Is it a right or privledge or freedom?

[DarkLight]

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context.

We are born with only one right. That is the right to our own life. We have the right and freedom to take all the actions required for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of our own life. That is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

A government is not the source of “rights”. Governments grant permissions. A permission can be revoked at any time. If you must obtain permission from a government—you are not free, whether such permission is granted to you or not. Only a slave acts on permission. A permission is not a right.

There is a lot to those terms. The fundamental difficulty, I think, is when my ability to have “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is fundamentally tied to my getting something from someone else. That’s what I mentioned in my case. I effectively have none of those without healthcare, because without it I am often barely able to get out of bed and into the shower. There’s no question of sustaining my life by my own effort unless someone else provides me with the things I require to put forth that effort and have it make some good effect towards my life.

And that is the central difficulty of rights in modern life. Few of us produce our own food or could even acquire the means to do so, or could provide ourselves with clean water. Few of us could effectively protect ourselves against thieves or bandits. I did not mean that the rights cease to exist without government. I meant that they are effectively useless without it. The man out of society may as well have no rights, because any chance or ill will of another stronger can make them of no effect.

 

[GratefulFred]

This is good. It’s complicated in the case of healthcare because we can’t as easily figure out what each person needs. I use my own case as an example. I earn as much as many young people my age, which admittedly is not much. However, I have multiple health issues requiring medication to manage. Pre-obamacare I wouldn’t be able to purchase private insurance. Without insurance coverage the medications I need to function could easily be a significant proportion of my income - to the point where I probably couldn’t afford it on the sort of income a person my age can usually make.

It’s actually a significant issue for someone like me because the trend for young people has been towards multiple part-time jobs, rather than full time jobs. Which means you can’t count on having benefits available.

I agree Dark Light, it is complicated. I am very aware of those who have serious lasting illness and their prescriptions run more than $1,000 a month, more than $12,000 a year, every year. Then doctor visits and the cost of any episodes. Without insurance, very few could afford it even if they earned $100,000 a year. These folks did not do anything stupid to acquire their condition and I think it only fair to help them.

My concern is about those who can afford to purchase medical insurance and refuse to do so. Why should you and I be forced to pay more to cover them?

As I understand Obamacare, they will be required to buy insurance. If they refuse, they will be taxed 1% of their annual income or $95 a year whichever is more. At $25,000 a year they would be taxed $250 a year. Or they could buy insurance that may cost $150 a month, $1,800 a year. What would motivate this person to pay $1,800 a year to avoid a tax of $250? And should you and I be forced to pay the difference?

Please note that on Schedule A of IRS Form 1040, we can deduct any medical expense that exceeds 7% of our income. That implies we are expected to pay 7% of our income for medical service BEFORE we get a break from the federal government. 7% of $25,000 is $1,750 - close to my example above.

So it seems that Obamacare requires you and I to pay more so others can pay just 1%.

NOTE to readers: if I have my example numbers wrong in any material way, please advise. I certainly do not want to make a false argument.

 

[JB_Dugan]

There is a lot to those terms. The fundamental difficulty, I think, is when my ability to have “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is fundamentally tied to my getting something from someone else. That’s what I mentioned in my case. I effectively have none of those without healthcare, because without it I am often barely able to get out of bed and into the shower. There’s no question of sustaining my life by my own effort unless someone else provides me with the things I require to put forth that effort and have it make some good effect towards my life.

My condolences for your physical condition. I realize every day that I am approaching that stage of my life also.

I have a the right to live, but I have no right to take the life of another. I have the right to be free, but no right to enslave another. I have the right to choose my own happiness, but no right to decide that my happiness lies in the misery of another. The very right upon which I act defines the same right of another man, and serves as a guide to tell him what he may or may not do.

If you must rely on another to provide for your life, liberty and happiness, then that assistance is given from the kindness of one’s heart. If that assistance was required against the other’s free will, that would be a violation of that person’s rights.

And that is the central difficulty of rights in modern life. Few of us produce our own food or could even acquire the means to do so, or could provide ourselves with clean water. Few of us could effectively protect ourselves against thieves or bandits. I did not mean that the rights cease to exist without government. I meant that they are effectively useless without it. The man out of society may as well have no rights, because any chance or ill will of another stronger can make them of no effect.

The only reason to form a proper government is to protect our rights.

 

[Genesis315]

Seems like a huge overstep of authority on the governments part.

If it is, your objection is about 75 years too late. We already have to buy old-age insurance, disability insurance, unemployment insurance, etc. In those cases, you have to buy it from the government (in fact, it’s usually automatically deducted from your paycheck). Given that, what’s the big deal of adding health insurance to the list? At least currently you theoretically have some choice over who to buy it from.

I’m not trying to make an argument for or against this policy or practice, but merely pointing out it’s not some unprecedented act by the government. However, as an aside, from the Catholic perspective, there’s nothing wrong with public insurances programs and they have historically been supported by the Church as a legitimate function of public authority.