The "Right" to Medical Care
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-03-2016, 05:07 PM
RE: The "Right" to Medical Care
Hospitals legally can't turn anyone away, but they can still charge for the services.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2016, 05:12 PM
RE: The "Right" to Medical Care
(29-03-2016 05:02 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(29-03-2016 03:18 PM)DerFish Wrote:  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.

Now you have passed into silly. It is not legal to walk or use a wagon or even a bicycle on the interstate highway system. Many entrance ramps used to say so. You have to be driving a car to use the system and driving a car is not a right.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DerFish's post
29-03-2016, 05:16 PM
RE: The "Right" to Medical Care
(29-03-2016 05:07 PM)pablo Wrote:  Hospitals legally can't turn anyone away, but they can still charge for the services.

Charge someone, but the user doesn't have to pay. The citizens of the state or city or someone else. I have lived in two different cities where the extant hospital fought hard against another hospital opening up in their territory, why? Because the wanted to get 100 per cent of the indigent business.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2016, 05:22 PM
RE: The "Right" to Medical Care
(29-03-2016 05:02 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(29-03-2016 03:18 PM)DerFish Wrote:  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.

Yeah. Except if you're on foot. Tongue

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2016, 06:23 PM
RE: The "Right" to Medical Care
I'm pretty sure that when most people state that there's a right to medical care, they are making a moral statement not a legal one. Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
29-03-2016, 06:31 PM
RE: The "Right" to Medical Care
(29-03-2016 06:23 PM)Chas Wrote:  I'm pretty sure that when most people state that there's a right to medical care, they are making a moral statement not a legal one. Consider

Well that'd be fucking stupid. The legal case is trivial to make and all that matters.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
29-03-2016, 08:03 PM
RE: The "Right" to Medical Care
What I say is, "You should have a right to medical care." Which is different than "you do" but it means the same as far as the desire to survive and live well which is what most all people desire and aim for. I think it should be a human right to healthcare. Like education it is for the benefit of all, not only health wise but financially. I would rather pay for that ounce of prevention than the pound of cure.

[Image: dnw9krH.jpg?4]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Heatheness's post
29-03-2016, 08:14 PM
RE: The "Right" to Medical Care
(29-03-2016 06:31 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(29-03-2016 06:23 PM)Chas Wrote:  I'm pretty sure that when most people state that there's a right to medical care, they are making a moral statement not a legal one. Consider

Well that'd be fucking stupid. The legal case is trivial to make and all that matters.

You do have a right to care. No hospital can turn you away if you are in trouble, medically. No matter how much it costs, they must provide it. If one has no way to pay, MA pays, (eventually) ... the taxpayers. There is no practical difference between that, and an amendment that *says* you have a right.

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
30-03-2016, 05:47 PM
RE: The "Right" to Medical Care
(29-03-2016 04:29 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(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.

We could do that. We could take out the Bill of Rights from the constitution as well. If Oregon wants freedom of the press they can adopt it. Shouldn't mean that Mississippi has to have freedom of the press. Freedom of religion? Those are for those dirty hippies in California, and those heathens in DC. We don't need it in Tennessee. Rolleyes

Fundamental personal rights and freedoms guaranteed at the highest level of government possible.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: