The "Right" to Medical Care
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-03-2016, 03:58 PM
RE: The "Right" to Medical Care
(29-03-2016 03:47 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(29-03-2016 06:46 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  For something to be defined as a legal "right" -- it needs to be codified, and written down.. Preferably in the Constitution.

Why in the Constitution? Why shouldn't the States be able to decide on the legal right to medical care?

Each state does have it's own Constitution (as far as I know) -- and yes -- if they wanted the "right" to medical care in their state -- that'd be the place to spell it out.....

Same as - (Mom's correctly noted) with the Federal Constitution....

But you see -- it's not........


And people keep on going on about it, as if it were.....


THAT is my point......

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2016, 04:02 PM
RE: The "Right" to Medical Care
(29-03-2016 03:58 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  
(29-03-2016 03:47 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Why in the Constitution? Why shouldn't the States be able to decide on the legal right to medical care?

Each state does have it's own Constitution (as far as I know) -- and yes -- if they wanted the "right" to medical care in their state -- that'd be the place to spell it out.....

Same as - (Mom's correctly noted) with the Federal Constitution....

But you see -- it's not........


And people keep on going on about it, as if it were.....


THAT is my point......

f enuff sane people push for it we can make it a right, and make it illegal to attack other countries until and unless they attack us. That will give us plenty of money to pay for it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2016, 04:10 PM
RE: The "Right" to Medical Care
(29-03-2016 03:58 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  
(29-03-2016 03:47 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Why in the Constitution? Why shouldn't the States be able to decide on the legal right to medical care?

Each state does have it's own Constitution (as far as I know) -- and yes -- if they wanted the "right" to medical care in their state -- that'd be the place to spell it out.....

Maryland does have its own Constitution elements of which were well, ruled unconstitutional (MD's constitution still requires a religious test for public office despite the fact that Torcaso v. Watkins ruled against MD). Why should laws necessarily be encoded in a Constitution? Local statutes and regulations make up the bulk of the laws.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2016, 04:12 PM
RE: The "Right" to Medical Care
(29-03-2016 04:02 PM)DerFish Wrote:  
(29-03-2016 03:58 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  Each state does have it's own Constitution (as far as I know) -- and yes -- if they wanted the "right" to medical care in their state -- that'd be the place to spell it out.....

Same as - (Mom's correctly noted) with the Federal Constitution....

But you see -- it's not........


And people keep on going on about it, as if it were.....


THAT is my point......

f enuff sane people push for it we can make it a right, and make it illegal to attack other countries until and unless they attack us. That will give us plenty of money to pay for it.

The US Constitution is a pretty remarkable document for it's time...........

IF -- and that's a big "if" it was followed -- we probably could afford full socialist medicine -- and advanced education programs as well (like 2 years college free)....

See -- we spend a SHITLOAD of money "protecting" (read coercing) the rest of the world with our military --- and it's expensive as shit.....

That's why there is no provision for a standing army in the US Constitution.....

(Read that again, if you've got a problem with the idea.... I assure you - the letter of the law does NOT allow for a standing army -- and for the majority of our nation's history - we didn't have one)

............

Think how much money we'd have if we weren't busy being "the world's policeman" ----- and how many fewer people we'd be pissing off....................

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2016, 04:16 PM
RE: The "Right" to Medical Care
(29-03-2016 03:58 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  
(29-03-2016 03:47 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Why in the Constitution? Why shouldn't the States be able to decide on the legal right to medical care?

Each state does have it's own Constitution (as far as I know) -- and yes -- if they wanted the "right" to medical care in their state -- that'd be the place to spell it out.....

Same as - (Mom's correctly noted) with the Federal Constitution....

But you see -- it's not........


And people keep on going on about it, as if it were.....


THAT is my point......

Every generation that has gone before us has not interpreted anything in our Federal Constitution which guarantees the right to receive medical services, so I think it's reasonable to say that that is not in there. If it were in there we would have had it a LOOONG time ago and there would be little controversy. If it is something that we as a nation decide we want and can afford then we can amend the constitution. States could certainly do the same at a state level if they so choose. Seems simple enough to me.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2016, 04:29 PM
RE: The "Right" to Medical Care
(29-03-2016 04:16 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Every generation that has gone before us has not interpreted anything in our Federal Constitution which guarantees the right to receive medical services, so I think it's reasonable to say that that is not in there. If it were in there we would have had it a LOOONG time ago and there would be little controversy. If it is something that we as a nation decide we want and can afford then we can amend the constitution. States could certainly do the same at a state level if they so choose. Seems simple enough to me.

Why do you suggest that the only rights are those that are explicitly identified in some sorta Constitution? I always thought Constitutions were about providing a framework for legislation, not the legislation itself. If Oregon wants to guarantee the right to assisted suicide why should they have to amend their Constitution? Just put it on the books.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
29-03-2016, 04:31 PM
RE: The "Right" to Medical Care
Thank god I don't have to wait for it to be written into the constitution that I have the right to smoke weed in Oregon. I'd be pushing up daisies and it still wouldn't have happened.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dom's post
29-03-2016, 04:49 PM (This post was last modified: 29-03-2016 05:02 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The "Right" to Medical Care
(29-03-2016 03:58 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  
(29-03-2016 03:47 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Why in the Constitution? Why shouldn't the States be able to decide on the legal right to medical care?

Each state does have it's own Constitution (as far as I know) -- and yes -- if they wanted the "right" to medical care in their state -- that'd be the place to spell it out.....

Same as - (Mom's correctly noted) with the Federal Constitution....

But you see -- it's not........


And people keep on going on about it, as if it were.....


THAT is my point......

No.
There are all kinds of laws and regulations regarding hospitals and clinics, and the fines and legal (monetary damages) they are liable for, if they do not provide care in all kinds of emergent situations.
They can legally turn NO ONE away. You seem to be unaware of these laws. They do indeed define health care as a "right".
An indigent person (with no insurance) can walk into a private ER, having an MI, need open-heart surgery, hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars of care, and they MUST provide it, or lose their license.
That's a "right" to health care.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
29-03-2016, 04:54 PM (This post was last modified: 29-03-2016 05:17 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: The "Right" to Medical Care
(29-03-2016 04:49 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(29-03-2016 03:58 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  Each state does have it's own Constitution (as far as I know) -- and yes -- if they wanted the "right" to medical care in their state -- that'd be the place to spell it out.....

Same as - (Mom's correctly noted) with the Federal Constitution....

But you see -- it's not........


And people keep on going on about it, as if it were.....


THAT is my point......

No.
There are all kinds of laws and regulations regarding hospitals and clinics, and the fines and legal (monetary damages) they are liable for, if they do not provide care in all kinds of emergent situations. They can legally turn NO ONE away. You seem to be unaware of these laws. They do indeed define health care as a "right".

Indirectly. But I think implicitly for all intent and purpose, yes.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2016, 05:02 PM
RE: The "Right" to Medical Care
(29-03-2016 03:18 PM)DerFish Wrote:  
(29-03-2016 07:01 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Except that's literally not true because of the 9th amendment. And was added for that point.

It's not written down, but you have the right to use the interstate road service.

Which I always find hilarious when people rail on about that tenth amendment in deals like health care, gay marriage, etc. cases of states having their rights. Well they also seem to have bypassed that one right before the one they seem to think is so much more special to their desires and demands.
As I put in bold above, No using the interstate system is not a right. I have been licensed to drive in 8 US states and every one of them assures drivers that driving is not a right, but a privilege.

You bolded it but do you realize the wording here is on two different things?

Driving =/= interstate travel. The ability to use an automobile, that's not a right. The ability to use the highway/interstate road system however is a right.

There is a bickering but it's basically down to two major interpretations. Whether the 9th amendment has the ability to express citizens have more rights than given or it's purpose is to be there to prevent you have being stripped of a presumed right because it was not explicitly written. Now the former may be what some call "activist judges" use in their rulings. Guys like Scalia weren't in favor of that angle, but it has been officially laid down in cases with that before in courts. So the arguments of "its not there" isn't consistent with either of the major interpretations of one of the original amendments because being already written there doesn't dictate the full range of what its already granting.

All this to point to saying there is court standing precedent of the right to travel the highway and interstate system is held on at this point. So those are two separate things and yes driving is not granted as a right. So it's not that I'm saying it's a right to drive and right to drive across highways, but it's a right to use highways that you have. You have the right to use the highways via wagon, walking,

In the medical right point, there is still some cases where they is direct acknowledgement. Woman do have the right to get an abortion. That was based both according to some of the ruling judges on either the 9th amendment or privacy elements of other amendments.

While there is no granted full precedent but there are droves of spots in ways where medical services and ability for them are rights.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: