Is Health Care a Right?
Amidst the raging debate about what form health care reform should take is another larger debate about the role of government in our lives. In this debate, the question is not, “what form should health care reform take?” but, “should government be involved in health care at all?” Two answers are usually given to this question. The answer for those on the left is an unqualified “yes” because health care is a right and therefore the government has an obligation to provide it. To those on the right, health care is not a right and therefore should not be subject to any government control.. In reality they are both right....and both wrong.
The confusion has arisen over our understanding of “rights” and the government’s role in “securing” those rights. Our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, states that men are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Rights come from God; not man, not government. When men are born they have a life given to them by God, they have the freedom to live that life as they please and pursue whatever dreams and ambitions they choose. Men and governments that seek to restrict God given rights are correctly termed tyrannical. Up until this point, most on the left and the right would agree, even if some on the left would object to the religious references. That, however, was our founding principle and it guided us through our first century as a nation.
The part of the document that leads to the divergence of opinion is the next part. “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men...” It is the meaning of “secure” that is at the root of the problem. To those on the left, secure means that the government has the obligation to provide for the exercise of that right equally among all. For the right, secure means that the government has no right to interfere with the exercise of that right. To understand this, lets look at an example.
The first amendment to the constitution recognizes that one of our God given rights is that of free speech. We have the right to speak or not to speak, to say what is on our minds without fear of reprisal by the government. Most understand that the government’s role is to ensure that no one’s speech is limited except in special cases. For example, one cannot yell “Fire” in a crowded theatre when there is no fire because the resultant panic may result in other people losing their right to life. We have also determined that if one tells lies about another that result in damage to the other’s reputation or economic “pursuit of happiness”, one can be sued for libel or slander. Other than that, there are few limits on free speech and the government stays out of it. This is as it should be.
If, however, we embrace the liberal argument that in securing rights the government has the obligation to provide for the exercise of that right, then our understanding of free speech becomes very different. After all, there is a big difference between my exercise of free speech on a blog few people read and Rush Limbaugh’s exercise of free speech that millions hear every day. If it is the government’s obligation to provide for the exercise of free speech equally among all, either I need to get radio time equally with all the others that also desire it, or Rush Limbaugh needs to have his free speech curtailed to match the rest of us. This is the difference between ensuring the exercise of a right and ensuring an equal outcome among all in the exercise of that right. In a society based on the God given right to liberty, everyone has the ability to exercise their right to free speech but no one has the obligation to listen to our speech. If we have the ability or means to get more people to listen, our speech will have more impact but our right to speak is no different. If I want as large an audience as Rush Limbaugh, I could work my way up in the radio world, I could buy advertising on his show and reach the same audience with my ideas, I could buy a million dollar commercial during the Super Bowl. Getting people to hear me is my job, ensuring my right to pursue being heard is the government’s job. If the government’s job becomes ensuring that everyone’s speech is heard equally, no one will be heard. There are three hundred million people that want to be heard in this country, logistically it is impossible for any of us to hear them all. Therefore the hearing and the speaking will need to be rationed and it will be government bureaucratic politics that decides who speaks and who hears what. No one wants that.
How does this apply to health care? I believe health care is a right. It is not another right like the left wants us to accept like the right to gay marriage or the right to kill unborn babies. Our ability to access health care is fundamental to exercising our right to life, liberty and our pursuit of happiness. It is no less a right that that of speech, our free exercise of religion, our right to bear arms. Therefore, as a right, it should be subject to as little government interference as possible. I should have the right to take care of my health as I see fit, or not take care of it at all, if I so choose. Like the exercise of free speech, my ability to provide for my health and well being is subject to my ability to access it. If I have the means to do so, I can buy any care I choose. If I don’t, I can cooperate with others to buy it. We call this group insurance and it is no different than if I got a group together to invest in an advertisement to make sure our speech was heard. The other option we have is to rely on the charity of others and our country has a long history of providing care to the less fortunate in that manner.
The liberals, however, believe that the right to health care means that the government has the obligation to provide it equally among all. Therefore, just as in our example of free speech, the ones with means need to be brought down to the lowest common denominator and because there are three hundred million people that desire to exercise this right, it will need to be rationed; there are only so many doctors, nurses and hospitals. Care at this level for everyone is no real care at all. But there is something worse that happens when in the desire to secure rights the government provides for their equal application. Unalienable rights from God become privileges bestowed on us by government. Privileges are subject to a much wider degree of control by government than are rights. For example, we have the right to travel freely in this country. We can walk from Maine to Florida to California if we choose to. If we want to drive, however, we now want to exercise a privilege. We are subject to rules regarding insurance, inspections, emissions standards, licensing requirements and taxes. The government can deny or change these requirements at any time. Is this really how we want to understand health care, or any of our other rights?
Our unlimited access whatever health care we choose according to our ability to provide compensation is a right fundamental to our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. As such, it is the obligation of the government to secure that right, ensuring our freedom to provide for our own health and well being as we see fit. It is a right no different than others recognized in our founding documents. As such, the only obligation the government has is to not interfere with our exercise of those rights as long as our utilization of those rights does not infringe on the rights of others. If, however, we allow the government to believe that it has the authority to provide for the exercise of our God given rights, it will turn them into privileges to be exercised by us only at their discretion. That is tyranny.
The confusion has arisen over our understanding of “rights” and the government’s role in “securing” those rights. Our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, states that men are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Rights come from God; not man, not government. When men are born they have a life given to them by God, they have the freedom to live that life as they please and pursue whatever dreams and ambitions they choose. Men and governments that seek to restrict God given rights are correctly termed tyrannical. Up until this point, most on the left and the right would agree, even if some on the left would object to the religious references. That, however, was our founding principle and it guided us through our first century as a nation.
The part of the document that leads to the divergence of opinion is the next part. “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men...” It is the meaning of “secure” that is at the root of the problem. To those on the left, secure means that the government has the obligation to provide for the exercise of that right equally among all. For the right, secure means that the government has no right to interfere with the exercise of that right. To understand this, lets look at an example.
The first amendment to the constitution recognizes that one of our God given rights is that of free speech. We have the right to speak or not to speak, to say what is on our minds without fear of reprisal by the government. Most understand that the government’s role is to ensure that no one’s speech is limited except in special cases. For example, one cannot yell “Fire” in a crowded theatre when there is no fire because the resultant panic may result in other people losing their right to life. We have also determined that if one tells lies about another that result in damage to the other’s reputation or economic “pursuit of happiness”, one can be sued for libel or slander. Other than that, there are few limits on free speech and the government stays out of it. This is as it should be.
If, however, we embrace the liberal argument that in securing rights the government has the obligation to provide for the exercise of that right, then our understanding of free speech becomes very different. After all, there is a big difference between my exercise of free speech on a blog few people read and Rush Limbaugh’s exercise of free speech that millions hear every day. If it is the government’s obligation to provide for the exercise of free speech equally among all, either I need to get radio time equally with all the others that also desire it, or Rush Limbaugh needs to have his free speech curtailed to match the rest of us. This is the difference between ensuring the exercise of a right and ensuring an equal outcome among all in the exercise of that right. In a society based on the God given right to liberty, everyone has the ability to exercise their right to free speech but no one has the obligation to listen to our speech. If we have the ability or means to get more people to listen, our speech will have more impact but our right to speak is no different. If I want as large an audience as Rush Limbaugh, I could work my way up in the radio world, I could buy advertising on his show and reach the same audience with my ideas, I could buy a million dollar commercial during the Super Bowl. Getting people to hear me is my job, ensuring my right to pursue being heard is the government’s job. If the government’s job becomes ensuring that everyone’s speech is heard equally, no one will be heard. There are three hundred million people that want to be heard in this country, logistically it is impossible for any of us to hear them all. Therefore the hearing and the speaking will need to be rationed and it will be government bureaucratic politics that decides who speaks and who hears what. No one wants that.
How does this apply to health care? I believe health care is a right. It is not another right like the left wants us to accept like the right to gay marriage or the right to kill unborn babies. Our ability to access health care is fundamental to exercising our right to life, liberty and our pursuit of happiness. It is no less a right that that of speech, our free exercise of religion, our right to bear arms. Therefore, as a right, it should be subject to as little government interference as possible. I should have the right to take care of my health as I see fit, or not take care of it at all, if I so choose. Like the exercise of free speech, my ability to provide for my health and well being is subject to my ability to access it. If I have the means to do so, I can buy any care I choose. If I don’t, I can cooperate with others to buy it. We call this group insurance and it is no different than if I got a group together to invest in an advertisement to make sure our speech was heard. The other option we have is to rely on the charity of others and our country has a long history of providing care to the less fortunate in that manner.
The liberals, however, believe that the right to health care means that the government has the obligation to provide it equally among all. Therefore, just as in our example of free speech, the ones with means need to be brought down to the lowest common denominator and because there are three hundred million people that desire to exercise this right, it will need to be rationed; there are only so many doctors, nurses and hospitals. Care at this level for everyone is no real care at all. But there is something worse that happens when in the desire to secure rights the government provides for their equal application. Unalienable rights from God become privileges bestowed on us by government. Privileges are subject to a much wider degree of control by government than are rights. For example, we have the right to travel freely in this country. We can walk from Maine to Florida to California if we choose to. If we want to drive, however, we now want to exercise a privilege. We are subject to rules regarding insurance, inspections, emissions standards, licensing requirements and taxes. The government can deny or change these requirements at any time. Is this really how we want to understand health care, or any of our other rights?
Our unlimited access whatever health care we choose according to our ability to provide compensation is a right fundamental to our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. As such, it is the obligation of the government to secure that right, ensuring our freedom to provide for our own health and well being as we see fit. It is a right no different than others recognized in our founding documents. As such, the only obligation the government has is to not interfere with our exercise of those rights as long as our utilization of those rights does not infringe on the rights of others. If, however, we allow the government to believe that it has the authority to provide for the exercise of our God given rights, it will turn them into privileges to be exercised by us only at their discretion. That is tyranny.
Comments