I've heard a number of arguments for universal health care that seem to all fall into the same category, that it is some kind of right. I've heard people say that health care is a human right. I've heard people say that it's provided for in the Declaration of Independence as part of the 'pursuit of happiness'. I've heard that it's provided for in the Constitution under article 1, section 8, where the government is to 'provide for the common defense and general welfare'.
As you might have guessed I disagree with these arguments and I want to explain why.
First, the Constitution. Here's a blurb that explains why this doesn't mean that the government can do whatever they want that might promote the general welfare. Our government is one of enumerated powers. Powers not granted in the constitution are reserved by the states. Powers not granted to the states are reserved by the people. If they could do whatever they want, we'd no longer have a government of enumerated powers. Or at least that's how it's supposed to work. Now, there are those that would love to just move past the constitution. "It was great for its time, but it's so 1790s; we've progressed since then," but that's another post.
Second, Pursuit of Happiness. Does my pursuit of happiness mean that I can do anything I want? I mean, if it's in my pursuit of happiness, who can deny me? Obviously there is a line. Where is it? I heard something I liked: "Your right to swing your fist, ends at my nose." Furthermore, if your pursuit of happiness requires that other people do something for you, how do you argue between receiving health care and having everyone you say hello to give you $10, or requiring the grocery store to give you your groceries free? Your pursuit of happiness does not allow you to force goods or services from other people, because by doing so you infringe on their pursuit of happiness.
Lastly, health care is a human right. Like we mentioned above, health care requires goods and services that don't belong to the one receiving care. A 'right' that requires action from others is called a positive right. What you might call the opposite, is a negative right, it requires the inaction of others, or freedom from others' actions. This is what I think the right to the pursuit of happiness really is, the freedom from others stopping your pursuit of happiness, as long as your pursuit doesn't stop someone else's pursuit. Other positive rights include the right of education, the right to clothing, the right to housing, the right to food, the right to a retirement (social security), and even the right to a minimum standard of living. Now don't confuse this list. As an example of possble confusion, the right to education means the right to have people teach you and provide everything you need to learn, not the right you have to pursue learning the best you can at your expense, free of interference.
I would argue that these positive 'rights' aren't rights at all. Let's look at health care. For the sake of argument let's say it was a human right. Suppose that you had a disease that can't be treated in the United States, is it your right to be flown, at someone else's expense, to the country with the specialist that can treat your disease? Suppose that you have a disease and there are doctors that can treat it, but not one wants to. Are they obliged to treat you because it's your human right? If they're forced to treat someone against their will, aren't their rights being diminished? Now, I don't think that would ever happen, but I think it illustrates that receiving health care isn't a human right. A human rights that require someone else to do something for me isn't a right at all. Health care is a voluntary transaction in the market place ultimately between two autonomous agents.
Suppose the disease you have isn't life threatening, say deafness, is society obligated to use all their resources to remedy your malady? What if the condition is brought on by choices you've made? This is where proponents of health care as a human right get into trouble. The line gets blurry. It seems though, that if it's a human right, it's a human right and the circumstances of how they got into the predictament shouldn't matter. This is another reason why I don't think it is a human right. It's not right to let society absorb the cost for consequences made by individuals. There can't be true freedom without the consquences of individual choices. Furthermore, the more society does absorb those costs, the more power they have over individuals to stop them from doing what society deems 'costly'. I would rather suffer the consequences myself and have the freedom to do what I want.
Now, does this mean that we don't provide some of these priveleges to our society? No, take education again; we provide a semi-free schooling through grade 12. What the person makes of it is largely up to them. I believe the goal is to help even out the starting point, providing equal opportunity. But it isn't a human right, it's a privelege provided by the community. If education was a human right, couldn't I demand to be admited to the college of my choice, free of charge? Couldn't I demand to be taught by the teachers of my choice? Couldn't I even demand to be taught by anyone that knew something I wanted to learn? I mean, it's my unalienable human right, right? No, of course not, because it isn't a human right. All these things that are classed as positive 'rights' are goods or services that are provided in the market place. The doctor studies a trade and then applies his knowledge for a fee. The college professor studies a trade and applies his knowledge for a fee.
So the question is, should we provide some form of health care as a privelge to members of our society? That's what the debate should really be about. I think it's called a human right by the proponents because our 'rights' are so sacred to us and evoke such strong feelings. Also, if you call it a human right, how can anyone be against it? "What are you some hatemongering, human-right violating, totalitarian?" No I'm just someone that believes a lot of the health care problems could be solved by the market place, if we'd let it work, and those that can't could be solved with a couple new laws and the abolishment of some older ones.
