Today's Poll: Is health care a human right?

There is a difference between a human right and a Constitutional right. The article is framed from the perspective of the responsibilities of our government to it's citizens not the rights possessed by virtue of being a homo sapien. Our Declaration of Independence defines basic rights as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", but that is a foundational precept of our country and certainly not of all countries.
There is also a vast difference between health CARE and health INSURANCE. Healthcare is a human (and personal) responsibility which takes into consideration both action and consequence as does Health Insurance which is predicated on calculated risk vs calculated cost. Neither are a right, human OR Constitutional.

No where in the US Constitution it states that the Federal Government is responsible to feed, house, and provide health care to US citizens. All these are the basis of a Socialistic Society which has been proven through out history to be unworkable. All it does is create a class of lazy non productive individuals that are a burden to Society. Also this goes against all Darwinion principals of survival of the fitest.

Yet interesting as these comments are, any leader of any country in history has had this particular need arise as a major issue at some point in their country's history. And when it has been neglected it has been a downfall for that regime and or culture.

If you walk into a hospital ANYWHERE in the US the first thing is.... The patient's bill of rights. http://www.health.ny.gov/professionals/patients/patient_rights/docs/eng…

These are covered by both Federal and State Public Health Laws.
Now that being said, there are a few nuances. 1) These laws pretty much relate to immediate care of most illnesses. 2) Some people think (and rightly so) that health care includes preventative and consultation/counseling for healthy lifestyles. This is where I think the greatest debate is.

Tom and Jeff make excellent points in general, but really our society isnt designed that way. If someone collapses in the street they get picked up by public safety officials and transported to an emergency room for treatment. The crisis is treated reagrdless of person's financial status and they are sent on their way to either follow up with a regular Dr. or to continue life as normal as they can. This is a right we ALL have no matter our status in this country. Its a basic human need and what I consider an inalienable right.

Remember the way the Declaration was worded?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

The right to life is the only fundamental right, from which all other rights are derived.

There may be no enforceable standard for general health care as the right of every American, but the de facto practices of U S hospitals indicates the right is understood.

Back in 1948 the United States not-only co-authored (Eleanor Roosevelt was an author), but conferred agreement to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ The document has been signed but not ratified by Congress.

Back in 1986 the COBRA/EMTALA law included the requirement that all "participating hospitals" (any hospital that accepts federal Medicare or Medicaid money) provide essential emergency and/or maternity services to all. Twenty states have laws that expand, subsidize or clarify emergency services for those who cannot afford to pay.

...As well as assorted 'Good Samaritan' laws, Duty to Rescue laws and Tort Law that compel or provide penalty for failure to provide aid in an emergency.

The "Good Samaritan" statute in NYS law DOES NOT compel or penalize one to provide aid in an emergency. It was written to protect those that are trained and have access to the proper medical equipment upon rendering aid in the event of an emergency.

As a certified First Responder I have no legal mandate to provide aid outside of my professional responsibilities in the work environment. However, should I voluntarily chose to do so, provided I do not treat above my level of certification, I am legally protected from liability

C.M. Rescue Laws have absolutely nothing to do with healthcare, they deal with protecting people from immediate peril, Rescue laws and Good Samaritan laws essentially the same thing.

1)Emergency workers (firefighters, emergency medical technicians, etc.) have a general duty to rescue the public within the scope of their employment. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled in Warren v. DC that the police have no duty to protect any citizen not in custody, and cannot be sued for their failure to protect.

2)Parents have a duty to rescue their minor children. This duty also applies to those acting in loco parentis, such as schools or babysitters.

3)Common carriers have a duty to rescue their patrons.

4)Employers have an obligation to rescue employees, under an implied contract theory

5)Property owners have a duty to rescue invitees but not trespassers from all dangers on the property.

6)Spouses have a duty to rescue each other in all U.S. jurisdictions

7)In the United States, as of 2009 ten states had laws on the books requiring that people at least notify law enforcement of and/or seek aid for strangers in peril under certain conditions:
California, Florida, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Ohio Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.

These laws are also referred to as Good Samaritan laws, despite their difference from laws of the same name that protect individuals that try to help another person. These laws are rarely applied, and are generally ignored by citizens and lawmakers.

In most states, Good Samaritan or Rescue Laws do essentially what Ken described.

this is a good question......i'm going to need some more comments before I can vote..
I do find mr. slocum's comments on this board to be very informative and thought provoking, maybe he'll share his opinion....

Mark, you make the very points that delineate "healthcare" from what we have always provided our citizens regardless of distinctions, lifesaving care in times of imminent peril. However, what is being now put forward as a "right" afforded to every citizen is the following:

https://www.healthcare.gov/what-does-marketplace-health-insurance-cover/

I believe that everyone has the "right" to expect life saving intervention even if they don't have the means to pay for it, and currently they do.
Now I would like someone to make the argument that all 10 of the essentials included in the link to the healthcare mandate are not only a fundamental right, but why we should all have to collectively pay for it.

The thing is...

The divergence into Good Samaritan law is a very good exercise, there is so much that we "know" that is not true, and reviewing the basics is always useful for framing our thoughts and positions.

In modern nations, and quite a few developing countries, laws exist that ensure that the severely injured, and acutely ill, are kept from getting worse in their conditions and situations. Primarily, this serves the public need to reduce dead bodies in the streets and to contain epidemic illness. It has everything to do with protecting society and nothing at all to do with protecting the individual.

This has nothing to do with "human rights", except in the minds of those who wish to use "human rights" as a bludgeon to force others into complying with their policy prescriptions. Stop and walk through that again, just so you have it.

The thing about America that makes it an exceptional nation is that it is based upon individual liberty and the recognition that government is the servant of the people (deriving its authority from their consent), not the opposite.

If health care is a "human right" then I should expect calls from the Obama administration demanding that we invade every nation on the planet that doesn't have universal health insurance.

We should then impose our vision of this "human right" upon the surviving population. If it is a "human right" after all, we are accessories in the evil if we don't stop it. (See Darfur, Palestine, Somalia, et al. for the proper framing of the argument.)

Bloody complicated thing living in reality. But, it beats the alternative.

If we accept that taking the labors of another for our own benefit (slavery) is something that should be abolished world wide, how then can we expect health care to be a right?

You are not entitled to the efforts and work of a health care professional anymore than plantation owners had a right the efforts and work of their slave farm hands.

And before you try to make the argument that this is apples to oranges because health care professionals are paid, ask one if they are paid the same by the government via medicare that they are by health insurance and out of pocket patients. Slaves were paid with shelter and food.

Kyle: "If health care is a "human right" then I should expect calls from the Obama administration demanding that we invade every nation on the planet that doesn't have universal health insurance. "
Please don't give him any more ideas.

I don't think health care is a human right. Dignity and choice certainly are. I believe government, specifically the federal government is by far the greatest impediment to making health care available for everyone.

Basing Reimbursement to medical professionals on Medicare and Medicaid rates is exactly the reason why hospitals charge $9-18 for aspirin. The Government reimburses at 55-60% of the actual cost to the provider, that is the single largest driver in health care cost.

Peter came pretty close to it in his summation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0ffif1DTT8

To be honest I see everyone here losing the distinction between health care and health insurance. Politicians are helping us along to losing this distinction between the two by intertwining them as only the govt/politician can do. I firmly believe that everyone is entitled to health care. Not only because life is key to being able to enjoy the rest of out rights. But as Kyle S pointed out it's in the interests of public health as well as you and I to not have sick and dying people untreated, living among us.

Health insurance however is another thing entirely. As a counterpoint to Dave O's comment about.....

"If health care is a "human right" then I should expect calls from the Obama administration demanding that we invade every nation on the planet that doesn't have universal health insurance."

I dont believe the Govt has much place in dictating the insurance market. I think the place the govt should curb the costs to Doctors by using some common sense to curb frivolus malpractice lawsuits and the costs of malpractice insurance. Then take steps to open the health insurance market to competiton to drive prices down. As Howard points out the Heath care system is broken and so inefficient that we have these issues. But forcing people by using the IRS is wrong and reminds me of some of the subtle (yet not) ways Hitler rose to power politically before becoming the dictator that history remembers.

The biggest problem this whole mess has.......Greed...... Like anything else there are those using this system to make themselves millions, while the providers and consumers squabble over the pennies left behind. There are some good points to Obamacare as it's called but it has alot more negatives because it was developed, and pushed through without due diligence and a political goal rather than the goal of solving the problem to begin with.