I have heard alot of talk during the health care debate about whether it is a right or not. I admit I have been using the term "right" to describe health care. But I think it's far past time we clarify what is meant by that. At the very least, when I speak of health care as a right, I am simply talking about ACCESS. Everyone should have the opportunity to buy health care, whether or not they do so is simply up to them.
This all started ruminating in my head when I was listening to talk radio earlier today. This young man came on the radio and claimed that it was unfair that he didn't have health care. Of course the host asked him why. The young man said he didn't have health care because he was a musician by heart and a hairstylist by trade (in his 9-5, which didn't offer health care). He couldn't get health care and pursue his musical interests, or so he claimed. The host replied to this that it was unfair to require the rest of the country to pay for his health care solely so he can pursue music. This is the type of anecdote that really pisses me off!
Personally, I am working in a retail position full time. This is not, of course, where I would like to be or where I see my career. However, I have a family and I needed health care. So I took a job where it is provided. Now of course, I could've taken a job that was more fun or more interesting to me that didn't offer health care and then whined and moaned about how unfair life is. But that's not right and it's not American.
The whole debate boils down to a lack of personal responsibility. And this is the crux of the problem with the idea of health care as a right. The access to health care should be the only right. And after that, it is up to the individual to choose whether to buy it or not. If he doesn't because a job that provides it isn't fun or doesn't let him do what he wants, and he gets sick, then he deserves all the financial turmoil he gets. The Democrats want to take this kind of personal responsibility out of the equation.
Now there are, of course, certain times when it is the governemnt's responsibility to provide health care access. For example, for those genuinely unemployed and looking (we have something like this, it's called COBRA), uninsured children who can't make the decisions for themselves, and those with pre-existing conditions. But it's not the government's job to give some kid health care so he can be a musician, or artist, or work at a start-up, or sit on the couch all day! It's not my repsonsibility to pay for those people! If I can go out and work at a soul-sucking job 37 hours a week in order to get health care, then everyone else can too!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What a spectacularly dull world we would have if everyone had to "go out and work a soul-sucking job 37 hours a week in order to get health care."
ReplyDeleteNot to mention that not every employer actually offers health benefits. So it's not really a viable solution to just say, "Hey! Man up, have some responsibility and get a crappy job!"
I agree though: "healthcare" is not a right. It's a set of goods and services, that, like all other goods and services, must be paid for by SOMEONE.
Like you said, I believe that ACCESS to healthcare is a right and a moral imperative.
But you can't depend on people to do what's responsible or best for them. Health insurance is expensive yes, but even if it were more afforable, people won't buy it if they're not forced to.
Massachusetts denies insurance companies from denying those with pre-existing conditions or dropping them when they're sick. And every citizen of MA must pay a penalty if they do not have health insurance.
As a result, 97% of Massachusetts residents have health insurance (compared to 85% for the rest of the US).
People don't understand death and personal responsibility, but they do understand money.
I'd also just like to add a quick note.
ReplyDeleteAs long as health insurance companies are for-profit and unregulated, we'll continue to have things like this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/04/aetna-forcing-600000-plus_n_380130.html
I am glad you've started this blog!
ReplyDeleteYou both make a lot of good points. It really is SUCH a complicated issue. Is it the government's job to take care of people who aren't responsible or smart enough to take care of themselves? What about the people who are just down on their luck? What about the people who just don't care? Where should the government draw the line?
Also, Grant's job is far from his dream job but it isn't soul-sucking!
Well, I don't think it's actually all that complicated.
ReplyDeleteIn an ideal world, we could count on people to take their own health seriously and get health insurance.
But like I said, the problems with Grant's suggestions are two-fold:
1) Not every employer actually offers health insurance, and 2) People can't be counted on to seek out their own healh insurance.
Massachusetts is a great example in support of a health insurance mandate. It's also a great example of how the free market can actually work to cover everyone.
But the free market can work IF AND ONLY IF the governement penalizes people for not having insurance, forces the insurance companies to cover everyone (including those with pre-existing conditions), and doesn't allow the insurance companies to drop people when they get sick.
Rachel is right, of course. This is a complicated issue. I still think health care is a right, though. I'd challenge you with the following scenario.
ReplyDeleteLet's say you wound up in charge of the health care system. (Not that anyone actually is, but this is for the sake of argument.) Think of someone you know personally and imagine that they have cancer. If that person had chosen to forgo purchasing health insurance and couldn't possibly pay for treatment, would you allow them to die rather than have them treated?
Now, of course, your point is not that you want people to suffer for lack of health care. You point is that you want to put resonsibility for obtaining health care in non-governmental hands. Personal responsibility, charity, churches, etc. That's great and we do need more personal responsibility. I just think that government is our best bet for a universal safety net and without that people will continue to suffer.
Yes, this will result in providing care to hippie musicians while we got out and work. Still, I can't think of a person I know that I would allow to suffer so that we could prove a point about responsibility.
Ugh- that said I need to do some work before work. :)
Guy --
ReplyDelete"you can't depend on people to do what's responsible or best for them"
This is most definitely true! But what really sickens and scares me is that those in favor of this health care reform seem to think that it is the government's place to force people to be responsible. That is the very antithesis of what our country stands for!
"the free market can work IF AND ONLY IF the governement penalizes people for not having insurance, forces the insurance companies to cover everyone (including those with pre-existing conditions), and doesn't allow the insurance companies to drop people when they get sick."
I agree with the second and third things that you said. But the first! There is nothing in our Constitution or any other Founding documents that allows for the government to force people to pay for services! This is not really even a tax as everyone would have to pay it. The American Revolution was fought and people died for injustices far, far less than this. Madison, Hamilton, Revere, etc. would be polishing up their muskets if they were alive right now!
P Schrader--
"Think of someone you know personally and imagine that they have cancer. If that person had chosen to forgo purchasing health insurance and couldn't possibly pay for treatment, would you allow them to die rather than have them treated?"
Of course not! But this is a big Red Herring. Noone is dying because a hospital won't give them service. Would I let someone go bankrupt because they didn't make the responsible choice? You're darn-tootin' I would! If I am irresponsible and don't pay my bills and I get sued, the government won't (and indeed shouldn't) come to my rescue.
This is about people dying. It's about personal responsibility. And the government CANNOT force people to be responsible. If hippie musicians are too stupid to get health insurance then when they get sick they are gonna have to have a firesale to pay their bills. Will it make their life harder to go bankrupt and have thousands of dollars of medical debt? Of course it will. But that's not a reason to make the rest of us who ARE responsible pay for the idiots out there...
Grant--
ReplyDeleteWe've had this discussion lots of times, but there are a lot of things the government can't do (but does and rightfully should) if we follow a strict, to-the-letter interpretation of the Constitution. I know that's how you view the Constitution, I don't. Agree to disagree.
Phil and Grant--
I understand completely what you're saying, that the government shouldn't and can't force people to be responsible.
But I think you're missing the point that actually, we ALL stand to benefit from universal health coverage.
From a more qualitative standpoint, if a person does get sick and is forced to go bankrupt, nobody wins. That's just one more non-contributing member of society.
I don't have the statistics in front of me, but the vast majority of healthcare costs go to treating chronic conditions. From a public health and health-economics perspective, this has huge implications for everyone.
If people have access to health insurance and are forced to buy it, they're more likely to see a doctor for regular check-ups and screenings. Patients are also less likely to rely on the emergency room for their care (which creates a huge strain on health costs).
Consequently, some of those chronic (and very expensive) conditions are more likely to be prevented, and healthcare costs will be lowered across the board.
The argument for universal healthcare and to force everyone to buy insurance isn't just bubbly idealism. It's a logical policy proposal that will lead to improved public health and lower healthcare costs--something that will benefit all of us.
Guy--
ReplyDelete"It's a logical policy proposal that will lead to improved public health and lower healthcare costs--something that will benefit all of us."
This is, of course, debatable. But I don't want to go there.
Policy needs to be guided by ideals. There are policies that might be logical and beneficial, but go against greater ideals. For example, it might be logical and cheap to simply kill all criminals upon conviction with no appeals and no discrimination as to crimes. But it goes against the ideal of a right to life and right to due process.
This is the problem with the health care proposal. Even if I grant that it will save money and is logical, I would still be against it, especially a provision which would force people to buy insurance. The Founding principle of freedom of property and freedom from government interference are perhaps our two most important freedoms! This plan shatters both those freedoms. Liberty is at stake here, not health care.
And yes, I would gladly go bankrupt myself to preserve the liberty that this country was founded upon! Our libertarian underpinnings are FAR more important than policy or saving money!
Grant--
ReplyDeleteTo use a more specific example of how increase health coverage will lead to lower costs.
Say you have a co-worker that becomes infected with swine flu.
If that co-worker has health insurance, they're much more likely to see a doctor. The co-worker can take Tamiflu and in 2 days can go back to work and is no longer infectious.
If, however, that co-worker doesn't have health insurance, they're less likely to see a doctor. The flu will run its course in 7-10 days, during which time the co-worker will miss more work (lost economic productivity).
More importantly, however, the infected co-worker more likely to infect other people, by the simple fact that he will be infectious for a longer time-frame and come into contact with more people in 7-10 days.
More infections will lead to worse public health and more doctors visits, which will lead to increased healthcare costs.
Ideals are great, and you say that you are a libertarian. You believe in granting all freedoms so long as they do not infringe on the freedoms of others.
You're saying that the argument that the government can't force people to buy health insurance and can't regulate health insurance because it shatters our principles of liberty and freedom.
But really, with my swine flu scenario, I could make the argument that a person's right to forebear health insurance actually infringes on my personal freedom to stay healthy and keep working (pursuit of happiness?).
And while I was at lunch, I thought of another example.
ReplyDeleteGovernments can ban smoking in public places like restaurants and bars because the freedom to be unhealthy and smoke is a threat to the health of others.
Likewise, in the swine flu example, the freedom to not have health insurance and forgo treatment is a threat to the health of others.
Sorry to bombard, but I meant to say that the Federal Government can and does enforce smoking restrictions in airplanes, day-care centers, nursing homes, prisons and jails, and libraries that receive federal funding.
ReplyDeleteThe Federal Government does this to protect public health when individual freedoms jeopardize it, and the same logic can and should be applied to health insurance.
Guy--
ReplyDelete"the freedom to not have health insurance and forgo treatment is a threat to the health of others"
That's actually a really interesting argument. I hadn't looked at the issue from that type of perspective.
I think these types of public health questions boil down to which right is more fundamental.
You gave a couple of hypotheticals, so here's mine:
Under your theory, the government can force individuals to take certain actions if it would improve public health. So why doesn't the Federal Government force people to vaccinate their children? Or let's get even more drastic, say in 150 years we have a crazy huge overpopulation problem, could the Federal Government create a forced sterilization program to alleviate the problem and promote public health?
Obviously, the Government can't do either of those things because the individual's freedom to do what they want with their body is paramount. That's why the Government can't force people to buy health insurance. The individual's freedom to do want they want with both their body and their money is FAR more fundamental than a slight uptick in public health or productivity.
Grant--
ReplyDelete"Obviously, the Government can't do either of those things because the individual's freedom to do what they want with their body is paramount."
I'm amused at the hypocrisy in this statment, coming from you, who is so adamantly against abortion. (I know that we could get into the discussion of when is a fetus a human life, but let's not open that can of worms.)
Anyway...
To answer your second hypothetical:
Forced sterilization is extreme and would never be considered as a means to control population. No, I would not support forced sterilization.
I would, however, fully support "birth licenses" or enforcing that no couple have more than two children each.
I'm not talking 150 years from now: I would fully support of the two-child rule RIGHT NOW. The planet is already over-populated.
To answer your first hypothetical situation: yes, I do believe the government should mandate that people vaccinate their children.
And actually, state governments already DO. To use Massachusetts as an example again (since it's so awesome and quite possibly will be my home-state next year), here are some required vaccinations that children must have before entering school in MA:
Hepatitis B
Polio
MMR
Varicella
Hib
Thanks for that example. You've proved my point for me that governments can and should enact measures to improve public health.
Guy--
ReplyDelete"I know that we could get into the discussion of when is a fetus a human life, but let's not open that can of worms."
You opened the can! Of course abortion is drastically different. There is either a) another human life in the mix, or b) a potential human life. That makes the issue a little more complex than just improving public health.
And forced sterilization is no different than child licenses. And I am amused at the hypocrisy in the following statement: "I would fully support of the two-child rule RIGHT NOW," coming from someone who believes strongly in a right to privacy. This type of rule would be the ULTIMATE invasion of privacy. It would go against all precedent, including Lawrence v. Texas. Talk about the government invading the marriage bed!
As for your MA example: This is different. The state does not require ALL citizens to get vaccinations. It is simply a requirement to attend public schools. A parent still has the individual right to decide not to send their child to a public school and thus not to get vaccinated.
An analogy to this would be if the Federal Government required someone to buy health insurance in order to receive certain Federal programs or serve in certain Federal positions. That would not be a breach of Constitutional powers. Of course the Federal government can require things of people/organizations that receive Federal help. It cannot, however, require everyone to take a certain course of action.
"You've proved my point for me that governments can and should enact measures to improve public health."
I wasn't arguing against that point. Of course the government can and should enact measures to improve public health! The issue comes when they do so at expense of Fundamental liberties, thus rendering their actions unconstitutional.