Unless you've been living in a cave, you know that this is the hottest topic in the country today. So let's frame the issue ethically, or at least part of the issue.
Question: Do people have a right to health care?
I say: Although this may seem like a no brainer question, (hint: the tempting answer is to say yes), I suggest that this isn't so simple. Virtually every special interest group argues that their position is really a matter of "basic human rights". Do we have a right to basic food, clothing and shelter? Do we have a right to earn a living wage? A retirement with dignity? The list gets pretty long. Throw in a few colorful adjectives such as "basic", "living" and "dignity", and how can anyone disagree with that? Apart from the obvious definitional problem of determining what basic, living, and with dignity mean, we have a far greater difficulty once we distill every social issue down to one of rights.
As soon as we decide that something exists as a matter of right, then that right creates a corresponding duty. If a child has a positive right to an elementary and high school education, then that right creates a duty in someone else, the taxpayer or whomever, to provide that education. The same is true for a right to shelter, employment or retirement. Once we concede a right exists, then someone has the duty to provide for it. So what of health care? If health care is a matter of right, then someone, society (the taxpayer) has a duty to provide, that is, pay for it.
Question: Do people have a right to health care?
I say: Although this may seem like a no brainer question, (hint: the tempting answer is to say yes), I suggest that this isn't so simple. Virtually every special interest group argues that their position is really a matter of "basic human rights". Do we have a right to basic food, clothing and shelter? Do we have a right to earn a living wage? A retirement with dignity? The list gets pretty long. Throw in a few colorful adjectives such as "basic", "living" and "dignity", and how can anyone disagree with that? Apart from the obvious definitional problem of determining what basic, living, and with dignity mean, we have a far greater difficulty once we distill every social issue down to one of rights.
As soon as we decide that something exists as a matter of right, then that right creates a corresponding duty. If a child has a positive right to an elementary and high school education, then that right creates a duty in someone else, the taxpayer or whomever, to provide that education. The same is true for a right to shelter, employment or retirement. Once we concede a right exists, then someone has the duty to provide for it. So what of health care? If health care is a matter of right, then someone, society (the taxpayer) has a duty to provide, that is, pay for it.
Despite all the rhetoric out there, there is still no free lunch. As Mayor Giuliani said, if you think health care is expensive now, wait to you see what it costs when it's free. Although most of us would agree that the availability of health care for all our citizens as a general proposition is a good thing, once it becomes a right, then we, the taxpayers, have a duty to pay for it. Should we accept that obligation? I say...yes, but not as a matter of right.
Instead of looking at this issue from a rights perspective, I suggest we look at it as a privilege. And no, I am not just playing with semantics. Although a recognized right creates a duty, a privilege does not. Although we sometimes say that rights are "granted by our Creator", or simply inherent in being a human being, and thus should be immune from government interference, a privilege is not so created or inherent. A privilege is something that is granted, not necessarily earned or even deserved. It may be granted by the government, or more broadly, society itself. But because it is a grant, it is subject to restriction and/or interference by the grantor. One obvious valid restriction I can think of in the health care debate is society's ability to pay for it. Thus, for example, I believe that it should be a privilege of every American to have access to health insurance, subject to society's reasonable ability to financially provide for it. Your thoughts?
Instead of looking at this issue from a rights perspective, I suggest we look at it as a privilege. And no, I am not just playing with semantics. Although a recognized right creates a duty, a privilege does not. Although we sometimes say that rights are "granted by our Creator", or simply inherent in being a human being, and thus should be immune from government interference, a privilege is not so created or inherent. A privilege is something that is granted, not necessarily earned or even deserved. It may be granted by the government, or more broadly, society itself. But because it is a grant, it is subject to restriction and/or interference by the grantor. One obvious valid restriction I can think of in the health care debate is society's ability to pay for it. Thus, for example, I believe that it should be a privilege of every American to have access to health insurance, subject to society's reasonable ability to financially provide for it. Your thoughts?
3 comments:
I will bluntly say it because I really do not enjoy arguing about this topic. In my mind the answer is very clear, and couldn't be more clear.
Here is my answer. Children and the unknowing have a right to health care. Adults do not.
Why? Because children are comparably to their adult counter-parts incapable of sufficiently taking care of themselves and often lacks worldliness to take care of themselves therefore they live with adults (in most cases parents). Once you become an adult, in this case the definition of an adult will be 21 or older, you no longer have that right. Why do I say 21 and older? Because I want to give the person enough time to realize they can legally make choices to destroy their lungs and liver. Once you can legally make those choices you are old enough to make-up your mind on what is and what is not good for you. Since when did it become a right for somebody to care for you if you chose to deter your own health? If you unknowingly damage your health (such as working when asbestos is present and you do not know about it) and you can prove it, you should get health care coverage as well.
Everybody else needs to pay for it!
Hi Tar21:
We are not really that far apart here. However, I would expand a bit on your points. There is an old concpet that says "no one can be obliged to do the impossible." When it comes to health care, the exceptions that you have offered generally fall within this axium. However, the reality may be a bit more difficult. That has to do with affordability. On one level, the private market can offer health coverage to everyone, presuming we can pay for it. Thus, people with pre-existing conditions are currently uninsurable in that few if any of them could ever afford the premiums that an isurance company would charge to cover them. (Currently, insurance companies simply deny coverage, regardless of premiums.) Thus, would you admit them as an exception? In other cases, people with certain polices are covered, until they actually become seriously ill, then the policy is terminated. Would you provide them with coverage? This list actually goes on and becomes pretty big. As for those who in your opinion, cause or at least contribute to their own health situation, how far do we go with that? Ok, if you ride a motorcycle without a helmet, you are on your own. You are a heavy smoker/drinker, you are on your own. But where do we want to stop? You are a snow skier. Injuries are high in this activity. You are on your own. Football is a brutal game, you are on your own. People regularly fall off of horses. No more horse back riding for you or you are on your own. In other words, how far do you want the government or private insurance carriers for that matter, to create what they believe to be a "risk free environment"? At what point do we create a society that in the name of safety/health and the like, might be one that some of us would not be all that happy living in?
Because I do not believe that it is up to the government to create a 'risk free' environment for anybody (that tasks falls on the shoulders of a combination of entities), therefore I think one should pay for one's healthcare. If I did believe it was the governments responsibility than I would be all for socialized healthcare. Besides what person A's definition of 'Risk Free' may not be the same as person B's. Therefore you pay for what you think is worthy of your paycheck going towards. If you don't think you need health insurance because you don't think you are at risk of anything serious that is your judgement call, so be it.
Post a Comment