A Reaction to “Demanding Health Care as a Right is Wrong”
Yesterday, coblogger Marc Moore wrote a post titled “ Demanding Health Care as a Right is wrong.” Marc’s position is clear: health care (and an affordable health insurance) is not a right, and should not be treated as such either.
Although I agree with Marc that it’s not a (fundamental) right – the US constitution is very clear on the matter; specific rights are mentioned in the bill of rights. If something is not mentioned in it, it is not a right. You could say that it should be a right, sure, but is is not one yet – I have a slightly more nuanced opinion on the question of whether it should be treated as such nonetheless.
Here’s my basic take on the matter: if a person does not receive health care, he has a big, big problem. He cannot function well. He may, unnecessarily, die prematurely. As far as I’m concerned, the aforementioned scenario is a tremendous crime against (the spirit of) humanity.
Additionally, I do not believe that the free market is able to deal with the health care crisis in the U.S. (tens of millions of citizens are uninsured and many of those with an insurance quickly discover they have to pay for certain procedures nonetheless because their insurer tells them these procedures are – suddenly – not covered). As a commenter explained in the comment section of Marc’s post, insurance companies are not ‘normal’ businesses. Unlike other companies, they make money when they do not deliver their product.
As a result, the customers – in this case every single American – suffers.
Furthermore – and this is seldom mentioned – sick people are extremely expensive. If someone is sick, but cannot be helped because he or she has no (good) insurance, he cannot work. What happens then? Right, the government supports the person; it is called welfare. If, on the other hand, this person underwent the necessary treatment, he could go back to work, make money, and pay (rather than receive) taxes (paid by others).
The first argument makes it morally right for all of us to talk about health care as if it is a right, the second makes it politically wise.
But what kind of right? Should it be treated as (and become!) a state or federal right?
The answer to this question is pretty straight forward, I think. State governments rather than Washington D.C. should take care of the matter and be held responsible. The federal government should merely play a coordinating role. The fact of the matter is that the United States is too big. It has a population of over 300 million people. To organize and execute extensive health care reforms aimed at decently insuring every single citizen in the U.S. as a whole is simply an impossible task for any government to carry out, let alone for lobbyists-filled Washington. State governments should take care of the matter. They know what is best for their citizens. On top of that, letting states play the lead role while the federal government plays second violin means the U.S. Constitution does not have to be amended.
In short: make it a state right, or at least treat it as such – and act on it.
I agree with your points regarding why health care should be considered a right. However, I’m not sure why we need to bring the constitution into it in order to do something at the national level. The way I’ve learned it, the constitution declares what rights the people have, not which they don’t have. There’s nothing in the constitution that forbids the federal government from granting more rights than the constitution specifies, as long as the granting of those rights does not violate the constitution in some way.
States rights will also not work. Can You imagine California being required to pay for the health care of their citizens?
There is no answer for this conundrum that is affordable. So we are going to have to socialize and remake the face of America to have health insurance. What a fricken stupid idea.
I’m happy with the way things are. I have worked my arse off to be able to be insured and to take advantage of all the nice things America has to offer me. I went to college on the GI bill and at times had 3 part time jobs and commuted 100 miles a day because I wanted to succeed in life.
I have a solution. Let the democrats tax their own party for health care. YOu could mark on your IRS Form DEMOCRAT or REPUBLICAN. Then when it comes time to vote you would be issued a card saying you were a democrat or a Republican. Once inside the booth only the Vote for Democrat option would be available.
My guess the Democrats would fade from existence in about 1 election cycle. Meanwhile all us Republicans who work for a living and have health care could continue to drive our SUV’s, pollute the planet and have a blast at our BBQ’s because hey….we earned it.
Health care for all Democrats?….Dont you put that evil on us. Join the Republican party and EARN it.
this may be very hard for many to believe but a majority of Americans are satisfied with their health insurance (almost 71%). now when a US president is almost up for reelection, if his poll numbers are that high he is almost certainly reelected. Yes change certainly needs to be made and many people cannot afford health insurance. Lets have the government first fix Medicare and Medicaid. then perhaps the people will put more faith in their abilities. My company (www.nyhealthinsurer.com) specializes in health insurance and we hear from consumers everyday indicating that something needs to be done because its just too costly as is stands now. I don’t think health insurance companies have anything to fear from a public health plan, when has the govt been able to fairly compete with the private
If interested, some math by me here
@Mike
“There?s nothing in the constitution that forbids the federal government from granting more rights than the constitution specifies, as long as the granting of those rights does not violate the constitution in some way.”
No, but there is a process called “Ammending the Constituion” that needs to happen before any new “rights” are added.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/usconstitution/a/constamend.htm
“Of the thousands of proposals that have been made to amend the Constitution, only 33 obtained the necessary two-thirds vote in Congress. Of those 33, only 27 amendments (including the Bill of Rights) have been ratified.”
Good luck with that.
@Doomed
“I have a solution. Let the democrats tax their own party for health care. You could mark on your IRS Form DEMOCRAT or REPUBLICAN. Then when it comes time to vote you would be issued a card saying you were a democrat or a Republican. Once inside the booth only the Vote for Democrat option would be available.
My guess the Democrats would fade from existence in about 1 election cycle. Meanwhile all us Republicans who work for a living and have health care could continue to drive our SUV’s, pollute the planet and have a blast at our BBQ’s because hey….we earned it.
”
Good one Doomed, I guess that is why U2 needs to work on their carbon footprint, and why Senator Kennedy doesn’t want windmills off the coast within view of the Kennedy Compound. The old “NIMBY Democrat” philosophy. (this does not apply to all Democrats by the way)
Or as Bush 43 said, somthing like if you want to pay more taxes, you can make donations to the general fund of the Treasury. They will happily accept, cash, check, and credit cards.
Doomed’s proposal is one of the most unpleasant things I’ve ever read. Pretty shameful.
Jay_C,
Thanks for the civics lesson. You’re telling me that we need a constitutional amendment in order to implement policies to help the poor get health care? We already do that, so clearly we didn’t need an amendment.
Maybe the confusion is just in our terminology. I’m not saying access to health care needs to be a constitutional right. But what I’m saying is that something doesn’t need to be a constitutional right in order for us to decide to implement policies at the federal government. The constitution restricts what the government can do that infringes on our rights, it doesn’t restrict what the government can do to grant us additional entitlements.
(This issue is separate from whether we *should* provide health care to the poor. I’m just saying that it wouldn’t require a constitutional amendment to do so.)
adelinesdad- I think the confusion is that you are correct in that the original intent of federalism and the limits placed on the federal govt with regard to the states has already been violated many times over.
Technically though, those who argue that the federal govt can’t take this on without overstepping bounds are correct I believe. You’re looking at it strictly as the Constitution limiting the federal govt’s ability to infringe on individuals’ rights, whereas the framers clearly intended it to limit the rights of the federal govt over the states. That’s what ’states’ rights’ is all about, and why some state legislatures in conservative states are passing resolutions reiterating the boundaries that the federal govt should adhere to.
In both cases I am correct (they are both the same answer, really), as CStanley said, the limits placed on the federal govt with regard to the states has already been violated many times over. (And so that makes it ok because…???) People get away with killing too, does that make it OK, from a legal standpoint?
It is just another way of saing that the federal govt can’t take this on without overstepping bounds.
so, you are welcome for the civics lesson adelinesdad
That makes sense, but what state right would be infringed by a federal welfare system (I assume that would fall into the same category as federally subsidized health care with regards to state rights)? Is it that money is being taken out of the states in the form of federal taxes in order to pay for it, which I guess technically infringes on the right of that state to keep that money for its own purposes? If that’s the argument, then essentially anything the federal government does that costs money and that is not explicitly specified in the constitution is unconstitutional. I’m sympathetic to that view, but like you said it seems that is an argument that has been lost already. To those who want to pursue that principled fight, I wish them luck.
I just realized I appear to have separate profiles depending on where I post from. Sorry for the confusion.
adelelinesdad = Mike.
Maybe you figured that out from the picture.
So is it your feeling that the entire 10th Amendment is no longer valid?
Which btw – would make this entire post a mute point.
my favorite quote of that bit C3
Of course that 115 mil cuts is mostly in removing people’s access to the care.
No, saying that I feel the argument has been lost is not the same as saying I don’t agree with it. Like I said, I’m sympathetic to that view. My point is that as a practical matter, doing something about health care at the federal level would not require an amendment.
One thing I hate about the blogosphere is when people can’t admit they are wrong, so I’ll go ahead and do it: you’re right. The federal government shouldn’t be allowed to do these things. The courts have set numerous precedents in other directions, however, but the language of the constitution itself seems clear. Whether that means that I should not support federal programs as a matter of principle is something I’ll need to ponder.
I’m not a big fan of trying to create new “positive rights” that impose potentially crippling financial obligations on the rest of society, but appealing to the Bill of Rights’ enumeration of rights as a reason for rejecting a rights claim requires that you ignore the Ninth Amendment, Michael:
Also, the United States is a signatory to the UN Convention on Economic and Social rights, which means that as a treaty obligation (which has the same “supreme” legal status as the Constitution itself in accordance with Art VI., para. 2), the United States does acknowledge basic health care as a human right.
The better argument is to say that this obligation is already met by Medicaid as well as by statutes that require emergency doctors to treat all patients regardless of their willingness to pay. To claim, as many do, that “health care is a human right” is really more a problem of smuggling too much into “health care” rather than smuggling too much into “human right”. The recognition of health care as a human right does not necessarily mean that unlimited and comprehensive health care for no cost is a human right. The vast expense of the single-payer concoctions comes in large part from covering too much for no contribution from the patient and with no incentives for providers to invest in necessary equipment, thus resulting in massive overuse compared to dwindling capacity and the inevitability of arbitrary rationing that is even worse than the current cost-based rationing.