Yes, I missed the morning flight through piss-poor planning and preparation, which always results in piss-poor performance. However, that means I get to read Ed Morrissey’s latest column for American Issues Project, a historical look at why health care is not a “right”:
Rights cannot be confiscatory in a society that respects the individual right to property. That’s why none of the enumerated rights in the Constitution involve confiscation. Americans have the right to free speech, but they do not have the right to demand publication in a newspaper, nor do they have the right to demand that other people listen when they speak. The right to free expression of religion does not involve occupying someone else’s church and using it to your own ends. You have the right to keep and bear arms, but you do not have the right to demand free or publicly financed weaponry. All of those examples involve confiscating someone else’s property or services, whether done through the government or by force individually.
That brings us to the notion of the “right” to health care. As human beings, we want to see people succeed to the point where they can feed, clothe, and care for themselves independently, as that establishes true personal freedom. However, none of us have the right to confiscate the services of a doctor or nurse without their consent, and without their ability to set a price for their time and expertise. We don’t have the right to walk into a grocery story to demand apples when we’re hungry, either, although we should have access to the market without bias when we can properly compensate its owner for the goods.
I can’t put it any better.
I’ve always been inclined to word it this way:
“As human beings, we have an obligation (in charity) to support others. Providing necessities such as food, shelter, and healthcare are primary obligations. The principal secondary obligation is to provide others with the education and/or means to acquire such goods for themselves, if at all possible.”
The key phrase is “obligation in charity,” which we all innately understand.
Now “providing” implies (first) a giver and (second) a receiver. But ‘rights talk’ implies that the reciever is first.
That ordering, unfortunately, does not consider the means of the provider. So what should be “in charity” now becomes “required by law”.
We can easily agree that some people are simply not charitable, and that some efforts of the State necessarily require tax effort (defense, roads, public order.)
That’s not perfectly worded, but it’s a start, I think.