Is There a Right to Health Care?

Arguments contra.

Top o' the Stack.

Comments

[Joe Odegaard]

The current debate about "health" care is another instance of the Left hijacking language. What is really being argued about is sickness remediation, and providing comfort if that fails.

A healthy person doesn't need the current medical system, except for replacing the mechanical wear and tear of the years, or for emergency help after an accident.

As for staying healthy, that's a personal duty involving at least some effort, and so the politicians won't mention that at all.

[Dmitri]

Healthcare is such a complicated topic and even more so the question about whether it is a right. I am of the opinion that whether it is a right and to what extent should be decided by the people of the country. Rights in a society are never simply given. There is no doubt that better access to better healthcare is desirable. "Pure" healthcare models such as "free for all" or "paid only private services" don't work well. But hybrid models -- some services are free for all and some premium ones can be bought by those who wish and can afford them -- are possible and work reasonably well. E.g. in Israel all people who pay income taxes pay about 5% for an extensive basket of public medical services (this is called medical insurance fees) and can buy premium services not included in the basket from private providers. When the time for implementing UBI and NIT (this approach is due to Milton Friedman) comes, access to basic healthcare will be considered a right.

[BV]

Bro Joe is on the Right track: for adults, the main source of health care is and must be those very adults. For children, their parents. So what do leftists do? They undermine the family. And not just the family. The enemy has been identified. Are you doing your bit to engage him?

[BV]

Dmitri writes, >>I am of the opinion that whether it [gov't provided health care] is a right and to what extent should be decided by the people of the country. Rights in a society are never simply given.<<

I strongly disagree. If rights are up for democratic grabs, then no one is safe from being murdered, incarcerated for any reason, having their property stolen by the State. Life, liberty, and property -- the Lockean triad I call it -- are natural rights, and therefore they are "simply given" in that they do not derive from the will of the people or from those who control the government.

In any case, I gave a number of powerful arguments to which you did not respond.

[Dmitri]

I think that the framing of the question is somewhat off: the right is not for healthcare, but for an access to a certain basket of healthcare services, and the content of the basket varies with location and other factors. It is not a right to receive all available healthcare services for (really) free. Notice that in many countries tax payers pay taxes or fees -- directly or indirectly -- for the access and then for some services additionally. The situation is much more like a premium for insurance than a natural right.

I also disagree with the "Food, shelter, and clothing are more important than health care" premise. The truth of this statement is strongly context dependent -- just look at hospital ER visitors as a clear counter example. Helping a serious car accident victim can be more important than feeding a malnourished individual. The logic of your argument can be extended and misused to argue for carrying out extensive desert background checks on ER patients. Does this person deserve access to ER services? Did he drive responsibly etc?

What I do agree with is the point that the "human rights" language is constantly misused by left progressive politicians for gaining power. In the same way as "helping poor refugees" language.