patrick.net

After all, we are entitled to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.

Not to nitpick, but we aren't "entitled" any of these things. The declaration of independence said that those were inherent rights, but oddly enough our constitution doesn't protect (nor could it) anything but the second (broadly).

The idea of health care being a "fundamental right" is mostly just meaningless rhetoric. "Rights" deal with much more esoteric concepts like "freedoms". You certainly have the "freedom" to have health care, but that has little to do with how you get it.

Instead of arguing rhetoric, we should make decisions about how our health care system will work using rational means like math, science, and maybe some basic accounting (and please kill the economists and their bullshit theories and fake "nobel prizes").

For instance, it might be rational to deny care to someone who will still die anyway at some price point. That price point varies from person to person, but everyone has one. Nobody would accept a treatment that costs $1bn but only extends someone's life by a few days.

On the other hand, it might be a good idea to provide basic preventative care to everyone to that society as a whole benefits from herd immunity and a more productive work force.

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,

These healthcare bills are just another example of a good idea gone horribly wrong. Should all American's have access to health care? Yes. (And even in the current system, with all its flaws, we do... it's not like an emergency room can turn you away, even if they probably should).

The system obviously has flaws that need fixing. By trying to use an uber bill as a magic bullet is not the most advisable approach. I would rather see some smaller bills passed incrementally. One do deal with tort reform. Perhaps another to address prescription drug coverage and costs (particularly for those drugs for which no generic exists yet due to patent protection). Even another to address preventative care and basic coverage for minor, "non-emergency" situations.

Although in theory the government could bring down the cost of health care through economies of scale; for instance, having the government issue a contract to purchase the latest advances in diagnostic equipment by the lot, rather than having hospitals buy machines one or two at a time; implementation is far harder, and has a low probability of success.

Further, would any potential benefits be expendable to those not here legally? Should they be?

It is the complexity of the issue when taken as a whole that explains why we have yet to develop a viable plan for change. Small incremental steps would go far further to fixing and resolving these ideological impasses.

Tenpoundbass says

Reason 101 to think Neo Democrat Libtards have gone way-way-WAY! off base, they consider our Constitution “Rhetoric”.

Another sign that TPB is a fucking idiot, he doesn't know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence!

Saying that there's a "fundamental right to health care" is in neither of these documents, and it IS just rhetoric (and the declaration of independence is mostly rhetoric too -- a bunch of angry musings to ignite the anger in the colonists).

Do you even know what a "liberal" is? Really, you seem to label anyone who disagrees with you who isn't a raging right-wing nutjob as a "liberal". I've seen you criticizing the "liberals" who are expressing very conservative view points. Do you even have a sane thought on this issue?

No, dipshit, I said "The idea of health care being a "fundamental right" is mostly just meaningless rhetoric". I said nothing about the constitution being rhetoric. Learn to read.