The role of the government is to serve the American People. So yes in a sense we are the customer. And yes the government should be run like a business. Meaning fiscally responsible and held accountable to perform to budget and productivity measures. As for the comment in the article about if you appose his policy then you should pack up your toys and go home is such an immature position. Nothing would ever get done if leaders took that position. Rather work harder to find common ground that we can work to build a better future. Now that is how it should be done.
This is a fallacy, and you are wrong. Companies are in no way required to serve their customers. They are required, by law, to maximize profit, and they get to choose their customers. Operations of a company are at the direction of the owners/shareholders. Government should absolutely not be run like a business. The People are not customers; they are owners.
I do agree that government executives need to have an understanding of economics.
Please point to the law that "requires" companies to maximize profits. Here's a hint: it doesn't exist.
I fund it funny how people think the US government does not mirror a business, the only true statement is they should not be turning a profits but that would not be bad, save for a rainy day, otherwise, it is a zero sum game. The government has a revenue stream, it is call taxes, they provide services to people, the product, therefore, they have customers. Most people take the word customer too literal, any time you have someone you answer to in the business world it is your customers, the people of the US are the customer of Government services they provide. Yeah try telling any elected official they work for you or better yet tell the police you pay their salaries and see if their response to you changes. Stop kidding yourself, the people in the government do not work for you, you can not fire them most are protected by unions. Elected official do not work for you either, however, you can fire them but once ever 4 to 6 yrs only after they screw things up really bad. They only way it changes today is if your shame them enough in public to change.
Now image if you call up a government service and they gave you poor service and you wrote your congressman and complain and the next day the government service called you back and apologies for giving crap and gave you something free in return for their poor service. Then they would be working for you. Otherwise stop your pipe dreaming since that is not what we have.
Anyway, the government should run like a business and everyone in this country is customer as well as shareholder so the government should operated in the most efficient way possible so that means the you can not spend more revenue (taxes) than you can make in a given time period. Today our government operates under infinite resource model, they all think because they figure out a way to spend more money the resources exist to bring in more money to cover those costs. Our government job is to make sure everyone has access to the same set of services and recourses, not to figure out how to take from one group and reallocate to another. Face it the government does not have infinite resources and they can not do everything everyone wants.
The role of the government is to serve the American People. So yes in a sense we are the customer. And yes the government should be run like a business. Meaning fiscally responsible and held accountable to perform to budget and productivity measures. As for the comment in the article about if you appose his policy then you should pack up your toys and go home is such an immature position. Nothing would ever get done if leaders took that position. Rather work harder to find common ground that we can work to build a better future. Now that is how it should be done.
This is a fallacy, and you are wrong. Companies are in no way required to serve their customers. They are required, by law, to maximize profit, and they get to choose their customers. Operations of a company are at the direction of the owners/shareholders. Government should absolutely not be run like a business. The People are not customers; they are owners.
I do agree that government executives need to have an understanding of economics.
Please point to the law that "requires" companies to maximize profits. Here's a hint: it doesn't exist.
This is true. A company's management is obligated to act in the interests of their shareholders. Sometimes that may involve long-term losses to gain market share, as Amazon has done for many years. That's the opposite of how Apple operates.
Any chance Tim will advise him that the ACA is a massive tangle of garbage and it should be immediately killed like a Santeria chicken?
I hope you're being facetious. The ACA is very successful. It's not perfect. No complex legislation ever is. It would be working better if Republicans hadn't refused to fund the other $3.4 billion intended for the exchanges. Then health insurance companies wouldn't have dropped out. But then, republicans have never wanted universal health care. They regard that as a privelage, not a right, as it should be.
we can look at the crap they just tried to foist on us. That bill had no support at all. Not from doctors, who rail against socialized medicine because they're afraid their overpriced services will be cut back. Not the nurses groups. Not AARP. Not the drug companies. Not hospitals. Not health care providers, etc.
the only reason for that bills existence was to give huge tax cuts to those earning over $1 million a year, which was written into the bill. To pay for those cuts, 24 million Americans would lose their health care, premiums would go up 15-20% the first year alone. Minimum payments would increase. Drugs would cost more. Essential services such as maternal care, yearly wellness visits, and pre-existing conditions would be stripped away. The so called "Freedom Caucus", which I think of as the "Rich White Man's Steal Money Back From The Middle Class and Poor People's Caucus", didn't agree to vote for it because it didn't steal enough from most people.
I fund it funny how people think the US government does not mirror a business, the only true statement is they should not be turning a profits but that would not be bad, save for a rainy day, otherwise, it is a zero sum game. The government has a revenue stream, it is call taxes, they provide services to people, the product, therefore, they have customers. Most you take the word customer too literal, any time you have someone you answer to in the business world is your customers, the people of the US are the customer of Government services they provide. Yeah try telling any elected official they work for you or better yet tell the police you pay their salaries and see if their response to you changes. Stop kidding yourself, the people in the government do not work for you, you can not fire them most are protected by unions. Elected official do not work for you either, however, you can fire them but once ever 4 to 6 yrs only after they screw things up really bad. They only way it changes today is if your shame them enough in public to change.
Now image if you call up a government service and they gave you poor service and you wrote your congressman and complain and the next day the government service called you back and apologies for giving crap and gave you something free in return for their poor service. Then they would be working for you. Otherwise stop your pipe dreaming since that is not what we have.
Anyway, the government should run like a business and everyone in this country is customer as well as shareholder so the government should operated in the most efficient way possible so that means the you can not spend more revenue (taxes) than you can make in a given time period. Today our government operates under infinite resource model, they all think because they figure out a way to spend more money the resources exist to bring in more money to cover those costs. Our government job is to make sure everyone has access to the same set of services and recourses, not to figure out how to take from one group and reallocate to another. Face it the government does not have infinite resources and they can not do everything everyone wants.
I hope you're being facetious. The ACA is very successful. It's not perfect. No complex legislation ever is. It would be working better if Republicans hadn't refused to fund the other $3.4 billion intended for the exchanges. Then health insurance companies wouldn't have dropped out.
The thing that no one ever wants to discuss is that the insurance companies are pulling out because so many people who are legally required to purchase a policy are opting to take their chances and pay a tax penalty instead - not that the millennials pay any taxes anyway, but that is another topic. The way they figure is that if they show up at an emergency room, they will get treatment even without having insurance. If everyone, especially the younger healthy individuals, would purchase insurance as they are supposed to, the policy costs would be less for everyone. But the entitled generation doesn't want to pay for anything. That is the sole reason ACA is not working as planned. I think Bernie has the right idea. Single payer. Free unlimited health care for all. Many other advanced countries have accomplished it, but it costs money and stingy people don't want to pay.
Any chance Tim will advise him that the ACA is a massive tangle of garbage and it should be immediately killed like a Santeria chicken?
I hope you're being facetious. The ACA is very successful. It's not perfect. No complex legislation ever is. It would be working better if Republicans hadn't refused to fund the other $3.4 billion intended for the exchanges. Then health insurance companies wouldn't have dropped out. But then, republicans have never wanted universal health care. They regard that as a privelage, not a right, as it should be.
we can look at the crap they just tried to foist on us. That bill had no support at all. Not from doctors, who rail against socialized medicine because they're afraid their overpriced services will be cut back. Not the nurses groups. Not AARP. Not the drug companies. Not hospitals. Not health care providers, etc.
the only reason for that bills existence was to give huge tax cuts to those earning over $1 million a year, which was written into the bill. To pay for those cuts, 24 million Americans would lose their health care, premiums would go up 15-20% the first year alone. Minimum payments would increase. Drugs would cost more. Essential services such as maternal care, yearly wellness visits, and pre-existing conditions would be stripped away. The so called "Freedom Caucus", which I think of as the "Rich White Man's Steal Money Back From The Middle Class and Poor People's Caucus", didn't agree to vote for it because it didn't steal enough from most people.
OK, enough of your BS Mel. Please go ahead and make your case as to why health care should be a right and not a privilege. Your actually trying to say that health care should be written into the constitution as a guarantee to all citizens? You're going to claim that a product/service is a "right"????
OK, enough of your BS Mel. Please go ahead and make your case as to why health care should be a right and not a privilege. Your actually trying to say that health care should be written into the constitution as a guarantee to all citizens? You're going to claim that a product/service is a "right"????
It is sort of written into the Constitution. "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." If you don't have health, there is no pursuit of happiness. That said, it shouldn't really apply to people with a three foot wide arse who can't stop shoving food down their pie hole.
Any chance Tim will advise him that the ACA is a massive tangle of garbage and it should be immediately killed like a Santeria chicken?
I hope you're being facetious. The ACA is very successful. It's not perfect. No complex legislation ever is. It would be working better if Republicans hadn't refused to fund the other $3.4 billion intended for the exchanges. Then health insurance companies wouldn't have dropped out. But then, republicans have never wanted universal health care. They regard that as a privelage, not a right, as it should be.
we can look at the crap they just tried to foist on us. That bill had no support at all. Not from doctors, who rail against socialized medicine because they're afraid their overpriced services will be cut back. Not the nurses groups. Not AARP. Not the drug companies. Not hospitals. Not health care providers, etc.
the only reason for that bills existence was to give huge tax cuts to those earning over $1 million a year, which was written into the bill. To pay for those cuts, 24 million Americans would lose their health care, premiums would go up 15-20% the first year alone. Minimum payments would increase. Drugs would cost more. Essential services such as maternal care, yearly wellness visits, and pre-existing conditions would be stripped away. The so called "Freedom Caucus", which I think of as the "Rich White Man's Steal Money Back From The Middle Class and Poor People's Caucus", didn't agree to vote for it because it didn't steal enough from most people.
We agree on many things, but we are never going to see eye to eye on this one. Until the day the American people agree that the Federal government should be fundamentally involved in healthcare to the point that they demand a constitutional amendment, there is absolutely no justification for such an intrusion on markets and services and there is especially no legal justification whatsoever to force people to buy a product. That's clearly unconstitutional.
OK, enough of your BS Mel. Please go ahead and make your case as to why health care should be a right and not a privilege. Your actually trying to say that health care should be written into the constitution as a guarantee to all citizens? You're going to claim that a product/service is a "right"????
It is sort of written into the Constitution. "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." If you don't have health, there is no pursuit of happiness. That said, it shouldn't really apply to people with a three foot wide arse who can't stop shoving food down their pie hole.
More to the point, if you don't have access to health care, then the whole "Life" bit starts to become a problem, too.
OK, enough of your BS Mel. Please go ahead and make your case as to why health care should be a right and not a privilege. Your actually trying to say that health care should be written into the constitution as a guarantee to all citizens? You're going to claim that a product/service is a "right"????
It is sort of written into the Constitution. "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." If you don't have health, there is no pursuit of happiness. That said, it shouldn't really apply to people with a three foot wide arse who can't stop shoving food down their pie hole.
The phrase "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" does not appear in the Constitution, it appears in the Declaration of Independence.
The closest phrasing that appears in the Constitution is, probably, found in the Fifth Amendment: "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
That said, the right to heath care likely is contemplated by some provisions of the U.S. Constitution (e.g., the Privileges and Immunities Clause, i.e. Clause 1 of Section 2 of Article IV, and the Privileges or Immunities Clause, i.e. Clause 2 of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, and the 9th and 10th Amendments). U.S. citizens no doubt have a constitutional right to health care. But having a constitutional right to something is not the same as having a constitutional right to have it provided to you by the government. For the most part, the former means that the government can't prohibit you from having something or from doing something. It doesn't mean the government has to give you something or do something for you.
The constitutional right to freely exercise your religion doesn't mean that the government has to provide you with a bible or build a church for you. The right to keep arms doesn't mean that the government has to provide you with an arm. The right to speak freely doesn't mean that the government has to provide you with a bullhorn or a printing press. There are, at least as the Constitution has been interpreted, some exceptions based on particular circumstances. But I don't think a reasonable argument can be made that the rights guarantees in the Constitution contemplated a right to be provided, by the government, with health care.
Whether government should provide health care (or health care coverage) to everyone is a separate consideration, of course.
I'm kinda stunned ... how has this thread not been shut down?
Because it's anti Trump.
Because it mostly reflects the feelings of most members. It's also correct.
You just gave a perfect example of why journalism is dead. Sure, there are probably more liberals reading this forum, but there are others such as myself that don't share the same liberal views. When comments don't reflect the same opinions of the liberal moderators here, comments get shut down. That's why I think it's pretty funny all the anti Trump rhetoric seems ok, yet when someone has an opposing view, thread is closed.
OK, enough of your BS Mel. Please go ahead and make your case as to why health care should be a right and not a privilege. Your actually trying to say that health care should be written into the constitution as a guarantee to all citizens? You're going to claim that a product/service is a "right"????
It is sort of written into the Constitution. "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." If you don't have health, there is no pursuit of happiness. That said, it shouldn't really apply to people with a three foot wide arse who can't stop shoving food down their pie hole.
The phrase "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" does not appear in the Constitution, it appears in the Declaration of Independence.
The closest phrasing that appears in the Constitution is, probably, found in the Fifth Amendment: "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
That said, the right to heath care likely is contemplated by some provisions of the U.S. Constitution (e.g., the Privileges and Immunities Clause, i.e. Clause 1 of Section 2 of Article IV, and the Privileges or Immunities Clause, i.e. Clause 2 of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, and the 9th and 10th Amendments). U.S. citizens no doubt have a constitutional right to health care. But having a constitutional right to something is not the same as having a constitutional right to have it provided to you by the government. For the most part, the former means that the government can't prohibit you from having something or from doing something. It doesn't mean the government has to give you something or do something for you.
The constitutional right to freely exercise your religion doesn't mean that the government has to provide you with a bible or build a church for you. The right to keep arms doesn't mean that the government has to provide you with an arm. The right to speak freely doesn't mean that the government has to provide you with a bullhorn or a printing press. There are, at least as the Constitution has been interpreted, some exceptions based on particular circumstances. But I don't think a reasonable argument can be made that the rights guarantees in the Constitution contemplated a right to be provided, by the government, with health care.
Whether government should provide health care (or health care coverage) to everyone is a separate consideration, of course.
People most certainly do not have a constitutionally defensible right to health care. If they did, it would be in the Constitution as an Amendment. Healthcare and insurance are products provided by other free people. One cannot force other people to provide their work or products based on an incorrect interpretation of the Constitution.
I'm kinda stunned ... how has this thread not been shut down?
Because it's anti Trump.
Because it mostly reflects the feelings of most members. It's also correct.
You just gave a perfect example of why journalism is dead. Sure, there are probably more liberals reading this forum, but there are others such as myself that don't share the same liberal views. When comments don't reflect the same opinions of the liberal moderators here, comments get shut down. That's why I think it's pretty funny all the anti Trump rhetoric seems ok, yet when someone has an opposing view, thread is closed.
OK, enough of your BS Mel. Please go ahead and make your case as to why health care should be a right and not a privilege. Your actually trying to say that health care should be written into the constitution as a guarantee to all citizens? You're going to claim that a product/service is a "right"????
It is sort of written into the Constitution. "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." If you don't have health, there is no pursuit of happiness. That said, it shouldn't really apply to people with a three foot wide arse who can't stop shoving food down their pie hole.
The phrase "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" does not appear in the Constitution, it appears in the Declaration of Independence.
The closest phrasing that appears in the Constitution is, probably, found in the Fifth Amendment: "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
That said, the right to heath care likely is contemplated by some provisions of the U.S. Constitution (e.g., the Privileges and Immunities Clause, i.e. Clause 1 of Section 2 of Article IV, and the Privileges or Immunities Clause, i.e. Clause 2 of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, and the 9th and 10th Amendments). U.S. citizens no doubt have a constitutional right to health care. But having a constitutional right to something is not the same as having a constitutional right to have it provided to you by the government. For the most part, the former means that the government can't prohibit you from having something or from doing something. It doesn't mean the government has to give you something or do something for you.
The constitutional right to freely exercise your religion doesn't mean that the government has to provide you with a bible or build a church for you. The right to keep arms doesn't mean that the government has to provide you with an arm. The right to speak freely doesn't mean that the government has to provide you with a bullhorn or a printing press. There are, at least as the Constitution has been interpreted, some exceptions based on particular circumstances. But I don't think a reasonable argument can be made that the rights guarantees in the Constitution contemplated a right to be provided, by the government, with health care.
Whether government should provide health care (or health care coverage) to everyone is a separate consideration, of course.
People most certainly do not have a constitutionally defensible right to health care. If they did, it would be in the Constitution.
Are you referring to a right to have it provided to them by the government? If so, then yeah, I agree.
If, however, you're referring to having a right to health care meaning that the government can't prohibit you from getting health care... then, I disagree. Many rights were meant to be protected by general provisions found in the Constitution (e.g. the Privileges or Immunities Clause, the Due Process Clause(s)) rather than by specific enumeration. Framers understood that they couldn't explicitly mention every specific protection that citizens (or residents) were meant to enjoy, so in some places they used general language to refer to the broad spectrum of rights which were meant to be protected.
OK, enough of your BS Mel. Please go ahead and make your case as to why health care should be a right and not a privilege. Your actually trying to say that health care should be written into the constitution as a guarantee to all citizens? You're going to claim that a product/service is a "right"????
It is sort of written into the Constitution. "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." If you don't have health, there is no pursuit of happiness. That said, it shouldn't really apply to people with a three foot wide arse who can't stop shoving food down their pie hole.
The phrase "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" does not appear in the Constitution, it appears in the Declaration of Independence.
The closest phrasing that appears in the Constitution is, probably, found in the Fifth Amendment: "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
That said, the right to heath care likely is contemplated by some provisions of the U.S. Constitution (e.g., the Privileges and Immunities Clause, i.e. Clause 1 of Section 2 of Article IV, and the Privileges or Immunities Clause, i.e. Clause 2 of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, and the 9th and 10th Amendments). U.S. citizens no doubt have a constitutional right to health care. But having a constitutional right to something is not the same as having a constitutional right to have it provided to you by the government. For the most part, the former means that the government can't prohibit you from having something or from doing something. It doesn't mean the government has to give you something or do something for you.
The constitutional right to freely exercise your religion doesn't mean that the government has to provide you with a bible or build a church for you. The right to keep arms doesn't mean that the government has to provide you with an arm. The right to speak freely doesn't mean that the government has to provide you with a bullhorn or a printing press. There are, at least as the Constitution has been interpreted, some exceptions based on particular circumstances. But I don't think a reasonable argument can be made that the rights guarantees in the Constitution contemplated a right to be provided, by the government, with health care.
Whether government should provide health care (or health care coverage) to everyone is a separate consideration, of course.
People most certainly do not have a constitutionally defensible right to health care. If they did, it would be in the Constitution.
Are you referring to a right to have it provided to them by the government? If so, then yeah, I agree.
If, however, you're referring to having a right to health care meaning that the government can't prohibit you from getting health care... then, I disagree. Many rights were meant to be protected by general provisions found in the Constitution (e.g. the Privileges or Immunities Clause, the Due Process Clause(s)) rather than by specific enumeration. Framers understood that they couldn't explicitly mention every specific protection that citizens (or residents) were meant to enjoy, so in some places they used general language to refer to the broad spectrum of rights which were meant to be protected.
Not prohibiting a person from seeking out healthcare isn't the same as a constitutionally protected right. That's a simple matter of a buyer and a seller choosing to engage in trade, which need not involve any "blessing" by Federal or State government. Standard contract law applies.
OK, enough of your BS Mel. Please go ahead and make your case as to why health care should be a right and not a privilege. Your actually trying to say that health care should be written into the constitution as a guarantee to all citizens? You're going to claim that a product/service is a "right"????
It is sort of written into the Constitution. "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." If you don't have health, there is no pursuit of happiness. That said, it shouldn't really apply to people with a three foot wide arse who can't stop shoving food down their pie hole.
The phrase "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" does not appear in the Constitution, it appears in the Declaration of Independence.
The closest phrasing that appears in the Constitution is, probably, found in the Fifth Amendment: "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
That said, the right to heath care likely is contemplated by some provisions of the U.S. Constitution (e.g., the Privileges and Immunities Clause, i.e. Clause 1 of Section 2 of Article IV, and the Privileges or Immunities Clause, i.e. Clause 2 of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, and the 9th and 10th Amendments). U.S. citizens no doubt have a constitutional right to health care. But having a constitutional right to something is not the same as having a constitutional right to have it provided to you by the government. For the most part, the former means that the government can't prohibit you from having something or from doing something. It doesn't mean the government has to give you something or do something for you.
The constitutional right to freely exercise your religion doesn't mean that the government has to provide you with a bible or build a church for you. The right to keep arms doesn't mean that the government has to provide you with an arm. The right to speak freely doesn't mean that the government has to provide you with a bullhorn or a printing press. There are, at least as the Constitution has been interpreted, some exceptions based on particular circumstances. But I don't think a reasonable argument can be made that the rights guarantees in the Constitution contemplated a right to be provided, by the government, with health care.
Whether government should provide health care (or health care coverage) to everyone is a separate consideration, of course.
People most certainly do not have a constitutionally defensible right to health care. If they did, it would be in the Constitution.
Are you referring to a right to have it provided to them by the government? If so, then yeah, I agree.
If, however, you're referring to having a right to health care meaning that the government can't prohibit you from getting health care... then, I disagree. Many rights were meant to be protected by general provisions found in the Constitution (e.g. the Privileges or Immunities Clause, the Due Process Clause(s)) rather than by specific enumeration. Framers understood that they couldn't explicitly mention every specific protection that citizens (or residents) were meant to enjoy, so in some places they used general language to refer to the broad spectrum of rights which were meant to be protected.
Not prohibiting a person from seeking out healthcare isn't the same as a constitutionally protected right. That's a simple matter of a buyer and a seller choosing to engage in trade, which need not involve any "blessing" by Federal or State government. Standard contract law applies.
I think you're making much the point I was in my original post.
Generally speaking a constitutional right relates to something a government can't proscribe, it does not generally refer to a government having to provide you with something. You have a constitutional right to keep firearms, that doesn't mean that the government has to give you firearms (nor, generally, does it mean that a particular private party has to sell you firearms). The right to contract with others which you allude to is also, to some extent, protected by the Constitution.
Not prohibiting someone from doing something is generally what a constitutionally protected right is. Such rights are more often than not negative in nature - i.e., they are things the government is not allowed to do rather than things the government is required to do.
OK, enough of your BS Mel. Please go ahead and make your case as to why health care should be a right and not a privilege. Your actually trying to say that health care should be written into the constitution as a guarantee to all citizens? You're going to claim that a product/service is a "right"????
It is sort of written into the Constitution. "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." If you don't have health, there is no pursuit of happiness. That said, it shouldn't really apply to people with a three foot wide arse who can't stop shoving food down their pie hole.
The phrase "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" does not appear in the Constitution, it appears in the Declaration of Independence.
The closest phrasing that appears in the Constitution is, probably, found in the Fifth Amendment: "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
That said, the right to heath care likely is contemplated by some provisions of the U.S. Constitution (e.g., the Privileges and Immunities Clause, i.e. Clause 1 of Section 2 of Article IV, and the Privileges or Immunities Clause, i.e. Clause 2 of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, and the 9th and 10th Amendments). U.S. citizens no doubt have a constitutional right to health care. But having a constitutional right to something is not the same as having a constitutional right to have it provided to you by the government. For the most part, the former means that the government can't prohibit you from having something or from doing something. It doesn't mean the government has to give you something or do something for you.
The constitutional right to freely exercise your religion doesn't mean that the government has to provide you with a bible or build a church for you. The right to keep arms doesn't mean that the government has to provide you with an arm. The right to speak freely doesn't mean that the government has to provide you with a bullhorn or a printing press. There are, at least as the Constitution has been interpreted, some exceptions based on particular circumstances. But I don't think a reasonable argument can be made that the rights guarantees in the Constitution contemplated a right to be provided, by the government, with health care.
Whether government should provide health care (or health care coverage) to everyone is a separate consideration, of course.
People most certainly do not have a constitutionally defensible right to health care. If they did, it would be in the Constitution.
Are you referring to a right to have it provided to them by the government? If so, then yeah, I agree.
If, however, you're referring to having a right to health care meaning that the government can't prohibit you from getting health care... then, I disagree. Many rights were meant to be protected by general provisions found in the Constitution (e.g. the Privileges or Immunities Clause, the Due Process Clause(s)) rather than by specific enumeration. Framers understood that they couldn't explicitly mention every specific protection that citizens (or residents) were meant to enjoy, so in some places they used general language to refer to the broad spectrum of rights which were meant to be protected.
Not prohibiting a person from seeking out healthcare isn't the same as a constitutionally protected right. That's a simple matter of a buyer and a seller choosing to engage in trade, which need not involve any "blessing" by Federal or State government. Standard contract law applies.
I think you're making much the point I was in my original post.
Generally speaking a constitutional right relates to something a government can't proscribe, it does not generally refer to a government having to provide you with something. You have a constitutional right to keep firearms, that doesn't mean that the government has to give you firearms (nor, generally, does it mean that a particular private party has to sell you firearms). The right to contract with others which you allude to is also, to some extent, protected by the Constitution.
Not prohibiting someone from doing something is generally what a constitutionally protected right is. Such rights are more often than not negative in nature - i.e., they are things the government is not allowed to do rather than things the government is required to do.
Not prohibiting someone from doing something is not at all the same as a constitutionally protected right. Regarding the other points, you're correct.
Comments
Please point to the law that "requires" companies to maximize profits. Here's a hint: it doesn't exist.
I fund it funny how people think the US government does not mirror a business, the only true statement is they should not be turning a profits but that would not be bad, save for a rainy day, otherwise, it is a zero sum game. The government has a revenue stream, it is call taxes, they provide services to people, the product, therefore, they have customers. Most people take the word customer too literal, any time you have someone you answer to in the business world it is your customers, the people of the US are the customer of Government services they provide. Yeah try telling any elected official they work for you or better yet tell the police you pay their salaries and see if their response to you changes. Stop kidding yourself, the people in the government do not work for you, you can not fire them most are protected by unions. Elected official do not work for you either, however, you can fire them but once ever 4 to 6 yrs only after they screw things up really bad. They only way it changes today is if your shame them enough in public to change.
Now image if you call up a government service and they gave you poor service and you wrote your congressman and complain and the next day the government service called you back and apologies for giving crap and gave you something free in return for their poor service. Then they would be working for you. Otherwise stop your pipe dreaming since that is not what we have.
Anyway, the government should run like a business and everyone in this country is customer as well as shareholder so the government should operated in the most efficient way possible so that means the you can not spend more revenue (taxes) than you can make in a given time period. Today our government operates under infinite resource model, they all think because they figure out a way to spend more money the resources exist to bring in more money to cover those costs. Our government job is to make sure everyone has access to the same set of services and recourses, not to figure out how to take from one group and reallocate to another. Face it the government does not have infinite resources and they can not do everything everyone wants.
I hope you're being facetious. The ACA is very successful. It's not perfect. No complex legislation ever is. It would be working better if Republicans hadn't refused to fund the other $3.4 billion intended for the exchanges. Then health insurance companies wouldn't have dropped out. But then, republicans have never wanted universal health care. They regard that as a privelage, not a right, as it should be.
we can look at the crap they just tried to foist on us. That bill had no support at all. Not from doctors, who rail against socialized medicine because they're afraid their overpriced services will be cut back. Not the nurses groups. Not AARP. Not the drug companies. Not hospitals. Not health care providers, etc.
the only reason for that bills existence was to give huge tax cuts to those earning over $1 million a year, which was written into the bill. To pay for those cuts, 24 million Americans would lose their health care, premiums would go up 15-20% the first year alone. Minimum payments would increase. Drugs would cost more. Essential services such as maternal care, yearly wellness visits, and pre-existing conditions would be stripped away. The so called "Freedom Caucus", which I think of as the "Rich White Man's Steal Money Back From The Middle Class and Poor People's Caucus", didn't agree to vote for it because it didn't steal enough from most people.
What a load of crap!
The closest phrasing that appears in the Constitution is, probably, found in the Fifth Amendment: "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
That said, the right to heath care likely is contemplated by some provisions of the U.S. Constitution (e.g., the Privileges and Immunities Clause, i.e. Clause 1 of Section 2 of Article IV, and the Privileges or Immunities Clause, i.e. Clause 2 of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, and the 9th and 10th Amendments). U.S. citizens no doubt have a constitutional right to health care. But having a constitutional right to something is not the same as having a constitutional right to have it provided to you by the government. For the most part, the former means that the government can't prohibit you from having something or from doing something. It doesn't mean the government has to give you something or do something for you.
The constitutional right to freely exercise your religion doesn't mean that the government has to provide you with a bible or build a church for you. The right to keep arms doesn't mean that the government has to provide you with an arm. The right to speak freely doesn't mean that the government has to provide you with a bullhorn or a printing press. There are, at least as the Constitution has been interpreted, some exceptions based on particular circumstances. But I don't think a reasonable argument can be made that the rights guarantees in the Constitution contemplated a right to be provided, by the government, with health care.
Whether government should provide health care (or health care coverage) to everyone is a separate consideration, of course.
Hear! Hear!
If, however, you're referring to having a right to health care meaning that the government can't prohibit you from getting health care... then, I disagree. Many rights were meant to be protected by general provisions found in the Constitution (e.g. the Privileges or Immunities Clause, the Due Process Clause(s)) rather than by specific enumeration. Framers understood that they couldn't explicitly mention every specific protection that citizens (or residents) were meant to enjoy, so in some places they used general language to refer to the broad spectrum of rights which were meant to be protected.
Generally speaking a constitutional right relates to something a government can't proscribe, it does not generally refer to a government having to provide you with something. You have a constitutional right to keep firearms, that doesn't mean that the government has to give you firearms (nor, generally, does it mean that a particular private party has to sell you firearms). The right to contract with others which you allude to is also, to some extent, protected by the Constitution.
Not prohibiting someone from doing something is generally what a constitutionally protected right is. Such rights are more often than not negative in nature - i.e., they are things the government is not allowed to do rather than things the government is required to do.