Arlos wrote:It's very simple: We have a right to life. Proper health care is an essential component to living life, and for that matter, pursuing happiness. Before you start quibbling, remember that the rights given in the constitution are interpreted broadly. (Remember, the right to abortion, which is viewed as a fundamental right up there with any other in the constitution, was based on the right to privacy clause in the 14th amendment).
There, happy?
This isn't a valid affirmation for health care. Nobody for over two hundred years thought the right to life meant the right to affordable or free (to the recipient) health care. The same is true for the right to abortion. While Roe v. Wade is officially law, it's still of course open for a future court to strike it down. Judicial precedent, especially recent ones, are never the same as constitutional amendments or even just federal law. Dred Scott of course being a perfect example of what happens when an unelected life-tenured judiciary has essentially a blank check to interpret the Constitution in their own personal view rather than the specified terms all parties agreed to at the time.
Affordable health care for all Americans is a noble cause, and I think it needs to happen. Even more noble though is crafting a bill that accomplishes that feat in a way that is sustainable long-term, doesn't cripple future generations, and encourages innovation.
Far less noble is using Constitutional or Declaration clauses to justify one's own personal views, morphing them in a way never intended, while doing the same in reverse for other views one doesn't agree with. Unalienable rights are indisputable; by using that reasoning, one tries to immediately invalidate any opposition to their idea or policy. It's disappointing and certainly unethical.