Cozy Corner: Why I don't arbitrarily support Universal Health Care

Rights should not be positives. They should be the absence of negatives. Speech? That's the right to not be forced into silence. Religion? That's the right to not be converted. Arms? The right to not be forced into defenselessness. Self-incrimination? The right to not be forced to testify against yourself. Search and seizure? The right to not have one's space invaded by the government.

Each of these rights comes from nowhere, and costs society nothing. The rights do not involve the transfer of power or currency or anything of value to the individual; rather, they represent an individual not transferring power to the government. All natural rights are of this form.

Universal health care, on the other hand, involves the transfer of value from the government to the individual. That value comes in the form of goods and services. That value must come from somewhere, and is generally provided through taxation (to pay for the goods and services) and regulation (to ensure that the goods and services are made available to everyone). In the degenerate case - one which is starting to become visible in Canada, the UK, and other socialized medicine countries - there are not enough service providers to account for demand, so individuals are not able to receive the services they require. As service providers are enslaved to the system, the costs of service do not rise, which would generally lead to additional service providers choosing to enter a lucrative market. Functionally, providing the "right" of health care has required removal of the right of the physician to work at her own discretion.

Social Security provides an example of another failure of a value-based right. By funding a right (in this case, to a baseline retirement income) through taxation, future generation of taxpayers are effectively enslaved to the recipient of the rights.

This isn't to say that a minimum level of health coverage for all isn't a fine goal -- actually, a responsibility -- of civilization. But providing everyone with the same full coverage? Not a right at all.

Comments

I am often annoyed by a frequent commercial for a hospital out here that has children saying "I have a right to be treated" in this or that way.

While they are good ways to treat people and especially children, calling a local or societal good a right at best confuses the shoulds and really shoulds to the musts.

There are a number of reasons why a federalized minimum healthcare service is a good idea, and a few reasons why it's a bad idea, but calling healthcare a right means we pledge indefinitely to maximizing it.

I am willing to fight for free speech. I am willing to fight to not be forced to bow before someone else's altar. I am not willing to fight for another month of low quality life for my 85 year old grandmother, whom I am quite fond of (Not that I'm not willing to work for it, but I'm willing to measure the costs and consequences).

Posted by: Justin | October 9, 2006 11:23 AM

Who said anything about a right? We're talking about a service, a shared commitment to each other, to our neighbors. A conscious choice on the part of a supermajority of us to make this a priority, to give everyone coverage.

I don't think I'd support society as a whole taking on the burden if we only get 51% of people voting for it. But if we can get 60%, or 2/3 might be the right ratio, to decide it's the right thing to do, it's worth the burden to the remainder of the populace.

Not that there's any danger of us hitting that 2/3, not in today's political climate.

Posted by: lochinola | October 9, 2006 01:56 PM

Here's some folks talking about it as a right.

And you should note that my last paragraph does support ensuring that everyone has some coverage. Not maximal coverage, because that then establishes it as a right (or entitlement), which I oppose.

Posted by: Andy | October 9, 2006 06:18 PM