Should college education and healthcare be a constitutional right?

[Anerdyblackguy]

I agree with you it should be a constitutional right to both of these services. The older generation seems incredibly selfish for some reason. Even their arguments are not relatable. Examples:

1) I paid for college while working full time.
2) well if you can't get into your expensive school, go to a cheaper one
3) Why should they pay for your healthcare.

There's so many dumb things with their thinking, it makes me sick.
1) you paid for college full time, that's cute and all; however college was t as expensive than it is today. Secondly because of their economic policies ( Reganomics), the wages in America have shrunk or stopped completely. These older people have no idea, how bad they screwed us.

2) Then they say you should go to a community college or a commuter school. However they would be the same dikkkriders on a private university student, and telling the community college/commuter student " Sorry he goes to a better school

3) Then they talk about paying for somebody else's healthcare, but if we say let's stop paying for Medicare, then they want to flip out about some story about how they built America.

They're hypocrites

 

[tmonster]

No

Why make those rights before shyt like food and shelter

Cant make those things rights anyway.

yeah and what about the right to safety?

 

[MrPentatonic]

Education? No.

Healthcare? I'm still unsure.

Interested in the reasons why you dont believe so

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

yeah and what about the right to safety?

Thats an unrelated red herring and a slippery slope. A college education and guaranteed healthcare (which we have- hopsitals can't turn people away) have nothing to do with safety. But people are guaranteed equal protection under the law by the Constitution, and those include laws against murders. But as all the murders we have in the US show, even laws can only do so much.

 

[Mr Rager]

Healthcare, yes? For governments that can afford it.
Higher education, as much as it pains me to say, no.

BUT for governments that can afford it, and want their country to advance technologically, then yes it should it be made a right.

But we all know the government wants us to be ignorant

 

[Scoop]

If it's not in the constitution or precede the BoRs, it can't be a Fundamental Right.

SCOTUS doesn't make things that cost money Fundamental Rights because what if one day we can't afford them?

 

[Type Username Here]

Constitutional Right? No.

Common sense domestic policy? Yes.

 

[No1]

Constitutional Right? No.

Common sense domestic policy? Yes.

Explain the importance of the distinction.

 

[Type Username Here]

Explain the importance of the distinction.

I view a constitutional right as a limitation placed on the state . It limits power of the state in exchange for the state's authority to rule. I'm making a distinction from a Constitutional Right vs an Amendment (Constitutional Rights are Amendments, but not all Amendments are constitutional rights I would argue [sometimes they are just amending the original document as you know]). Is OP talking about a new Amendments as opposed to a constitutional right? I'm assuming not.

If it were worded in terms such as "The government shall place no restriction to health care" or "The government shall place no restriction to a college education" then maybe I could see it being a constitutional right, but are these restrictions currently being placed on the governed by the state? No.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Interested in the reasons why you dont believe so

Calling it a "right" is already problematic IMO.

I think public universities should (can?) be somewhat subsidized in an American-only, non-european fashion...but american higher ed is world-leading so our "solution" to the "higher ed problem" would have to be unique. Its not as simple as just saying its a "universal right" because theres existing problems and interests across the board there.

And healthcare? I'm ok with a public option with a private option if people want it. Some countries DO NOT allow private options...or are hostile to it...like the UK. I don't think people really know what they want from these public policies or know what it takes to go that direction.

Bottom line...people seem to just think how everyone else does things should be how America does things...and I think the fact that America has more or less forced people to "figure shyt out" (in addition to a plethora of other things) has precipitated a lot of the innovation and creativity we take for granted here, even on a minuscule level.

 

[No1]

I view a constitutional right as a limitation placed on the state . It limits power of the state in exchange for the state's authority to rule. I'm making a distinction from a Constitutional Right vs an Amendment (Constitutional Rights are Amendments, but not all Amendments are constitutional rights I would argue [sometimes they are just amending the original document as you know]). Is OP talking about a new Amendments as opposed to a constitutional right? I'm assuming not.

If it were worded in terms such as "The government shall place no restriction to health care" or "The government shall place no restriction to a college education" then maybe I could see it being a constitutional right, but are these restrictions currently being placed on the governed by the state? No.

I do not know how one can argue that not all amendments are constitutional rights. That is what an amendment to the US Constitution is by definition.

When you said sensible public policy I thought you were going to make a distinction between something like the Civil Rights Act versus the 13th amendment. I didn't know where you were going with that, but I was interested to see. But besides that, I feel like you're getting into a debate about whether the amendments are negative or positive rights and ignoring the question about whether or not healthcare should be a right at all. The answer is though they are often worded in negative terms--in that they limit the power of the state--they are also used in positive terms such that they are guarantees. We see this all the time in the discussions about voting rights and whether the state has to take measures to ensure that citizens can vote or remove barriers as opposed to just banning the state from explicitly barring the right by law. You also make the mistake of thinking that the state has to be actively doing something before the constitution can be amended. The Second Amendment was in many ways a preemptive measure. Constitutional amendments are about what we believe as a nation. That is why I asked what the distinction is, if you think it would be sound public policy then what problem would making it constitutionally guaranteed present? I do not see many besides costs, and as someone who is anti-war, I would assume you would be happy because that would almost necessarily take away from wartime spending.

 

[Type Username Here]

I do not know how one can argue that not all amendments are constitutional rights. That is what an amendment to the US Constitution is by definition.

Can you provide a source for this? I don't see how the 16th or 20th amendment is a right to the citizen. It is amending the original document to change the original structure laid forth.

When you said sensible public policy I thought you were going to make a distinction between something like the Civil Rights Act versus the 13th amendment.

I was thinking more along the lines of the Interstate Highway System for example. It's taxpayer driven domestic policy that has tremendous benefit to the public and private sectors.

The answer is though they are often worded in negative terms--in that they limit the power of the state--they are also used in positive terms such that they are guarantees.

But they aren't guaranteed. We learn that time and time again. Also, they aren't positive to the state. It's a limit placed on the government. Think of the freedom of speech. It isn't the freedom to say whatever you want in any context. It's a limit on what the government can censor or punish regarding speech. You can be fined and/or fired in a lot of professions from saying things the employers don't like.

That is why I asked what the distinction is, if you think it would be sound public policy then what problem would making it constitutionally guaranteed present?

It can be covered under domestic public policy. See the Interstate Highway System example.

I do not see many besides costs, and as someone who is anti-war, I would assume you would be happy because that would almost necessarily take away from wartime spending.

I just don't think you can guarantee these things as a right. The fine print would be insane as well, especially in the college education example. What's to stop someone from taking space in an university every semester and dropping out? If you make it a right, can the professor fail a student. Can a school kick someone out for not performing? How do you envision this right?

I don't see what either need to be made rights.

 

[ellessij]

How is it that I live in a third world country yet my tertiary education is paid for, as well as my healthcare?

 

[tmonster]

Thats an unrelated red herring and a slippery slope

exactly

 

[ill]

How is it that I live in a third world country yet my tertiary education is paid for, as well as my healthcare?

Where does that education rank on a global scale?
What opportunities can you find in the third world?