A "Right" to Health Care?

It has recently been reported that Hawaii's universal health care system for children has gone bankrupt and is being shut down. Though I doubt Obama will take a clue from his own home state that universal health care is not a workable answer, I think this is the perfect opportunity to discuss one of the questions of the 2nd Presidential Debate that has risen in the past few days at Obama rallies (Yes, I give roughly equal time to both parties while watching the election coverage, despite my conservative leanings... and actually my election file is inflated in Obama's favor almost 3 to 1). This question was whether Health Care is a right, a priveledge, or a responsibility. Of course, like the Socialist Democrats, Obama and Hillary both agree that it is a right. McCain gave the more unpopular answer (among deadbeats anyway) that it is a responsibility, and I agree whole-heartedly with him on this assessment.

For my analysis of this issue, I will first describe why health care is not a priviledge. The primary reason that this answer is unacceptable in America is entirely apolitical. A priviledge describes something that generally is scarce. In third-world countries, health care is a priviledge, in which only government officials and the rich are able to partake and afford. Third World Health Care many times consists of these priviledged few entering the United States to get such coverage. In the United States, Health Care is not scarce, it is abundant. Health care is not a priviledge because it is available. Anyone can receive care for any ailment at will, though often people use its generally high cost to prioritize their doctor visits. And this cost is a direct response to the vast availability of health insurance. Insurance is available, driving up prices for the care itself (because they can get it), thus driving up the price of health insurance premiums. A few decades ago, people went to the doctor and paid the full amount in cash, without problem or complaint or insurance. Health insurance came along, and now prices have reached levels such that only the extremely rich can pay entirely out of pocket for everything. But Health Care is still not a priviledge because in emergency situations no one is ever turned away, and people are not left to die in the streets in this country.

As for the argument that it is a right, I will first explain where I think the argument comes from. I would trace the universal health care argument back to those much-quoted words from the Declaration of Independence: "...that they are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments and instituted among Men..." These words are the broad-sweeping goal that was laid forth for a republican democracy, though the purity and verity of these eloquent statements does not truly derive into a system for government to dole out health care to people. The government's protection of the sacred Right of Life was meant more to remove government from controlling the livelihood of people or from executing people indiscriminately. Governments do not provide the instruments to prolong life, but rather they defend the lives of the many from external and internal tyranny.

I believe that Health Care Insurance is a responsibility because while it has become a basic necessity for receiving care when needed, it is not something that I would accept asking another to pay for for me. Why is it that people believe that services provided by tax money are free? 30%+ of Americans are not liable for taxes, meaning that they pay nothing into the system. But it is this population that receives most of the services that taxes provide -- welfare, unemployment compensation, and indeed this is the target population for universal health care. If Obama were to become president, he would increase this percentage to 44%, and institute a number of systems that simply funnel other people's tax money into their pockets.

The Obama plan for Universal Health Care, as he states it, is not what will happen. There will not be a system into which people can buy insurance, both because the people who do not have self-purchased insurance plans are those that cannot afford them in the first place, or those who willingly choose not to buy plans, and because there are already two such systems in place -- Medicare and Medicaid, which you must pay into to receive the insurance program from it (Medicare is for the elderly and Medicaid is for those below the poverty line -- so these groups are already covered). In order to cover people, government would have to provide it for free to these people, as was Hillary's plan (possibly the reason why she lost the nomination, because she was actually realistic when expressing her socialist plans). However, when the government institutes a "free" program, it does so on the backs of the actual taxpayers, and very quickly removes a sense of personal entitlement to membership in the program (much like welfare, medicare, and social security, all three of which will fail when they run out of money in the coming years). there is a tendency to shove off responsibility for something if possible, and the Democrats encourage it, because dependance of government gives them power to control people. Personal responsibility to provide for oneself and one's family is becoming a thinly vailed war between the "haves" and "have nots," simply because the "haves" already have and the "have nots" are jealous but do not want to work harder to become a "have."

Universal health care will become overbearing in a way that is unprecedented on the planet, causing medical costs to rise uncontrolled (until government intervenes with, what else, higher taxes), and business to drop people from the coverage that they already have (as is what happened in Hawaii). If the government provides something, it provides it potentially to everyone, so those that do not wish to pay will not pay. If health care coverage becomes another huge entitlement, businesses and individuals will stop taking the responsibility for themselves.

Obama gave a speech about black fathers taking responsibility for their families, but he does not think that providing medical care if needed falls into this category. On this same line of thought, providing food should not be a parent's responsibility. We already know that providing homes for those that cannot afford them has crashed the economy, but all anyone can talk about is "keeping people in their houses," namely by providing a house for them. A house is a priviledge. College education is a priviledge. When these things are provided by government, the prices rise and the value of acquiring them falls. A responsibility is something that you should provide for yourself. A right is something you just have. It canot be granted by an institution of government or a document; it can only be taken away or restricted. The government does not provide the right to free speech; it defends it. This is why the Bill of Rights is set up as a denial of government powers, not as a bequest of a right.

A right is something that you would gladly give your life to defend, and ask your neighbors to do the same. A right cannot be bestowed upon someone from nowhere, it is simply there, but it is still precious enough to die for. Let me ask you, would you die for someone else's health care? And would you ask someone else to die for yours? If you can callously answer yes to either question, I encourage you to rethink your position, or vote for Obama and see the country devoured under such a terrifying and terrible entitlement.