« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Health Care is a Right

Promoted from the diaries by Jeff

At one of the McCain-Obama debates in the run-up to the 2008 presidential election, the candidates were asked in turn if health care were a right or a privilege. Obama answered unequivocally that it was a right, while McCain fumbled a bit and declared that it was a privilege.

I disagree with both answers.

The reason both were wrong last October is that neither appeared to understand the basic definition of a ‘right’: something the government cannot forbid.

A basic right which is implied but not mentioned in the Constitution is the right to travel. The government should not interfere in our movement from place to place. But there is no right to transportation, either to a specific form of transport or to have any provided, Cash For Clunkers notwithstanding. If there were, one couldn’t pass by a hitchhiker (and they would choke every intersection demanding that their rights be satisfied).

Similarly, the government should not be able to bar anyone from receiving health care. That is very different thing from supplying it to everyone, or forcing health care workers to serve anyone who appears before them.

But in their usual manner, the left have found a way to redefine the word “right” in this context, from that which the government cannot prevent to that which it must provide. Like other socialists, Barack Obama believes rights to include things the government must provide, and it is from that unfortunate perspective that he was able to give the clear response that he did. Indeed, positive rights are the essence of socialism, and cause an insidious mission creep for an ever-expanding government. Positive rights also lead inevitably to forcing one citizen, whether driver or physician, to serve another.

John McCain was given a golden opportunity to define himself, and he took it. He showed progressives that he was not one of them, but failed at the same time to inspire conservatives by declaring the question ill-formed, and by using his own background as a teaching tool. He has known personally the effects of a government that will deny health care to those in its charge.

Health care is not a privilege, like driving a car or owning a certain kind of shoes. Health care is a right, like the right to leave and go elsewhere. But as no one need pick up a hitchhiker, no one need provide anyone else with medical care. The right to health care implies only that the government must not interfere with our attempts to care for ourselves and others. It does not mean that the government should provide care to anyone, except to prisoners of war and other wards of the State.

Part of the reason for the confusion about whether health care is or is not a right is a confusion of terms. But the reason for that confusion is that we do not currently have a government that, as John McCain’s socialist captors denied him health care, abuses people by denying them treatment. Ironically, Obamacare could only sustain itself by rationing, thereby giving us a government that would deny health care to those deemed too far gone, or thought to have insufficient utility to the State.

COMMENTS

  • cringinghere

    The single biggest reason that healthcare cannot be a right is because for fit to be a right then we must compel a doctor to serve you. And anything that forces someone else to do something for you is slavery, not a right.

    • http://charlemagne-the-hammer.blogspot.com/ DerKrieger

      …to keep and bear arms. The government doesn’t have the obligation of providing me with a gun.

      • http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/blog/loren_heal Socrates

        And so with each of our rights: free press, but no free printer; free religious expression, but no funding. And others have noted the free speech without a supplied soapbox.

        To the Marxist/socialist, allowing the right without supplying the means is just another means of Capitalist oppression.

    • http://charlemagne-the-hammer.blogspot.com/ DerKrieger

      A right cannot impose an obligation on another person and still be a right.

  • roguepolitics

    A few weeks ago. You are correct.

    If there is one thing the conservative side could do better; defining what is a ?right? versus what is a ?privilege?.

    Unfortunately too many conservatives are confused and want to claim “rights” are ?privileges?. For example, driving a car. By what “right” does the state control this ?privilege?? How can free interstate travel, a constitutional right, be reconciled with the spurious notion that the means employed by 99% of interstate travelers should be considered a privilege?

    Yet plenty of people who consider themselves conservative would drop dead faint at the notion of scrapping the driver licensing system.

    How can we expect them to both know and honor rights if we don?t?

    Read the whole story at http://www.redstate.com/roguepolitics/2009/07/21/health-care-is-a-right/

  • http://charlemagne-the-hammer.blogspot.com/ DerKrieger

    …to free speech. The government doesn’t have the obligation to provide me a forum.

    • GT350

      Responsibility is a word that is too little used in this day and age.

  • http://online.logcabin.org/about/ suzieQ

    They’ve ruined it. Look at medicare. It is huge, expensive, convoluted, and known for problems. The same could be said for the VA. Government beurocrats should not be involved in healthcare. Reagan warned us what an epic failure medicare would be as far back as the 1960′s. I would send money to any senator or representative that introduced a bill to ban socialized medicine. Medicare has caused more problems than it was ever worth and it’s only for a small segment of the population. The dems want to enforce medicare on all of America, regardless of age!

  • Aaron Gardner

    Wouldn’t the government have to provide every citizen a gun??

    ;^)

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/blog/loren_heal Socrates

    I wouldn’t use it, since it would probably be an epic failure.

  • nessa

    The usual lies.

  • http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/blog/loren_heal Socrates

    then the militia must have been intended to own the weapon.

    But the 2nd Amendment is oddly worded for that to be the case.

  • jimc1969

    Funny you mention the right to travel. And I’m NOT saying you are wrong I know EXACTLY what you refer to BUT I live In North Jersy, and went to Staten Island the other week, I had to pay $12 in Tolls !!!!
    ( Including a BIG one at the state border )
    The Govt is essentially trying to stifle interstate commerce through these HIGH tolls…………..
    I wonder if this ever went before the Supreme Court ? ( I seem to recall that last years highway bill had language in it to encourage more tollls too ! )

  • RedBeard

    In this so-called “heakth care” debate, the one missing element is constitutionality. Dems deliberately ignore the Constitution, and Reps seem confused by it.

    The simple fact is that Congress is not authorized to provide medical insurance to anyone, in any form, no matter how reasonable a plan is developed.

    Every member of Congress has a stack of copies of the Constitution to pass out to visiting constituents. Too bad those congresscritters have never availed themselves of the opportunity to read and understand the law of the land.

    It’s really not that difficult. It’s a short document, quite concise. For the more dunderheaded, I suggest starting by reading the 10th Amendment, and working backwards.

  • Return to Revolution

    An issue started by the progressive movement and finally implemented in US law with FDR’s “2nd bill of rights”.

    The best way to tell real from phony is to ask, who has to initiate force to violate the right? If you have to force someone into some action (such as taxes) in order to achieve your “right” then its an FDR style right. Rights as defined in the constitution require only that others refrain from interfering (hence the term negative liberty).

  • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

    I don’t have any problem with a toll road that pays for itself, but I do have a problem with a local government fleecing travelers to finance its other plans. I don’t like speed traps either.

  • http://www.fredsnews.com Fred Maidment

    …you have every right to take a ferry or find some other method of arriving on the island.

    I don’t like tolls where the government puts the money into its general fund, but tolls to pay for the construction and/or maintenance of the road are, to me, more “free market” than any gas tax.

  • cclive

    You have the “right” to travel but on roads and highways provided by the government. True, you don’t have to use those roads but that would make traveling to some places nearly impossible. So the government then has a responsibility to maintain those roads to ensure your “rights”.

  • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

    That said, the right to travel is the one also called “Liberty.” That’s one of the big three from the Declaration, along with Life (aka Healthcare), and Property (aka TPOH). Also see my opus on rights and duties.

  • Menlo

    If health care is a right, the Democrats are actually violating it. When government takes over health care, it can no longer be a right because the government can deny it when they don’t think it is worth their money. And from what I have heard, they want to prohibit doctors from even offering services that aren’t covered by any public or private collective plan. In other words, the patient will be barred from paying out of his or her own pocket for a service that no one else will cover.

    It is amazing to see that, regardless of the issue, liberals ALWAYS violate the very same right they claim to be upholding.

  • Vegas_Rick

    Much like landscaping or rotorooting. Healthcare is certainly more important and sophisticated, more valuable and more costly. But it is a service none the less. The constitution does not guarantee us a right to service.

    Health Insurance is a product or commodity. It is meant to be privately purchased and privately owned. Just like any other product or commodity. The constitution does not guarantee us a right to own that which we cannot afford.

    So what the government should do is eliminate the barriers to interstate purchase of health insurance. Remove most mandatory coverage?s so that consumers can choose the minimum level of coverage according to their economic situation. Both of these steps would make individual policies more affordable.

    Consumers should select insurance coverage for ONLY those things which could not be for, out of pocket, or from a health savings account

    That?s my story, and I?m sticking to it!

  • nessa

    I don’t find much of the Constitution difficult to understand, unlike the bills coming out of our congress lately! The left has been throwing up the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment for years, I’m not a lawyer but it has always seemed plain to me. Even if you take their argument seriously…

    “In one description, known to grammarians as an ablative absolute construction, the Second Amendment has been considered formed with an opening justification phrase, followed by a declarative clause where the opening phrase modifies the main clause much as an adjective would modify a noun. Under this interpretation, the opening phrase is considered essential as a pre-condition for the main clause. This was a grammar structure that was common during that era. This grammatical description is considered by some to be consistent with the concept of the Second Amendment as protecting a collective right to firearms for members serving in a select militia.” from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

    …the Founding Fathers spoke at length about the militia. Tenche Cox is one of my favorites on the subject:
    “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American … the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

    But ALL of the Founders agreed. The militia is everyone. The left ignores the historical evidence and obfuscates the amendment so that they can incrementally infringe on the very right guaranteed and explained for us.

    The Second Amendment is not the only portion of the Constitution treated this way. Look at what they do in the name of the “General Welfare” clause!

    Now, much like their use of the two words, General Welfare, they create a new right, so obviously intended to be guaranteed to the American People.

    Lies, plain to see to me, but the lies are picked up and repeated and off we go, to the public option or co-ops or socialized government run health care. Those who want to believe it will, just like the surprise so many Obama voters are feeling now. What surprise? You didn’t see it coming? We told you! Stupid.

  • http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/blog/loren_heal Socrates

    is that the service of health care, the provision of it, is not to be guaranteed, only the lack of government interference in the transaction. We have more and more of the former and less and less of the latter.

  • http://www.fredsnews.com Fred Maidment

    “Consumers should select insurance coverage for ONLY those things which could not be for, out of pocket, or from a health savings account”

    Consumers should be able to select whatever coverage they so choose, whether that means emergency-only coverage, or comprehensive coverage for anything including bandaids.

    If they can afford to pay for it, fine. Let them buy coverage that will have a nurse show up and kiss their bruise if they so choose. Just don’t ask the American taxpayers to cover it for them!

  • http://www.fredsnews.com Fred Maidment

    Quite an excellent method of explaining why, even if health care is a “right,” the government is not “compelled” or even “authorized” to provide it.

  • http://www.fredsnews.com Fred Maidment

    …does your “right” violate the rights of another person.

    One of the reasons that the Democrat’s healthcare bill is not the enforcement of a “right” is that it violates the rights of the medical practitioners and facility owners. Saying a person has a right to treatment they cannot afford forces the doctors to give up a portion of their rights, that is, their right to property (the materials they use and the knowledge stored in their heads).

    It is unfortunate that so many believe they have a right to a portion of another person’s life. This is the same type of thinking that was used to justify the looting after Katrina. It is the same mentality that justifies illegal music downloads (and the excessive fines leveled upon the downloading individuals). It is the mentality that justifies minimum wages (and now the bonus/salary “clawbacks” the TARP administrators are considering).

    You have a right only to your own life and property, and can give it up at whatever rate you feel is appropriate. Artificially forcing someone to accept less than they desire for their property or services is theft, at any level, for any purpose and by through any intermediary.

  • Vegas_Rick

    I should have been more specific. I was making a recommendation to those who feel health insurance is unaffordable. Don’t buy insurance for routine check-ups etc. I absolutely agree that everyone should be able to buy the policy they want, without outside interference.

  • cclive

    like repealing EMTALA? Which does force doctors and hospitals to provide goods and services to people who can not pay them.