Constitutional argument - public healthcare is protected right

Here's an argument that came to me - since the Constitution allows for the federal govt to spend on behalf of defense, then public healthcare is protected - since Americans are eligible for the draft, and in the event of an invasion on our soil, healthy citizens would be better able to resist invaders.

I think there's a better argument for healthcare funding as "defense" than there is for spending trillions on the Iraqi invasion anyway - what's your take on this?

Leaving aside the idea that anything which aids defense is therefore encompassed by it (would all citizens have the right to demand publicly subsidized firearms and training, too?), the key word is "allows." The taxing and spending clause is about what Congress is allowed to spend on, not what it is required to. That ability is the "protected right"--not the thing they may or may not choose to fund.

As Yoda pointed out really slippery logic. I don't even associate having health care to being healthier, wouldn't even say they're correlated. If the government wants healthier citizens for defense purposes why not subsidize gym memberships? That certainly has a higher correlation to healthier citizens, than having health insurance does. Having subsidized insurance doesn't make you any less obese.

__________________

"Health insurance" isn't subsidized healthcare.

Subsidized healthcare is being able to walk into a clinic or hospital, and having any medical procedure taken care of without so much as having to pull out an insurance card; eventually health insurance would no longer even need to exist.

Obama's so-called universal "healthcare" looks Ayn Rand compared to the type of healthcare system I'd like to see. And it still amazes me how many people don't even know what universal healthcare even is, and think the Affordable Crap Act is even in the same ballpark, lol

I'd say they'd be justified in doing this, if I recall Switzerland has a similar policy.

I wasn't saying they are "obligated" to by law, just that they have a constitutionally protected right to do so.

And who's going to pay for that?

We are

Compared to paying trillions to kill Iraqis over a false WMD scare- not to mention the additional costs that get tacked onto people's medical care, when uninsured people show up at the ER because they have no where else to go. I'd say this is one good cause that'd be worth paying for

No thanks. I already pay for my own health care, so why would I pay for yours? Are you going to come pay for my groceries? I am betting you aren't.

__________________

You understand that by current estimations that this would be an about 4 trillion dollar subsidy, correct? With about 158 million people in the labor force, who you could potentially increase taxes of, that brings an average on $25,157 per person.

I'm pretty sure this is already a near universally accepted principle. Nobody seems to disagree with the idea that Congress has the right to spend money on healthcare; they disagree about the specific mechanisms that can be used to do so and, more importantly, whether or not it's advisable.

This is a pretty illogical response. First, one-time costs like war, large as they sound, are nothing compared to long-term entitlements. And second, whether or not we spend money poorly in one instance has literally nothing to do with whether or not some other cause is worth spending on. If all you had to do to justify new spending was show that it was better than something else we've spent money on, you could justify anything, and all Federal spending would be a race to the bottom.

Uncompensated ER care represents a tiny, tiny fraction of overall healthcare spending. And if we were merely trying to prevent that, we would provide people with catastrophic care insurance, not universal care. Which is a point that was made very often when the ACA was debated, both politically and before the Supreme Court (I think Carvin, specifically, focused on this point in oral arguments).

So we pay for the millions of murdered with billions of dollars, and accept it?... But meanwhile Congress spends every session on trying to repeal the AFA, when it was their plan all along!

__________________
https://www.youtube.com/c/LoyalOpposition

Why shouldn't you? If I live in a rural part of the states, I'm not likely to be threatened as much as a New Yorker in the event of a war, yet I still have to pay for military defense. Why should I have to pay for someone else's defense? Hah

Nothing's stopping you from renouncing your citizenship and moving abroad if you don't want to.

I already pay for groceries (EBT) for people unable to afford them. I also pay for fire departments even though I may never have a fire, for police even though I may never be victim of a violent crime, etc

My choices are to either renounce my citizenship and move somewhere else, or to stop whining. Because sitting on my butt and saying "I shouldn't have to pay for it" won't stop me from winding up in federal prison if I cheat on my taxes.

This has literally nothing to do with whether or not healthcare should be publicly funded.

Huh? Congress is not a static group of individuals, it is a fluctuating body. Half the Senators who voted for Obamacare are no longer in the Senate--largely because they voted for it.

The point is that the "how do we pay for it"? seems like a stonewall more than anything else - given the federal govt's notorious habit of spending on frivolous or unnecessary things (such as the Iraq War supposedly justified as "defense" spending), I'm confident we could cut a good chuck of our nonsense spending and easily be able to afford it. I'd even be fine for example with eliminating the USPS altogether, since the cost of sending mail is easily affordable (not to mention email is becoming the more popular medium).

Not to mention my universal care idea is basically a template subject to modification. For example another idea I'd be fine with is subsidizing catastrophic medical procedures to no more than 5% of a person's annual income - meaning a middle class person wouldn't have to pay for a billionare's healthcare - someone more than capable of affording it out of pocket without being gouged would still do it, or purchase insurance. However an average uninsured person having to pay as much as $50,000 just to fix a broken bone (the same as it would cost to buy a brand new Corvette for something that basic a necessity)? No siree.

I can't comment too much on US stuff, but I did a lot about stuff in economics. Public goods and merit goods, the former that would fail to be provided if left to the free market, such as flood defense, national defense etc. People only pay for problems directly affecting them and fail to take into account the true cost of living. It's up to the government to impose taxes and regulations to ensure that these things are covered whether you choose to or not, over here we have a 'free' healthcare system in place that everywhere has access to.

__________________

Congress has been bought and sold, with the exception of a couple of people.. Besides the AMA, there is so much money lobbied to write the laws.

And I think it is all relative. We have a budget, if we spend all our money killing people, it just creates more enemies, and this isn't new, it's been going on way too long. This is why Western Europe have a much higher standard of living, safe, nice life.

I was watching C-Span, and in the Senate, Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri) was saying how we needed more money for mental health for troops coming back. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) said, "But how much will that cost."

What they didn't understand is that WAR itself is the cause. It's not normal to kill people you never met, for lies your government sold you on based on fear.

More troops die from suicide than on the battlefield.

I approve of that, I consider most healthcare proceedures a necessity rather than a "luxury" as some people seem to. I think given our precedent of guaranteeing services necessary for survival (such as military defense) we have a good case for guaranteed healthcare.

If I had to pick, I'd much rather someone pay out of pocket when they call the police or the fire dept, than be charged exhoribant amounts just for necessary medical care.

The fact that many who are against healthcare reform aren't voicing the same concern over other public services (ex. having to pay for fire depts even when they've never had a fire) also makes me thing there's just a big 'resistance to change' mentality at work here; I think if public healthcare had been around already for a few decades there'd be much fewer people complaining about it - but if public fire or police services was the new idea on the table, that's what they'd be resisting in masse.

Basically the "why should I pay for it?" that I was replying to in his post is a dumb argument, because it's established that there's "no legal right not to pay for something" just because "I don't like it - it's also constitutionally protected spending as well. Just like how an Iraq War protester "might not like" paying for the military, but they have no "right not to" - if they refuse to pay their taxes they'll wind up in prison, that's just the harsh reality.

I think the fire department should be as it is.. Socialized...

If it was privatized, I imagine a scenario where they cut workers and use robots instead (bottom line is everything)..
"Push 1 if you are on fire" "Press 2 if your house is on fire"

You're almost dead when you hear, "We see you have an unpaid balance of $3,340" - Please select the following payment method. To pay with credit card, please press 1.."

Too late... Entire family is dead.

I wasn't advocating privatizing it - I was just using it as an analogy, since of the two I think healthcare expenses is a bigger threat to the average American than dying in a blaze.