I have a question for Americans on OT

If the right to bear arms is justified by "just in case" (just in case someone breaks into my house, just in case we need to fight the government) then why can't health insurance also be considered a right? After all, insurance is supposed to be there just in case something happens.

^This. I like my rights to buy.

Medical professionals will tell you health insurance should be a right -- but on the same page the way Americans treat themselves needs to change. We have to stop going to the hospital for every little thing, and instead the local clinic needs to be home to the primary care provider as well as the first place Americans turn for their medical needs. The routine yearly/quarterly/monthly check-up needs to make a return as well.

If you want a look into American gun culture I would recommend this article by Adam Winkler of The Atlantic The Secret History of Guns

The Ku Klux Klan, Ronald Reagan, and, for most of its history, the NRA all worked to control guns. The Founding Fathers? They required gun ownership—and regulated it. And no group has more fiercely advocated the right to bear loaded weapons in public than the Black Panthers—the true pioneers of the modern pro-gun movement. In the battle over gun rights in America, both sides have distorted history and the law, and there’s no resolution in sight.

I don't consider the second amendment a "just in case." It's a right we have as Americans which we can either utilize legally or leave alone if we want. Ultimately it's there for any reason I may want a gun; I don't need a to justify my reason to buy or want one to anyone including Uncle Sam. That ability ultimately shows the people's level of control in their own homeland.

It's not like health insurance as thegerg said.

@thegerg: Sure, but how many people can't afford health insurance for whatever reason? I guess my point is that health insurance, as it is, is not readily accessible to everyone who needs it, which, let's be honest, it's a necessity for a lot of people. Most anyone who has certain kinds of medications. I myself have type 1 Diabetes, and the only reason I'm not dead is because I was fortunate enough to have parents with good health insurance and my medicine is very affordable, but on some insurances it's upwards of 300 bucks. And that's IF you're insured. Mind you, a type 1 diabetic's body will literally eat itself without insulin. That's the simple way of putting it. Unfortunately, not every type 1 diabetic is as lucky as me and many struggle to pay for their medicine which, again, is absolutely necessary to them having a decent life that doesn't end with them going into a coma.

This was also mostly to pose a question to the more conservative members of the board, of which there are many. How come owning a gun is a right but health insurance isn't? As in, you have access to it if you need/ want it. Sure, TECHNICALLY you can get it but not everyone is in a financial position to do so.

The first 10 amendments to the constitution (or the bill of rights) are what the founding fathers considered to be natural rights of all people. As such, it's critical to prevent the government from restricting.

However, healthcare is a service, it's not a right because it's completely dependent of service providers whether that's a private entity or government one.

@bmanva: Couldn't you make the argument the right to bear arms is also contingent on people legally providing them though? Providing the service of putting these weapons legally on the market? Additionally, shouldn't you consider that healthcare was nowhere near as advanced as it is now compared to when the Amendments were written, and that new Amendments could be put in place to reflect how far humanity has come in that regard?

@thegerg: Fair enough

No, the 2nd amendment was intended to prevent government from restricting private ownership of arms. It neither grants nor secures access to arms for individuals. In other words, if the market collectively decides to stop selling guns or charges extremely high rate, there's nothing in our Constitution that can force them to start arms sales back up or lower the prices. Although there's nothing to stop the individuals from making arms themselves.

No, I don't think ANY service should be considered a right; you don't have a "right" to another person's time nor skills if it's not in context of an exchange. How far humanity has come in what regard?

If the Second Amendment was written in 1791, when the most advanced guns back then were muskets, then why should the Second Amendment apply to modern-day weapons like assault rifles?

But our medical system is convoluted and broken AF. I'll give you an example (it's been a while so I may not be 100% on the individual bill amounts but the total will be pretty accurate):

I had an ER visit when I torn my ACL a couple years ago. I have decent health insurance through my employer and as such I have like a $250 deductible on ER visits so long as I go to a facility that's within my network. Easy, right?

Well, after that I got a bill from the facility. While the ER visit was covered under the $250 the use of the facility is a separate bill, plus I needed an x-ray which was also extra. I got a bill for like another $800 or so. So apparently, the insurance company has this concept of an "allowed amount", which is basically the insurance company saying "uh uh, you're not allowed to charge our guy that much. We think it should cost _____ amount instead" and the biller complies and changes the amount you get charged. So my "allowed amount" was closer to $550 and the insurance company covered 80% of that, so I was on the hook for another $110.

Whatever, not a big deal. So then a month later I got -another- bill that was for like another $600 but bizarrely said "out of network". Assuming this was a mistake, I called my insurance company. It turns out that while the ER visit and the facility I visited are covered, there's like this whole separate concept of a "Group of Emergency Room Doctors" or something like that. They are technically out of network even though the place I visited many times is. They charged me $600, but my insurance company comes back with the "allowed amount" that was much lower. However, the ER Doctors Group doesn't have to honor that because they aren't in network so they charge me the full amount. My insurance company says "ok, but we only cover 80% of what we -think- it should cost, not what it costs" so they covered 80% of their idea of the "allowed amount" even though what I was charged was much higher. Also, because this is out of network they don't reimburse the biller directly, but instead I have to cover the full amount and they send me a check for what little they would cover.

At the end of the day, it all ended up costing closer to $750 on a service that's supposed to have a $250 deductible. And that's because I can afford it. If I couldn't it would have been so much more, which is bonkers.

-Byshop

@Jag85: If the First Amendment was written in 1791, when the most advanced publishing method back then were printing press, then why should the First Amendment apply to modern-day communication like the internet?

Healthcare is arguably a right under life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It's the government's job to protect its citizens (mostly from foreign entities) while giving them the liberty to protect themselves.

Although, this disrupts the US 'war economy.'

What a stupid comparison

You want a really simple answer?

Because guns are already common as shit and they don't cost as much as health insurance. In other words, a gun is a lot easier to get than health insurance (for most people).

1) Most people can legally obtain a gun, and guns don't cost that much. Granted, that's a very simplified version of the scenario, but historically in this country most people have ALREADY been able to get guns if they want to. It'd be very problematic to go and take the guns away from everyone. And for the ones who don't have guns, for many of them it's a problem of what they WANT. it's not so much that they couldn't afford a gun, it's that they just plain don't WANT one.

2) by contrast, a hell of a lot of people don't have health insurance and seriously cannot afford it. Providing everyone with health insurance would be a lot more expensive than just providing everyone with a gun.

3) I'd also like to point out that despite being a "right", the government is not really requiring anyone to hand out FREE guns. Owning them may be a right, but you still have to pay for a gun. And as I said before, it's easier for most people to afford a gun than it is for them to afford health insurance.

Simplified answers like that are usually limited in their accuracy, but I think this is a big element. Whether or not it's a "right", people still have to pay for it. And usually, it's cheaper and easier to get a gun than it is to get health insurance.

Yes. The most advanced guns available at the time were allowed; even cannons were allowed. You just made the point that the most advanced available weaponry was what they had in mind when writing the second amendment.

@Byshop: Insurance companies and even doctors get a bad rap when it comes to cost, but really, it's all on the hospital. There are good hospitals, but for the most part they overcharge by an insane amount (I believe they use a program called a "chargemaster" to more or less make up prices).

@thegerg: I would argue we have a "right" to both (though I would further argue the right to bear arms is more of a privelage, but whatever that's nitpicking), but one would hope that the right to basic health and life (health insurance) would come before the right to possess a gun. Idunno, I would hope a lot of other "rights"--speech, religion, life, liberty, happiness--would come before the right to own a gun. But, as @MrGeezer said, guns are already prevalent as shit, it's an easy right to stand behind; you don't really need to fight for it.

Something tells me that if Americans had to concede their rights due to some crazy dictator or something being like "OK America, you need to give up your rights one at a time or else!" we'd probably give up owning a gun last. Ironically to protect ourselves against this dictator but, you know, tanks and bombers and artillery > your fancy modded AR15

"...a well-regulated militia..." is an oft-overlooked part of that contract. I don't think the founding fathers really intended on your average household owning a cannon and such. Maybe as a member of your town/counties militia, sure; get a minigun, cannon, and even an attack helicopter!

As for muskets being the most advanced weapons, pretty sure they had rifled firearms for a hundred years or so prior but muskets are generally smoothbore. I don't imagine a bunch of oppressed Americans in occupied America owning advanced weapons considering the Brits probably kept that shit locked down.

@thegerg: It's not so much what I think, but what the declaration of independence does. I believe it is one of those "unalienable rights" that all folks have. That's what the founding fathers said, at least. That sounds pretty good to me.

The laws that protect us from murder, physical harm, financial loss, hurtful speech, and so forth are ways that we protect our right to happiness. I'd guess that unhappy people in the world often come from lawless places, and would be much happier if the pirate that enslaved their daughter was caught, punished, and used as an example to future would-be pirates, etc.

We seem to be lacking on the right to life in this country, though; I imagine a right to life is actually less about dying, and more about living a healthy, long life.

@thegerg: I thought I was arguing against a literalist/constitionalist lol (i.e. what the Founding Fathers wrote down is gospel, must be obeyed). Guess not haha

Easy to say when you have money.

I'll move this conversation forward a few posts and point out that what @thegerg is probably saying is that the Declaration of Independence considers "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" the unalienable rights, not necessarily the guarantee of happiness. No government can guarantee happiness.

Why is that everyone that quotes the second amendment skips that part about a well regulated militia?

Yeah, but that's a bit like saying "owning a yacht is a right provided you can afford it". It's not a right, it's a luxury item and health care shouldn't be a luxury that many who need it can't afford. Don't want to call it a right? Fine, call it a service just like any other service the government provides. But when people from other countries look at the US and say "gee, it seems like these guys care way more about having guns than they do about keeping their own citizens healthy" I can understand why they think our priorities are out of whack.

-Byshop

That's the justification clause, it's been repeated cited by SCOTUS that justification clause does not expand nor limit the operative clause which is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm)

Yep. Having to have money to acquire something is the opposite of right. And health care should not be a luxury.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying it's easy or simple, but when other countries have figured this out it's clearly not an unsolvable problem.

-Byshop

Because it's not pertinent to the body of the amendment. It's a common structure of legal languages of the time. For example Rhode Island constitution states "The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty..." You honestly believe that their freedom of speech only applies to the press?

The word any person in there throws out your assertion. Had a well regulated militia not been the aim........it wouldn't be in there.

I get it. There is something wrong when health care is out of reach for so many. And countries need to adapt to changing conditions/issues. What worked in the past no longer does.

actually its very important:

'.... being necessary to the security of a free State....'

this entire thing was about muskets to protect us from foreign countries and the constitution was not written by Jesus. it can be...wait for it...amended

ADDED: the first amendment you will notice makes assertions without giving reasons

'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.'

The second amendment however does give reasons, which means those reasons and the context of what they mean is actually important. What those reasons are given the writting is up for....debate

Might want to get in your time machine and let Vietnamese and Afghans know that they were suppose to lose their wars against tanks and bombers and artillery.

Also tyrants don't derive their power from winning conventional wars against their populations. They maintain power by subjugation through fear. They start that by taking away all arms and thus any hope of resistance even if it's ultimately futile. Founding fathers understand it's not just the practical effectiveness of guns in actual combat but what it represents to the people.

the thing is, the 'reason' given in the 2nd amendment is not only pertinent because reasons are not asserted in all amendments BUT what was it meant was so that we can have a standing army against foreign countries.

with that said, the constitution is not immutable without error or correction given the times

Well, one is protected by the constitution while the other is not, and to my point the idea that everyone should be able to own a gun is more important than everyone should have access to health care understandably seems backwards to other civilized countries.

-Byshop

Definition of a militia

'a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.'

want to try that again?

what they said is explicitly clear that its not to have an army for uprising against the state. its to supplement the state

Then you failed to understand the context of the bill of rights. It's meant to protect individuals natural rights from government infringement not an emergency plan in time of invasion by a foreign power. It's a consistent theme with all written work by the founding fathers that greatest threat to democracy comes from one's own government not foreign entities and that's what the entire constitution is suppose to be a bulwark against.

Of course it isn't. That's why we have SCOTUS and amendments. And as stated, SCOTUS already ruled against the interpretation that a "well regulated militia" is a prerequisite for gun rights.

but the problem with that enlightment is that it doesnt change the core point.

it is in fact a text book classic example of what a 'strawman' is.

under your interpretation as well as my so called incorrect interpretation BOTH versions are NOT giving people the right to bear arms to protect themselves from the state.

in fact, if anything it suggests if your gun is not registered with the milita and that milita must be registered for the use of the state then they CAN regulate your gun

which is why at best its.....like i said...up for debate.

so what is the next step? ah..i know...the historical context, shall we go down that path too or would you rather quit now while you are ahead becasue we can do that

here is a hint'

'..., being necessary to the security of a free State,...'

which version of the word do you think that refer too?