Health care is not a right


Health care is not a right.

The topic came up again last night on Hannity. Hannity had a very interesting Great American Panel last night. Bob Beckel, Redstate’s own Erick Erickson, and singer/Playboy model Aubrey O’Day were the guests. After discussing a program that U.S. tax dollars are funding in Africa that provides sex education to 5-year olds, the talked turned to health care. O’Day maintained that health care is a right, even calling it a “basic civil right”. She also declared that people have a civil right to affordable housing, food, and medication (which I think included contraception). It’s not the first time liberals have made that claim. Obama said health care is a right, too. The Nation makes the same argument.

Let me repeat. Health care is not a right. Maybe it will help to look at the definition of a civl right:

Webster’s says: : the nonpolitical rights of a citizen; especially : the rights of personal liberty guaranteed to United States citizens by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution and by acts of Congress

Got that? Rights are the product of personal liberty. They are not guarantees of a lifestyle. Rights derive from natural rights, which are universal in nature. Universal means they’re not limited by time, place, or culture. Slavery provides a compelling example of the meaning of universal rights. Even though American culture and custom accepted the idea of enslaving certain people, blacks had the right to be free, just as all people everywhere have that right.

Now, let’s apply that standard to health care. Does everyone have a right to an MRI? Clearly, the Greeks did not have that right. In a state of nature, nobody had that right. People have a right to pursue healthiness. But not a right to the services of a doctor. If health care is a right, then doctors are breaking your rights any time they don’t provide service to someone who needs it.

Let’s look at the “right to affordable housing”. Does everyone have a right to a house? Many cultures don’t use permanent housing, and in fact housing would destroy their culture. Further, the very term “affordable housing” is a misnomer. If it’s affordable, then you can purchase it. We should use the term “welfare housing” because it more accurately describes the service of government giving people property.

Any time property is redistributed, someone’s rights are being violated. The Revolutionary War was fought over the right to own property, and the Constitution liimited the ability of government to seize private property. On a fundamental level, any time the government gives property to an individual for private use, another citizen’s rights are being violated. Here’s why. If you take a dollar from me and give it to my neighbor, you prevent me from spending it on myself. You have deprived me of the ability to use property that I created by my own labors. Further, the idea that people have rights to a certain set of goods ignores reality. There are often fewer goods than there are people. How can everyone have a right to something, if there is a limited supply of that thing? This is the difference between the right to bear arms and the right to a Government-supplied Colt .45.

Conservatives lose the argument whenever they concede the point about the right to health care. Health care is no more a right than Xboxes are right, or Corvettes are a right, or microwaves People have the right to amass their OWN property, and use it as they see fit. But people have no right to have property GIVEN to them by the government.

Michael Steele needs to learn this lesson. He’s currently calling for a “Seniors’ Health Care Bill of Rights.” Seniors have no right to health care, any more than anyone else does. It’s easy to see why there is confusion, as seniors have paid into government programs for decades. But welfare programs are not savings accounts, and seniors don’t check the balance before they spend money from Medicare


Category: , , , ,

RSS feed

9 Comments Leave a comment

Excellent diary lightduty....nt

JadedByPolitics (Diary) Tuesday, September 1st at 12:32PM EST (link)

I Agree, except that you're wrong.

Loren Heal (Diary) Tuesday, September 1st at 12:51PM EST (link)

(I love saying things like that.)

Health care is not a right, in that you don’t have a right to have it provided to you.

But health care is a right, in the sense that it’s too precious to allow the government to interfere in it. We don’t cherish our health care right in that sense because up until now we haven’t had a government that tried to take it away.

We now have a government like that.


Join the Concord Project, and follow @lheal, if you dare.

Good food for thought, Soc.

Flagstaff (Diary) Tuesday, September 1st at 1:57PM EST (link)

It seems to me that in the basic sense, a right is an entitlement (maybe not the best word) which as humans we are born with. It’s something that neither the government nor anyone else can take away from you–they can interfere with your ability to exercise that right, but you still have that right. Similarly, the kind of rights we’re dealing with here can’t be conferred upon anyone by another party. You have them or you don’t. Perhaps that’s why the term “God-given” is so often placed in front of “rights.”

If I’m correct, it might be arguable that all “rights” that we like to discuss so much are all subsets of the primary Lockean rights of life, liberty, and property.

If so, there might be a “right” to health care if it is required to protect one’s life, but not so much a right to health care that provides free earwax removal. Such a health care right is usually demonstrated by the act of freely given aid at an accident scene, or voluntary physical, moral, or financial support for those in pain but not in danger of death. The “right” is voluntarily acknowledged by the caregiver, either from the effects of upbringing or because of some inherent internal compass that tells him to do so. It’s seldom exercised by a patient in mortal danger forcing a doctor to treat him without compensation.

One might also argue that a government’s place in the matter of rights is simply not to abrogate them. If you check out the Bill of Rights, it confers no rights at all. It lays down rules prohibiting or restricting the government from interfering with the rights of the people. It isn’t the government’s job to provide rights, or subsidize rights, or even encourage rights. It’s to get out of the way and let the people’s right to liberty be exercised in a way that doesn’t severely impact others.

To cut this short, even if there were some kind of right to good health, the proposal before us (and most previous legislation as well) isn’t written to protect that right. Rather, it’s been written in ways to promote specific methods to exercise that right and to prohibit other methods, always at a high cost to the public in general and to those who disagree with the idea in particular.

It’s hard to make those points in a public debate forum. Your comment is one way to do it.

“The press is so powerful in its image-making role that it can make a criminal look like he’s the victim and make the victim look like he’s the criminal. If you aren’t careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”– Malcolm X, Audubon Ballroom, December 13, 1964

Yes, flagstaff.

Loren Heal (Diary) Tuesday, September 1st at 3:10PM EST (link)

I agree with all of that, more or less.

But I wonder: if someone is dying in front of you, do they have a right to demand that you, with no particular medical training, attempt to save them?

If not, does it change if you do have the training?


Join the Concord Project, and follow @lheal, if you dare.

Health care is a right...

kyoufuu (Diary) Tuesday, September 1st at 4:31PM EST (link)

But only in the sense that it is indeed a function of our other basic rights (life, liberty, property). We can choose (liberty) whether or not we want to spend our money (property) to have an operation or get necessay care (life). However, that doesn’t mean that government must provide it for us. It means merely that government must get out of the way when we choose to exercise that right.

“There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” — James Madison

“I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

 

Do they have that right?

Flagstaff (Diary) Tuesday, September 1st at 8:56PM EST (link)

if someone is dying in front of you, do they have a right to demand that you, with no particular medical training, attempt to save them?

I don’t think that would be the same level of “right.”

It’s a case of countervailing rights sometimes. They could demand, and you might agree to help, but if they tried to force you it would be their right to life vs. your right to liberty of your own actions. Depending on what force was applied, and how effective your help was, and what other consequences might have followed, the final judgment might be a forgiving one, or not.

If you were in a position to save a life, it might be hard to convince others that you were wronged if you were forced, somehow, to do so. In that situation, the right to life might trump the right to liberty.

To carry it one step further, forced military conscription at its base relies on the theory that the right to liberty for the entire nation supersedes the right of an individual to control, or even keep, his life.

“The press is so powerful in its image-making role that it can make a criminal look like he’s the victim and make the victim look like he’s the criminal. If you aren’t careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”– Malcolm X, Audubon Ballroom, December 13, 1964

Good analysis, flagstaff.

Loren Heal (Diary) Wednesday, September 2nd at 4:50AM EST (link)

I think the question turns, as you suggest, not on a right to have even lifesaving care given, but on societal/peer pressure. “You mean you just stood there?”

The other way to look at it is a different kind of morality play. Suppose the fellow laying there had just committed some crime against humanity, or against you or your family.

As a legal matter, if you’re the one who put him on the sidewalk, I think you probably have a responsibility to dial 9-1-1 at some point.

But if the guy has just committed some crime, and running away from the scene gets hit by a bus, what is your role then? Surely it doesn’t depend on the crime … does it?

This is a rich area of conflicting values.


Join the Concord Project, and follow @lheal, if you dare.

I have to drop out.

Flagstaff (Diary) Wednesday, September 2nd at 6:07PM EST (link)

I only got a ‘C’ in Intro to Philosphy.

As a legal matter, if you’re the one who put him on the sidewalk, I think you probably have a responsibility to dial 9-1-1 at some point.

But if the guy has just committed some crime, and running away from the scene gets hit by a bus, what is your role then? Surely it doesn’t depend on the crime … does it?

In the first case, calling 911 might be a good CYA move. You might want to wait until he’s dead. Or not.

In the second case, I doubt that I’d be using my cell phone unless to take pictures.

“The press is so powerful in its image-making role that it can make a criminal look like he’s the victim and make the victim look like he’s the criminal. If you aren’t careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”– Malcolm X, Audubon Ballroom, December 13, 1964

 
 
 

Read "The Sunflower."

Achance (Diary) Wednesday, September 2nd at 5:24AM EST (link)

At it’s base this is a Simon Wiesenthat story about a Nazi officer’s dying request for forgiveness from a Jew. There are many editions and all sorts of people from all sorts of ideoligical viewpoints comment on the basic story. It is about as good a discussion as I’ve ever seen regarding a moral duty to aid or in this case forgive a dying person. Good stuff!

In Vino Veritas