Clarify the Concept of “Rights”
by Jack Painter
Do people have a right to health care?
The proponents of such a right seem to mean that people have a right to medical treatment even if they cannot afford it or, alternatively, have a right to require someone else to pay some or all of their health insurance costs.
Whatever that means precisely, they must be referring to a right that exists independently of laws passed by Congress. After all, a law can always be changed, so any “rights” it creates are really privileges granted by the government. A true right, however, cannot be taken away by a majority of the voters.
This makes the existence of a health care right an important issue. If it exists, certain health care policies naturally follow, and policy makers cannot rescind those policies if circumstances or technology change.
So what is the basis for such a right? Some argue that health care is necessary for the enjoyment of basic rights, such as life and liberty, and therefore is itself a protected right. But saying the government must provide health care so people can enjoy those rights is like saying it must provide guns so people can enjoy the right to keep and bear arms.
Such a right also seems inconsistent with the theory of rights in The Declaration of Independence. That document asserts the “self evident” principle that individuals have equal rights inherent in the nature of human beings. These natural rights, as they are called, derive from the idea of self-ownership – you own yourself and therefore have the right to be left alone as long as you honor the equal rights of others to be left alone. But a health care right would be a right to force others to give you things.
One could argue such a right exists because of some general moral obligation to help people in need. But while you may feel morally obligated to give money to someone who is truly in need, does that person have a right to your money?
Whatever the justification, if we accept such a right, what about rights to other necessities, such as food, clothing, and shelter? Admittedly, the government already subsidizes those things for poor people, but the subsidies have always been privileges, not permanent rights. (The Supreme Court says people don’t even have a right to Social Security benefits.)
And what would be the scope of a health care right? Would it cover all medical treatments? (If the right exists, how do you deny a particular treatment?) Would illegal immigrants have the right? After all, they have basic rights as “persons” under the Constitution.
We should insist on answers to these questions in assessing whether this right exists. Otherwise, we may inadvertently accept a concept of rights that is inconsistent with our founding principles and has no clear limits.
Mr. Painter lives in Cincinnati and is a corporate attorney.
October 30th, 2009 at 7:37 am
You have a right to health care, so do I. But like you, I have no right to demand that you expose yourself to my disease to provide my health care. Neither do I have the right to demand that you educate yourself or otherwise obligate yourself to provide for my health care.
I have a right to health care just as I have a right to step out of the path of a speeding train or evacuate an area about to be devastated by a hurricane. But those rights require some action on my part. I have no right to obligate you to pull me from the trajectory of the train or pick me up bodily and remove me from Katrina’s path, nor do you have right to similarly compel me.
“We have a right to pursue health care” might be a better way to express what we are discussing. I have a right to accept health care, but no right to demand that you provide it to me. To the extent I can persuade you to provide my health care through the mutual benefit of our exchanging some value, i.e. my health care in exchange for something of value I provide you, I have a right to accept what you willingly provide.
October 30th, 2009 at 10:04 am
A right does not impose an obligation on anyone else. Free speech is a right. It does not impose any obligation on your neighbor. Healthcare is not a right. Assuming your neighbor pays taxes he is obligated to pay for your “right” to healthcare.
October 30th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
I think that we risk mis-stating the liberal position on healthcare when we talk about a “Right” to healthcare on the same level as the Rights granted in the Constitution.
Liberals want a “right” (small “r”) to healthcare on the same level as rights to wheelchair access or the right of those aged 65 and up to collect Social Security and Medicare.
These rights are granted by Congressional legislation, can be changed by Congress, and do not represent an extension of the Constitution.
Talking about a “right to healthcare” is a dumb move for Liberals and a smart move for Insurance Companies! This is because it scares Conservatives into thinking that big Constitutional changes will follow. In reality, the Liberal healthcare proposals are extensions of the same old set of entitlements and Medicare, Social Security, Public Education, and Student Loans.
Conservatives should be afraid for their stock prices and for their tax rates (if they are wealthy). Conservatives should *not* fear for the Constitution because the Constitution isn’t changing, despite the Liberal misuse of the word “Right”.
October 30th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Okay lets talk about RIGHTS
Your Highway Infrastructure IS NOT A RIGHT
The Public Schools your children might go to IS NOT A RIGHT
Medicare IS NOT A RIGHT
Farm Subsidies ARE NOT A RIGHT
FEMA is NOT A RIGHT
The Power Grid IS NOT A RIGHT
Lets get rid of everything thats not mentioned in the Bill of Rights.
Would that make you happy?
October 31st, 2009 at 2:05 pm
To Tninvi:
Many on the left have claimed that health care is a right. In my view, that’s different than saying the government should continue to subsidize health care under Medicaid or should expand the number of people eligible for Medicaid.
I believe they are asserting a political and moral philosophy that can be summed up as follows: “From each according to his abilities. To each according to his needs.”
The implications of that philosophy, if allowed to be implemented, are significant.
October 31st, 2009 at 2:33 pm
To Wolf:
I believe you have misinterpreted the implications of my argument. Saying there is no right to healthcare doesn’t prevent the government from subsidizing health care for those who cannot afford it.
Choosing the best way to do that is a different issue than the question of whether there is a health care right. The opponents of Obamacare believe the current proposals in Congress will restrict people’s choices, trigger government rationing, reduce the quality of care, discourage innovation, raise health insurance premiums, and impose large costs on the federal and state governments they cannot afford.
Milton Friedman had some very sensible proposals that would provide subsidies but avoid those problems. Among other things, he proposed government funded catastrophic health insurance and medical vouchers.
Those questions are the subject of another debate that, while important, is beyond the question I addressed in my article.
October 31st, 2009 at 2:51 pm
To Mike H:
Our country was founded on the theory that people have freedom of thought and action (a right to be left alone) as long as they honor the equal rights of others to be left alone.
The right to be left along is a right to be free from coercion. It imposes a negative obligation on others not to do certain things, as opposed to a positive obligation to do certain things.
A right to health care, properly understood, would impose a positive obligation on certain people to give their money to others.
You raise a good point about taxation, and it is worth noting how a right to health care would affect that.
A right to health care is a right to receive a good or service, either by compelling the provider to give it to you or by compelling someone to give you the money to pay the provider. Either way, it’s a right to the fruits of someone else’s labor.
Since our Constitution prohibits slavery, the government cannot force health care providers to work for free.
Therefore, it must use taxation to redistribute wealth from the people who can afford health care to those who cannot.
If people have a right to health care, the voters cannot legitimately prevent that taxation since a right by definition cannot be taken away by majority vote.
If elected representatives don’t really have a choice in the matter, doesn’t that mean that the people forced to fund the right to health care with their tax dollars are effectively the victims of taxation without representation?
October 31st, 2009 at 4:50 pm
To Emmette Boone:
If I understand you correctly, you are saying people have freedom of thought and action (the right to be left alone). In the case of purchases of goods and services (like medical care), this means the right to enter into voluntary transactions with others, provided the transactions aren’t illegal.
I agree, but I don’t think this is the way the left uses the term “right to health care”. As far as I can tell, they are arguing for a right to have other people pay some or all of your health care costs.
November 1st, 2009 at 1:12 pm
No health care is not a right it is a privelege and those of you who wnnat to keep flipping the bill for lazy ass people who won’t work go right on a head. What the government should be doing is cleaning up the systems that are currently failing right now because of all of the fraud that takes place. I didn’t know that diabetes or high chlorestorol were reasons that you could claim yourselfunable to work, but there are thousands of people sitting at home collecting checks because they have these illnesses. Instead of thinking that someone owes you something, why don’t people get off their butts and go out and earn it. We are a lazy all about me nation that looks for someone else to solve our problems. Get rid of all the illegals and clean up the allready fraudulant government health systems and we’d have a lot of money left over. No one seems to want to make anyone accountable….especially those that are deciding things for us.
November 3rd, 2009 at 12:01 pm
The left is saying a “right” to healthcare is just like a Veteran’s “right” to benefits, or an old person’s “right” to social security payments.
Trying to scare people into thinking that this is a Big Scary Constitutional Issue is disingenuous.
If you thing giving healthcare to a 40-year-old is Unconstitutional, you MUST ALSO think that giving healthcare to a 66-year-old (aka “Medicare”) is Unconstitutional. Come clean and say it, if that’s what you think.
Otherwise, be content to oppose healthcare reform for political, ideological, or personal reasons. Please end the Constitutional red herrings unless you also have the courage to denounce Medicare and the Veteran’s Administration.
November 3rd, 2009 at 10:28 pm
To Tninvi:
1. Where did I say that I thought it would be unconstitutional for the government to use tax dollars to subsidize healthcare costs for certain people? That would be like arguing that food stamps are unconstitutional. I haven’t seen that argument made, although one can argue that the redistribution of wealth is not the proper role of government.
There is an active debate about whether Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause to require people to purchase health insurance. (or to purchase any other specific goods or services) My op-ed doesn’t get into that question.
2. Where did I say I oppose having the government subsidize certain health care costs for poor people? I don’t oppose that, but that is a completely separate issue from the one my article addresses. I actually believe there are ways to do it that avoid the obvious problems with Obamacare, such as soaring health care premiums, loss of choice in doctors, enormous tax increases, stifled innovation, government rationing of health care services, and exploding government deficits.
3. During the Presidential debates, Charles Gibson of ABC asked Obama and McCain if they thought health care was (a) a right, (b) a privilege, or (c) neither. Obama answered that it was a right. If you believe he simply meant government should provide health care benefits to people, that’s fine with me. I’d be pleased if you were correct.
However, I take him at his word. And my interpretation is consistent with the position the left has taken for 60 years on what rights people have. This goes back to FDR’s “new” Bill of Rights in the 1940’s, which included things like a right to a job, food, health care, etc. Obama himself adopted that view during an interview with NPR in the late 1990’s (which I believe you can find on You Tube) where is stated that the Supreme Court should read “welfare” rights into the Bill of Rights and that the biggest mistake of the Civil Rights movement was not to press that issue.