Health Care isn't a right: How so, exactly?

[Eiuol]

I am not suggesting, by any means, that health care *should* be provided by anyone or that force (taxation) must be used to allow people to have health care. But wouldn't it be more accurate to say you have a right to health care, as long as you don't violate rights to acquire it? I understand the right to life is the source of all rights. But health, food, acting in one's self interest and property are all things needed to be able to live. In other words, aren't you entitled to anything you want, provided you don't use force to do it?

[2046]

You have a right to health care in the same way that you have a right to the pursuit of happiness. It's the "pursuit" that you have a right to, not the "happiness" that must be subsidized to you by force.

A right is only a moral sanction to a freedom of action, not to any specific "thing" as all "things" have value and must be produced by actual human effort. You have a right to attain health care, to buy it, to trade for it, to accept charity for it, if there is someone willing to give it to you, sell it to you, provide it to you, or you may provide it for yourself. Your right is violated not when you can't get health care, but when you could and were prevented from doing so by physical force or fraud.

Edited August 19, 2009 by 2046

[SapereAude]

Your right is violated not when you can't get health care, but when you could and were prevented from doing so by physical force or fraud.

..or for that matter when you are forced to have inferior healthcare in the name of equality

[K-Mac]

Health Care is Not a Right by Peikoff

I'm sure I can't say it any better.

Edited August 19, 2009 by K-Mac

[corristo]

you have a right to health care, as long as you don't violate rights to acquire it

How exactly would this be done? Health Care costs money, it requires equipment, it requires professionals. It requires work of others for your benefit.

Notice that Speech, Bearing Arms, Petitions, and all other things considered rights are not dependent on others to be fulfilled. How is this "right" to be held without extortion from unwilling others?

Also, the right to life, as it is meant in the Constitution is not the life of the individual in the way of basic needs, but his right to have the opportunity and sanction to live his life the way he wishes as long as it does not infringe on someone else's life. If you want a more in-depth view of what the Founding Fathers intentions were and what they meant I suggest you pick up a book titled "The 5000 Year Leap".

You must also keep in mind not to fall into the false dichotomy of "it is either socialized health care or the robber baron HMO's/insurance companies" there are other routes to take, such as a free market health care system, which we used to have and it worked out very well for everyone. If you don't believe me look into it a bit.

[fountainhead777]

My favorite argument against it is that something cannot be a right if it must be provided others. Kind of sums up the points against it.

[softwareNerd]

As Obama explained:

...generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, 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.

Scratch the term "negative", and you have a pretty decent summary.

[Eiuol]

How exactly would this be done? Health Care costs money, it requires equipment, it requires professionals. It requires work of others for your benefit.

Notice that Speech, Bearing Arms, Petitions, and all other things considered rights are not dependent on others to be fulfilled. How is this "right" to be held without extortion from unwilling others?

The sense I meant it is like this (from the link a few posts back):

Under the American system you have a right to health care if you can pay for it, i.e., if you can earn it by your own action and effort. But nobody has the right to the services of any professional individual or group simply because he wants them and desperately needs them.

2046 answered pretty well, but I'm confused how the wording above would be correct. Many people seem to misunderstand the meaning of "right to health care" and think it can be denied via force. Saying "you have right to X if you acquire it with your own effort" seems a lot more accurate than "X is not a right". Or would such a statement be only useful for clarity, to emphasize that rights are unrelated to things, you only have a right to actions?

Edited August 19, 2009 by Eiuol

[SD26]

Notice that Speech, Bearing Arms, Petitions, and all other things considered rights are not dependent on others to be fulfilled.

Aren't they?

One can talk but have no audience. Isn't that why totalitarian governments jail those that spread thoughts of freedom through speech or the written word? That is a loss of freedom of speech.

One can bear arms, but having a rifle or a pistol does have to be purchased or made from raw materials. If one is singled out by fraud or force from purchasing a rifle, is it not a loss of the right to bear that arm?

[Steve D'Ippolito]

No, you still have the right. You just don't have, at the moment, the *ability*.

[ooghost1oo]

I am not suggesting, by any means, that health care *should* be provided by anyone or that force (taxation) must be used to allow people to have health care. But wouldn't it be more accurate to say you have a right to health care, as long as you don't violate rights to acquire it? I understand the right to life is the source of all rights. But health, food, acting in one's self interest and property are all things needed to be able to live. In other words, aren't you entitled to anything you want, provided you don't use force to do it?

You definitely have the right to provide your OWN health care, if you can.

A proper right is something that doesn't require the providing of someone else. You have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (if you're an American). All three of those things are wholly dependent on YOU. It doesn't affect anyone else. But you can't claim the right to something that would need someone else to provide whatever you need--that's impinging on another's freedom.

You don't have the right to hamburgers. No one needs to give you hamburgers. There is no free lunch.

You don't have the right to an education--that's your own responsibility.

You don't have the right to health care. No one is under compulsion to treat you.

There are no entitlements--be responsible for your own life.