Do We Have A Right To Health Care?

I stumbled across an online debate wherein members of The Ornery American Forum offered some excellent arguments as to why Health Care is not a Right. I’ve selected postings from the thread to highlight some positions in the debate.

Forum member “G2” started the thread by posting an argument against health care being a right, written by Walter E. Williams, professor of economics at George Mason University. As part of his argument, Williams offers:

"If we apply ideas behind rights to health care to my rights to speech or travel, my free speech rights would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with an auditorium, television studio or radio station. My right to travel freely would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with airfare and hotel accommodations."

“JoshCrow”:

"The problem with this argument [Williams'] is that health is unlike any other aspect of human existence - it is necessary to be in good health to perform any other function one can even have a right to do."

“Pyrotin”:

"You can effectively replace 'health care' with 'police', 'fire departments', 'roads', 'national military services', 'civil courts', and many other public needs to see just how absurd that argument [Williams'] is."

“Jasonr”:

"I think the author's position is confined to debunking the notion that healthcare is a 'right'. I agree with him that healthcare cannot possibly be a right in the same category as speech, for example.

"It is perfectly possible and logically consistent for me to conclude that healthcare is certainly not a 'right' by any rational standard, yet support universal government sponsored healthcare. I don't even need to bother with the 'social obligation' language JoshCrow suggests. It's just good public policy. Support universal healthcare without all the touchy-feely 'healthcare as human right' BS."

"Pyrtolin":

"So basically, he's [Williams] picking a different meaning of the word [right], making a totally irrelevant semantic argument, and then using that to back his pretty much explicit assertion that it should not be publicly funded?"

"Jasonr":

"I'll tell you what. I'll support your 'right' to healthcare when you agree to support our 'right' not to have the english language mangled to suit a political agenda.

"Both of us probably agree that universal healthcare is a good thing. I'm all for socialized medicine too. Just can the namby pamby 'rights' nonsense."

"Adam" highlights the fallacy of calling Health Care a right:

“I feel that the concept of 'rights' is frequently divorced from its intended context, and thus, meaning. The original (for us), very deist exposition was as much a metaphysical observation as a political assertion. 'All men are created equal [explicit rejection of so called 'natural castes'], and as such are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, etc.' The phrase 'nature and nature's God' suggests that Jefferson's opinion regarding the nature of said creator differs greatly from theistic interpretations, but its actually beside the point. We exist, and naturally possess life, liberty, and the ability to pursue happiness. These are 'rights' in that we have them intrinsically. Government can't give us something we already, naturally have; they can, however, take it away. Thus, the Bill of Rights; a list of natural rights that the government promises not to touch.

"The most awful slaughtering of this concept is the theistic perversion that and entity 'God' gave us these rights, and that respecting them is a necessity because of divine will. However, calling healthcare a right is also in contradiction with the philosophical meaning of the word. Just as it shouldn't be warped into a theological appeal to authority, likewise it shouldn't be reduced to a simple 'something that's really important.'

"I could be persuaded to define healthcare as a fundamental duty of government, which would be equally significant, IMO. However, the concept of rights is valuable enough to protect it from political dilution, even for a cause I support.”

“G2” drives the fallacy home by taking the health care as a right rationale to its logical conclusions:

"...those calling health care a right are picking a different meaning of the word [and not Williams], making a totally irrelevant semantic argument, and then using that to back an explicit assertion that it should publicly funded.

"G2 has the right to travel freely. Many of you are arguing that if G2 did not have the funds to exercise that right, then G2 would have the authority to take it from you - most likely under the guise of taxation.

"G2 cannot be healthy without food. Does G2 have the right to take it from the grocery store without paying? Can G2 simply enter your home at will and raid your fridge to exercise my right to food? G2 has a right to that food, how can you deny it? Don't give G2 any crap about property rights, the right to live must surely trump the privilege of private ownership."

"Pyrotin" thinks it's o.k. and maintains we do just that:

"Like is the case of the publicly maintained roads that you'd most likely be using to travel? Or for many, the publicly subsidized transit systems without which they'd be unable to afford to travel to work?

"And thus we have public support programs like food stamps and WIC, which at least begin to make a dent in the fundamental problem, inadequate as they might be on the whole."

"G2":

"No. More like the car I need to drive those roads. G2 needs a car, without it the roads are pretty meaningless, yes? So you owe G2 a car.

"G2 would also like to go to some places that are pretty far away - like Hawaii and the USVI, no road to get there - but G2 has a right to travel to it. Therefore, give G2 the money for plane fare or provide G2 the aircraft to do it. It is G2's right and you should pay it.

"[WIC] is subsistence living with a significant stigma attached to it. G2 has a right to the food G2 prefers delivered in a dignified manner. G2 should simply have a credit card with US Government stamped on it so G2 can get the food he needs from whatever source he deems appropriate. Do not deny G2, or anyone else, his right to quality food and to be treated with a little human dignity.

"BTW, G2 also needs clothing and housing. Without those, G2 could not survive or at the very least would be at a significant health risk. G2's government card should pay for all those too being that G2 has a right to food, clothing and shelter (the basic necessities of life). And travel, don't forget G2's plane fare ... and a place to stay in Hawaii, so cough up for a hotel too. It doesn't have to be too nice, just near the beach.

"As everyone can see, there is no question that these things are G2's right. Nobody denies that. We're only discussing the details of its delivery now. G2 has a *right* to all of it and you all need to chip in to cover the cost. G2's right to these things trumps your right to keep what you earned."

I don't think anyone tried calling health care a right after that, although the thread continued for pages and pages.

Don’t let anyone get away with saying we have a right to health care.