Posted on 03/10/2010 4:05:03 AM PST by Kaslin
Most politicians, and probably most Americans, see health care as a right. Thus, whether a person has the means to pay for medical services or not, he is nonetheless entitled to them. Let's ask ourselves a few questions about this vision.
Say a person, let's call him Harry, suffers from diabetes and he has no means to pay a laboratory for blood work, a doctor for treatment and a pharmacy for medication. Does Harry have a right to XYZ lab's and Dr. Jones' services and a prescription from a pharmacist? And, if those services are not provided without charge, should Harry be able to call for criminal sanctions against those persons for violating his rights to health care?
You say, "Williams, that would come very close to slavery if one person had the right to force someone to serve him without pay." You're right. Suppose instead of Harry being able to force a lab, doctor and pharmacy to provide services without pay, Congress uses its taxing power to take a couple of hundred dollars out of the paycheck of some American to give to Harry so that he could pay the lab, doctor and pharmacist. Would there be any difference in principle, namely forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another? There would be one important strategic difference, that of concealment. Most Americans, I would hope, would be offended by the notion of directly and visibly forcing one person to serve the purposes of another. Congress' use of the tax system to invisibly accomplish the same end is more palatable to the average American.
True rights, such as those in our Constitution, or those considered to be natural or human rights, exist simultaneously among people. That means exercise of a right by one person does not diminish those held by another. In other words, my rights to speech or travel impose no obligations on another except those of non-interference. If we apply ideas behind rights to health care to my rights to speech or travel, my free speech rights would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with an auditorium, television studio or radio station. My right to travel freely would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with airfare and hotel accommodations.
For Congress to guarantee a right to health care, or any other good or service, whether a person can afford it or not, it must diminish someone else's rights, namely their rights to their earnings. The reason is that Congress has no resources of its very own. Moreover, there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy giving them those resources. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces one to recognize that in order for government to give one American citizen a dollar, it must first, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. If one person has a right to something he did not earn, of necessity it requires that another person not have a right to something that he did earn.
To argue that people have a right that imposes obligations on another is an absurd concept. A better term for new-fangled rights to health care, decent housing and food is wishes. If we called them wishes, I would be in agreement with most other Americans for I, too, wish that everyone had adequate health care, decent housing and nutritious meals. However, if we called them human wishes, instead of human rights, there would be confusion and cognitive dissonance. The average American would cringe at the thought of government punishing one person because he refused to be pressed into making someone else's wish come true.
None of my argument is to argue against charity. Reaching into one's own pockets to assist his fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else's pockets to do so is despicable and deserves condemnation.
no
The only rights American citizens have are those in The Bill of Rights. Health care is not listed as a right in The Bill of Rights.
Only of you are willing to pay for it like everyone else. No one gets a free ride.
As soon as you are refused treatment by the government, I think you can figure out where your ‘right to health care’ ends.
Do you have a right to a government motors car?
A legitimate right also identifies an obligation. The right to life, for example, recognizes the obligation not to kill, other things being equal.
If a purported “right” identifies an obligation that is, as Dr. Williams observes, the enslavement of others, it is not a right at all, but merely an attempt at compulsion disguised in squishy language.
The Constitution did not create rights, but only recognized SOME that are inherent in the free human being.
Yes, as long as you pay for it
Obamacare is a wrong.
No. You have no right to compel someone to sell you a product, even if you have the money to pay for it.
One thing I know for sure. Taking away my own health care and forcing me, under penalty of the law, to buy something the government is selling is not constitutional.
Hmmm. Have never heard that claim. I need ti think that through. Does not sound quite right.
ping to my Assistant Thinker
Another excellent article by Dr. Walter E. Williams. Health care a right? No, it is a service for which the person in question must pay. No one would demand free services from a roofer, an auto mechanic or a plumber. Why should doctors, hospitals and other medical service providers be antagonized, threatened and bullied into giving their services away for below market value or for free? It’s simple: they shouldn’t.
As someone dealing with the onset of type II diabetes I think I can address this. In the context of whether or not health care is a right, does it also apply that my obligation is to stay in the best shape possible? I do not think the government has an obligation to keep me alive for free. I have an obligation to stop eating garbage, get out and walk a bit every day, and get my numbers down.
Diabetes is a tsumani that is going to kill our health care system. I am the tip of the ice berg, but I am smart enough to catch it early and minimize the impact. Can we say that about all of the other fatties out there?
The BOR enumerates the rights that the Federal Government will not infringe upon. All other rights, granted by our creator, are assigned to the states.
So, technically he was wrong. But I think he was going in the right direction with his point.
Healthcare is a right only if you live under the constitution of the old soviet union.
Not a right under the US Constitution.
Health care, like self defense, is a right which is not explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights prohibits the federal government from interfering with or denying the rights specifically enumerated as well as those recognized by the Ninth Amendment. The Bill of Rights, however, does not impose an affirmative obligation on the government to perfect those rights. For example, I have the right of free speech but the federal government does not have the obligation to provide me with a platform on prime time broadcasts.
No, you have other rights not listed in the Bill of Rights. The US Constitution is a limit on what the federal government can do, not en enumeration of your rights. The Bill or Rights was just to be explicit about a few important rights.
However, you don't have a right to someone else's labor or stuff.
Walter nails it.
Hell, around here, some people don’t even grasp the concept of “insurance”. If something is supposed to “cover” (pay for) a pre-existing condition, or something that already happened, then it is NOT insurance. It is “someone else paying for my expenses”.
Wouldn’t it be great if auto insurance had to pay for “pre-existing conditions”.
Have accident and no insurance? No Problem! That fender bender is a “pre-existing condition” and the insurance company HAS to pay for it. Isn’t that swell? There couldn’t possibly unintended consequences, right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.