May 31, 2005

Health Care a Right? Rights are not hand outs

If someone can point me to the text in the United States Constitution that mandates that every American has a right to health care, I would probably vote yes in this poll.

First liberal to point to the "General Welfare clause" gets a swift kick to the rear.

Somehow I doubt that "general welfare" meant that Congress had a blank check to creating a tax devouring monster meant to redistribute wealth to the poor. For a group of individuals who had just gotten rid of one form of oppressive government, it is not that likely that they would create another one that had the authority to fulfill every socialist program that the people desired. Such authority will always create a larger government, and a larger government can easily become an oppressive one. (Or has that already happened?)

Walter E. Williams on this very subject:

In 1792, Congress appropriated $15,000 to assist some French refugees. James Madison wrote disapprovingly, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Even though our Constitution hasn't been amended to authorize Congress to spend on the objects of benevolence, I can't imagine today's Americans electing a president who'd share Madison's view. Such a candidate would be labeled mean-spirited, racist, sexist and homophobic.

Today's politicians might argue that Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, is all wrong. They'd say spending on the objects of benevolence (legalized theft) is authorized by the Constitution's "promote the general welfare" clause. James Madison spoke to that argument saying, "With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers (enumerated in the Constitution) connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

Of course, if you feel that Americans have the right to universal health care, you can always start a grass roots effort to amend the Constitution (as allowed us by Article V). If you don't think that would be possible, you can move to Greece.

Until then, don't call it a right...especially in the sense that it should be provided by the government. If you do call it a right (in that sense), then you don't know what rights really are. Rights are not hand outs nor are they granted to us by the government. Rights are endowed on mankind by a higher authority than the government (call it God...call it the Creator...call it whatever)...not by other men. The Constitution does not grant the government authority to allow those rights. Instead it binds the government from trampling on those rights so that we may exert them.

Prior to the creation of our current welfare/socialist nation (pre-New Deal), the Constitution created "islands of government powers in a sea of liberty," but now, through misinterpretation in furthering the growth of government (judicial and congressional) we have "islands of liberty rights in a sea of governmental powers." (quote ref. Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty) With the creation of a welfare nation, you end up creating a bigger government that will not only take the viewpoint that it "allows" those rights, but it will also be easier for those rights to be trampled on.

The left can't seem to understand this. In their effort to create a more benevolent government, they are creating a bigger government. They, as well as true Conservatives, cherish their rights (the right to self-defense notwithstanding). Yet, at the same time, they are pushing for more and more government intervention into people's lives. It simply doesn't work. Since the New Deal era, we have created a society that seemingly doesn't care what a bigger government will lead to. All they care about is what the government can provide, and if you stand in their way, then you are apparently standing in their way of happiness.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can't be provided by the government. Instead, it should be a personal pursuit that each person can undertake without restriction of government intervention. That is true liberty...that is true happiness.

More: Glen Dean also has a poll on healthcare as a right.

More II: Brittney over at Nashville is Talking asks the same question (with an excellent comment from JB of Blogging for Bryant).

Comments:

Please Note! Failure to abide by the following may result in your comments being edited or deleted: Remain on topic. Foul language and/or personal attacks are not permitted. Excessive links (more than three per thread) must be approved first. If you do include a link in your comment, make sure it is a short link (go to tinyurl.com if it is too long). Try to keep comments to 125 words or less. Thank you.

"Rights are endowed on mankind by a higher authority than the government (call it God...call it the Creator...call it whatever)...not by other men. The Constitution does not grant the government authority to allow those rights. Instead it binds the government from trampling on those rights so that we may exert them."

Note that this is a contradictory and untenable position for someone (like myself) that doesn't believe in a god or "whatever" and does in fact believe that rights are arbitrary social constructions created by societies of human beings.

This of course does nothing to detract from their sacredness, but it also perhaps explains why I have no particular reason adding other "rights" to the list.

If society is in a position to easily and affordable provide health care to its citizens, it should. My goal is to see that we work to that point. Whether or not it's the federal government per se that accomplishes this is irrelevant to me, except insofar as a factor (either for or against) efficiency. Whether or not it's a "right" is a matter of entitlement -- and if we as a society decide that we can afford to add health care to the list of things we are entitled to, why not?

Posted by: Chris Wage at May 31, 2005 05:38 PM

So perhaps a shorter version of my comment should be that I think the question should not be "Is health care a right?" but rather "Should health care be a right?". And my answer is "why not?"

Posted by: Chris Wage at May 31, 2005 05:40 PM

Chris,

To answer your question "why not?" I respond-

The Government does a horrendous job of managing entitlement programs, which is primarily what Universal Health Care is. Medicaire and Medicaid are so completely underfunded that they will make the problems we have with Social Security (another looming government mismanaged financial disaster) look like a drop in the bucket by comparison.

The answer you have is "if we can afford it, why not" when it comes to possibly being run outside of the government doesn't make sense, nor is it realistic. It is socialism you are suggesting. And judging by the number of people who flock in to America from Canada to have medical procedures performed that they cannot get done in Canada tells me that the free market is a better provider over all than a socialist system.

France has universal health care. France was unable to prevent thousands of elderly from dying due to the heatwave they had last summer, and most of them were ALREADY AT THE HOSPITAL.

Our system isn't perfect, but it is a law that that no public emergency room can turn away someone in need because of lack of funds. Health care is available is you are willing to pay for it. It shouldn't be free.

Posted by: Tman at May 31, 2005 06:16 PM

"Medicaire and Medicaid are so completely underfunded that they will make the problems we have with Social Security (another looming government mismanaged financial disaster) look like a drop in the bucket by comparison."

I agree with this, but I fail to see what it has to do with the government's ability to manage health care, save for the fact that we have a system currently designed so as to better prop up private interests in profiting from health care rather than aiding the goal of providing it for everyone.

"And judging by the number of people who flock in to America from Canada to have medical procedures performed that they cannot get done in Canada tells me that the free market is a better provider over all than a socialist system."

What are these numbers, exactly? I have never seen them.

"Our system isn't perfect, but it is a law that that no public emergency room can turn away someone in need because of lack of funds. Health care is available is you are willing to pay for it. It shouldn't be free."

No one is suggesting that anything should be free. TNSTAAFL. I am willing to sacrifice so that people that can't afford health care can get it. I am opposed to poor people having poor healthy and/or dying.

Call this a "right", an "entitlement". Call it socialism, I don't care.

Posted by: Chris Wage at May 31, 2005 07:31 PM

Blake, this was one heck of a post. Government schools and the media have indoctrinated a whole generation of people into giving away their freedom. More government equals less freedom. Its that simple. Sadly, neither party (especially the liberal one) seems to understand that simple equation.

Posted by: Glen Dean at May 31, 2005 08:15 PM

Chris,

Here are a few stories about the influx of patients from Canada-

http://tinyurl.com/3rjpx
http://tinyurl.com/9feb7
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/patitents.htm

And the CATO Institution on the National Healthcare Myths (yes, I know, it's CATO, but still)

http://www.cato.org/new/01-05/01-27-05r.html

You wrote-"I am willing to sacrifice so that people that can't afford health care can get it. I am opposed to poor people having poor healthy and/or dying.Call this a "right", an "entitlement". Call it socialism, I don't care."

You already do- in 2004 uninsured Americans received $125 billion of health care, of which $41 billion was provided totally free of charge. Free of charge in the sense it was given away. Someone (you and me) ended up paying for it in other distributive costs. What do you think medicaire and medicaid are for?

Posted by: Tman at May 31, 2005 09:00 PM

I think everyone here is forgetting the cause of this situation - that fact that the cost of health care and health insurance is so high that millions of Americans simply cannot afford it. It's not that people don't want to pay for their health care, or are looking to take advantage of government.

Developing a conversation around "is health care a right" prevents people from seeing the real issue here. Price gouging is a crime, and that's exactly what doctors and insurance companies (and their lobbied politicians) are hoping you'll forget.

Posted by: Kevin at June 1, 2005 07:12 AM

You can not scapegoat the doctors and providers of service, because they have to charge more for everything to make up for the fact that 25-35% of what they bill for will never be paid. That is a fact, and when medicare and medicaid are figured in, some clinics are lucky to get paid half of what they bill. Then on top of that, you have to add the cost of collecting the claims. Which when dealing with medicare can be so prohibitive that whole practices simply refuse to accept medicare (medicaid, TennCare etc) patients. The large private insurance carriers (Aetna etc.)pay claims based on monthly averages and targets, not patient need.

The high price of healthcare is not the cause of the problem, just a symptom. Yes, milions of Americans do not have health insurance (about 15%), but this group still has access to healthcare. If you are sick or injured you will be treated, and well. The costs of your treatment will find their way into everyone else's claims, sooner rather than later. That's why I say the "high price" of healthcare is a symptom, not the disease.
Yes, PACs and political momeny obscure the process and are no help to any of us because neither the insurance lobby nor the AMA care about us, the patients. The irony of the whole shootin' match is that if we could take all the money the AMA, the insurance PACs, and the AARP spend lobbying ABOUT healthcare, and have them spend it ON healthcare, wow, where might we be?

Posted by: kajando at June 1, 2005 09:36 AM

I don't think you really need to go to the consitution for this argument. I think most people that agree that it is a right will agree that it is not an American right or a civil right, but that it is a _human_ right.

Posted by: romablog at June 1, 2005 03:36 PM

Romablog: Healthcare is a service. How can something be a "human right" if you are going to have to make someone render that service unto someone else?

And I think the Constitution must be brought up because we live in a Constitutional Republic. Most people (at least the ones claiming it as a human right) think that the government must render this service. According to the Constitution, the government does not have the authority to render such a service.

Posted by: Blake at June 1, 2005 03:50 PM

Excellent post, Blake!

Posted by: John Brown at June 1, 2005 08:20 PM

"Healthcare is a service. How can something be a "human right" if you are going to have to make someone render that service unto someone else?"

How about fair access to food and water?
Is that a human right?

Redonkeylis.

Posted by: romablog at June 2, 2005 10:33 AM

Those are services you have to pay for.

A person has to either work to acquire them or go out and gather them.

An action is required to receive.

Posted by: Blake at June 2, 2005 10:39 AM

Agreed...before there were so many options for medical care, did we humans still have a right to them? Forgodsakes no.

Someone had to create these treatments. Just because they exist and are largely beneficial does not make them a right, an entitlement.

If one accepts the notion that medical treatment, of any in existence, is a "human right" then I suppose one could logically assume that it is okay to force another person to hand it over, or pay for it, or to essentialy enslave doctors, etc. Just because one uses the IRS, the Congress, and legislation as the middleman does not make it any less like slavery.

Posted by: Marnee at June 2, 2005 04:21 PM

Blake: "A person has to either work to acquire them or go out and gather them.
An action is required to receive."

Unless you are unable to do so, at which point, under some social contracts, the govt steps in and provides for your general welfare.

_Every_ govt action is a 'service' and without direct intervention from the govt, no rights would be secured. It's easy to conclude that every right is, theoretically, a govt 'service.'

What you're talking about is anarchy. And I like it.

Posted by: romablog at June 5, 2005 10:53 PM