The "disagreement" over healthcare "rights" is un-resolvable because the basic argument is pitting foundational principles of the Constitution versus 20th Century communitarian ideals. This is a fight between Constitutionalists arguing there is no foundation for government providing those comforts and Marxists / Leninists and their vulgar demands for social, cultural and economic rights. It is the unavoidable friction between original, first generation "negative" rights and 20th Century second generation "positive" rights.
The modern left throws around the term "rights" in a way that denigrates the true meaning (as understood by the founders / framers). According to the modern left, we have NO right to keep and bear arms, but we do have the "right" to (government provided / mandated) affordable housing, a living wage, education, health care and prescriptions, internet access, etc.
The purpose of this Orwellian new-speak is to redefine our rights into a fuzzy, moldable menu of services, privileges and entitlements we can apply for. Upon filling out the proper forms (no ID or proof of citizenship required) and payment of license fees, a bureaucrat can stamp “APPROVED” and our benevolent government will bestow some "rights" upon us. Unfortunately, with that mindset comes the acceptance of the situational denial or outright removal of those "rights" (for our own good of course).
Our rights are NOT a list of services that government provides for us.
Nor are they tangible commodities that the government compels others to provide to us.
The left needs to frame this disagreement in emotional terms; how mean conservatives are, how right wingers want to see babies die, how the left just want to help people . . . This is the only argument they have because they can't argue any degree of constitutional legitimacy.
That second generation social, cultural and economic rights have no support in the Constitution is why the Constitution and its principles must be misrepresented or dismissed and ignored by the left. The left begins their arguments with a rejection of the principle of inherent rights and that rights were excepted out of the powers being granted by the people. This is substituted with the position that government possesses all power and grants or gives us our rights. This perversion needs to be done for obvious reasons.
The argument that rights are granted by or flow from government has as its primary intent to legitimize 20th century communitarian ideals (positive rights being the most important) as being represented in the Constitution and thus creating a mandate for government to provide those "rights". To do this, the entire fundamental structure of the Constitution (conferred powers vs retained rights) must be mutated and the original definition of rights (and their origin) must be scrubbed from the consciousness of Americans.
I'm not being mean when I reject the left's desire to destroy the Constitution and its foundational principles nor does it say that I relish the misery and deaths of fellow Americans. It just means that in a Constitutional Republic the powers of a federal form of government are limited, even the powers to do "good" and "help" people.
