Do American citizens have a right to government-funded health care?
No. Americans have no right to anything that is gotten by stealing money from those people who worked to earn it. American is not a socialist country. And we need to get rid of the socialism we already have. But I am hopeful that my generation, the baby boomers, will soon break the back of our socialist government by demanding all the benefits and programs we have been forced to pay for all our working lives. It's our turn to collect now. And it will get expensive to support us all. Government health care will be a dream when the bill comes due in the next few years. We will be known as the generation that saved America from socialism. Cool.
When are we ever going to fix the health care problem in this country (USA)?
Answer: when we recognize that Washington is the root cause of healthcare system failure and demand that control of healthcare be placed where it belongs: at the state level. We call this StatesCare (see book in signature line).Here are five reasons why Washington should get out of healthcare.Historical: Washington has been “fixing” healthcare for more than fifty years. What we have now–unaffordable prices and unavailable care–is the result of their fixes.Practical. One size does not fit all. California wants single payer. Texas wants market-based healthcare. Why should Washington say no to both and deny 67 million Americans what they want?Financial. Few people know that almost half of U.S. healthcare spending goes to federal regulations. That’s more than one trillion healthcare dollars a year that produce no care!Then there is the argument that health care is a right and the federal government protects our rights. (a) Health care is the work product of a care professional. If one person has a right to demand another’s work, that is called slavery. (b) The highest right that the federal government was created to protect is FREEDOM, individual liberty. If Washington actuates a right to health care, it must take away providers’ freedom.Finally, there is Constitutional. The Tenth Amendment specifies those areas where the federal government has authority. Healthcare is not one of these “enumerated powers.” Thus, healthcare “is reserved to the states respectively, or to the people,” and not the federal government.Dr. Deane Waldman, MD MBA, Distinguished Senior Fellow in Healthcare Policy at Texas Public Policy Foundation; author of “Curing the Cancer in U.S. Healthcare: *StatesCare* and the Texas Model.
Is health care a fundamental right in India?
Fundamental rights itself reflect that it protect the dignity and basic rights of an individual so obviously healthcare is a fundamental right of a citizen.Though it's not specify in any Article but its included in Article 21 right to life which state that state has the obligations to protect the life of citizens in terms of giving them proper health facility, clean and fresh environment, clean water , house for living etc.
Why dont white people realize that the 2nd amendment means only the national gaurd should have guns?
the second amendment says well regulated militia which is the national guard and if the founding fathers were alive today and found out that private citizens owned guns they would have them summarily executed. Read it and weep.
Would single payer health care violate the Constitution of the United States?
No, Congress would clearly have the power under the Commerce Clause to pass legislation creating a national single payer system. The Supreme Court already ruled in the first major Obamacare case that people can be forced to purchase health insurance so that would not be an issue in a single payer system. Congress and the POTUS could pass legislation tomorrow for single payer and get rid of the inefficient, costly, pro profit system we have now.The other issues you raised regarding privacy are irrelevant. The federal government already maintains a huge medical system with the VA, medicare, medicaid, and military healthcare. Even before Obamacare the federal government was involved in something like 40% of the US healthcare industry so the right wing argument that Obamacare was a “takeover” of the healthcare industry was always just a blatant lie to sway lower educated conservative voters into thinking Obama was “stealing” their healthcare.Because it is so involved in the healthcare industry the federal government already has records of people’s medical expenses and procedures and this is not viewed as a breach of privacy. These records are protected by HIPAA and other laws just as they would be if a private hospital or insurer held them. In fact, the federal government has a lot less incentive to misuse your personal healthcare records than a private sector corporation that could easily make money selling them to BIGPHARMA, etc.
The 10 amendments # 9 and 10?
9 simply a statement that other rights aside from those listed may exist, and just because they are not listed doesn't mean they can be violated. Number nine covers some big rights, that are not spelled out anywhere in the Constitution. Like: 1.Innocent until Proven Guilty 2.The Right to a Fair Trial 3.Right to a Jury of Your Peers 4.The Right to Travel 5.Judicial Review 6.The Right to Marriage 7.The Right to Procreate 8.The Right to Privacy So in other words, #9 says that American's have the right to marry who they want and have kids, even though the Constitution does not say that anywhere. #10 essentially it states that any power not granted to the federal government belongs to the states or to the people. By the Constitution, the federal government can only do what the Constitution says it can do. Anything else, is a state or people power. For example, the federal government can't marry two people, only states have that power. The feds can't tax your land, only states can. A great example is Obama's health care...buy the law, the federal government can't force you to buy health care(as nothing in the Constitution says anything about heath care)
Why are US citizens opposed to health care as a right for US citizens, given that the 10th Amendment reserves such rights?
Original question:”Why are US citizens opposed to health care as a right for US citizens, given that the 10th Amendment reserves such rights?”Respectfully, under any scenario I can think of, you have the right to the healthcare that you can afford.The issue isn't the right to healthcare; it's who's paying, because the providers of healthcare MUST BE PAID, or they cannot continue to provide such services.Some people believe that everyone is entitled to healthcare, and that all tax paying citizens have to bear the cost. A lot of people,self included, reject that notion as unworkable and unreasonable.An office visit and an antibiotic? Low cost.Open heart surgery with complications? Very expensive.Rare and unusual dieseases requiring specific attention and or specialized drugs? Asrronomical.Who decides the cutoff point? What about people who are grievously injured and have a low percentage chance to survive? If you choose to try to save them, perhaps you could have saved (insert you own speculative number here) others with the services/drugs expended.I have known of several cases, where the patient was beyond reasonable hope, yet the relatives insisted on “do everything possible” (cost irrelevant; they weren't footing the bill) and pray for a miracle. After seeing that, I have my own opinion on where I'd cease efforts.Unfortunately, life is not fair. I'd spend every dollar I had to take care of my kids and my family - literally, but only to a certain point of my own choosing. I don't expect you or anyone else to bear this cost, except if I pay for (with my work or dollars) insurance.And that's where the argument lies at today. Obamacare wasn't about making healthcare affordable, it was about making insurance available/required.
The elastic clause, the amendment process and judicial review are all:?
They are all means to make a proper government improper; to make an unconstitutional government constitutional. The "elastic clause" refers to the "necessary and proper" clause in Article I Section 8: The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. It is the clause used by an unconstitutional government to declare any power to act it views as necessary to assume power is "proper". Judicial review is where an unconstitutional government uses another part of the unconstitutional government to declare another part of that government's action "proper". The Amendment process if the constitutional path to declaring a government's action "proper". It is still no guarantee the action is indeed "proper" but it can make the action constitutional. How can a government make something that is improper constitutional? Slavery was legal under the Constitution. Plunder, under the 16th Amendment, is constitutional. It is possible to add or remove improper things from the Constitution. However, it can't be done by a majority of the people or by Congress. The only way it can be "properly" done is if 75% of the member states of the Union, the "proper" owners of the Constitution, agree to it.