Monday, July 18, 2011

Why Health Care Is Not A "Right"

Conflating "goods and services" with "rights" is a serious mistake made by our fellow travelers on the left. All boldface in the quote below is mine:
The intentions of Democrats are only the best. They want all of the old to have lavish retirements, all of the young to have scholarships, verse-penning cowboys to have festivals funded by government, and everyone to have access to all the best health care, at no cost to himself. In the face of a huge wave of debt swamping all western nations, this is the core of their argument: They want a fair society, and their critics do not; they want to help, and their opponents like to see people suffer; they want a world filled with love and caring, and their opponents want one of callous indifference, in which the helpless must fend for themselves. (“We must reject both extremes, those who say we shouldn’t help the old and the sick and those who say that we should,” quips the New Yorker’s Hendrik Hertzberg.) But in fact, everyone thinks that we “should” do this; the problem, in the face of the debt crisis, is finding a way that we can. It is about the “can” part that the left is now in denial: daintily picking its way through canaries six deep on the floor of the coal mine, and conflating a “good” with a “right.”

Ever since Franklin D. Roosevelt linked “freedom from want” to “freedom of speech” and “freedom of worship,” the left has been talking of everything that it thinks would be nice to have in terms of an utter and absolute right: a right to a job and a right to an income, a right to retire in comfort in Florida, a right to the most advanced health care without paying much for it, and a right to have your children taken care of while you work all day at your job. The problem is that these are all goods and services, though of varying importance, and goods and rights are not the same things. People tend to concur upon rights (except for the speech rights of those who oppose them), and they do not depend upon others to supply and pay for their rights. With goods, there is always a political argument: about the value of the good, who is to get it and who is to pay. And all this comes down to the question of “fairness,” about which there is no end of disputation and grief.

And on nothing does the rights/goods division loom larger than on the issue of health care. Rights come from nature, and cost no one money, but good health in nature is rare....
No one should have a "right" to anything I have to pay for. If someone is entitled to have me pay for something, then what they have is an "entitlement", not a right, and an entitlement can be altered or abolished by the same government that grants it.

5 comments:

  1. That is a great quotation and expresses much of what I feel about the health-care 'rights' debate. But you didn't attribute it. Who said that?

    ReplyDelete
  2. An oversight on my part, corrected now. Thank you!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Here is why Obama will not easily allow his healthcare bill to go away. Because it's not about health care except in the most marginal of ways. Everything the liberals want to do can be connected in some way to "health". Education? health. Gun control? Health. Free daycare, lunches, breakfasts dinner and rent? Health. Voting? Health. If all they wanted to do was provide health insurance to the uninsured, they could have written a check for far less. That is why it has such a huge price tag and why Obama was resistant to having it fairly analyzed by CBO and why he refuses to consider scuttling even in the face of dramatic opposition to the bill as written.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Very good point.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "...No one should have a "right" to anything I have to pay for. If someone is entitled to have me pay for something, then what they have is an "entitlement", not a right, and an entitlement can be altered or abolished by the same government that grants it."

    Excellent statement!

    ReplyDelete