IS HEALTH CARE A “RIGHT”?
Senator Sanders says health care is a “right.” I disagree.
I don’t see it listed under our Bill OF RIGHTS. If health care is a Right does that mean any
citizen can sue if he/she doesn’t get the same level of care as Bill
Gates. A person may say “The USA is a
rich country and I am a citizen of the USA and therefore I am entitled to the
highest level of care available and someone or some entity has to pay for it.” Are those citizens who fail or refuse to
follow doctors orders on such things as smoking, obesity, diabetes and a myriad
of other illnesses that develop, entitled to demand their “rights.” I am sympathetic to their need, but not to
the extent that I want to pay for it.
Health care is an essential element of all societies, but
that does not mean we, the citizens, are responsible and have to pay for every
illness of every citizen. We all have a
responsibility for our own health. Our
government has the responsibility to provide for the PUBLIC health through
various public health clinics, flu shots, epidemics etc. We already have the Center for Disease
Control in Atlanta plus a big
departments in Washington. As far as the
delivery of health care to our citizens, it is the Government that must create
the business CLIMATE that induces, attracts health care personnel from doctors and
all ancillary personnel to the field.
The Government has many tools to do this if they wish to make use of
them. Such as using tax advantages to
induce physicians and ancillary personnel to locate in rural areas.
Health care
ReplyDeleteIt is true that health care is not a right as enumerated in the constitution. It is also true that police protection, clean water, and basic education are not “rights”, however, the very first sentence of the constitution clearly gives us that mandate as it states as a constitutional purpose, “to promote the general welfare”. It is difficult to think of anything that would promote the general welfare more widely than making medical care available to all our citizens. Though we do have many wonderful programs and institutions which have helped many of our citizens, they have not helped and fail to reach many others who do need care. But should the government step in? Government, which is not some abstract autonomous monster, but is actually all of us acting collectively, does have the responsibility to do those things which are necessary and beneficial that smaller institutions; charities, churches, local governments, cannot do effectively. Decades of experience tell us unequivocally that many, many of our citizens still do not have adequate health care, and will not, until we accept the reality that the problem can only be solved with a national health care system.
Many opponents argue that we cannot afford such a system. That is an absurdity. We are by far the wealthiest nation on the planet, yet Cuba, Albania, Greece, and numerous other “poor” nations manage to afford a universal health care system. – Or, some ask, why should upright, responsible citizens, be compelled to help the careless, undisciplined, or foolish? That question is answered by all of the great religions, and by many secular philosophers, all of whom charge their followers, as a fundamental moral duty, to care for the vulnerable and needy whoever they are. We pride ourselves on being a religious and compassionate nation yet, paradoxically, we will not provide this most basic human need, as our constitution and our own beliefs demand of us. It is a failure of compassion which we justify with elaborate rationalization; “Just look at the problems of the Canadian system, etc, etc”. So we do nothing. Are we really just unwilling to bear that humane burden? We find hundreds of billions for tax breaks for the super wealthy who don’t need it, and hi-tech weapons that aren’t needed; should we spend a just fraction of that to actually help someone? – or not? Bill R