Comments on: There ain’t no such thing as a right to health care

By: Roy Brander

Roy Brander — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 06:51:40 +0000

There is precedent for acknowledging that citizen’s rights cost money. We very cheerfully spend thousands of dollars of police, prosecutor, public defender, judge, and staff time to give trials to our most contemptible citizens. Much more than we would spend to get them health care. That “right to liberty” that’s so inherent – respecting it in practice costs the state a lot of money.

A huge amount of public funds go into roads, and everybody has a “right” to use public roads. Do people have a “Right” to a PUBLIC road system, or could the government decide to let all roads be privately built and charge tolls so that the poor could not travel?

Clearly they could, but the “Right” to travel the land has been assumed for so long in our culture that it would be hopelessly unpopular – everybody sees the facilitation of free movement as a bedrock minimum job requirement of their government: THAT kind of “right”. Like, “I have a right to be defended from invasion by some kind of armed forces.”

Here in Canada, though, dreaded health care “socialists” that we supposedly are, one doesn’t hear the “Right” word much except from the most overwrought activists.

You don’t have debates about a “Right” to police service or to fire service these days – but a few centuries back, both were available only as private services. But if anybody ever tried to go BACK to a patchwork of private emergency services, you’d probably hear about the “Right” to fire and police from those opposed to the change.

It’s obviously not an intrinsic human right, or acknowledged as a constitutional right under any of the constitutions of nations that have universal health care I can think of; certainly it’s not in Canada’s constitution.

But here’s what I think is the right of any human that agrees to participate in a society and its social compact: the right to be treated with some respect and concern when in need. It’s wrong to step over somebody lying in front of you.

If you CAN improve police and fire service by making it publicly-funded and universal, thus covering everybody and ensuring the whole city is under one umbrella, and it doesn’t on the whole cost society much more than a bunch of private systems, then you SHOULD. If it costs less measured across the society, then it’s a no-brainer. But even if it costs more, up to a point, it’s not moral to let all those people who can’t afford police contracts and fire contracts fall through the cracks.

I think Canada is just a culture that would pay (a little) more for a public health insurance system just because we do see ourselves as brother’s keepers. But fortunately, it clearly costs a lot less to do it our way, so the moral issue about everybody’s “Right” to health care doesn’t really arise.

By: singularity

singularity — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 09:27:44 +0000

But, who decides “what’s right”? What’s the moral or ethical basis for that decision? And what about the people who don’t adhere to that moral or ethical system?
I think people have access, now, many of the uninsured have chosen to spend their money on other things. It’s their money, who are you, or I to tell them how they must spend it?

By: tedacho

tedacho — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 07:27:32 +0000

“Tell me, are you going to bother pointing out that education, police protection, fire departments, and military-based national security aren’t “rights” and therefore don’t deserve the same distinction as Free Speech in our society?”
Those are not rights, you do not have the right for there to be teachers to teach your children, you don’t have the right for a fireman (or woman or transvestite or whatever etc for the rest of the post) to risk their life for you or your property, nor for a soldier to place their bodies between wars desolation blah blah blah it goes on.

By: tedacho

tedacho — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 04:38:09 +0000

First of all sir, I love RMJ and the I think your La Nague stuff is almost as socialy important as Heinlein (sorry but he’s awfully hard to beat).
On a second note perhaps people should know what TANSTAAFL means before they involve themselves in posting on this. I take it that’s where you’re getting the “correct” (to my mind) idea of what a right is.

Not for you sir, but for the others it’s there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. It’s always true, someone pays somewhere. You can’t have free things. Even just the effort you put into making something yourself means a cost was paid.

As far as the constitution giving people rights (as noted by others above) I have never been given anything by a piece of paper, I wont argue that the armed forces of the USA protect my rights, for or against. If you think other people can give or take away your rights, well I guess you’re right. Heh, like people say, if you think you can, or you think you can’t, you’re right.

I do happen to think tho that state funded medical care could be the way to go, just as long as it’s possible for someone to choose to have a private practice. I don’t know if you agree with that or not, but that’s your opinion which I figure you’re entilted to (as a Dr. maybe more then me but everyones got one.. uh opinions that is) just as I am mine.

By: mlwaller

mlwaller — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:04:13 +0000

A valid point about human rights – I never thought of it that way. Whenever we discuss health care we usually mention sense of morality, equality, and compassion as why everyone needs equal access to good health care regardless of ability to pay. It is not an issue of human rights but doing what is right is what really should be the emphasized when talking about health care reform.

By: singularity

singularity — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 06:28:27 +0000

I think the basic point is that one person does not have a right to the labor of another, whether that is working in a field or working in an operating room. The self defense analogy is actually very good. An individual has the right to defend himself from immediate threats where a firearm or other weapon is the best tool, or use a medicine to prevent or treat an illness. But while you have a right to obtain and use the tools of medicine to treat your illness, you do not have a right to labor of the doctors who treat you or the product of the pharmaceutical companies that make the medicine. You are absolutely free to bargain for those goods and services, however.
I don’t think you increase access to anything, or bring the cost of anything down, by slathering layers of new bureaucracy on tip of it. It will, however, create lots and lots of new jobs. I mean, they’ll have to hire hundreds of thousands of people to stamp “NO” on all those medical test requests and the like.

By: billkoehler

billkoehler — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 12:37:25 +0000

If health care is a “right” what right does the doctor have if he does not wish to provide his services to you? Only an someone who is stupid, insane or evil believes in a right which must be provided at the expense of another.

A “right” to health care would mean that the doctor must be a slave as all doctors are under socialist health care systems. No freedom to set prices or deliver services.

Anyone care to bet on how much this idiocy will cost. I have lots of investors willing to wager on the outcome of this stupidity. After all if you really believe in a right to health care put your money where your mouth is.

If you are not willing to bet on the outcome we can only assume that you are a liar.

By: CWimms

CWimms — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:33:43 +0000

Yes, definitely one of the best sites on the web.

By: Rick Ungar

Rick Ungar — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:55:14 +0000

hacksoncode, gotta say, you make a very cogent argument. I do understand where you are coming from, but rights can, in fact, be created, or as you might say, recognized as having been there all along, as society shifts and comes to value and address different aspects of existence. This is why I don’t view the notion of all rights being “natural” rights and the Constitution simply acknowledges and defends them.

By: hacksoncode

hacksoncode — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 05:01:12 +0000

I will argue that the Bill of Rights creates no rights, but merely enumerates several existing natural rights and their derivatives as deserving special protection.

Regarding the “right to vote” and the “right to a speedy trial”, these are derivative from natural rights, to wit: “The right not to be governed without your consent”, and “The right not to be arbitrarily punished”. The Constitution merely points out a particular way that society has chosen to guarantee those rights.

No one in the US has the positive right to have a firearm. You have the right to *keep* and *bear* those firearms which you possess, like any other property. They are worthy of special mention simply because so many governments have violated that right in the past.

The difference between the 2nd Amendment guaranteeing your ability to practice your right of self-defense, and the right to “protect your life by seeking healthcare”, is that there is no difference. No one says you don’t have this latter right.

What you don’t have is the right to force other people to pay for it without their consent.

Indeed, no one has the right to life, even. Tell it to a corpse. You merely have the natural right not to have your life taken by others. The supposed “right to life” is not mentioned outside a preamble, and is basically a metaphor/abbreviation.

The creation of positive rights is a non-sequitor. Governments can only create privileges. Indeed, if any of these things were “rights” then a change in government could not legitimately take them away.

Rights are those things that governments cannot legitimately infringe. Nothing more, nothing less. Trying to stretch the word to mean more than that is just an abuse of language, and an unnecessary one. Privilege works just fine, and is more accurate.