So, we make healthcare a right, as in the Bill of Rights. Write it based on whichever current Amendment you want:
A healthy population, being necessary to the prosperity of the State, the right of the people to healthcare, shall not be infringed.
For example.
What does that change for the individual member of the population?
I started to use “citizenry”, but we’ll include illegals.
Everyone already has access to emergency care by law, so healthcare rights advocates must be talking about a right to preventative care, non-emergency-but-still-needed surgeries, etc. If a healthcare amendment passed, it would need a lot of very specific language about what is and isn’t covered under such a right.
It would change nothing. Just because something is a right doesn’t mean it gets provided to you.
Something the left seems to think applies only to that “right”.
It does change something. Forgetting the silly broadbrush of what the left thinks or doesn’t think. The constitutional amendment would allow for the SCOTUS to rely on it once a fed or state law is passed mandating single payer.
Free healthcare would bankrupt the country, why would anyone want to do that? Russia would love to see that and so would China.
Why don’t we start with education?
The only socialized healthcare system I am familiar with is the UK and that is not free. It is free at POS but you pay a National Insurance tax based on your earnings and capped at £76 per week (if i recall correctly).
You can buy private health insurance in the UK but it is different to what we have in the US. For example there are no ER benefits because no one in the UK pays for ER services at POS.
Interesting answer. Do you disagree with @Steel-W0LF about it being provided?
So by that logic, if I could get a bill passed to provide computers and internet access (today’s printing presses) to every person in the country, there’s nothing that could be done because of the 1st?
That is not the topic of discussion.
I do not disagree that a right is not something to be provided.
I also said rely, i am not sure how SCOTUS would rule or interpret that particular Amendment. So the answer to your question is no there is something that could be done.
I’m not sure I’m following.
Why would the healthcare amendment be any different?
Language around “rights” is irrelevant.
It’s in the interests of the government to provide quality universal healthcare in the most cost effective and efficient manner.
It has this power via the general welfare clause.
Sorry let me rephrase that.
(1) I agree with Steel-Wolf regarding his view on what a right is and isn’t
(2) What I meant by my response is that the amendment would SCOTUS something to rely on other than let’s say just the welfare clause. It doesn’t mean that any form of single payer would be upheld.
(3) If you pass law to provide computers and internet access to every person in the country, the defense of that law using the 1st amendment challenge may fail because the 1st amendment protects a right
What about the education part?
Well if we do and that is the bar I don’t think they are going to be very happy when we apply the same logic to the other amendments.
The legitimate areas for spending under the GWC are spelled out, healthcare is not among them.
That’s a nice opinion, but reality sits firmly with the Hamiltonian view of the GWC.
1 and 2, I think those are well reasoned responses. I don’t care for the intent.
Yet the text is perfectly clear on that point.
Can you elaborate on what you mean?
Given that its the govt’s responsibility to defend the nation don’t you think they have an interest in the citizenry that they recruit from be healthy enough for military service?
