Right to Health Care
To define rights and put them in the context of our history and government, the second section of the Declaration of Independence reads, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
These are the three unalienable rights which this country and its government have been founded and built upon. An individual should be guaranteed the freedom to act however they choose as long as it does not infringe on another’s freedom. This is the fundamental concept of rights.
At the heart of the Healthcare issue appears to be confusion around the rights of individuals and the extend of government protection regarding these rights.
Health care is a service provided by doctors, nurses, etc. to any individual for a price.
On the most fundamental level, guaranteeing any individual a right to receive a service infringes on the right of another person who provides the service.
Declaring every individual has a right to access and receive health care, universal coverage, also declares every individual in the healthcare industry, doctors, nurses, etc are required and forced to provide their service. To assert health care rights for the individual seeking the service, asserts individuals providing the health care service have no rights. Another approach is to subjugate individual rights, doctors, nurses, etc., for the “greater good” of society. For idea, the “greater good” of society, leads down the road to communism where the individual exists for the sole purpose of the community.
In all cases, claiming the right to receive healthcare service violates the right of the healthcare service provider. To take away the rights of health care providers, doctors, nurses, etc. enslaves them to the party removing their rights, in this case, the government.
To access and receive health care is not a right, but a desire, want, need or demand. It is a form of enslavement to remove the rights of a group of people. A right to health care is not just or morally right and is inconsistent with the principles this country was founded upon.
Quotes:
In the House of Representatives on Sept 23rd 2009, Ron Paul states, “1.) No one has a right to medical care. If one assumes such a right, it endorses the notion that some individuals have a right to someone else’s life and property. This totally contradicts the principles of liberty.”
Ron Paul states in an NPR interview, “I do not believe peoples’ needs or desires or wants or demands are rights. ”
Source Links:
Declaration of Independence
Mises – Involuntary Medical Servitude
NPR – Ron Paul: Leave Government Out of Insurnace Plan
House.gov – Ron Paul – More Government Won’t Help
Excellent article–short and concise. Right on!
Hey Joey, I don’t want to flame and found your article to be very interesting, well put together, and extensively researched. But that said I have a point of contention I would like you to address. The United States is not founded or governed my the Declaration of Independence, it was governed by the articles of confederation, and when that failed, it was then and now governed by the Constitution. This does not say anything about the pursuit of happiness. Just basic human rights, which part of the Fed has decided includes the right to have healthcare even if you can not afford it. The bottom line is this new healthcare reform bill only affects few people that can not afford healthcare anyway so arguing that it affects the entire United States would be a non sequitur. Again, not trying to flame I promise! I’m just trying to spark a healthy debate and wanted you to hopefully read the point of view of a person well versed in history and government.
Its pretty hard to pursue life, liberty and happiness if you are sick and have been priced out of the health “market”.
But aside from the question of whether or not health care is a “right”, as a free citizen in a democracy, I have the right to give the government the power (with sufficient agreement from my fellow citizens) to purchase health services on my behalf. There is not necessarily any more coercion for the providers than if I purchased their services directly as an individual.
Few different scenarios are mentioned in this great comment. First, I appreciate the comment and opposing viewpoint. The first point, “being priced out of the health market”, requires a more detailed analysis of what influences the prices and why current prices are at a level a sick person is unable to afford. Simple logic would argue, if you were in need of a service, such as being treated for being sick and somebody wanted to provide a service, such as a treatment for a sick person, the two parties would be able to come to a mutual agreement benefiting both the person in need of the service and the person delivering the service.
The second point, “I have a right to give the government power (with sufficient agreement from my fellow citizens) to purchase health services on my behalf.” Yes, this is definitely true. I don’t think this is mentioned at all in my article and I never disagreed with the power of democracy. In fact, democracy grants the majority power to force their decision upon the minority, regardless of the decision.
The last point, “There is not necessarily any more coercion for the providers than if I purchased their services directly as an individual.” This point can be as equally true as it can be untrue. The level of coercion all depends on how the purchasing is performed, such as what requirements or stipulations are made, etc. The government can have more (and also less) power than an individual or group of individuals. As with the first point, this would require a more detailed analysis of the varying levels of coercion the government is able to apply as well as the varying levels of coercion an individual is able to apply.
In summary the comment eludes to potential areas which could weaken the analysis provided in the article and my post, but lacks a thorough analysis and detailed examples to provide support for the stated conclusions. Of course, in all fairness, the comment is only a few sentences!
A hot take in 2021. Glad I found this.
Neither Consumerism, nor communism, when exercised to its extreme has historically proven to satisfy the masses. The way I see it, society lies within a perpetual balance of the two, teetering on an edge, balanced between the peoples ability to contribute, and their ability to consume, with satisfactory sovereignty lying somewhere between the socioeconomic swings. There is no solution, except that we all give a little more, and take a little less (something either side ascribes themselves to, but fails to do in actuality).