Friday, August 14, 2009

The Constitution doesn't say we get healthcare

"Citizens of the U.S. do not have a constitutionally guaranteed right to healthcare," I've heard many a conservative bleat. It is as though the Constitution is meant to be a document that outlines the few rights we are to be grudgingly guaranteed forever. That way we won't think we're entitled to all sorts of rights from the government. "These but no others!" they imagine it saying.

I do not believe this is intent of our founding document. The fact that it was made to be amended when necessary and that the first 10 amendments to the document are guarantees of rights pokes a big hole in that interpretation. It is also a very old precedent in our country that the Constitution does not create rights. It only enshrines those we are already endowed with into the rule of law. They are "inalienable rights." That then begs the question, where do these rights come from and what is the government's role in protecting them?

Government's role is to ensure that certain things exist in a society that are deemed too important and universally needed, and the pros of having options to choose from are far outweighed by the cons of not guaranteeing the existence of the thing in question. Certain rights fall into this category, obviously. So do, arguably, education, defense, and certain types of infrastructure. Religion has also made the list in many cultures, and you can understand why from one (archaic, crazy) perspective. But in ours, it did not because it did not pass the final test in the framers' minds (among other tests in some of their minds).

All but the most anarchic libertarians would argue that defense, roads, street signs, street lights, police, firemen, etc. are good to have provided by a government. Imagine if we each had to buy into a separate military, police force, or road company and they all competed with each other. It would be a mess.

So where does healthcare fall into this equation in 21st century America? It's certainly very important, perhaps 3rd in a list right after food and shelter. It's absolutely universally needed. In fact, we already pay for universal healthcare for illegal immigrants, poor people, and everyone else. We just pay extra for them to land in the emergency room because that's the first type of healthcare available to them.

The last point is where you could make a case against some types of universal healthcare. The British system, for example, being fully socialized (i.e. the public owns all the buildings and pays the doctors and nurses), does limit UK citizens choices a bit. I would still take it any day over the American excuse for a system. It's like forcing people to eat at a free buffet that's always there rather than "letting them choose" from several different restaurants they could never afford to eat at. Not a difficult choice when you're left high and dry by the latter option.

However, the two systems being debated as reform options here in the US (and the system in Germany and many other countries) do not do this. Single-payer and the "public option" still leave private healthcare providers intact. The latter option even leaves the existing insurance system intact, it just allows the government to compete with it (I think this is a far inferior option to single-payer, though). Choice is increased, but more people are brought into a more cost-effective and more socially just healthcare system. Win-win-win.

I think you could make a very strong case that the framers of the Constitution, were they writing the document in 2009, may very well have included a right to healthcare. And if we the people actually ran our representative government like we're supposed to (rather than letting corporate special interests do the dirty work against our own best interests), then such an amendment to the Constitution would quite likely be on the table or already long-ratified.

Wednesday, August 05, 2009

Hello Darkness My Old Friend

Wow, long time no blog. Not. OK.

I'm hanging out at Kilgore Books and Comics today. It's a great place if you like to read things and happen to find yourself in downtown Denver. Also the banter between owners Luke J. and Dan S. is priceless. You'll be humming the odd couple theme all the way home.

I found a new Denver blog that so far I totally <3. It's called The Denver Omelette (you see what they did there?) and you can find it here: http://thedenveromelette.wordpress.com/. I mean, the top post right now is titled, "DO NOT Jack in my Box." Yes.

Something I've been thinking about a lot lately: What's the best way to be an informed citizen of our great democracy? Is it to absorb news from any and all sources coming from any and all points on the political spectrum? Or is it to focus on the objective sources (do these even exist)? Most people would say you shouldn't just pay attention to things that you agree with. It's immature, prevents you from accurately weighing all sides of a debate, yadda yadda yadda.

I call bullshit. If some right-wing pundit tells me that the sky is orange because the Flying Spaghetti Monster he worships says it is in the Scroll of Pasta, I don't feel super compelled to listen to that argument or give it any weight in my consideration of the contentious and profound issue of what color the sky is. Add to that the fact that the mainstream media will then spend hours debating whether or not the sky is orange in an attempt to appear balanced on the issue, and I don't really feel like I need to pay attention to them either. Then someone like Rachel Maddow will have a scientist on her show to explain why the sky is blue. Is it just me, or is real news only on the left these days? It's like Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." Don't get me wrong, there are annoying shouty people on the left too (Olberman and O'Reilly are twin demon man-babies sent here by Papa Satan to make sure we have enough assholes to go around). But if you want intelligent discussion by experts on issues that actually matter, nothing comes closer right now than the Rachel Maddows, Amy Goodmans, and Jon Stewarts of the world. Oh shit that last one hosts a fake news program. That says more about how shitty most of the "real media" is than anything else.

Anyway, your thoughts, dear readers?