A Right To Health Care

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." ~ Patrick Henry

My Professor Doctor Nephew recently wrote on his Facebook page, "I want to live in a country that believes that health care is a right, not a privilege, and I'd really like it if that country were the United States. And I'd be willing to pay my dues to such a country in the form of higher income tax."

I ignored the statement initially because he is family, and I've always believed family trumps ideological differences. But it's getting harder and harder to resist the urge to directly challenge him on what I consider wrong-headed thinking.

So, after a particularly disturbing dream about my aged mother that left me sleepless, I lay awake in my bed thinking of other unrelated and diverse things, which unfortunately disturbed me even more.

One of these things was the aforementioned statement by my highly educated relative.

I have often said health care is not a right and here I see my own blood relative advancing the idea that if it isn't a right already, it certainly should be, even to the point where he is willing to pay higher taxes to attain that perceived right.

As far as taxes are concerned, I am of the opinion that we will have taxes regardless, and since I am poor, I pay very few taxes, if any. Therefore, it is not a personally important issue to me, although I hardly think it's fair to tax wealthier (than me) people a larger percentage. So, I won't comment on that part of his statement. Wealth is relative, anyway.

I've thought about that phrase, "health care is a right", and now, I am thinking perhaps I don't completely understand what constitutes a "right". It would also appear, that unless we make that definition understood, the health care debate will never be settled.

So, with both of my reader's indulgence, I am going to try to think this point out right here, on my web log.

First of all, when we say "right", to what kind of right are we referring? A Constitutional right? A human right? Are there any other kinds of rights? (That's not a rhetorical question. I really want to know)

Since health care has become a political issue, and because his phraseology indicates he doesn't believe health care is a right as of yet, I am going to assume Doctor Kevin is referring to a Constitutional right.

The Constitution confers upon every American the basic rights of life, liberty, and property.

But is Health Care a Constitutional right? And, if not, should it be? Does health care fall under the sub-division of the right to life, or of liberty, or of property? Does it fall under any of those?

Health Care itself, is a service. It is a service we have all come to expect when we need it, but can a service be considered a right? Can an expectation of a service be considered a right? And, why should we expect it in the first place?

I think Health Care service can be a right if we voluntarily make arrangements to compensate a provider of health care service. Or more simply, If we pay for it, we have the right to expect it. But isn't that more of a right to an expectation than a right to the service?

And, should we be compelled to pay for health care service?

In every transaction there is an exchange. If you buy a car, you exchange money for the car. If you barter, you are exchanging goods or services for other goods or services.

If the government supplies the health care, what will the government expect in exchange?

When we allow the government to provide us health care, or mandate that all of us have health insurance, we are surrendering our basic right to liberty. Mainly, the liberty to choose the health care provider we prefer. And, the liberty to choose how we want to pay for health care. And, the liberty to refuse health insurance if one so chooses.

As has been pointed out, of the mythical 47 million Americans who don't have health insurance, millions simply choose not to have insurance for various reasons.

Now, whether this is a wise decision is contingent on whether the individual has the money to pay for his own health care independent of insurance providers, or if the individual prefers to take a chance that he will not need health insurance until later, or yes, even if the individual believes he cannot afford health insurance.

But refusing to have health insurance is every individuals Constitutional right!

So, if the government assumes control over the health care industry, does it also assume the right to dictate what health insurance we can own? Or if an insurance corporation has the right to exist? If not, what would be the point of assuming control in the first place?

It would seem to follow, that once the government controls the industry, we exchange our individual freedoms for the so-called right to health care, does it not?

Don't those scenarios constitute the denial of our individual right to Liberty?

Is that not Governmental intrusion?

Barack Hussein Obama has been quoted as saying "the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you. But it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf."

But that is exactly what the framers intended. The Constitution was intended to protect the people from the Government, not to protect the government from the people. The Federal government does not have an obligation to provide us health care.

There is an old adage that states, "Your right to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose".

A mythical right to health care is the fist that government swings and my individual right to liberty is the end of my nose.

Our Constitutional right of Liberty trumps the governments right to intrude upon our liberties every time.

Therefore, It is my conclusion that we do not have an inherent right to health care.