should the Constitution be amended to give the right for basic health care for all Americans?

Answer 1

yes

Answer 2

No. The constitution shouldn't be amended for anything and in fact should have some of the previous amendments removed because they are either contradictory to the spirit of the basic law or redundant.

I do think that legislation should be passed to provide national health care to all citizens of the USA. Health care providers should verify citizenship before they provide free service.

Answer 3

Insuring health care for all Americans is a moral obligation and not a legal one. I agree that all Americans should have proper healthcare but changing the constitution, yet again, will not solve it. Some legal eagle will learn how to bend the amendment as they have all of the amendments and Constitution.

Answer 4

No.

There would be too many practical difficulties in implementing such a right. There would also be a net loss to medical innovation and productivity gains, not just for the U.S. but for the entire world.

Guaranteeing a "right to healthcare" would almost certainly require nationalizing health care to some degree. Nationalizing health care would take the profit motive out of the industry. The profit motive, despite all the negative connotations associated with it, is a major source of new technology and improved methods. The U.S. is one of the few remaining industrialized countries with a largely market-based health care industry. As a result, we create a disproportionate amount of new drugs and medical technology. Without profit-motivated firms, less of these new technologies would come about.

It's also impossible to "give" a right to health care. Most of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution are "negative" rights. This means they are guarantees that the government won't get involved in what you are doing. A "right" to healthcare would be a "positive" right. It would REQUIRE the government to get involved with what people are doing. It would require them to find doctors to treat people and chemists to produce medicines.

As an interesting thought experiment to illustrate the problem of a "positive right", consider this scenario. In a small, rural town, there is only one doctor. He decides he no longer wants to work. He's made enough money, and he wants to retire and spend his time fishing. But if he does that, the people in his town will no longer have access to basic health care. If the government guarantees basic healthcare, what are they to do? Force the doctor to keep working against his will?

Answer 5

While this seems like a good idea in theory, it really isn't. Trust me, I wish that everyone who needed healthcare could have it, but in a country the size of the US there is no rational way to do this. Think about it - taxes would go through the roof, people would abuse the system and the quality of care would suffer for everyone. If everyone had unlimited access people would be going to the doctor because they have a cough. The government already provides for people who are low income - medicaid, elderly - medicare, and they also offer programs to keep children insured - medicaid and Chip programs. Otherwise you can always find health coverage on your own if your job doesn't offer it.

Answer 6

No, despite what you're told by the media and politicians, EVERYONE in this country has access to ANY necessary medical attention. Having the government intervene in the health care system will decrease the quality immensly. Look at the quality in other nations where health care has become government funded, isn't it odd that all those who can afford it leave their own countries to come to America for complicated procedures? The only problem with our current health care system is lawyers.

Answer 7

its not the constitution that needs to be changed its the government. instead of spending millions of unneeded bridges and pork it should be spent on setting up a health free system. We also have to change our altitudes about doctors being gods. They are overcharging the patient along with the drug company's and the hospitals. Maybe if we shop around for the cheaper doctor and hospital charges like we do for a car, the prices could come down and some of us could afford treatment.

Answer 8

I believed in the seemingly lofty goal of "universal health care". Who wouldn't support that goal? Doesn't everyone have a "right" to health care? When you blindly support a system that gives politicians and bureaucrats the power to force others to follow a plan, those politicians and bureaucrats will receive their orders from those with the most money - and you can guarantee this will not be you, your friends or your family. The power of government will be used against you as you are forced to use medicines or accept treatments from well-connected health care companies.

On the other hand, if government power is eliminated (e.g., abolish the FDA - whose restrictions benefit the most powerful companies by eliminating most competition), those same companies would have to use their funds and resources to sell their drugs to the most people in the least expensive, most reliable and safest way. They would need to outperform their competitors to get your money - otherwise they lose business.

As the poor and middle-class wait in agony for simple procedures, those with resources can travel to other countries for treatment. But hey, your moral arrogance and justification of coercion makes you feel good, doesn't it?

Destroys your privacy. Suddenly your problems are mine and mine are yours. If you are eating unhealthy foods or driving a motorcycle without a helmet, I have a direct interest in your business - you are going to see a doctor on my tax dollars. Your neighbors might support government bans on smoking, "unsafe" sex or other "risky" behaviors to reduce costs. Politicians will use the federal bureaucracy to force you and your family to comply with programs such as the "New Freedom Commission on Mental Health". You do have a right to health care, just as you have a right to food, shelter and property. However, you have no "right" to force others to provide these things for you - All "free" medical care is paid for through taxes stolen from other people.

Answer 9

No. Because Congress already has the authority to do so, in Article I Section 8. And all amending the Constitution would do is require Congress to do something, leaving the details up to Congress (as it must, to be effective and adaptable). So, it's still entirely up to Congress what gets done.

Answer 10

Lots of problems with amending the Constitution. Should only be attempted with deep consideration for all future consequences. Better to lobby your representative in congress and work with grass roots organizations to promote legislation.

Answer 11

Who brainwashed you into thinking Healthcare is a right?
Any country with socialized medicine REALLY has a system for rationing healthcare.
Do you want some government employee (who gets paid for cutting costs) deciding if you qualify to get an expensive surgery to save your life/extend your life?
That cancer only has a 25% survival rate...it's not worth it to spend all the money to try & save you...