I’m okay with “smart compassionate choice.”
Taking that approach, however, runs you up against the guarantees of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments – neither the Federal nor the state governments may deprive you of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. I know of no statute anywhere, nor any principle at common law, that guarantees people the right to die of a treatable illness against their will. No, there is no guaranteed explicit right to health care – there is no guaranteed explicit right to be a member of the Baptist Church, or the Elks, or to express one’s views on an Internet message board, either. These are commonly regarded as intrinsic components of one’s First Amendment rights, to free expression of one’s faith, to freedom of association, and to freedom of speech. Likewise, the case could be made that access to health care is in fact an intrinsic component of the due process clause. (I know Bricker will be quick to point out the objections to this – I’m simply advancing it as a counterpoint to the “it’s not explicit in the Constitution” argument, not arguing it as something settled as an element of law.)
I’d like to see how this case could be made without resorting to bizarre language contortions.
The “no government may deprive you of life…due process” is related to forceful seizure, incarceration, and executions. It’s intellectually dishonest to twist that around into saying that “not deprive” means “govt must provide” free health care, housing, and horses.
Why do we keep playing the constitution-distortion game? Hmmm, let’s see… Amendment 19 also says, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied…” . Well, a person that is sick from a treatable disease will not be well enough to research the political issues which thereby disenfranchises his ability to vote… which of course means that Amendment 19 authorizes health care! The logic is so obvious.
And Amendment 8 says “no cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Well denying citizens health care is “cruel & unusual punishment” therefore Amendment 8 also approves health care. Open and shut case.
There must be hundreds of sentences in the US Constitution to twist into health care. Let’s keep going…
Citizen have the right to bear arms, which obviously means for free innoculations.
{ba dump,cymbal splash} 
No twisting needed The preamble
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, And SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY to OURSELVES and our POSTERITY, do ordain and establish this constitution.
You aren’t deprived of anything if the Federal government won’t buy it for you. I am not deprived of a right to property because the feds won’t make my mortgage payment.
All these are examples of what I mentioned - the government may not prevent me from exercising my rights. They don’t have to do anything to provide me with anything. I can join the Baptist church, but the federal and/or state governments don’t have to pay my tithes. I can post on the Internet, but the government doesn’t have to provide me with an ISP so I can do it.
As mentioned, a "right’ is something in which I can expect to be left alone. If I want to publish my thoughts, the government doesn’t have to buy me a newspaper or a website to do so.
I have a right to health care in that, if I want to buy it, the government cannot prevent me from doing so. It doesn’t have to buy it for me.
Regards,
Shodan
Good points. Let me point out that the sentence I underscored in the quote above is Shodan’s definition – which, to be fair, is shared by a large proportion of Americans – of what constitutes a right. There are terms for this that I don’t recall, so let me invent the term libertarial for this type of right: a libertarial right is one in which the government is estopped from prohibiting the individual from exercising it.
In contradistinction to the "libertarial’ rights, there is also a second class of right, ones in which the government is obliged to perform a duty or service for the individual pursuant to his right. The most obvious example with little or no debate would be the right to counsel. To excerot the common statement of this right from the Miranda warning: “You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford one, one will be appointed for you.” Since a person has the right to employ an attorney to safeguard his rights, a person who has been arrested and who cannot afford to engage an attorney has the affirmative right to have an attorney provided to act in hi behalf.
What I am suggesting is that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments’ guarantee of la right to life may provide this sort of “performed” right – not the right to a healthy balanced diet at taxpayer expense, but the prevention of starvation, not an apartment furnished the homeless at taxpayer expense, but the right to shelter from life-threatening weather (Northern winters, tropical-storm events, etc.). I’m not necessarily pushing the case that these rights absolutely do exist in the form I suggest, but that the argument may be fairly made that they do exist and place an onus on the government.
Your example doesn’t jive with health care. The govt provides an attorney to help counterbalance a situation the govt caused: they arrested you. In other words, the govt does not provide free attorneys for divorce or mergers & acquisitions – the govt didn’t force you to get married or divorced or buy another company.
The equivalent “performed right” for health care would be that the govt inflicts wounds (breaks your bones during police interrogation) and therefore provides a doctor (or provide health care so you can pay a doctor) to work on your injuries.
Ah yes of course… the reliable standby of “general welfare” of which EVERY CONCEIVABLE INFINITY OF DESIRES can be tied to it.
And nevermind the fact that responsible citizens can also interpret “general welfare” to mean that govt does not provide a service it can’t afford.
I do not believe it is an inalienable right. I do not have to pay money for inalienable rights…
While I believe strongly in UHC (and benefit from it as a Canadian) I’d like to point out something concerning the linkage of UHC to police, fire, and similar government services.
The government doesn’t provide fire protection to keep YOUR house from burning down - it does so to prevent the fire in your house from spreading into a conflagration that destroys half the city. It doesn’t provide police protection to keep YOU from being mugged, it does so to prevent the general breakdown of law and order. It doesn’t provide clean water and garbage removal to benefit YOU, but to prevent the outbreak of cholera and plague in your area. In other words, the goal is “the general welfare” rather than the welfare of you as an individual (as confirmed in the US in a number of legal decisions). These are not specific individual rights as such, but aspects of the general right to good governance.
I see UHC as similar, in that it’s not really about keeping YOU healthy and free from bankruptcy as much as maintaining the general health, freedom from epidemics, and other goals benefiting society as a whole. Inasmuch as it’s the “why should **I **pay **YOUR **doctor bills” issue that seems to stick in the craw of many opponents to UHC in the US, maybe the general welfare benefit is the aspect that needs to be emphasized for acceptance in this case.
Rights are granted by law. If we as a society decide to pass legislation guaranteeing health care, we choose to make it a right. Until then, it is not a right. Discussion about whether or not it is a right is putting the cart before the horse. A better conversation would be the merits and downsides of making it a right.
I think Ruminator makes an excellent counter-point to this - the right to an attorney is only because of the power disparity between the government and the individual citizen. Thus only in those circumstances is the government obligated to provide for you.
The other caveat is that this is only if you cannot provide for yourself. Even if one accepts the idea that health care is like a lawyer when you are arrested, it does not establish a right to universal health care. It would cover Medicaid only. Not Medicare, and certainly not Obamacare.
Again, this is very far from establishing a right to health care for the middle class. Accepting for the moment the rationale, you might argue that a destitute person has a right to emergency care - but no more, and only for life-threatening conditions.
Also, since the Fifth and Fourteenth do not establish any individual right to protection by the police, it is that much harder to argue that they establish a right to general health care.
Leaving aside also the problems we have debated before, that the Constitution makes clear that the federal government cannot establish unenumerated rights.
Regards,
Shodan