Michael Moore's 'Sicko' Scrutinizes Canada's Healthcar

[Guest American Woman]

This is patently false....The US Constitution only guarantees that life, liberty, and property will not be deprived without the due process of law. The concept of universal health care was not included or guaranteed. Indeed, even in CHA Canada, health care IS NOT A RIGHT. The phrase "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" has its foundation in John Locke's writings, and was included in the American's Declaration of Independence by Jefferson, not the US Constitution.

A lot of rights/amendments have been added to the constitution; rights that weren't originally "included or guarenteed" in the original, but were added based on the concept of all men being created euqally, with the idea that we are guarenteed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. One cannot have life or happiness if they need healthcare that they can't get.

[Renegade]

Some people contribute to interstates with their taxes even though they never use an interstate.

True, but one difference is that substantial amount of interstate funding comes from use-based fees or taxes (eg gasoline taxes, tolls)

Some people never need the national guard since they don't live in flood/hurricane areas. Yet we all contribute.

I guess that depends upon what the mandate is for the National Guard. We don’t have the National Guard is in Canada, but if their mandate is disaster relief, then it would seem to me, that those who have greater propensity to use the NG should contribute more.

What about taxes people who never have kids pay towards schools? And I could go on.

Same thing applies as medical care. I never said it was exclusive to medical care. For many services, it is someone else’s money which pays for services consumed.

Why people feel as if the "someone else's money" applies to health care is beyond me.

It does apply to health care, but is not exclusive to health care.

Everyone is paying according to their capacity to pay, therefore everyone is contributing equally.

I don’t get how you can equate that paying according to their capacity to pay is the same as contributing equally. We don’t operate that way in most other non-governmental parts of society. For example, go buy a meal in a restaurant and tell them you’d like to pay for it according to your ability to pay.

Actually, a lower income person with a lower percentage of cash left over after paying for the necessities in life is really paying more in the sense that it's more of a hardship for them.

Sure, all true but it doesn’t negate the fact that someone else’s funds subsidize them.

Everyone benefits from a healthy society, just like everyone benefits from an educated society. That's why there should be public healthcare, same as there's public education.

My neighbours benefit from my well-kept lawn, so should I expect them to contribute to the maintenance? I believe that the bulk of the cost for health and education should be borne personally, just as we expect the cost of feeding and clothing is borne personally.

And as I already pointed out, the U.S. Constitution guarentees "life," and life requires healthcare.

You have simply pointed out it is your opinion, you have not provided any evidence that this interpretation is correct. The guarantee doesn’t guarantee funding for it any more than the right to bear arms, implies the government must pay for people’s arms.

[Renegade]

A lot of rights/amendments have been added to the constitution; rights that weren't originally "included or guarenteed" in the original, but were added based on the concept of all men being created euqally, with the idea that we are guarenteed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. One cannot have life or happiness if they need healthcare that they can't get.

Your interpretation is really quite a stretch. The bill of rights doesn't entitle anyone to happiness. If I need new Ferrari to make me happy, should I expect the rest of the taxpayers to buy me one?

[stevoh]

I believe that the bulk of the cost for health and education should be borne personally, just as we expect the cost of feeding and clothing is borne personally.

The trouble with applying that argument to health care, is that, unlike food and clothing, our individual need for health care is not related to our income.

In the case of food, the more money you have, the more expensive food you can buy (or have someone else make). In the case of clothing, the more money you make, the "better" the brands you can buy. You may earn less than the poverty line in income, but can still afford the basics of food and clothing.

However, in the case of the individually born expense of health care, it doesn't matter how much or how little money you make, you can be afflicted with a very expensive medical condition. If you are poor, and health care expenses are personally born, you have two choices, suffer, or go bankrupt if allowed, with bills you cannot pay. Unlike food and clothing, which you can get by with on cheap brands or basic food shopping, you get sick, your health care costs are high. No way around it.

In the end, in any civilized country, health care is not going to be denied to any individual who's life depends on it, even if they can't afford insurance or hospital bills. Someone has to pay for it. We can all share that cost equally (in proportion to our income) through taxation, or we can allow either individuals health or financial status to be crippled. Or both. Public health care is a better alternative.

[bush_cheney2004]

A lot of rights/amendments have been added to the constitution; rights that weren't originally "included or guarenteed" in the original, but were added based on the concept of all men being created euqally, with the idea that we are guarenteed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. One cannot have life or happiness if they need healthcare that they can't get.

This is utter folly...you have not and cannot establish rights based on your opinion. There is no such right enumerated in the United States (or Canada). One can indeed have life and happiness without healthcare (needed or not). We did it for thousands of years.

Edited August 30, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest American Woman]

Your interpretation is really quite a stretch. The bill of rights doesn't entitle anyone to happiness. If I need new Ferrari to make me happy, should I expect the rest of the taxpayers to buy me one?

No, it doesn't entitle anyone to happiness and I never said it did. I said it entitles people to the pursuit of happiness, which is quite different.

[Guest American Woman]

This is utter folly...you have not and cannot establish rights based on your opinion. There is no such right enumerated in the United States (or Canada). One can indeed have life and happiness without healthcare (needed or not). We did it for thousands of years.

And for thousands of years people without health coverage who were unable to afford healthcare have died, thus being denied life. And I'm not basing rights based on my opinion. I'm basing rights on this statement: "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."

"Life" is listed as an "unalienable right."

[bush_cheney2004]

And for thousands of years people without health coverage who were unable to afford healthcare have died, thus being denied life. And I'm not basing rights based on my opinion. I'm basing rights on this statement: "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."

"Life" is listed as an "unalienable right."

So what? Live as long as you wish, but not on my dime.

What you are quoting is the Declaration of Independence, not the US Constitution. Learn the difference.

[Renegade]

No, it doesn't entitle anyone to happiness and I never said it did. I said it entitles people to the pursuit of happiness, which is quite different.

You have avoided answering the question of funding which is key to the discussion. Whichever right is accorded doesn't imply the right that the government provide funding to fulfill that right.

You never answered the question, do you think the government must fund your "pursuit of happiness", or your arms? If you don't, why would you interpret the rights differently for medical care?

[Renegade]

The trouble with applying that argument to health care, is that, unlike food and clothing, our individual need for health care is not related to our income.

Actually our need for food, clothing or shelter is not related to income either. We all need it to survive. Income determines how well we can satisify that need.

In the case of food, the more money you have, the more expensive food you can buy (or have someone else make). In the case of clothing, the more money you make, the "better" the brands you can buy.

Exactly the same analogy should be applied to medical care. The more money you earn, the better care you should be able to buy.

You may earn less than the poverty line in income, but can still afford the basics of food and clothing.

If you want to apply the same analogy to medical care, then you have to define what "basic" care consist of. With food or clothing there is a practical physical limit on how much can be consumed, with medcal care what is basic is subjective. In addition, the basic of food and clothing to survive is the same as 500 years ago. With medical care I assume you dont' have the same definition of "basic" medical care as 500 years ago.

However, in the case of the individually born expense of health care, it doesn't matter how much or how little money you make, you can be afflicted with a very expensive medical condition. If you are poor, and health care expenses are personally born, you have two choices, suffer, or go bankrupt if allowed, with bills you cannot pay. Unlike food and clothing, which you can get by with on cheap brands or basic food shopping, you get sick, your health care costs are high. No way around it.

The closer anlogy for medical care is insurance. An unforseen event can bankrupt an individual, nevertheless premiums need to be paid in relation to the risk undertaken. The risk is spread among many individuals but regardless the premium reflects risk not income.

In the end, in any civilized country, health care is not going to be denied to any individual who's life depends on it, even if they can't afford insurance or hospital bills.

Someone has to pay for it. We can all share that cost equally (in proportion to our income) through taxation, or we can allow either individuals health or financial status to be crippled. Or both. Public health care is a better alternative.

Pretty much all of this is your opinion of what is "better" or what constitutes a "civilized" country. My opinion is different. For me "civilized" country is one that encourages self-sufficiency and promotes individual responsibilty for the costs incurred.

At least we agree on one thing. You said "Someone has to pay for it.". If you aren't paying for it yourself then someone else is paying those cost for you, and that was my original point.

[jbg]

And as I already pointed out, the U.S. Constitution guarentees "life," and life requires healthcare.

The doctrine you are mangling is the Declaration of Independence which states, in relevant part (link): "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."

This Declaration was not a guarantee of taxpayer-funded immortality; it was a statement that Canada oops, Britain was depriving Americans of those rights.

Edited August 31, 2007 by jbg

[jbg]

A lot of rights/amendments have been added to the constitution; rights that weren't originally "included or guarenteed" in the original, but were added based on the concept of all men being created euqally equal[/s], with the idea that we are guarenteed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. One cannot have life or happiness if they need healthcare that they can't get.

The Declaration expressly refers to people being created equal, not remaining equal.

[Pliny]

The finer point of "someone else's money" in a socialized healthcare, or any socialized plan for that matter, is that it is mandatory to contribute to whether or not you approve. I myself, am not a big supporter of western medicine and feel it contributes to our poor health. Naturopathy would be more along the lines of something of which I would be more supportive.

But the narrow almost myopic course of allopathic medicine as exists in North America is not, in my view, healthy. Nor is a single education beyond teaching the elementary tools of reading, writing and arithmetic. Today public education doesn't teach a child to look for himself or think for himself. It tells him what to think. I can't support that either.

Ideologically, pooling our resources for something like health care appears to be a good thing. Looking at it from strictly that angle it is hard to argue against. Heaven is also hard to argue against from an ideological stand as well but when you really think of everything being perfect what would there be to do? Think of that in terms of eternity! No health care or education is necessary - your thoughts would be along the lines of, "just let me die and escape this hell - Pul-l-ease!"

Someone may think that smokers should forgo their right to health care. Others think people that don't eat right should pay more for health care. Some think that those with dangerous hobbies, such as mountain climbing or skiing, should pay more. Some people think they should pay less. It becomes no longer equal or universal and you may as well return to everyone paying their own way. It is hard to make the change back because now some consumers and the whole delivery industry is dependent upon the institution for their livelihood.

Originally posted by American Woman:

And for thousands of years people without health coverage who were unable to afford healthcare have died, thus being denied life. And I'm not basing rights based on my opinion. I'm basing rights on this statement: "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."

"Life" is listed as an "unalienable right."

Life may be an unalienable right but the government or State cannot guarantee you will have one and more often than not dictates what your life will be as well as what liberties you will have. I am certain that right now happiness is being doled out at the welfare office as we speak so no need to pursue it being as it is guaranteed. The State cannot give you life, liberty and happiness nor can it guarantee it. If it could we would be in that contemptible place earlier mentioned called heaven. All that it can guarantee is that it will attempt to allow you the ability to pursue happiness, life and attempt to protect your liberty so life and happiness can be pursued as you perceive it. If you feel you would like them to provide you health care and education and that would make you happy you are free to do so. Most people in Canada do agree with you but never give up on the pursuit of happiness because they find it has once again eluded them. I think you will find happiness a fleeting thing that occurs when you accomplish something and disappears shortly after - meaning it is necessary for you to accomplish something else to return to a state of happiness. The journey there is often not happy.

[Guest American Woman]

You have avoided answering the question of funding which is key to the discussion. Whichever right is accorded doesn't imply the right that the government provide funding to fulfill that right.

You never answered the question, do you think the government must fund your "pursuit of happiness", or your arms? If you don't, why would you interpret the rights differently for medical care?

As I already stated, "pursuit" indicates the person actually pursuing it. There is no guarentee of happiness, only the right to pursue it. And you have that right. Life itself, on the other hand, is listed as an "unalienable right," same as liberty, and the government sure as h*ll is funding that! People say they shouldn't have to fund healthcare if they don't agree with the concept of universal healthcare, but I don't agree with the war in Iraq-- and not ony am I funding it, but so will my children, and their children. This debt is going to be with us for a long time.

Life and liberty are both listed as "unalienable rights" and while one IS being funded by the government, the other isn't. As for pursuing happiness, if one is in poor health and cannot afford to do anything about it, their pursuit of happiness isn't posible.

[Renegade]

As I already stated, "pursuit" indicates the person actually pursuing it. There is no guarentee of happiness, only the right to pursue it. And you have that right. Life itself, on the other hand, is listed as an "unalienable right," same as liberty, and the government sure as h*ll is funding that! People say they shouldn't have to fund healthcare if they don't agree with the concept of universal healthcare, but I don't agree with the war in Iraq-- and not ony am I funding it, but so will my children, and their children. This debt is going to be with us for a long time.

Life and liberty are both listed as "unalienable rights" and while one IS being funded by the government, the other isn't. As for pursuing happiness, if one is in poor health and cannot afford to do anything about it, their pursuit of happiness isn't posible.

First, as pointed out previously the Declaration of Independance doesn't guarantee any rights, it is the US Constitution. Actually if I can read English properly the "inalienable" applies to the "persuit of happiness" as well.

You seem to be arguing that "inalienable" implies funding. From what source did you draw that conclusion? Does liberty being an "inalienable" right mean that I should expect the government to fund my travels?

Personally, I suppot the concept that you should not have to fund services you don't want to partake in. That includes the war in Iraq. If the majority of American people had that ability and witheld funding, think of how much shorter the war would have been.

[Guest American Woman]

First, as pointed out previously the Declaration of Independance doesn't guarantee any rights, it is the US Constitution. Actually if I can read English properly the "inalienable" applies to the "persuit of happiness" as well.

You seem to be arguing that "inalienable" implies funding. From what source did you draw that conclusion? Does liberty being an "inalienable" right mean that I should expect the government to fund my travels?

Personally, I suppot the concept that you should not have to fund services you don't want to partake in. That includes the war in Iraq. If the majority of American people had that ability and witheld funding, think of how much shorter the war would have been.

What I've deterrmined is that "inalienable right" implies that one has the right to that inalienable right. If funding is necessary in order for one to obtain that right, then obviously funding should be provided, and again, healthcare is a necessity for life.

As I already pointed out, funding so one may have liberty IS already provided-- in huge amounts.

To state it as clearly as I'm able, the government provides the funds so one has the liberty to travel. There is no guarentee of travel, only the LIBERTY to travel; and you most definitely do have the liberty to travel. On the other hand, it isn't stated that one has the right to pursue life, but that life itself in an unalienable right.

As for whether or not this is stated in the Declaration of Indepence or the Constitution, that distinction is not relevent to the issue-- which is the fact that our country is founded on these rights. So to those of you who are going to turn this into whether or not I admitted I was wrong, I will now admit I was wrong in stating that it was in the Constitution, so hopefully that will put an end to trying to make where it was stated an issue.

I repeat. This country was founded on these inalienable rights, and THAT is the issue.

[Renegade]

What I've deterrmined is that "inalienable right" implies that one has the right to that inalienable right. If funding is necessary in order for one to obtain that right, then obviously funding should be provided, and again, healthcare is a necessity for life.

Actually I don't see or agree with your reading of the implication. I don't believe any court does either. Certainly in Canada court decisions have favoured the position that funding is a choice the government makes, however it is not a "right" of the constitiutients.

As I already pointed out, funding so one may have liberty IS already provided-- in huge amounts.

What is not clear is what the government is constitutionally obliged to fund vs what it chooses to fund because of political decisions. The availaiblity of funding doesn't imply constitutional obligation.

To state it as clearly as I'm able, the government provides the funds so one has the liberty to travel. There is no guarentee of travel, only the LIBERTY to travel; and you most definitely do have the liberty to travel. On the other hand, it isn't stated that one has the right to pursue life, but that life itself in an unalienable right.

To extend your position to healthcare. The government provides funding to make sure you have access to healthcare, so you can live. It doesn't have to provide you life itself. In fact constitutionally all it is obliged to do is not impede your ability to live as opposed to proactively support your lfie.

As for whether or not this is stated in the Declaration of Indepence or the Constitution, that distinction is not relevent to the issue-- which is the fact that our country is founded on these rights.

Actually it is very relevant as one document has the power of law and the other one is nothing more than a historical document. If the people who drafted the Declaration of Independance thought it was relevant to preserve certain rights, it woudl be embedded in the Constitution.

I repeat. This country was founded on these inalienable rights, and THAT is the issue.

Please show some Supreme Court cites where the rights were based upon what was drafted in the Declaration of Independance.

[Renegade]

I should add one other thing, if you truly beleive that the words embedded in the Declaration of Independance guranteed you the right to healthcare, your course of action to obtain it is simple.

Sue the federal government on that basis. I'm not a lawyer, but my guess is you would lose.

[jbg]

As I already stated, "pursuit" indicates the person actually pursuing it. There is no guarentee of happiness, only the right to pursue it. And you have that right. Life itself, on the other hand, is listed as an "unalienable right," same as liberty, and the government sure as h*ll is funding that! People say they shouldn't have to fund healthcare if they don't agree with the concept of universal healthcare, but I don't agree with the war in Iraq-- and not ony am I funding it, but so will my children, and their children. This debt is going to be with us for a long time.

Life and liberty are both listed as "unalienable rights" and while one IS being funded by the government, the other isn't. As for pursuing happiness, if one is in poor health and cannot afford to do anything about it, their pursuit of happiness isn't posible.

What I've deterrmined is that "inalienable right" implies that one has the right to that inalienable right. If funding is necessary in order for one to obtain that right, then obviously funding should be provided, and again, healthcare is a necessity for life.

Life and liberty were "inalienable rights" against the British, who (allegedly) sought to deprive them, not as guarantees of the government (which didn't exist at the time).

Edited August 31, 2007 by jbg

[jbg]

I should add one other thing, if you truly beleive that the words embedded in the Declaration of Independance guranteed you the right to healthcare, your course of action to obtain it is simple.

Sue the federal government on that basis. I'm not a lawyer, but my guess is you would lose.

You sure would. I wouldn't take that case other than on an hourly basis, with a nice retainer paid up-front.

[Guest American Woman]

Life and liberty were "inalienable rights" against the British, who (allegedly) sought to deprive them, not as guarantees of the government (which didn't exist at the time).

They were inalienable rights FOR the citizens of America.

[Guest American Woman]

I should add one other thing, if you truly beleive that the words embedded in the Declaration of Independance guranteed you the right to healthcare, your course of action to obtain it is simple.

Sue the federal government on that basis. I'm not a lawyer, but my guess is you would lose.

That's not the way it works. It works by adding an amendment to the Constitution; by changing our government. Something that has been done a few times. Something that many people are in the process of achieving right now regarding healthcare.

As for the Declaration of Independence: once again, it contains beliefs that our country was founded on. Beliefs that our forefathers died for. I don't dismiss that lightly. I don't see it as "nothing more than a historical document," and I would bet that most Americans would agree with me.

Edited August 31, 2007 by American Woman

[Pliny]

The whole idea of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence was to establish a form of government where power could not be concentrated in the hands of a few and become a tyranny to its citizens, entirely unlike then extant European forms of government, with unfair tariffs and taxation that were just meant to fill the coffers of the British crown.

American woman:

You said that a person who is sick could not pursue happiness. Their pursuit is becoming healthy which would bring them happiness. I am certain the government should not force him to pursue that goal if he does not desire it nor should the government provide it or if he has more important issues he would rather pursue he should be able to do so. It is society's mandate, not that of the governments, to co-operate and establish society and the individual should have the freedom and liberty to decide what he pursue for his happiness. What you are saying basically is because a person is not healthy the government should grant him health care. What about others? Because they are poor the government should sustain them? To be equal and fair to its citizens, what should it do for others? Government only taxes and legislates, which it then enforces, if it provides largesse or benefit to anyone it creates conflict and inequality. You and many others have the mistaken concept that government should "make" everyone equal which must, by definition, benefit some at the mandatory expense of others. It would be fine if government could make everyone equal to the highest common denominator but it can't it can only make everyone equal to the lowest common denominator by mandatorily redistributing wealth.

If someone has a dream of owning a Hummer today are you going to take away his pursuit of happiness? The government should not legislate Hummers out of existence and I think you would be appalled if it did. However, society today frowns upon the use of such vehicles as they are not environmentally friendly. Many, because of the consideration of environment, will modify their goals, some won't, should it be legislated that owning a Hummer is illegal because society thinks it is detrimental to the environment? In other words, should force be applied in this instance for the greater good? Or can the person modify his goals through reason in considering the greater good. Most people do care about the greater good and consider it in the pursuit of their happiness no legislation being necessary.

Many people know what's good for us and insist upon telling us. Some insist upon forcing us to accept their wisdom and there is only one way to do that - through law and so they pursue what will make them happy and lobby for their special interest to be use force against any opposition to their view of the world.

[Renegade]

That's not the way it works. It works by adding an amendment to the Constitution; by changing our government. Something that has been done a few times. Something that many people are in the process of achieving right now regarding healthcare.

The fact that you acknowledge it would require an amendment would mean that you concede that the Constitution AS IT NOW STANDS, provides no such guaranteed right. Of course you are free if you get enough support to amend it in whichever way you see fit.

As for the Declaration of Independence: once again, it contains beliefs that our country was founded on. Beliefs that our forefathers died for. I don't dismiss that lightly. I don't see it as "nothing more than a historical document," and I would bet that most Americans would agree with me.

The question is not how you see the Declaration of Independance, the question is what legal standing it has. If it doesn't have legal standing, you can treasure it as much as you like, but it doesn't entitle you to much. I would welcome any cites on understanding if this document has any legal standing.

----------------------------------------------

I also find it curious that, given your position that the drafters of the Declaration of Independance declared an "inalienable" right to life and that implied medical care, why didn't they immediatly implement a universal health care program? You would think that they would have understood their intent and woudl have acted according to their intent. The fact that they did not, would indicate to me that their intent on the right to "life" did not extend to state-provided healthcare.

Edited August 31, 2007 by Renegade

[Guest American Woman]

The fact that you acknowledge it would require an amendment would mean that you concede that the Constitution AS IT NOW STANDS, provides no such guaranteed right. Of course you are free if you get enough support to amend it in whichever way you see fit.

The question is not how you see the Declaration of Independance, the question is what legal standing it has. If it doesn't have legal standing, you can treasure it as much as you like, but it doesn't entitle you to much. I would welcome any cites on understanding if this document has any legal standing.

----------------------------------------------

I also find it curious that, given your position that the drafters of the Declaration of Independance declared an "inalienable" right to life and that implied medical care, why didn't they immediatly implement a universal health care program? You would think that they would have understood their intent and woudl have acted according to their intent. The fact that they did not, would indicate to me that their intent on the right to "life" did not extend to state-provided healthcare.

A lot of rights weren't immediately implemented, which is why we have a constitution that can be ammended. Our forefathers saw the need for future amendments, and provided for it. For example, even though the Declaration of Independance claims that all men are created equal, blacks and women didn't have the right to vote at the time. An amendment took care of that injustice. The Civil Rights Act was based on the Declaration of Indepence's claim that all men are created equal. Your argument that 'it wasn't implemented at the time therefore it's not a right' holds no water, and history is proof of that.