Pedro Martínez:

> "Rights" are those entitlements that cannot exist without a corresponding duty
> of the state - e.g. the right to healthcare requires the state to provide the healthcare.
> Or the right to fair trial requires the state to take such measures as to guarantee the
> fair trial. On the other hand, "freedoms" are immanent within every citizen and they
> exist regardless of what the state does. Such as the freedom of speech, or the
> freedom of religion.

In other words, we are down to legal semantics.

I could rephrase things a little:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A healthy population, being necessary to the well-being of a free nation, the right of the People to healthcare, shall not be infringed."

The first statement is acceptable as a "freedom" because anyone can keep and bear a weapon, regardless of what the state does, and the state has no right to take away that freedom.

The second statement is unacceptable because the state would be responsible in ensuring that everyone receives healthcare.

Then similar arguments can be made about education. Legally speaking, the state is not required to provide education in the US. This is a quote of the Republican campaign platform of 1996:

"The Federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in school curricula or to control jobs in the market place. This is why we will abolish the Department of Education, end federal meddling in our schools, and promote family choice at all levels of learning."

Ronald Reagan promised to dimsantle the Department of Education in the 1980s (the Democrats blocked that), and to George W. Bush's credit, he refused to implement the Republican platform of dismantling that department.

However, by Pedro's argument, since education is an "entitlement", the state should not be required to provide it and the Reagan administration was justified in wanting to dismantle the federal system of education and let individual families decide when and where education would happen. If the poor happened to have no money for it, it would be their problem, just as with healthcare.

Since a person can choose any healthcare they want according to its affordability, why should there be restrictions on which gun a person can buy. If a person can afford a fully automatic assault weapon, why restrict purchasing those. Sarah Palin is right in wanting to remove the ban on automatic assault rifles. If I can afford it, why should I not be able to buy it?

Then the letter of the law should be applied. If a person is not enrolled in a well-regulated militia, should they be free to own a gun? Then all those not in a militia should give up their guns!

Interpreting legal semantics is a tricky thing, obviously.

(V): This gun conversation is helpful for me in explaining the differences of opinions in the health care debate.

It is because of criminals who use guns in illegal ways that you want to infringe our freedom to bear arms, in the same way you want to change our whole health care system, just because of a few bad apples.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c

Who is an expert???

Pedro Martínez: One thing that gets me about this 'freedom' of owning arms is the situation in which it came about. IE the time of American independence. It has led imho to much gun crime on the streets, in schools, etc in current times.

I can accept that to change such a freedom would be not possible, but the nature of what people are allowed to own, or at least the nature of how they are kept needs sorting. When my brother owned two guns, he had to be vetted by the police (even though he was a serving member of the UK military, his guns had to be stored as such that if someone broke in, they could not just nick them (steel boxes bolted down) and that each weapon was stored so that someone could not just break into one box and have a gun, as the firing mechanisms were stored in a separate steel box, again bolted down.

Access as such in homes I can appreciate in America needs to be quick due to the number of criminals with guns, but this ought to be handguns only, anything heavier stored to prevent thieves getting easy access to them. Or as has happened.. kids using them.

A small safe, does not cost much. And with keypad combo's is quick to open.

Artful Dodger: So, in dismissing my comments, you dismiss the FACT that WWII came at a point that interfered with the data as such to give an accurate assessment of how the dealing with the great depression back then worked or failed? Can you explain how you arrived at this assessment??

The progressive movement seems to have come from Republicans who joined the Democrats as they no longer agreed with the Republican idols... as you know, ideology is a dangerous business.

Yes.. most people are centre in views, neither left or right.. having to choose between two parties who are left or right. That's why the Republican party failed to be re-elected.. Bush and McCain had gone toooooo far right to be fair representatives of the people.

Pedro Martínez: well said

Übergeek 바둑이: The difference is quite simple. It comes down to what the Czech constitution defines as "rights" and "freedoms." "Rights" are those entitlements that cannot exist without a corresponding duty of the state - e.g. the right to healthcare requires the state to provide the healthcare. Or the right to fair trial requires the state to take such measures as to guarantee the fair trial. On the other hand, "freedoms" are immanent within every citizen and they exist regardless of what the state does. Such as the freedom of speech, or the freedom of religion.

The English language is not as consistent as Czech and analogously the U.S. Constitution is not as consistent as the Czech constitution in the naming of the "rights" and "freedoms." The right to bear arms is not a "right," it is a "freedom." You are free to own a weapon even if there are no gun manufacturers, even if there are no arms available.

It is curious, nobody said anything much about my post (some 26 posts ago). If Article 2 of the Bill of Rights says that people have the right to bearm arms, why is owning a gun a right, while giving healthcare to everyone is not?

I am curious to see some opinions, from both defenders and opponents of healthcare as a right.

GTCharlie:

I was away for a couple of days. I can finally reply to some comments.

> But how many actually die because of PROVEN poor health care? rather
> than poor lifestyles,smoking, drinking, obesity? also to think about,,
> everyone has the right to education at least k-12, but not college, meaning
> paid by the taxpayers

You realize that there are countries in which education is considered a right to any level. For example, in countries like Germany and Austria education is free. In fact Germany did not allow tuition fees for universities until very recently. People in some German states still have a fully free univeristy education. Austria is the same. In the US and Canada university education is expensive because it is not considered a right, but the state does provide the "minimum" which is considered highschool. Education as right is just like healthcare as a right. Different countries see it different depending on what is politically and economically convenient.

(V):  It doesn't matter according to you but you're no expert so I'll dismiss your comments on that score.

and the progressive movement has been rejected ever since it's inception.  People don't lean left here, they are mostly centrist.  Obama hasn't figured this out yet because he's surrounded himself with far left loonie progressives.  He's a lame duck already.

GTCharlie: I ain't shooting ya Dude.. Just the Telegraph has become a bit of a joke over here compared to it's past.

And yes, no president is above criticism. Just at the moment so many want him to fail just because he is not a republican, which is crazy. Much of what led to the problem in the USA as it is goes back decades, and all the various politicians have just sat on their bottoms and not bothered... Just like over here with the expenses scandal.

As I've said before everyone needs to work the problem.

(V): hey don't shoot the messenger, I'm just posting different viewpoints from England now and again,, I'm on record and have hopes that everything turns out good, I honestly hope Obama turns out great because that will be good for the country ,However he's certainly not above constructive criticism and hopefully readjusts as we go on ,like he did with that moron,Van Jones, he(they) picked for Green Jobs. Also, don't forget, that he,Emmaneul, Biden, Frank, Kennedy and that economic Genius Rangel were right there wheeling and dealing with the Republicans,so I don't give either side a free pass

Artful Dodger: When does history show this? As I said, the great depression does not count

(V):   In just a few months Obama has managed to increase the crisis he "inherited" and he's on his way to making it worse.  History shows that his ideas are NOT new and they've failed in the past.  Obama is a fish out of water.  He has no plan.  Only ideas.  And he doesn't have a clue as to how to impliment them.

GTCharlie: Well... unfortunately Obama inherited alot of problems from the Bush administration. As for Dear leader...

"FDR was responsible for killing 400,000 American soldiers in WWII."

I guess the axis forces just sat at home name calling then.

.... As for printing money... In small doses that is fine, inflation is effected by more then just printing money. Ya just don't want the policy of Germany after WWI.

And as for the first article you posted... "The study represents a challenge to the widely held view that Keynesian fiscal policies helped the US recover from the Depression which started in the early 1930s."

This is the point of who knows!! WWII intervened with the ability to have the authors of the article having a clear case and argument.

(V): How about the one calling him "dear leader", or the one from the chinese article saying" Don't worry China. We will print PLENTY of money so there will be enough for everyone!"

GTCharlie: I like this member comment...

"Why is everybody blaming Obama? He has been in office for 8 months. It is the disasterous policies of the Bush administration that have this country on life support. Obama is doing his best to contend with a patient (the USA) with multisystem organ failure caused by greed and deception over decades but magnified by bush and his people!"

Artful Dodger: Will he beat Raygun and Bush II??

What about Nixon??

Artful Dodger: I always like reading the member comment section for these articles,, some are pretty funny,

GTCharlie:  Obama will go down in history as one of the most incompetent and dishonest presidents ever in US politics.

Bernice: Blimey!! That practice of making doctors work stupid shifts was made illegal over here about 5 years ago. I'm surprised it's not the same over in Aussie land!!

stop quibbling over what you have and haven't got...

think on this???

http://livenews.com.au/life/overworked-queensland-doctors-admit-to-killing-patients/2009/9/7/218565

Pedro Martínez:

Czuch: Not unless normal people stop having babies the normal way, and people are grown (like in "Brave New World") rather then born.

Czuch: As mentioned.. Czuch, our NHS covers everyone and has turned around a £500 million overspend to a £1 billion plus surplus that is to be wholly reinvested.

It can be done, all that the USA has to do is work out which scheme is right. Controls such as full audits need to be made law for all providers. Tort law needs reforming, as in reasonable levels of compensation.. not this "it has to be bigger" attitude that is lining lawyers pockets and robbing the people of the USA as they have to pay for the lawyers getting rich.

It is possible.

Pedro Martínez: Having a healthcare system where some die due to lack of money (workers) and bosses don't as they have the money..... Last I looked into the infrastructure of a company.... The bosses needed workers.

It's inhumane to say that one person can have quality healthcare and one cannot, especially in the same country.. such is, that such a policy is liable to end up in revolution in one form or another.

"Animal Farm" springs to mind

GTCharlie: Good points as well.... I guess the government should be required to provide everyone a personal trainer and dietitian etc to every person from age 5 on too

Pedro Martínez:

Thank you... and statements like "if there is a heart and a doctor available" is a good example.

That was my whole point..... if health care is to be a "right", then the government has to have the ability to protect that for the people in all and every instance, and if it is not possible to do that, then it cannot be possible to be a right

Its a philosophical debate... it either is or isnt, there is no grey area.

Übergeek 바둑이: Healthcare is a right when people die as a result of poor healthcare.

Well, it either IS a right or it ISN'T. Words like "when" or "if" have no place in defining what is a right.

GTCharlie: Poor lifestyle is a factor the docs know how to adjust for. The science and technology exists to determine all the factors that lead upto a persons death.

Little things called autopsy's and post mortems...

As for college.. the more that go to that level of education and complete it the better potential for high skilled employees. That level of workforce potential should be nurtured and kept open otherwise you end up with a lack of skills. It is simple economic sense to have college open to as many potential skilled employees as possible.

As long as they pass the entrance tests.

Übergeek 바둑이: But how many actually die because of PROVEN poor health care? rather than poor lifestyles,smoking, drinking, obesity? also to think about,, everyone has the right to education at least k-12, but not college, meaning paid by the taxpayers

Czuch:

Like you, I was a little busy and could not reply to your post.

> it was about the companies, and even you admitted that it was a US
> company that develops a majority of drugs

Please don't put words in my mouth! I never said what you wrote and in that same post I gave examples of half a dozen drug companies which are not American. Drug development is done by pharmaceutical companies all over the world.

> You claim they make billions in profits, maybe so... but explain why then, if
> a government like Canada can make socialized medicine a part of their way,
> why doesnt the same government spend the money and time to develope
> their own drugs?????

Do you really think Canada has no research into drugs and pharmaceuticals? You should visit universities and companies here. Canadias spend billions in research too, both through private and public funds. Pharmaceuticals are a huge business and Canada exploits them too, like many other countries.

> Also, the question about health care being a right, my point was also missed.....
> we can have rights like the right to free speach, or the right to unlawful search
> or seasure etc, but how can we have rights to a service like health care?

I had on purpose stayed out of HEALTHCARE AS A RIGHT. The reason is that it is not as simple as it looks. Individual beliefs play a big role here, just as with many other issues of "rights".

I can give a good example too of how "rights" are interpreted differently by different people. Consider the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I brought this up to make a point. Many Americans consider the second Amendment to be an unalieanable right. They see restriction on gun possession as a direct infringement of their rights. Here is a good question. If it is a right for people to possess a deadly weapon, is that right a good or a bad thing? The answer to this has raised heated debates in the United States and here in Canada too. Gun control in Canada was a source of bitterness for many gun owners, as much as it is in the US.

Likewise, the "right" to healthcare is a source of a lot of vitriol on both sides of the political spectrum. One thing is interesting. Republicans generally tend to oppose gun control and healthcare reform. The defend one right (bear arms) and oppose the other (healthcare). Democrats generally oppose the right to bear arms (they support stronger gun control) and defend the right to healthcare.

> What about an MRI, do I also have a right to an MRI? What if the MRI isnt
> invented yet?

The issue of access is central to the debate of healthcare as a right. The question is not a black and white question. Consider a case of two men. One needs a hip joint replacement to be able to walk and the other needs a heart transplant to survive.

Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that everyone the right to life. Denying health care to the first man does not violate his human rights, but denying the second man does. The second man would die if not given treatment. The question is, does this man have a right to healthcare on account of his potential death if not given a transplant? The question is difficult. Assuming that doctors and a heart donor is available, would denying the transplant on accounts of economic reasons be a violation of human rights?

Now, two men need a heart transplant. One is wealthy and has all the insurance coverage he needs. The other is poor and is without adequate insurance to cover his operation. Is denying the poor man insurance coverage a violation of his human rights?

Most cases are not as drastic as this, like somebody who just needs prescription glasses, or simple pain relief for arthritis. It is a complex question. I think that ultimately a health care system has to attempt to balance all sides of the issue. Insurance companies have a right to make a profit, as do doctors and hospitals. However, if profit takes precendence over the protection of the inalienable right to life, then somehow the state has to find balance through legislation and a public system of some kind.

Some countries like Canada and Sweden have solved the problem by going for a publicly run system. These systems are not perfect, and often the state is unable to provide all the services needed.

Other countries don't care at all and all medical services are done privately with minimal state intervention. I have been to developing countries where healthcare is chaotic because the state has little or no involvement at all. In these places millions of people die every year because of poor healthcare.

Other countries like the United States and Australia have both private and public health care and they seem to function well except for the segments of society with the lowest incomes.

The balance has to lie somewehere. I am of the opinion that the Obama administration should do its best to find a balanced approach in which both public and private interest should try to cooperate to find a solution to the problems, rather than playing to public passions to defeat one or the other side of the issue. Of course, in real life special interest and individuals put themselves ahead of an entire country's well-being.

Is healthcare a right? I think it is when people die as a result of poor healthcare. To me Article 3 of the Declaration of Human rights takes precedence over anything else.

Pedro Martínez: Right against....sorry

Czuch: People in the US have a right to unlawful search???

Czuch: You tell me, you say you know better

As for the other 2 questions.. read back and study some economics. Most people who like to talk about things do so.. so other don't keep having to explain the simple things and repeat themselves.

Only one minor thing.. I called it "maximum employment", while the term seemingly used (a bit of a rusty memory on the name) is full employment.. where as it is expected that some of the population will not be in employment as a natural event.

(V): I did, by using the term maximum employment


So you are telling me that the US doesnt have "maximum employment" because our health care system is not nationalized???

(V): One deals with health, one deals with post... can you see the difference??


So then, in your opinion, the government is good at running some things and not so good at others?

(V): Well if health care frauds were gone that save $1,000,000,000


Well, can we get rid of fraud and not go socialized at the same time?

Czuch: I did, by using the term maximum employment. I was taught it during classes in economics at the age of 14. If you studied and looked at the subject on the web, you'd understand.

Didn't I sorta say it was something we do as humans, and as such.. our governments are supposed to represent the will of the people.. doesn't it state so in your constitution?? Or did you skip that bit.

"Why/how are they to be different???"

One deals with health, one deals with post... can you see the difference??

"You say our postal under charges?"

Yes..

"and the US postal service is going bankrupt"

Well if health care frauds were gone that save $1,000,000,000

(V): That health care is not a right directly affects the ability of the population to meet the demands of the economy. It is NOT your mail service, which by the looks is very much undercharging.


Okay then.... If you want to make the argument that we need nationalized health care because our economy is suffering because our population is too unhealthy to maintain a productive work force... well then, make that argument. But dont try to convince me that we need it because it is some sort of fundamental government guaranteed right (not that I see our economy suffering because of a poor health care system)

...and maybe health care is not our postal system, but you need to do more than just say it wont be, for me to be convinced Why/how are they to be different???
You say our postal under charges? Based on what? I see the prices constantly going up.... to me its just the government running something more poorly than private ways... federal express and United Parcel service both make profits, and the US postal service is going bankrupt

“This resolution protects the FDA in its vital mission of ensuring that drugs are safe and effective. When manufacturers undermine the FDA’s rules, they interfere with a doctor’s judgment and can put patient health at risk,” commented Michael L. Levy, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. “The public trusts companies to market their drugs for uses that FDA has approved, and trusts that doctors are using independent judgement. Federal health dollars should only be spent on treatment decisions untainted by misinformation from manufacturers concerned with the bottom line.”

“This settlement demonstrates the ongoing efforts to pursue violations of the False Claims Act and recover taxpayer dollars for the Medicare and Medicaid programs,” noted Jim Zerhusen, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky.

“This historic settlement emphasizes the government’s commitment to corporate and individual accountability and to transparency throughout the pharmaceutical industry,” said Daniel R. Levinson, Inspector General of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. “The corporate integrity agreement requires senior Pfizer executives and board members to complete annual compliance certifications and opens Pfizer to more public scrutiny by requiring it to make detailed disclosures on its Web site. We expect this agreement to increase integrity in the marketing of pharmaceuticals.”

“The off-label promotion of pharmaceutical drugs by Pfizer significantly impacted the integrity of TRICARE, the Department of Defense’s healthcare system,” said Sharon Woods, Director, Defense Criminal Investigative Service. “This illegal activity increases patients’ costs, threatens their safety and negatively affects the delivery of healthcare services to the over nine million military members, retirees and their families who rely on this system. Today’s charges and settlement demonstrate the ongoing commitment of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service and its law enforcement partners to investigate and prosecute those that abuse the government’s healthcare programs at the expense of the taxpayers and patients.”

“Federal employees deserve health care providers and suppliers, including drug manufacturers, that meet the highest standards of ethical and professional behaviour,” said Patrick E. McFarland, Inspector General of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. “Today’s settlement reminds the pharmaceutical industry that it must observe those standards and reflects the commitment of federal law enforcement organizations to pursue improper and illegal conduct that places health care consumers at risk.”

“Health care fraud has a significant financial impact on the Postal Service. This case alone impacted more than 10,000 postal employees on workers’ compensation who were treated with these drugs,” said Joseph Finn, Special Agent in Charge for the Postal Service’s Office of Inspector General. “Last year the Postal Service paid more than $1 billion in workers’ compensation benefits to postal employees injured on the job.”

................... From the FBI press release..
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel09/justice_090209.htm on the Pfizer Inc. business.

Czuch: You don't get it do you? Our society as such relies on a certain level of health. What is called 'maximum employment' relies on health care as part of the figures. That health care is not a right directly affects the ability of the population to meet the demands of the economy. It is NOT your mail service, which by the looks is very much undercharging.

"put all your hope and faith in your government to provide for you."

Never have.. I am a natural sceptic when it comes to politicians, but those who run our NHS trusts have proven to give a damn, and kick butt as needed. Also, our NHS as a whole spent less then budgeted for last year. A surplus the trusts get to keep and invest into the system. No shareholders grabbing their piece of the pie here!!

"Well that would be fine with me, as long as they are competing on the same playing field."

It would mean that your health companies would have to get lean, it would mean that your silly fragmented insurance system gets a kick up the butt. It would mean health care companies would have to be able to offer a national service I hope.

.... And hopefully then they will stop defrauding the USA.

Ferris Bueller: You raise hypotheticals about not enough Drs. practicing to take care of everyone.


My point had nothing to do with not enough doctors, per se, it was just to make the point about the "health care is a right" crowd, that goods and services can never be a right, in the same sense that freedom of speech, or the right to unlawful search can.....


Its time at least for a public option to compete w/ the greedy & inefficient private payers.


Well that would be fine with me, as long as they are competing on the same playing field..... I have no confidence that the government health care will do any better than the US postal service when it comes to competing with private industry

Czuch:  Last time I checked the gov't was run by people as opposed to robots.  Yes, there exists corruption & inefficiency,.  But, it can't be any worse than private insurance companies.  You raise hypotheticals about not enough Drs. practicing to take care of everyone.  Well, its already happening because Drs don't want to deal with the red tape & dictates of the PRIVATE insurance cos.  They have to hire numerous office people to deal with the filing, & they may not get paid for many months while the insurance cos. question everything..  It's significantly simpler with  Medicare & Medicaid.

Its time at least for a public option to compete w/ the greedy & inefficient private payers.  If they can't compete with gov't & cover everyone effectively, let them go out of business & leave us with a single payer.  We will still be able see your private physicians under the system as it's proposed now.

(V): People caring is one thing... something I can agree with. But government is NOT people, government works for the people but they are not people, and they (government) shouldnt have the same responsibility (or more responsibility) than the people themselves, churches, people helping people, thats one thing, but when you rely and put all your hope and faith in your government to provide for you... well, to me that is a big mistake.

Czuch: That being one thing... I mean, you quite happily support your government re recent wars don't you?? Or has that changed??? Our Royal mail has been been pretty good, some troubles, but no way as bad as your system. Perhaps if your parties stopped arguing it could be sorted.

Oh I don't mind hypothetical, but can you name one realistic 'normal' event that would cause people to stop caring and wanting to help others? A sudden mutation in genes that cause us to become all psychotic maniacs? Some release of a nerve toxin that causes humans to stop being humans?

As I said.. caring is hard wired. That part of human nature has been documented for 1000's of years. Even Jesus commentated about Samaritans

(V): Well we have as many horror stories about the government spending 500 bucks for a bolt.... how about our US mail.... UPS, fed express, or the US mail? You tell me which you would first bet your money on??? The government is notorious for doing things wrong and too costly etc.... You take your government over private industry, I will continue to fight over here to keep government out of my life as much as possible!


Sorry you dont like hypotheticals, but you have to deal with them in philosophical debates