A Worldly Approach to Healthcare
September 28, 2009 • By Julian Carta,
Print This Post
Email This Post
I have been quite discouraged by the fact that people in this country and on this campus don’t understand the importance of healthcare as a fundamental and basic human right. Although the healthcare bill is frequently discussed as an economically beneficial or disadvantageous plan, people, especially politicians, are ignoring the true importance of this bill. The healthcare bill should be undoubtedly supported by Congress as a long-term solution to poverty, welfare reform, economic stability and human rights.
With the unemployment rate nearing 10 percent, I find it highly unlikely that the unemployed working and middle classes can afford an expensive private insurance plan. Even if one were actively seeking a job to support themselves and their family, it is also unlikely they would be able to show up to work if they were sick and unable to afford a remedy.
To buffer against extremely dire economic situations like the recession and long-term economic stability, our Founding Fathers decided it was necessary for the state “to provide for the general welfare.” Some may disagree that the Founding Fathers intended on protecting their citizens of sickness, however it is a fact that the International Bill of Human Rights is largely based on our constitutional morals and rights.
Along with being based primarily on the U.S. Constitution, the International Bill of Human Rights is based on “religious beliefs and cultures around the world,” thus explaining why according to Guinness World Records, it is the “most translated document in the world.”
In this document, which was explicitly added for the purpose of “defining fundamental freedoms and human rights appearing in the UN charter,” article 25 states: “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including medical care and basic social services.” This document was adopted by 48 nations, including the United States on December 10, 1948.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has served as the basis for two binding human rights covenants, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights.
Within the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 12 states that everyone has the right to “the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.” Furthermore, it is the duty of states to protect this right by ensuring that everyone within their jurisdiction has access to the underlying determinants of health through a comprehensive system of healthcare, which is available to everyone without discrimination, and economically accessible to all.”
Interestingly enough, there are a number of countries that have made certain reservations to their individual applications of the Covenant. The U.S. has ratified the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, but various presidents and congresses have inhibited the complete ratification of it. Ratification of this agreement would inevitably lead to the institutionalization of a basic healthcare coverage by the U.S. government, so as to avoid sanctions and punishment by the United Nations.
As of December 2008, 160 parties have completely ratified the Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. Unfortunately for our unemployed and impoverished citizens without healthcare, this very Christian and supposedly moral “city upon a hill” has done nothing but reject one of their basic human rights.
If the United States wishes to regain its place as the moral standard of the world and become a major player in human rights protection, it should start by complying with some basic treaties and beliefs that are upheld by everyone else in the world. In my opinion, basic human rights based on common moral, cultural and religious beliefs are the backbone for a more stable world and society. Without stability and a healthy working and middle class, our nation is doomed for increased economic inequality and frustration among the poor and sick.
Julian Carta is a senior international relations major.
Contact Julian Carta at cartaja@jmu.edu
Comments
8 Responses to “A Worldly Approach to Healthcare”
Got something to say?
Best of the 'Burg Supplement
April 29, 2010 Issue in Print
You make some excellent points, Julian. I guess the ultimate question that you have to ask yourself is, what good are human rights if you are not in full enjoyment of the physical or mental capacity to enjoy them?
The Constitution says that the government must PROMOTE the general welfare, not PROVIDE for it. What they must PROVIDE for is the common defense. People who whine about not having public healthcare are often those who do not understand the need for a strong defense; perhaps a closer reading of the Preamble is in order.
With respect to the two words “general welfare,” I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.
Could you not use that same argument concerning the literal interpretation of the constitution to argue against many issues facing us today? I admit you are right, but then again I highly doubt the founding fathers would have envisioned a world in which a student could bring a hand gun into class and blow away numerous people. I used that constitutional reference (semi-incorrectly as pointed out by Kathryn) to make an argument in proposition of a basic health care coverage plan. Basically,l i find the constitution to be archaic and easily interpreted in many different positive and negative ways, much like ancient religious texts. Furthermore, Kathryn I appreciate your post, however you must admit the funding for a public option of health care coverage would pale in comparison to what our nation spends on defense. Thank you for the posts, corrections, ideas, and your general interest in my writing. More to come in the near future.
Thanks for the correction Kathryn, I am sorry I printed that wrong, however it still does not change the basis of my argument. Whoever James Madison is, you are right, but people in this country feel the need for literal interpretation of the constitution. As anyone can see, our second amendment is upheld literally even though I am pretty sure the founding fathers never envisioned a world in which a student could bring a handgun to class and blow away numerous people. I simply used the constitution so as to appeal to a wider audience of people who swear by the constitution in a literal sense and to demonstrate how our constitution is used for international human rights agreements. The constitution, like many religious texts can be interpreted in various positive and negative ways, because it is archaic and basically the opposite of progressive. Thank you for the interest in my articles and the corrections, there will be more to follow in the near future.
Kathryn: “People who whine about not having public healthcare are often those who do not understand the need for a strong defense”
WHAT???? How are those two even connected? Imagine if you were laid-off from your job and lost your health insurance. Imagine you discovered a lump on your breast. You dont have enough money to go to the doctor to get it checked out. Would you “whine” for public heathcare? Or would your belief in the need for a strong national defense cure you? Can you imagine if all that money that was spent killing people in Iraq was used to better the lives of Americans at home?
Julian, there is no need to apologize or revise, as your claim is correct. From the Constitution: Article I, Sec. 8: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.” This, and “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.” (also Article I, Sec.
are the legal bases for the implementation of a federal healthcare solution, not the Preamble.
Sorry, don’t know how that emoticon got in there. It’s supposed to be an 8.