Rep Kucinich: Healthcare is a Civil Right!

At a press conference, on Capitol Hill, on May 13, 2009, Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) spoke out strongly for a single payer healthcare system. He said: “Healthcare is a Civil Right!”

The event was organized by the California Nurses Assoc/NNOC. In 2008, Rep. Kucinich ran for president in the Democratic Primary. Of all the candidates, he was the strongest in opposing the immoral and illegal Iraq War. For background, see: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/ and http://kucinich.house.gov/

Healthcare activists are supporting HR 676 and S 703, now pending before the U.S. Congress. For background and any updates, see: http://www.healthcare-now.org and
http://singlepayeraction.org and http://md.pnhp.org and
http://www.prosperityagenda.us/ and http://freshaircleanpolitics.net and http://www.calnurses.org/

The press conference was held in Room 2203 of the Rayburn Office Building.

VIDEO.....
http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2009/05/13/rep-kucinich-healthcare-is-a-civil-right/

...but it DOES make financial sense.

Universal access to healthcare is more cost-effective than limited access when you figure in all of the factors (lost productivity, etc.).

Seeing as how health care probably falls under shelter, food and water as necessities of life, does that mean the Government is obligated to provide this for everyone also?

Right now, we do have health care, shelter and foodstamps for those in dire need, but we do not provide these things unless people cannot do it on their own.

As far as civil, well, as soon as an amendment is brought forth and passed, which will be never

provide services for free to people that don't have funds?

Maybe they simply shouldn't expect to be paid for everything they do?

if things were "free", before you are out of a job? We do have "free" services.. However, if you have a home and a good credit rating, you are really stuck paying...

The flip side is that it is immoral not to provide care, and I would assume that meant regardless of ability to pay.

That was their call, not mine.

Or am imagining things?

it should be a right, but it's not. And I'm not sure that right should be classified as a civil right.

money to give everyone health care.

In those countries that have National health care systems, the users of that system are taxed to support it. Nothing wrong with that as far as I can see. Nothing is free. We need a reasonalble system to tax the citizens of the country to collect sufficient funds for the Government to act as the single payer in all health care situations.

I believe it is, but "rights talk" -- moral, legal, etc. -- is a minefield and can open you up to all sorts of pointless discussions that take you nowhere. (I used to teach rights theory.)

A perfect example was the recent Supreme Court hearing on Prop 8 in CA. The lawyers arguing the case and even the justices tied themselves in knots when discussing "inalienable right." It had me tearing my hair out. They totally went off the track. And, they let Ken Starr hoodwink them with his unctuous charm.

I think a more persuasive argument is that national health care is a matter of national security. Without a healthy populace that has adequate access to health care, we cannot have a healthy workforce, a healthy economy, or a healthy military. That threatens the security and well-being of the country.

I can make a good case for it being a right, but it takes words of more than two syllables and some extended arguments -- way beyond the attention span of the average American.

Most discussions about "rights" are doomed from the get-go.