long as "we're number one", and "America first". Obama is ranked between 8th and 15th of the 44 presidents. Where do you think Trump is ranked in just two years, LAST. https://www.businessinsider.com.au/greatest-us-presidents-ranked-by-political-scientists-2018-2?r=US&IR=T . How do we regain the world-status we once had under Obama? Get rid of this senile, misogynistic, paranoid, demented, insecure sexist sociopath, who can only bring out the worst evil in people. This is the most important vote for our future, and can help repair all the damage that has been done to our nation's image and message.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pE77WZU84s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y1nylDLW-Y

Go Tulsi. The full package.

 

[Shad]

Helvering v. Davis 301 U.S. 619(1937), is was a decision by the Supreme Court, which held that Social Security was constitutionally permissible as an exercise of the federal power to spend for the general welfare. Also that it did not contravene the 10th amendment(State v. Federal powers). Justice Cardozo said,

"Congress may spend money in aid of the 'general welfare' ... There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views ... The line must still be drawn between one welfare and another, between particular and general. Where this shall be placed cannot be known through a formula in advance of the event ... The discretion belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, not an exercise of judgment. This is now familiar law. …". You might also want to look at other rulings by the court, such as,

Steward Machine Shop v. Collector of Internal Revenue 301 U.S. 548(1937
Barnes v. Gorman 536 U.S.181(2002)

Finally, what particular claim did you feel was ridiculous?

Each ruling clearly state how the federal government can convince states to help fund programs. A NHS is far different than anything those cases are above. You never read what you cited.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Do you believe everyone should be forced to be as beneficent and noble as you?

No. I think people should be more beneficent and more noble than me. If anyone needs to be forced to demonstrate empathy towards others, then that particular trait is simply not being expressed by their genes. Only those whose Autonomic nervous system(ANS) is wired differently than most humans(psychopaths), are unable to feel any empathy to others. But, if you feel that you are being pressured to do something that you know is right, no matter how many excuses you can makeup, then maybe some extreme act of kindness towards you might be all it takes for you to understand. We are all humans sharing the same planet. We all have the same survival needs, as anyone else. Those that are doing well should help, in different ways, those that are not doing so well. Can you imagine what would happen if our Government was forced not help people to have at least minimum standard of living? Or, at least provide the opportunity for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all.

When 90% of the population reaches the point of hunger, hopelessness, desperation, and anger, then the other 10% will soon understand the true meaning of power of the people.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Each ruling clearly state how the federal government can convince states to help fund programs. A NHS is far different than anything those cases are above. You never read what you cited.

Helvering v. Davis, was a ruling by the courts that made Social Security constitutionally permissible. It allowed the federal government to exercise its power to spend for the General Welfare, and not violate/breach the 10th Amendment(Reserve Powers of the States).

The Steward Machine Shop v. Collector of Internal Revenue, was a ruling by the courts that upheld that the Social Security Act of1935,(Federal), could impose a tax on employers with 8 or more employees, to fund unemployment compensations. This was considered by the courts, as a constitutional exercise of congressional powers, and not in violation of the 10th Amendment. It was decided that this tax would benefit the General Welfare of both State and Federal Government.

Barnes v. Gorman. was the ruling by the courts outlining whether punitive damages can be awarded in a Private cause of Action, under Title 6 of the Civil Rights Act(Discrimination, 1964), or under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. The Court of Appeals found punitive damages was available under a general rule when clear direction is absent. It was upheld that Congress's federal courts have the power to award any appropriate relief for violation of a federal right. Again, its decision benefits the General Welfare.

My examples were not to compare rulings directly to the National Health Care. It was to compare the rulings as being consistent with the general meaning of the General Welfare Clause. I agree that they are not the same.

Anything I put to print, I have spent an inordinate amount of time making sure that what I say is factual, relevant, and clear. Since my claims was that these rulings were consistent in promoting the Public Welfare, I can only stand in awe of your straw man.

 

[BSM1]

No. I think people should be more beneficent and more noble than me. If anyone needs to be forced to demonstrate empathy towards others, then that particular trait is simply not being expressed by their genes. Only those whose Autonomic nervous system(ANS) is wired differently than most humans(psychopaths), are unable to feel any empathy to others. But, if you feel that you are being pressured to do something that you know is right, no matter how many excuses you can makeup, then maybe some extreme act of kindness towards you might be all it takes for you to understand. We are all humans sharing the same planet. We all have the same survival needs, as anyone else. Those that are doing well should help, in different ways, those that are not doing so well. Can you imagine what would happen if our Government was forced not help people to have at least minimum standard of living? Or, at least provide the opportunity for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all.

When 90% of the population reaches the point of hunger, hopelessness, desperation, and anger, then the other 10% will soon understand the true meaning of power of the people.

Yeah, I can imagine. People would start helping themselves. And this is just your opinion.

 

[Shad]

Helvering v. Davis, was a ruling by the courts that made Social Security constitutionally permissible. It allowed the federal government to exercise its power to spend for the General Welfare, and not violate/breach the 10th Amendment(Reserve Powers of the States).

Which was a case about a shareholder disagreeing with their company. Nothing to do with NHS

The Steward Machine Shop v. Collector of Internal Revenue

, was a ruling by the courts that upheld that the Social Security Act of1935,(Federal), could impose a tax on employers with 8 or more employees, to fund unemployment compensations. This was considered by the courts, as a constitutional exercise of congressional powers, and not in violation of the 10th Amendment. It was decided that this tax would benefit the General Welfare of both State and Federal Government.

Was about state and federal issues during the great depression thus situational. Nothing to do with NHS

Barnes v. Gorman

. was the ruling by the courts outlining whether punitive damages can be awarded in a Private cause of Action, under Title 6 of the Civil Rights Act(Discrimination, 1964), or under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. The Court of Appeals found punitive damages was available under a general rule when clear direction is absent. It was upheld that Congress's federal courts have the power to award any appropriate relief for violation of a federal right. Again, its decision benefits the General Welfare.

This was about police have equipment and training for the disabled. Nothing to do with NHS

My examples were not to compare rulings directly to the National Health Care. It was to compare the rulings as being consistent with the general meaning of the General Welfare Clause. I agree that they are not the same.

Except within those cases are situational circumstances not present for NHS so your point still misses the mark.

Anything I put to print, I have spent an inordinate amount of time making sure that what I say is factual, relevant, and clear. Since my claims was that these rulings were consistent in promoting the Public Welfare, I can only stand in awe of your straw man.

Except you clearly didn't as you are equating interpretation with what is written in the Constitution to make a point about NHS. A point which fails as per your own sources.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Which was a case about a shareholder disagreeing with their company. Nothing to do with NHS



Was about state and federal issues during the great depression thus situational. Nothing to do with NHS



This was about police have equipment and training for the disabled. Nothing to do with NHS



Except within those cases are situational circumstances not present for NHS so your point still misses the mark.



Except you clearly didn't as you are equating interpretation with what is written in the Constitution to make a point about NHS. A point which fails as per your own sources.

Except I clearly did. For the last time I never tried to equated these rulings to define, or justify the NHS. My point was always to compare(and stated so) and use these rulings as examples to support my quoted interpretation of the General Welfare Clause in the Constitution. I never even mentioned the NHS. If you want to reinterpret the intentions and the meaning(misrepresentation) of my post, even after my explanation, then you are just not being honest, or have some other agenda.

Do you think that these rulings were not supportive, or inconsistent with my quoted definition of the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution, or not? Did these ruling allow congress to set policies, and exercise its power to support and promote the General Welfare, or not? I'm sure that the name of the shareholder has nothing to do with NHS either. I'm sure that the soup lines has nothing to do with NHS as well. And, I'm also sure that the condition of the roads, or the price of gas, has nothing to do with NHS. All these half-truths are unrelated to how the rulings themselves relates to the General Welfare Clause.

 

[Shad]

Except I clearly did. For the last time I never tried to equated these rulings to define, or justify the NHS.

No you took "General Welfare" to mean what you wanted while the cases you linked were specific. More so one case outright said Congress determines this on a case by case basis.

My point was always to compare(and stated so) and use these rulings as examples to support my quoted interpretation of the General Welfare Clause in the Constitution. I never even mentioned the NHS. If you want to reinterpret the intentions and the meaning(misrepresentation) of my post, even after my explanation, then you are just not being honest, or have some other agenda.

You mentioned it in other post as per health which you put in bold in several comment.

Do you think that these rulings were not supportive, or inconsistent with my quoted definition of the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution, or not?

Inconsistent as you ignore the case by case point in one of the cases.

Did these ruling allow congress to set policies, and exercise its power to support and promote the General Welfare, or not?

Nope

I'm sure that the name of the shareholder has nothing to do with NHS either.

Sure. Ergo you are extending the ruling beyond it's scope.

I'm sure that the soup lines has nothing to do with NHS as well. And, I'm also sure that the condition of the roads, or the price of gas, has nothing to do with NHS. All these half-truths are unrelated to how the rulings themselves relates to the General Welfare Clause.

Yet you bold health and make the point in a healthcare is a right thread..... I read you other posts. Your deception has been noted. Again you ignore one case which said the ruling was for a specific case not any case. More so you used those argument to support the below.


"Article 1 section 8 of our Constitution gives Congress the power to "Lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises". The Constitution allows Congress to tax in order to provide for the Common Defense and the General Welfare". The General Welfare is interpreted by the Constitution to mean, "the concern of the Government for the Health, Peace, morality, and Safety of its citizens. Even the Preamble of the Constitution cites the promotion of the General Welfare as the primary reason for the creation of the Constitution.

Therefore, providing healthcare for all is of paramount importance to our Constitution."

 

[tas8831]

I love not being subjected to the whims of do-gooders who try to get the government to do their dirty work.

What about the 'do-gooders' that want to force women to be incubators for their rapist's spawn?

 

[BSM1]

What about the 'do-gooders' that want to force women to be incubators for their rapist's spawn?

Nope...don't care for them either.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

What about the 'do-gooders' that want to force women to be incubators for their rapist's spawn?

Evil people will do evil things, and "do-gooders" will do good things, but only religion can make "do-gooders" do evil things. Like creating policies, that would force women to bear their rapists children. Abortion is legal in all states(Roe v Wade). So no, a woman does not have to bear her rapists child. Now some of these "do-gooders" like Trump, his administration, and at least 5 conservative states are trying to overturn this law. The supreme court has already blocked a Louisiana's law, whose legislative would leave the state with only one doctor to perform abortions. Of course, if these corporate, apathetic, misogynistic, "do-gooders" do manage to overturn the abortion law, then women will loose the right of choice regarding their own body.

I don't think that any real "do-gooders" would ever consider that a woman should not have the right to do whatever she wants with her own reproductive system. But I can think of a few religions that would disagree.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I love not being subjected to the whims of do-gooders who try to get the government to do their dirty work.

Do-gooding is "dirty work"?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yeah, I can imagine. People would start helping themselves. And this is just your opinion.

Ah, the old "poor people are just lazy" BS that people have been trying to push for decades.

 

[ManSinha]

Evil people will do evil things, and "do-gooders" will do good things, but only religion can make "do-gooders" do evil things. Like creating policies, that would force women to bear their rapists children. Abortion is legal in all states(Roe v Wade). So no, a woman does not have to bear her rapists child. Now some of these "do-gooders" like Trump, his administration, and at least 5 conservative states are trying to overturn this law. The supreme court has already blocked a Louisiana's law, whose legislative would leave the state with only one doctor to perform abortions. Of course, if these corporate, apathetic, misogynistic, "do-gooders" do manage to overturn the abortion law, then women will loose the right of choice regarding their own body.

I don't think that any real "do-gooders" would ever consider that a woman should not have the right to do whatever she wants with her own reproductive system. But I can think of a few religions that would disagree.

Actually - that is not quite correct - I shall get to my personal belief in a bit - but even if Roe v Wade got overturned - termination of pregnancy would still be legal in states such as CA, MA and NY and women would have that option. As such I see it more symbolic than absolute but other than that I agree with your POV

Now to my personal POV

I am a guy and I do not know completely the attachment that a woman has to the fetus she is carrying or the gut wrenching decision that she must make to terminate that

That said - my personal opinion - is that no one least of all any guy has any right to tell any woman how she conducts her reproductive life. We as a class of homo sapiens - need to shut our mouths and get out of the way and let a woman make the decision for herself in each and every case where such women make other decisions like driving, banking and choosing a mate. Now if a woman is considered incapable of making decisions for herself due to mental reasons then it should be a group of other women deciding on her behalf - guys need to stay out of it.

Quick edit: After I get tarred and feathered for my views - can we please get back to the topic of the OP - have loved the responses thus far

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Actually - that is not quite correct - I shall get to my personal belief in a bit - but even if Roe v Wade got overturned - termination of pregnancy would still be legal in states such as CA, MA and NY and women would have that option. As such I see it more symbolic than absolute but other than that I agree with your POV

Now to my personal POV

I am a guy and I do not know completely the attachment that a woman has to the fetus she is carrying or the gut wrenching decision that she must make to terminate that

That said - my personal opinion - is that no one least of all any guy has any right to tell any woman how she conducts her reproductive life. We as a class of homo sapiens - need to shut our mouths and get out of the way and let a woman make the decision for herself in each and every case where such women make other decisions like driving, banking and choosing a mate. Now if a woman is considered incapable of making decisions for herself due to mental reasons then it should be a group of other women deciding on her behalf - guys need to stay out of it.

Quick edit: After I get tarred and feathered for my views - can we please get back to the topic of the OP - have loved the responses thus far

Bottom line is, we should not force women and girls to carry pregnancies, whether they want to or not. Many states already had legalized abortions, and many did not, even before the Roe v Wade decision to level the playing field for all states. My point was if this decision was overturned, states would have very different policies concerning abortion rights. Clearly this was the case before, and will certainly be the case afterwards. My response was only to the suggestion, or implication, that "do-gooders" would want to force women to carry to term the foetus of their rapists. It tries to falsely equivocate that people who do good things within their society, and the forcing of women to carry to term the child of their rapists to term. This is like saying that because many Russians on a chatroom on Facebook support Tulsi Gabbard, therefore, she must be a Russian operative and loves Russia. I'm sure many pro-life supporters would scream the loudest, if they were told what they can, or cannot do with their own body. Again, good people can only do bad things, in the name of religion.

I agree with most of your personal opinion. Except I would not excuse "any guy", simply because they are male. This seems a bit sexist and naïve for my taste. When you are with someone(male of female) for over 30 years, you may understand them better than they understand themselves. Surely you would agree that a mother would know her son, or a father his daughter, or a husband his wife? So, only love ones, very close friends, and family adult members should be included in that group.

Regarding your OP, my opinion was clearly stated. Everyone should have totally FREE basic healthcare coverage. Everyone should have it for as long as they need it. It may not be a constitutional right, but it is certainly an obligation of the government. Many other countries can afford it, so why not us. Because of the Trillions of dollars wasted on regime-change wars to profit the industrial war complex. Because of the high salaries that doctors command for their services. Because of the high cost of insurance premium. And because of the unnecessary high cost of drugs, levied by the drug industry. We can also increase the taxes of those making more that $200,000. Once we address these things, having universal health care for all will never again be a topic of discussion. Anyway, these are my 2 cents.

Go Tulsi.

 

[metis]

I do believe basic coverage for health care for all definitely should be a right.

We know that at least some Neanderthal did believe as such because we find human fossils whereas the person appears to have been injured seriously enough that others would have to take care of them. With hunting & gathering bands, we also see much the same. So, maybe we can be at least as compassionate as were they?

BTW, anyone watching the Sanjay Gupta series on this on CNN? Very interesting imo.