I’ve seen so many proposals for Health Care plans, so many good ideas and horrible ideas. And passionate discussions of the nitty-gritty details of what should be covered and how often and when we should stop covering certain things for some people. But I think we are jumping way ahead of ourselves when we talk about these details. There is one very simple question that we should be asking before we get into those issues:
Does everyone have a right to Affordable Health Care?
Since over 40 million of us don’t have access to Affordable Health Care, it seems obvious that they don’t have that right.
So I’m proposing that we draft an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States granting the right to affordable health care to everyone.
With this call to action, I’m asking for help drafting the amendment, naming it and finding sponsors to introduce it.
Cross-posted to Man Eegee, The Daily Kos and The Booman Tribune.
Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. talked about this at Democracy Fest last year. I don’t remember all the details, but he was promoting the passage of constituional amendments to enhance the human rights in a number of areas.
If the other side can try it to limit our rights and to harm various groups of people, I don’t see why we should not use the same tactic for the good of everyone.
Ususally, the broadest wording not only inspires supporters, but also opens the door the widest to enact societal change. So I’ll put a first draft on the table for the community to salute or shoot:
This amendment leaves it open as to whether Congress chooses to delegate this responsibility to the states with federal oversight, and does not require abolition of private healthcare for those who want and can afford it.
What it does do, by being so broadly worded, is also open the door down the road for a right to a clean environment, if pollution is demonstrably harmful to health. One Supreme Court decision is all it would take. Ain’t I a sneaky so-and-so?
Perhaps I should lay out my logic for that claim:
The first section specifies that good health is a requirement for the enjoyment of other freedoms.
Environmentally-caused illness impairs good health, and so must be addressed by the government.
The government can do this by providing treatment to victims (e.g. asthmatics), or by preventing the causes of environmental illness.
Only treating victims does not address the cause of the problem, and leaves the door open for continual creation of new victims. Thus, it is not an effective means of addressing the problem.
This provides grounds for a lawsuit, in that the government is not taking appropriate measures to protect the rights of citizens. A future, progressive Supreme Court could rule that the only effective way for the government to provide health care to those at risk for environmental illnesses is to avoid putting them in the position of contracting the illness in the first place (a suit based on a rapidly progressive, incurable and fatal illness would be ideal to demonstrate this case). Thus the government, in order to protect public health, has a proactive responsibility to prevent pollution to the maximum extent practicable, in all cases where such pollution can be shown to be harmful to human health.
Personally, I find this anthropocentric approach to environmental protection far from ideal, but it is likely to be the best we can get passed in the USA for some time. I do not think the nation is anywhere near ready to adopt such ideas as no one species has inherently more rights to survive than another. So we do what we can for the environment through the back door of protecting human health, which in itself is nothing to sneeze at – healthcare is a human right recognized in law in Europe in the late 1800’s, IIRC.
Tell me again why America is the shining city on the hill, the crown of creation?
Using similar logic, you can argue that hunger is a threat to health, and so the government has a requirement to provide minimum adequate nutrition to all citizens.
What was a “pat on the head” from the rich to the poor, a band-aid that can be, “regretfully” withdrawn when money gets tight, now becomes a human right.
What would Jesus think?
A healthcare amendment can open the door to all kinds of interesting mischief, once you get a progressive Supreme Court to push the envelope…
Heck, crappy plumbing fixtures can cause lead poisoning, [see today’s Science Headlines entry in the News Bucket] so we could even push this envelope to include manufacturing standards for safe products.
It probably can also be used to give new teeth to OSHA, to prevent “Industrial Disease.” Kinda reminds me of a song…
Change the wording of the last line to read “the establishment of a single payer health care system.”
Appropriate legislation is too vague.
This is a very good idea katieb.
I was trying to think of how the wording might go and all I could come up with for now would go something like this-and once someone reads it than maybe they can improve on it or Knoxville’s good wording-
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness must include the unassailable right to a universal health care system for every person in the United States. Sex, race and creed being no obstacle to this comprehensive and universal health care plan. From preventative medicine to prescription drugs, the universal system encompasses all health care needs to cover every single person in the United States, and our territories.
There is a method to my madness. Many people w/disabilities are restricted to part-time employment per: drs orders. W/that in mind, a single payer health care system could be considered a reasonable accomodation under the ADA, and state legislation. See, if I remember correctly, just about every state has something that is similar to the ADA in the state constitution, so ratification at the state level should not be a problem.
So, here you go: a constitional amendment granting equal rights to people with disabities by requiring the establishing of a single-payer health care system. And, people who do not have disabilities would also benefit by the single payer health care.
(Based on the text of the ERA.)
I was the thinking of the ERA wording also when I tried to write some appropriate wording. God, I wished that had passed..still wish it would.
How’s that?
Seriously though, if you include disability in w/that, there is no way in hell anyone could justify not voting to support it, in light of all the legislation that was passed at the state level. I mean, can you honestly picture some politician saying that he/she was opposed to equal rights for people with disabilities?
Three letters to remember: FDR!
See what I mean?
Perhaps you would like to rework this to incorporate a general right to a decent standard of living.
See my proposal for a guaranteed level of support for every resident of the US:
Eliminate Poverty
Excellent!!!!!
How about: all men and women are created equal and the amount of wealth one person obtains should not determine who is able afford primary or life saving healthcare. Because we are a nation built on equality the deprivation of healthcare to one person, either poor, wealthy, or middle class is not permissible. So it is found to be in the National interest of these United States that each and every American be granted Universal Healthcare.