How is Health Care a Right?
September 16, 2009 8:58 AM Subscribe
On what basis can you make the argument that health care is a right?
I'm not trying to dispute these issues. I'm actually looking for rhetorical ammo. Can you be a little think tank and suggest some ways to talk about these issues? (If you disagree, jump in if you like, but lets keep everything calm in the thread)
Why is health care a right? Can the constitution be used to support this idea?
Conservatives have some argument about how health care cannot be a right because it forces others to work to provide you your right - which also means you can lose that right. Does that hold water? Do people complain about the phrase, 'you have a right to an attorney...?'
I usually do some hand waving about the 'Right to LIFE, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness' from the Declaration of Independence, or 'providing for the common defense,' (fighting poor health is akin to fighting attackers) or promoting the general welfare...
...and while we are at it...
Why is a Progressive Tax Fair?
I usually quote Adam Smith.
...and finally...
Any other point you'd like to make - particularly if it contradicts GOP talking points, and particularly if you can support it with a clear argument beyond 'I think it's the right thing to do.'
I'm not trying to dispute these issues. I'm actually looking for rhetorical ammo. Can you be a little think tank and suggest some ways to talk about these issues? (If you disagree, jump in if you like, but lets keep everything calm in the thread)
Why is health care a right? Can the constitution be used to support this idea?
Conservatives have some argument about how health care cannot be a right because it forces others to work to provide you your right - which also means you can lose that right. Does that hold water? Do people complain about the phrase, 'you have a right to an attorney...?'
I usually do some hand waving about the 'Right to LIFE, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness' from the Declaration of Independence, or 'providing for the common defense,' (fighting poor health is akin to fighting attackers) or promoting the general welfare...
...and while we are at it...
Why is a Progressive Tax Fair?
I usually quote Adam Smith.
...and finally...
Any other point you'd like to make - particularly if it contradicts GOP talking points, and particularly if you can support it with a clear argument beyond 'I think it's the right thing to do.'
This post was deleted for the following reason: Adding your arguments to this question is pretty much making it into chatfilter/fightfilter and not into "I am trying to solve this problem" Nothing personal but this may not be the best forum for this. -- jessamyn
I don't really know how to claim it's a right, but telling someone how they would like their kid dying because they can't afford to go to the doctor to catch whatever fatal illness their kid has in time for the expensive treatment usually shuts them up.
posted by anniecat at 9:03 AM on September 16, 2009
posted by anniecat at 9:03 AM on September 16, 2009
Usually - though not always - when "It's a right" is argued, it's not in the sense of "protected by the constitution," the way that, for example, gay marriage is sometimes (though by no means always) argued to be. It's more in the sense of "Human rights," eg, we should be doing this as a matter of course, comparable to "education is a right" despite the constitution being silent on education. I think you've got a good stance in basing your argument not on the legal text of constitution, which is rarely invoked to explicitly argue for health care, and instead on the broader moral principles of the Declaration - in particular, Life and Pursuit of Happiness.
posted by Tomorrowful at 9:05 AM on September 16, 2009
posted by Tomorrowful at 9:05 AM on September 16, 2009
Why is health care a right? Can the constitution be used to support this idea?
Probably not as an origin. Once the government begins providing some healthcare, though, you get into interesting 5th/14th amendment questions.
I usually do some hand waving about the 'Right to LIFE, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness' from the Declaration of Independence
A strictly negative right, according to most accounts of the drafting process.
'providing for the common defense,'
"Defense" has a specific meaning. This is weak.
promoting the general welfare
Not a right, a grant of / restraint on Congressional power.
In short, look outside the Constitution. It's an important source of legitimacy, and a powerful statement of individual liberty and a government of limited power, but doesn't occupy the field of philosophy.
Any other point you'd like to make - particularly if it contradicts GOP talking points, and particularly if you can support it with a clear argument beyond 'I think it's the right thing to do.'
Are you just looking to collect arguments to see what sticks? This doesn't speak well of any previous time spent critically thinking about this. Why not focus on what's right, not what allows you to prolong arguments for their own sake? If you want to argue with somebody in other than a professional capacity, you'll get farther doing it based on your own convictions and analyses you formulate or agree with rather than coming up with your own laundry list of talking points.
The Constitution leaves the door open to many things, provided they comply with certain safeguard constraints on government power. That doesn't mean it legimates a particular version of "social justice": you must fill in the philosophical and legal arguments from other sources.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 9:07 AM on September 16, 2009
Probably not as an origin. Once the government begins providing some healthcare, though, you get into interesting 5th/14th amendment questions.
I usually do some hand waving about the 'Right to LIFE, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness' from the Declaration of Independence
A strictly negative right, according to most accounts of the drafting process.
'providing for the common defense,'
"Defense" has a specific meaning. This is weak.
promoting the general welfare
Not a right, a grant of / restraint on Congressional power.
In short, look outside the Constitution. It's an important source of legitimacy, and a powerful statement of individual liberty and a government of limited power, but doesn't occupy the field of philosophy.
Any other point you'd like to make - particularly if it contradicts GOP talking points, and particularly if you can support it with a clear argument beyond 'I think it's the right thing to do.'
Are you just looking to collect arguments to see what sticks? This doesn't speak well of any previous time spent critically thinking about this. Why not focus on what's right, not what allows you to prolong arguments for their own sake? If you want to argue with somebody in other than a professional capacity, you'll get farther doing it based on your own convictions and analyses you formulate or agree with rather than coming up with your own laundry list of talking points.
The Constitution leaves the door open to many things, provided they comply with certain safeguard constraints on government power. That doesn't mean it legimates a particular version of "social justice": you must fill in the philosophical and legal arguments from other sources.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 9:07 AM on September 16, 2009
It is a common good, just like defense, or other items that the gov't provides that is impractical to provide on your own and is to theoretically benefit society as a whole.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 9:09 AM on September 16, 2009
posted by JohnnyGunn at 9:09 AM on September 16, 2009
Why is a Progressive Tax Fair?
Marginal utility, the desire for the tax burden to be as light on a particular individual as it can be, etc. Redistribution on its own is a poor foundation for taxation: you'll get farther based on US history arguing a need to combat particular evils than using some idea of income over a certain level being inherently suspect.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 9:12 AM on September 16, 2009
Marginal utility, the desire for the tax burden to be as light on a particular individual as it can be, etc. Redistribution on its own is a poor foundation for taxation: you'll get farther based on US history arguing a need to combat particular evils than using some idea of income over a certain level being inherently suspect.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 9:12 AM on September 16, 2009
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:00 AM on September 16, 2009