No One Has a Right to Health Care

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

No One Has a Right to Health Care
by Jacob G. Hornberger February 3, 2016

Democratic Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders says that everyone has a right to health care. Unfortunately, none of his presidential opponents, Democrat or Republican, is going to challenge him on the point. They’re too scared that they’d lose votes by challenging a standard socialist shibboleth in America.

Sanders’ assertion only goes to show how American socialists (i.e., progressives) have warped and perverted the concept of rights within the minds of the American people. The fact is that no one has a right to health care any more than he has a right to a home, a car, food, spouse, or anything else.

The correct concept of rights was enunciated by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, the document that Americans ironically celebrate every Fourth of July. Jefferson observed that people have been endowed with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

So kick it all back to private insurance companies and you send tens of thousands back to the ER for perfunctory care. Guess who ends up getting that bill? Pay now or pay later. Preventing a health problem or catching it early is always less expensive to fixing it after it's too badly broken.

Let the insurance companies decide what your care and Rx will be, based on their bottom line and profit margins. The only way they profit is to deny claims and they try to do that at every turn. So doctors try to compensate by going overboard with uneeded tests and office visits. It's a vicious circle.

 

[norwegen]

To claim a "right" to health care, one must claim a right to be served by others.

Most normal people appreciate the fact that their mothers were "served" by the medical staff in the delivery room.

So?

Did you forget the topic?

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

A right to healthcare would seem to improve life and pursuit of happiness. As they say "two out of three ain't bad".

Agreed.. that's why contrary to public opinion, we don't deny access to healthcare.

The welfare state compels taxpayers and producers to pay for healthcare - but socialized medicine will bankrupt the nation. I mean the US is already bankrupt t---the national debt is over 18 TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTrillion $$$$$.

.

Is Canada bankrupt?

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

What a load of crap. Of course everybody has the right to healthcare....that's one of the elements that make us what's called a "society". We have the right to keep others from passing along their viruses and dying in our streets. We have the right to immunize our kids so they don't get life-disabling diseases. We have the right to have access to basic medical care and preventive care whether your elitist asshole author likes it or not.

I guess you missed my post, where I refuted all that. Here it is.

Comment?

---------------------------------------------------

What Are Our "Rights"?

You hear an awful lot about our "rights" these days. And justly so-- our rights, in this country, are our most valuable possession, outside of life itself. And some people say that our basic rights, are even more important than life. When Patrick Henry defiantly told the British government during colonial times, "Give me liberty or give me death!", he was stating that he considered a life without liberty, to be worse than no life at all (death).

So, what are our rights?

The Declaration of Independence mentions a few, and implies that there are others. So does the Constitution-- in fact, it names many, and categorically states that those aren't the only rights people have.

The Declaration says that among our rights, are "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". It also says that these were given to us "by [our] Creator". Take that as you will, depending on whatever religious outlook you hold. But one of the implications is that, wherever our rights came from, they were NOT granted us by government, or by our fellow men at all. We had them long before government existed. And these various government documents simply say that government cannot take them away or interfere with them.

Here we refer, of course, only to normal law-abiding citizens. The Constitution contains the phrase "except by due course of law" in many places. If you rob someone, assault him, destroy his property, murder him etc., then you can legitimately be deprived of liberty (you go to jail), property (you get fined), or even life in some extreme cases (Death Penalty). Outside of such lawbreaking, your rights are held inviolate.

But today, our "rights" seem to be multiplying without end. This is not necessarily bad-- as we said, rights are extremely valuable. But, are we getting ahead of ourselves, granting to ourselves so many things under the name of "rights"?

"Old Rights"

Some are pretty indisputable, such as the ones mentioned in the Declaration. The ones mentioned in the Constitution, especially in the first ten Amendments (which was even called the "Bill of Rights" by its authors), are similarly vital... though they seem to be undergoing a methodical erosion. Freedom of religion, right to peaceably assemble, freedom of speech and of the press, the right to keep and bear arms, etc. all are very basic, and it is scary to think of trying to exist in a country in which any of these do not exist.

New "rights"

But lately we have heard about other "rights", such as the right to work, the right to decent medical treatment, the right to a decent standard of living. These all sound salutary-- what kind of society would we have, if working for a living were forbidden, decent health care were forbidden, etc.?

But there is a big gap between "forbidden" and "compulsory". The rights found in the country's founding documents, are compulsory, to the extent that we all have them whether we want them or not (who wouldn't want them?), and no one can take them away.

What about, say, the right to decent medical treatment? Those who favor this "right", point out that they don't necessarily mean the rare, exotic, super-expensive treatments; nor "elective" procedures such as cosmetic liposuction or a luxury suite in the hospital. They usually mean that, if you get sick or injured, you have the "right" to have a doctor look at you, make sure the problem isn't unusually dangerous, and administer the routine treatments needed to help you on the way back to good health. An absence of such routine treatment, could occasionally put your life in peril, obviously-- a simple broken bone could lead to infection if untreated, and possibly far more. But there are differences between the "Old Rights", as we've called the ones in the founding documents, and these "New 'Rights'".

Your "right to life" protects something that no man gave you-- you simply had it, from the day you were born. Nobody had to go to extraordinary effort to create it for you, outside of natural processes that move forward on their own without deliberate effort or guidance by humans, government, etc.

Same with the "right to liberty". You were your own man, as it were, the day you were born. Nobody had to go to special effort to create that status for you. In fact, they would have had to go to considerable effort to take those things away, by deliberately coming to you and killing you; or by building a jail and imprisoning you etc. If they leave you alone, you have life and liberty, and can pursue happiness. They have to work at it to deprive you of those things.

The Difference in the "New 'Rights'"

But this isn't the case with what we've called "New 'Rights'". In order for you to get the kind of routine medical treatment its advocates describe, somebody has to stop what he is doing and perform work for you-- the doctor who examines you, the clerk who sets up your appointment, the people who built the office or hospital where you get treatment.

If this routine medical treatment is to be called a "right" on par with our "Old Rights", doesn't that mean that you must be given it when needed? And doesn't it follow, then, that others must be compelled to do the normal things needed to treat you?

Uh-oh.

How does this compulsion upon those others (doctors, clerks etc.) fit in with THEIR rights? They "have" to treat you? What if their schedules are full-- do they have to bump another patient to make room for you? What if they were spending precious quality time with their families-- do they have to abandon their own kids, to fulfill your "right" to treatment that only they can give? Doesn't this fit the description of "involuntary servitude"?

This is an important difference between the rights envisioned by the country's founders, and the new "rights" advocated by more modern pundits. In order to secure your "old rights", people merely had to leave you alone... do nothing to bother you. in fact, they were required to. But these new so-called "rights", required that people go out of their way to actively contribute to you.

And that "requirement", in fact violates THEIR rights-- specifically, their right to liberty. They must be left free to live their lives as THEY chose-- free from compulsion to come and help you out. If they want to help you, that's fine-- often it's the decent and moral thing to do. But they cannot be forced to help you, no matter how much you need the help.

These new "rights", are in fact not rights at all. They are obligations upon others, imposed on them without their agreement or consent.

Beware of announcements that you have the "right" to this or that. Ask yourself if this "right", forces someone else to do something for you, that he didn't previously agree to. If it does, it's not a "right" possessed by you. It's an attempt by the announcer, to force others into servitude... an attempt, in fact, to violate the others' rights.

[/QUOTE]


You really think someone is going to read all this ^^^^?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

We have a right to it in the UK as well.

No, you don't.

You merely have a government that pretends it's a right, and taxes you for it, and gives you substandard health care in return.

Our fathers fought for it. It liberated everybody who could not afford proper healthcare. the cost is a pittance in return for what we get. And I would rather fund this than bombs.In fact I would rather fund your healthcare than pay for bombs.

 

[Arianrhod]

financed by taxpayers for the common good.

That is not the common good.

Prove it.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

We have a right to it in the UK as well.

No, you don't.

You merely have a government that pretends it's a right, and taxes you for it, and gives you substandard health care in return.

Our fathers fought for it. It liberated everybody who could not afford proper healthcare. the cost is a pittance in return for what we get. And I would rather fund this than bombs.In fact I would rather fund your healthcare than pay for bombs.

Good for you, thank you for posting this Mr. Tainant. Americans are very stupid, they don't realize how the insurance companies screw them over.

 

[Tom Horn]

financed by taxpayers for the common good.

That is not the common good.

Sorry....I don't take advice on Constitutional rights from a hairlip...

 

[norwegen]

financed by taxpayers for the common good.

That is not the common good.

Prove it.

The madness of proving a self-evident truth.

Some days I wish to live with the bliss of the leftist mind.

 

[Tom Horn]

The madness of proving a self-evident truth.

Some days I wish to live with the bliss of the leftist mind.

Like I told some other airhead who's always been looked after in the private sector....If I rob you and toss you out of a cab in Harlem with a concussion and no money or memory, let's see how your viewpoint serves you then.

 

[norwegen]

financed by taxpayers for the common good.

That is not the common good.

Sorry....I don't take advice on Constitutional rights from a hairlip...

Congratulations. A lefty who doesn't talk to himself.

Taxpayer funded clinics do not serve the taxpayer. Just the opposite, in fact. They do not serve the common good.

 

[Arianrhod]

financed by taxpayers for the common good.

That is not the common good.

Prove it.

The madness of proving a self-evident truth.

Madness is claiming something is self-evident just because it's your opinion.

 

[SmokeALib]

I don't give a crap whether it is a "right". I don't care if some people think it is "moral".

Providing at least preventive, diagnostic and basic health care services identifies problems early and saves money in the long run. It's good economics.

Expand the current, already-working personal Medicare/Medicare Supplement/Medicare Advantage program to all.

Take a massive cost/administration monkey off the backs of American business. Take a massive cost/administration monkey off the backs of insurers by relieving them of paying for the lower-end services. Rid us of the SEVEN (7) different delivery/payment systems we have right now, none of which coordinate directly with the other. Maintain a robust, dynamic, competitive insurance environment.

Both parties have completely failed us on this.
.

Providing at least preventive, diagnostic and basic health care services identifies problems early and saves money in the long run, it's not good economics if taxpayers and producers are required to pay for them under penalty of law.

Hopefully , you will agree that when those taxpayers and producers violently oppose your scheme that you will agree that its a good defensive mechanism


.

I just want what's best for the country. Both in terms of its people and its economy. What's good for the country is good for me.

If some people want to be angered because the fact they may be paying a bit for a healthier populace is somehow ruining their "freedom" and "liberty" -- which seems a bit selfish -- there's not much I can do about it.
.

Ok, I'll bite. First, I'll cash in mt food stamps. Then I'll go purchase a carton of cigarettes, a case of beer, maybe a dime bag as a booster. Stop by the store and grab a couple pizzas, go home to my hud subsidized dwelling. And consume all of it. No problem. Feeling kind of sick the next morning - head for the doc. He says my heart and liver are both shot. No problem. Responsible taxpayers will fund the bill. Get out of the hospital and start the process once again. What a country.

 

[Arianrhod]

I don't give a crap whether it is a "right". I don't care if some people think it is "moral".

Providing at least preventive, diagnostic and basic health care services identifies problems early and saves money in the long run. It's good economics.

Expand the current, already-working personal Medicare/Medicare Supplement/Medicare Advantage program to all.

Take a massive cost/administration monkey off the backs of American business. Take a massive cost/administration monkey off the backs of insurers by relieving them of paying for the lower-end services. Rid us of the SEVEN (7) different delivery/payment systems we have right now, none of which coordinate directly with the other. Maintain a robust, dynamic, competitive insurance environment.

Both parties have completely failed us on this.
.

Providing at least preventive, diagnostic and basic health care services identifies problems early and saves money in the long run, it's not good economics if taxpayers and producers are required to pay for them under penalty of law.

Hopefully , you will agree that when those taxpayers and producers violently oppose your scheme that you will agree that its a good defensive mechanism


.

I just want what's best for the country. Both in terms of its people and its economy. What's good for the country is good for me.

If some people want to be angered because the fact they may be paying a bit for a healthier populace is somehow ruining their "freedom" and "liberty" -- which seems a bit selfish -- there's not much I can do about it.
.

Ok, I'll bite. First, I'll cash in mt food stamps. Then I'll go purchase a carton of cigarettes, a case of beer, maybe a dime bag as a booster. Stop by the store and grab a couple pizzas, go home to my hud subsidized dwelling. And consume all of it. No problem. Feeling kind of sick the next morning - head for the doc. He says my heart and liver are both shot. No problem. Responsible taxpayers will fund the bill. Get out of the hospital and start the process once again. What a country.

That's adorable. Who's your insurer?

 

[Tom Horn]

Congratulations. A lefty who doesn't talk to himself.

Taxpayer funded clinics do not serve the taxpayer. Just the opposite, in fact. They do not serve the common good.

You're stuck on stupid and a waste of time......calling me a "lefty" is all the proof the readers need of that.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

financed by taxpayers for the common good.

That is not the common good.

Sorry....I don't take advice on Constitutional rights from a hairlip...

Congratulations. A lefty who doesn't talk to himself.

Taxpayer funded clinics do not serve the taxpayer. Just the opposite, in fact. They do not serve the common good.

When people are sick and cannot go to work, who is not served?

 

[SmokeALib]

I don't give a crap whether it is a "right". I don't care if some people think it is "moral".

Providing at least preventive, diagnostic and basic health care services identifies problems early and saves money in the long run. It's good economics.

Expand the current, already-working personal Medicare/Medicare Supplement/Medicare Advantage program to all.

Take a massive cost/administration monkey off the backs of American business. Take a massive cost/administration monkey off the backs of insurers by relieving them of paying for the lower-end services. Rid us of the SEVEN (7) different delivery/payment systems we have right now, none of which coordinate directly with the other. Maintain a robust, dynamic, competitive insurance environment.

Both parties have completely failed us on this.
.

Providing at least preventive, diagnostic and basic health care services identifies problems early and saves money in the long run, it's not good economics if taxpayers and producers are required to pay for them under penalty of law.

Hopefully , you will agree that when those taxpayers and producers violently oppose your scheme that you will agree that its a good defensive mechanism


.

I just want what's best for the country. Both in terms of its people and its economy. What's good for the country is good for me.

If some people want to be angered because the fact they may be paying a bit for a healthier populace is somehow ruining their "freedom" and "liberty" -- which seems a bit selfish -- there's not much I can do about it.
.

Ok, I'll bite. First, I'll cash in mt food stamps. Then I'll go purchase a carton of cigarettes, a case of beer, maybe a dime bag as a booster. Stop by the store and grab a couple pizzas, go home to my hud subsidized dwelling. And consume all of it. No problem. Feeling kind of sick the next morning - head for the doc. He says my heart and liver are both shot. No problem. Responsible taxpayers will fund the bill. Get out of the hospital and start the process once again. What a country.

That's adorable. Who's your insurer?

Why - the working middle class, of course!

 

[initforme]

Healthcare should be affordable for all. It isn't. Perhaps there are ways to lower the costs. Start with big pharma...they severely overprice everything. Is a life not more important than money? If we are a nation that cherishes life then we find a way to make it a lot, I mean like cut in half, the costs.

 

[Arianrhod]

I don't give a crap whether it is a "right". I don't care if some people think it is "moral".

Providing at least preventive, diagnostic and basic health care services identifies problems early and saves money in the long run. It's good economics.

Expand the current, already-working personal Medicare/Medicare Supplement/Medicare Advantage program to all.

Take a massive cost/administration monkey off the backs of American business. Take a massive cost/administration monkey off the backs of insurers by relieving them of paying for the lower-end services. Rid us of the SEVEN (7) different delivery/payment systems we have right now, none of which coordinate directly with the other. Maintain a robust, dynamic, competitive insurance environment.

Both parties have completely failed us on this.
.

Providing at least preventive, diagnostic and basic health care services identifies problems early and saves money in the long run, it's not good economics if taxpayers and producers are required to pay for them under penalty of law.

Hopefully , you will agree that when those taxpayers and producers violently oppose your scheme that you will agree that its a good defensive mechanism


.

I just want what's best for the country. Both in terms of its people and its economy. What's good for the country is good for me.

If some people want to be angered because the fact they may be paying a bit for a healthier populace is somehow ruining their "freedom" and "liberty" -- which seems a bit selfish -- there's not much I can do about it.
.

Ok, I'll bite. First, I'll cash in mt food stamps. Then I'll go purchase a carton of cigarettes, a case of beer, maybe a dime bag as a booster. Stop by the store and grab a couple pizzas, go home to my hud subsidized dwelling. And consume all of it. No problem. Feeling kind of sick the next morning - head for the doc. He says my heart and liver are both shot. No problem. Responsible taxpayers will fund the bill. Get out of the hospital and start the process once again. What a country.

That's adorable. Who's your insurer?

Why - the working middle class, of course!

Ah, so you have no clue how that part works, either.

 

[Arianrhod]

Healthcare should be affordable for all. It isn't. Perhaps there are ways to lower the costs. Start with big pharma...they severely overprice everything. Is a life not more important than money? If we are a nation that cherishes life then we find a way to make it a lot, I mean like cut in half, the costs.

And jail the likes of Martin Shkreli for defrauding the consumer, not just his fellow crooks.