The Founding Fathers declared that we are "endowed with unalienablerights, among them are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." (1)There is no question that in order to have life we must have health.Yet there has been only limited constitutional language specific tothis right.
The "crueland unusual punishment" clause of the 8th Amendment to the Constitutionhas been interpreted by the Supreme Court to require prisoners, as partof their humane treatment during detention, to be guaranteed the rightto health care. (2)
Currently prisoners are the only group who are specifically granted the right to health care.

It is probable that the founders of our country, if they could havepredicted the importance of health care, would have granted that thesame standard of humane treatment be extended to every citizen.
At the time of the framing of the Constitution--though meager in itsscope compared to today's standards--health care was generallyavailable to all citizens. There was no major issue of lack ofaffordability or lack of access to care.

Sveta, I am sure you know that most people who are employed by large companies have very limited choices of insurance options - only what their employer offers. ( Unless they qualify for SCHIPS or Family health plus) . That's why it would be really good to have insurance that is not tied to one's place of employment.

__________________
Happy New Year to all! Virtual hugs!

"healthcare workers who are compassionate but don't want to provide basic human rights to others for free.."- not sure you are aware what is the usual proportion of services provided for free, or what percentage of bad debts in most hospitals is, or what the rules are ( to see all patients if they are ill, but to reschedule their preventive appointments if they don't have insurance, but to still provide immunizations from VFC fund )....so,yes, we take care of lots of folks for free.....

__________________
Happy New Year to all! Virtual hugs!

Julia, people can get on their own, change the laws to allow more insurance companies in the state, etc.. there are ways to make it better, unless u believe it's a "basic human right" and there has to be universal coverage even forcing people who don't want it which is a violation of their rights, don't u think?

not sure you are aware what is the usual proportion of services provided for free, or what percentage of bad debts in most hospitals is, or what the rules are ( to see all patients if they are ill, but to reschedule their preventive appointments if they don't have insurance, but to still provide immunizations from VFC fund )....so,yes, we take care of lots of folks for free.....
I know they do (don't know about many private doctors, but many hospitals, many are built on philanthropic money, there are many societies that help the indigent)..and it's the way it should be! but rights can't be something that others have either to work for free, provide for free or pay for others.. taking care of the needy sick people comes from the heart and should be forced on anybody.. especially when it will affect the quality of healthcare for the rest of the society..

taking care of the needy sick people comes from the heart and should beforced on anybody.. especially when it will affect the quality ofhealthcare for the rest of the society..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
wouldn't having a large family also affect the quality of health care for the rest of the society? what about their impact on environment? should we charge those families higher taxes, rather than giving them tax breaks? should we ban multiple children families all together? what about people who were born sick or lead unhealthy life styles? aren't they a drain on our society?

Julia, I will fight to the death against the so-called "right to health care". I am willing to kill and be killed over this issue. Are you?
It is a matter of principle. Economic rights - such as right to health care, food, housing, job etc. are totally, absolutely, completely incompatible with freedom. Those "rights" imply that somebody must provide them. And who is that somebody?! You cannot have any rights that impose any obligations on anybody else. Just hypothetically speaking, suppose you have a right to health care but nobody wants to be a doctor. Do you realize that the only way for the government to provide such a right to you then is to force somebody to become a doctor against his will, and that means enslaving that individual.
That's the philosophical difference between economic "rights" and real rights. Real rights are purely negative in terms of what the government has to do - e.g. it merely has to refrain from persecuting you for speaking your mind (however your free speech right does not impose any obligation whatsoever on anybody else).

"The Founding Fathers declared that we are "endowed withunalienablerights, among them are Life, Liberty and the pursuit ofHappiness." (1)There is no question that in order to have life we musthave health."

those who don't agree are free to leave the country or "kill" over the issue (hope you meant that figuratively, anything else will land your butt along with your principles in jail)

60% of Americans don't agree with it (that's why they want to repeal Obamacare).. and will land the butts of those who voted for it back to where they belong - on their coaches.. :-)