Is health care a fundemental right?

Great Debates
1

I don’t often post, but I was kind of disappointed by the lack of heated debate on the board recently, and I’ve been thinking about this topic a bit. Is health care something that should be appended to the “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” list?

If it isn’t a fundamental right, is it something the government should provide for every citizen? Is it an entitlement for US citizens, a level just below fundamental right? At what point does the taxpayer have to stop paying for my healthcare?

My own cold-hearted bastard opinion is that the government shouldn’t be providing healthcare for everyone. I do feel bad for the people with cancer, and I think there should be help, but entitlements have caused our current deficit (the spending came before the taxing). It seems to me that by divorcing medical attention from individual scarcity, we’re creating an artificially high demand, which is why Medicare costs are spiraling out of control. Basically, if I can get as many widgets as I want and someone else is going to pay, I’m going to get as many as I can.

So is there any merit to the national health care debate, or are we just part of a very large special interest group that happens to want some payola?

2

Well, we’ve covered this topic before. It’s not a right in my view because someone else is forced to provide it if it is - you have no more right to having a doctor heal you than you do to have a carpenter build you a table.

3

Yes, you have the fundamental right to earn a living and pay for those items you deem important. As long as wealth is not finite there is always a way to earn enough to sustain yourself.

4

Inasmuch as there was no deficit two years ago, you are going to have to support this claim. Do you really think Medicare is the sole cause of the squandering of the Clinton surplus? What about that Damn Fool War[sup]®[/sup]? Or 9/11? Or the abysmal Bush economy? Yet, you lay the deficit at the feet of Medicare? Please elaborate, with supporting data.

5

I wouldn’t call health care a fundamental right. I would consider it part of a state’s infrastructure.

In the states, after all, the state builds roads its citizens use. It provides fire departments and police protection. Why not state hospitals, or at least clinics, to keep its citizen’s healthy?

6

Can’t say I see health care as a fundamental right.

However, setting up a system where we the people take care of each other in times of health crisis seems like the decent thing to do.

7

I think perhaps DaPuj meant “the national debt” when he said deficit – although perhaps he didn’t. The deficit is just an annual thing, while the national debt is the accumulation of deficits over many many many years.

I would have to agree that the national debt came about chiefly as a result of higher and higher entitlement spending over the years.

8

I’m not sure whether this debate is really going to have worthwhile results, given the apparent premises. There have been other debates here which mostly showed that the U.S. has a rather different concept of right than Europe (I can’t speak for the rest of the world).

As far as I understand the way ‘right’ is used in the U.S. (which appears to be supported by the usage of the posters here), it is used to denote a specific, legallly enforceable claim to which must correspond an obligation of another party to perform.

This concept of right is of course also known and used in European legal systems (in particular in private law), but is at times supplemented with a broader usage of ‘right’. This occurs in respect to ‘moral’ rights, ‘social’ basic rights, like a ‘right’ to labour, health, education. What is intended with that, is that the government should put some effort in it to provide a basic level of health care and education; it is an aspiratory norm.

I should add that the use of the term ‘right’ for these norms is more common among layman than among lawyers. Furtermore I’ve seen U.S. liberals use the word ‘right’ in this way as well.

Given this conceptual distinction I can answer the OP with yes and no. It just depends on which concept of right you use. If you want to discuss whether the government should provide for basic health care, a discussion focused on the concept ‘right’ is misguided from the start since it draws away attention from the real issue.

9

Apologies for the spelling errors.

I should add that the issue is further confused because these aspiratory basic norms have often been developed into specific laws that do provide a right to something, like a right to social security. If such a law exists, of course there is a right (in the narrow sense) with which corresponds an obligation of the state to perform.

In that sense there *is/i] a right to health care if there is a law that provides such a right. Again this is not the debate the OP wants, I gather.

10

I agree with these.

11

That’s one of the points where Americans and Europeans often disagree :).

I do think health care is a fundamental right in a world that is mainly organized by human behaviour; governmental authorities perform, allow and aid actions and structures that are sometimes beneficial towards our health sometimes hazardous.

That it might be useful, for example, for companies (and possibly the society) to pollute a river legally, doesn’t mean it can’t harm you when you accidentally fall in it.

Our dynamic economies have improved our living conditions fundamentally yet they also lead to many risks for our health, some are known, some still hidden. And the ones who profit from a specific economic endeavour are not necessarily the ones who have to face its risks (and that’s true for governmental, scientific or other achievements as well).

So, if a society says “yes” to all the pros, we have to deal with the cons in a responsible way as well.

That shouldn’t and couldn’t mean free health care for everyone with no limits to the costs - but everything for the ones who do have the money and nothing for the ones who don’t, is not exactly what I would call civilized behaviour.

12

Another European weighing in with the whole “healthcare should be a right” thing.

It’s interesting that people who have grown up under one system tend to defend it, whichever system it is. Personally I find it rather morally bankrupt that rich societies exist where it isn’t a right; no doubt many people on the other side find it morally bankrupt that taxpayers have to fund the health of the poor.

I do not have qualms about paying taxes to ensure that the less well-off in my society do not die from simple illnesses. Obviously I’d like the money to be used efficiently, and that people do not abuse the system. But in the end, I don’t think that, left entirely to charity, people would be generous enough to fund this.

13

Well, its as much a ‘fundamental right’ as socialised education, imho.

I guess the litmus test is trying to find a Brit or anyone who lives with collective health care, who would get rid of it vs. Americans who don’t like the private insurance system. Once you have it, you don’t want rid.

In one way, it kind of reminds me of BBC license fee vs. commercial television issue – the latter costs a whole lot more because you pay for it through other means (at your supermarket), it’s not as financially accountable and it’s got large profit margins built in.

14

Obviously health care is very important, but so are food, shelter and clothing. Should the government supply those as well? Don’t forget that the government must take our money in taxes to “give” us benefits. Government “give” people health care by depriving them of the resources to pay for it themselves.

There are many services that are natural for a government to supply, such as defence, law enforcement, and mail delivery. But, health care is an individual service. There’s no economic reason why it’s better done by government.

I think the better system is for the government to provide necessities only to the needy. The rest of us would do better to control our own food, shelter, clothing and health care.

15

Knowing you’re a conservative, I didn’t think you’d be in favor of a tax-funded societal safety net. I commend your compassion.

Question though: who pays for it? We have such a system in Ireland: the truly needy qualify for free medical treatment. However, it’s funded by all taxpayers, and we who don’t qualify for the service still have to pay for the services our taxes have been used to fund in the first place. The UK system, by contrast, is free to all: those who contribute, and those who can’t/don’t. I’d rather pay tax to a system from which I could also benefit.

Question 2: what constitutes a “necessity”?

16

Speaking as an American
Health Care isn’t really a fundamental right in America but we are close. Those of the poor who are on welfare get a pretty decent health care system for free, last time I read up on it.

Health care economics is very complex. For example, if you provide health care, people live longer and can consume more expensive health care in the later years. This is offset by those same people working and paying into the system for more years.

Rights depend on costs. This is counter-intuitive. The fundamental rights of man are fundamental to the rich and the poor. But if you look closely, you notice that if somehow all the high tech medical care were to be available for $10 per year, some new drug that cures everything, say. We would then make it a government program available to all without an argument.

Likewise, slavery bagan to be seen as immoral only as the industrial revolution began to show how humanity could eliminate slavery. And was abolished first where it was needed the least.

With the future direction of medical technology uncertain, it’s hard to say how things will work out. The “Worst case” would be if somebody invents a perfect cure for any and all cancers that costs $1 million dollars per day because it requires rare elements (rhodium or something). If an alternative for $1 per day came along, we could provide it to everybody who needs it.

The current medical system in the US is very inefficient, with the various insurance companies sucking up a large portion of the health care dollar, and good portion of the rest going to the bureacracy that helps the doctor deal with the insurance organizations.

It is practically impossible to be a sole practice doctor in the US, I understand. The docs have to band together into clinics that have a data processing section that deals with the insurance companies. For a given patient with a bronchitus, say, each insurer has a different numerical code and the rules for coverage (what the insurer pays) depend on what the employment situation is for that patient. That is, the workers at Company A are covered by the “skimpy plan” of say, Aetna, but at Company B they are covered by a specially modified “Middle plan”. It’s byzantine.

Americans spend around 10% of the GDP on health care, last time I looked. That’s the highest percentage. Of a big GDP. And we get more complexity and high tech but not better health.

The existing hospitals and health insurers can invest many millions of dollars in lobbying and in producing convincing arguments and presentations to one and all that the current system is the “Worlds Best”.

17

Fair enough. I see it as two systems, in a way.

Let’s say you pay 5000 punts a year in taxes to support the government health care system. You could view it as 500 punts for charity health care and 4500 punts for membership in a cooperative, government-run system. If you had the option, you could use the 4500 punts to control your own health care spending. You wouldn’t be restricted to National Health procedures, National Health scheduling, etc.

BTW I am given to understand that the UK’s National Health system works quite well, although there’s also a big demand for health services paid for outside of it.

We could look up the word in the dictionary, of course. What’s the point of this question?

18

Last time I looked the US spend 14% GDP to be ranked 36th by the UN in the world (at that point almost double the UK’s spending – it’s changed since) – the most money for the least return, measured as health impact on the society.

‘cept most Americans don’t look at it as a society level issue. Expensive not to look at it that way, too . .

19

Again, in the UK everyone has a ‘right’ to have a home. If you cannot afford one you can have one ‘appointed’ to you by the state. You can request a particular area and then have 3 refusals on the type of accommodation / location. After that you have to accept what is given to you. But it means most people, regardless of income, circumstances or joblessness, at least has a place to call home (paid for by theirs or others taxes.)

Food and clothing grants are also available, as are grants for carers and home helps.

If you have a rundown house that you own, you can also get renovation or replacement dwelling grants to help rebuild the property. This is instead of insisting on your right to be given a house - the government see it as away of investing in future housing stock (by modernising old properties) and encouraging private ownership which leads to a greater sense of ‘caring’ about the house.

There is always money available to those who need it (assuming they know to and where to ask).

20

It’s difficult to measure the impact of the health care system on society, because public health depends so much on how people live.

E.g., I’ve seen writers use average life span or infant mortality as a proxy for the general level of health care, but I disagree with that treatment. Social factors like diet, teen-age pregnancy, obesity, smoking, and risky behavior have a big impact on life span and infant mortality. These factors are separate from the health care system.