[Huh. Wrote this yesterday, but managed to just save it as a draft rather than publish it.]
Okay, that was stretching a play on words, but I ran across this opinion piece by David E. Smith at OneNewsNow, and found it just chock-full of inaccuracies, hyperbole, and tortured reason (big surprise), while, ironically, finding I agree with the headline.
Healthcare is NOT a ‘right’
I agree. Health care is not a “right” as we generally understand them in this country — a personal freedom and liberty.
It is, to my mind, though, an obligation upon our society as a whole, both moral and Constitutional. For the moral side, I’ll point (since so much of the opposition strangely comes from the Christian Right) to any number of admonitions from Jesus to care for the sick and to love our neighbor. For the Constitution, I’ll point at the Preamble:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The “general welfare” clause sometimes feels overused as a basis for the federal government to do stuff, but it’s hard to think of anything that better fits the idea of “promoting the general welfare” than providing basic health care to all. Really.
So, I agree with the headline. And … that’s about it. To return to the article (which I’ll use as an excuse to celebrate the passage of some form of health care coverage reform, and as a whipping boy for how much I despise most of the ideological opposition to it):
Like many Americans across the nation, I watched intensely as Congress debated and ultimately passed the onerous healthcare “reform” bill Sunday evening.
Is there a reason “reform” is in quotation marks? I mean, really?
One main point of contention is the idea — affirmed by some radically “progressive” lawmakers — that healthcare is a “right.” This is nothing short of socialistic propaganda.
Which means, of course, we can simply dismiss it per se. It’s propaganda. From socialists. It must be evil.
The implicit claim in the assertion that healthcare is a “right” is that it is a constitutionally protected right. All experts agree that healthcare is neither a constitutional nor a legal right. In America we understand that our rights to the free exercise of religion, to speak freely, to bear arms, and to be secure from unwarranted search and seizure come from God.
Actually, if by “In America we …” you mean “In the Constitution,” then, no, “we” don’t. As the Preamble above shows, the Constitution was established by We the People. While Jefferson (who’s he?) may have mentioned in the Declaration of Independence a Creator endowing us with certain “unalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (which to be honest sounds like even more justification for health care as a right than the Constitution), the actual law of the land says nothing about where rights come from, just that (in a late addendum to the document itself) those rights were not to be infringed upon by the government.
To see the difference in government-mandated healthcare and real rights, look at how they are exercised. Historically, American citizens have been free to exercise their real, constitutionally protected rights — or not — as they see fit.
For example, the government does not compel citizens to attend church in the name of religious freedom.
Though, of course, some on the Right claim that religious freedom means that a government organization — a school, for example — ought to be able to force kids of whatever religious faith (if any) to attend, or even participate in, organized prayer.
The government does not compel citizens to own a gun in the name of the Second Amendment.
Though some municipalities have tried to mandate gun ownership, usually as a hyper-Second Amendment sort of thing. And I don’t recall any conservatives arguing that was an unconstitutional mandate.
And the government does not force citizens to engage in the political process in the name of free speech.
That’s true. In fact, the Right is usually trying to keep people out of the political process … unless it’s corporations, in which case they are welcome.
In contrast, our radically “progressive” friends…
Love the “scare quotes.”
… are eager to compel every American using the heavy hand of government to exercise their so-called “right” to healthcare. Should we celebrate the passage of a bill that in the service of non-existent rights actually diminishes our liberty?
Nobody is being forced to go to the doctor. Everyone is being forced to pay into the pool of health care insurance in the country. This particular plan does it through insurance companies, rather than through explicit taxes (which some of us would have preferred), but it’s still taxation (with representation).
Or, put another way, if we paid for the National Guard (state militias) by requiring each citizen was required to buy a gun and uniform for the NG’s use — and, if you didn’t, you’d be assessed a direct tax instead — would that be forcing you to “buy” military defense? Would that be effectively different than having it paid for by taxes?
I realize that the word “tax” is considered a dirty word, but only a very few nuts think the government (we the people) don’t have a constitutional right to tax.
What is really at issue is not whether healthcare is a “right,” but whether citizens have a right to taxpayer-funded healthcare. What other cherished American “right” has ever required that we diminish another’s liberty?
You know that whole “everyone who goes to the ER must get treatment, whether or not they can pay” that folks like Dubya interpreted as how the US has universal health care? That’s a federally-mandated legal “right” that means higher health costs for everyone else who attends that hospital.
Then there are areas where rights/freedoms clash — the right to worship freely diminishes the liberty of those who would much prefer that some folks’ worship (beliefs, religion) were illegal and stamped out. That’s a bass-ackward perception of “liberty,” but one that has often been argued by majorities against the minority.
Swinging back to the Constitution, how about the explicit constitutional right to representation by an attorney? That requires the hiring of public defenders, which are a tax burden, which Mr Smith would seem to think is a diminution of his liberty. Certainly the right not to have soldiers housed at your house means we have to build military bases, which cost all the other taxpayers money, just because you have a particular right.
How about the expansion — in the constitution — of voting rights? Women, minorities, eighteen-year-olds … each expansion effectively diminished the liberty (in terms of effective voting power) of all previously enfranchised groups.
What about those rights that all people have in this country to not be slaves? That certainly diminished the “liberty” of slave owners by robbing them of their property. I think a war was fought over that one, but I believe the principle was pretty well established.
Does the right to free speech require newspaper owners to print every op-ed and editorial? Does the right to bear arms require the government to arm its citizenry?
See, this actually gets back to my original premise — that health care isn’t a personal right, but a social obligation — that I have to agree. But, then, the difference between these rights and the ones I just mentioned in the previous few paragraphs is that some rights are in the form of “the government shall not” and others in the form that “the government shall.” The former (free speech, the right to bear arms) are the first form, and generally speaking (except for restricting the majority’s liberty to act, through the government, on the majority’s behalf) do not diminish anyone’s liberty. The latter, though, almost always cost money. Whether paid for by taxes directly or indirectly, that’s a reduction in personal liberty (as Smith would put it).
Does the freedom of religion require government-funding of churches, mosques, and synagogues? Of course not!
Well, some folks think it should, especially majority Christian churches. Certainly they — and, remarkably, many of them write for OneNewsNow — think that the government should be at least allowed to fund religious organizations. And some argue that freedom of religion is a key reason why religions tend to be exempt from taxation, even property taxes — which is, effectively, government funding assistance.
Why then, does this “right” to healthcare require the government to take from some to give to others? When in the history of our country have we had to secure a right by trampling on the liberties of others?
See my note on the Civil War, above.
Make no mistake…that is exactly what is happening with this government takeover of the healthcare industry.
And how is the government “taking over” the healthcare industry? Have we suddenly purchased Wellpoint? Are doctors all now working for Uncle Sam? There’s not even a Public Option, let alone a Public Takeover. This is one of the most fact-challenged aspects of the whole HCR debate I’ve seen.
This new healthcare “right” will be forced on every American; and it will be made possible — in the words of Karl Marx — by taking from citizens “according to their ability” and giving to others “according to their needs.”
Didn’t Jesus note that giving was measured by ability to give, not by flat totals (cf. the Widow’s Mite)? Didn’t Jesus tell us to give to the needy? Wouldn’t it be just as accurate to talk about HCR as fulfilling Jesus’ will as Marx’s? Or would that be too much like “social justice”?
And I’d have to wonder how Mr Smith feels about progressive taxation — charging the rich at a higher rate than the poor. I’d have to assume that this sort of “according to their ability” thing would me he’d be in favor of a flat tax. Actually I’d assume he’d be against any taxation whatsoever for any social spending, since that represents the government “giving to others ‘according to their needs.'”
According to U.S. Representative John Boehner (R-Ohio), this legislation will create 160 new governmental boards, commissions, and mandates, and will require $500 billion in tax increases to pay for it. Of course, that will be only the beginning, as additional taxpayer funds will most certainly be needed.
So now it’s not the individual mandate, it’s that it’s going to cost some amount of money. Okay, that’s a different argument. But, then, I have no faith in anything Rep. Boehner says on the subject, aside from the general principle that it’s going to cost money. Yup. Supposed to save a lot of money, too. But if this is a discussion about “rights,” are those dictated only by whether “freedom is free”?
Healthcare lawyer and policy analyst John S. Hoff illuminates the troubling questions left unanswered by the phrase “right to healthcare,” which he argues “does not address the relevant issues that must be considered in considering taxpayer subsidies for healthcare”:
How much healthcare is to be paid for by the taxpayer, for what beneficiaries, and under what circumstances? Does it include the most advanced or experimental treatment?
Indeed, what is healthcare? Long-term care? What are the parameters of self-responsibility? Should there be taxpayer subsidies for smokers, drug abusers, and dare-devils?
And which taxpayers should be paying? Should the working young and low-income workers subsidize the healthcare costs of those who are wealthier and sicker?
These are political judgments that we have barely addressed, and they are camouflaged by invocation of a broad principle of a “right” to healthcare.
I agree — those are all interesting questions. But, then, look at the “rights” Mr Smith has already invoked. The “right” to free speech — what does that really mean? What is “free” speech? What is “speech”? What limitations can and should government put on that right, on what basis, in what cases? A lot of political judgments there that continue to play in the headlines, legislatures, and courtrooms in this country over two centuries after that right was formally recognized in the US Constitution.
If we wait until everything about health care is hammered out, we’ll never do anything about it. If the same argument had been made about free speech, we wouldn’t have it, either.
President Obama and many in Congress are celebrating the passage of this ominous legislation …
Ominous!
… — legislation that forces American citizens …
Forces!
… into the newly created, socialized healthcare system.
Socialized!
Sadly, the costs of this new government program are much higher than we think. Although the financial cost to taxpayers is substantial, the cost to personal liberty is incalculable.
Because I, David E. Smith, say so! Because it means I may have to pay more taxes! And those taxes will end up being given to someone else! Maybe people I don’t like, or don’t think deserve it, or who I think would be better off sick or dead! And that is violating my personal liberty incalculably!
Which, when it comes down to it, doesn’t have anything to do about whether health care is a right (I still don’t think it is) or whether it’s a societal obligation (I think so), but only whether Mr. Smith gets to not worry about it. That’s the liberty he’s seeking — the liberty of indifference.
Whereas I’m just glad that we have recognized, just a little bit more, that obligation. I think that makes us more free, not less, not the slaves of tyrants, but liberated through willingly being servants to those around us in need.
