Is Health Care a Right?

Dear Mr. Williams, I first saw you on an Sunday early morning show in Philadelphia. You caught my eye and I usually do not remember most people, even those I really like. I recognized you in the newspaper, that I seldom read, and suggested my husband to read you.He does and loves it. My point is that your knowledge and common sense approach is wonderful. My husband now points out your column in the Intelligencer, a PA newspaper. The article regarding our rights to health care is amazing. It says it like it is. On the same note I support severaly groups who do reach out to those in need but it is voulentary. thank you for being you and your articles..

There are aspects of health care that could be considered a right in an accurate sense. Much as the right to free speech allows me to say what I wish, without necessarily providing me an auditorium in which to say it, a right to health care would allow me to pursue, utilizing my own resources, whatever health care I wish so long as that pursuit did not interfere with the rights of others. Unfortunately, I do not currently have that right, as the FDA, DEA, and any number of federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and licensure boards stand between me and a true right to health care. I am quite certain that the currently proposed legislation aimed at providing for the health care wishes of Americans will first off fail to satisfy those wishes; secondly will be ruinously expensive and inefficient; and perhaps most importantly will erect even more barriers between citizens and an actual right to health care of their choosing.

Another great article that spells it out perfectly. I point out your thoughts about slavery in the 21st century, but I quit doing it because I was told that was racist. I have never once disagreed with one topic that you have ever commented on. Keep up the good work.

"in order for government to give one American citizen a dollar, it must first, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American"

No, it must confiscate two dollars, for one of them will surely be vacuumed up and consumed by the bureaucracy doing the intimidation, threatening, coercion and confiscation. This makes the whole process doubly insulting, as I'm not only paying for someone else's wishes, I'm also paying their agents to steal from me.

The Constitution includes the guarantee of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Without health, none of these things is possible.

Your column is logically sound. Your conclusion leaves out two inportant realities. One, charity while it exists in the case of healthcare needs falls miserably short and puts it in the realm of begging for your life in some cases. Two, it leaves out the reality of the situation as it is solved by the people in need and that is they go to emergency rooms for care. Here is where enlightened self interest should kick in. It costs us more money to do it this way than with a proper program.

Finally, "the government should do for the people what the people cannot do for themselves". Except for Medicaid and Medicare our healthcare is provided by Monopolistic Competition, large healthcare corporations. In the rest of the civilized world the country's governments provide healthcare. The US ranks well below the top of the heathcare systems in terms of quality and outcome. With the profit motive and control by mega corps, is it that hard to believe? We control this huge cost or it will bankrupt our country.

I believe that I cannot learn anything from people that agree with my thinking. Professor Williams, I have and continue to look forward to learning a lot from you.

John Slone, Las Vegas

I find the article on healthcare, a wish not a right, follows the fallicy of faulty logic. Within the article, the topic of healthcare for the poor can be replaced by a topic of abortion, foriegn aid to unfriendly nations, or participation in the UN and the content would still flow on the same logical argument. That is, if an individual doesn't like specific uses of federal funds, the individual can shout foul and appeal that they are being federal slaves and being forcibly robbed of their private earnings.
The logical error is that the collective treasury of our tax funds is subject to the appropriations of congress and within those appropriations the executive branch can decide how the appropritated funds are spent to accomplish the intent of congress.
Similarly, your business may be wise to solicit your customers preference, yet you probably would not be wise in permitting your customers to dictate where your capital is spent.
The article itself is a wish. We the people decide on our representation in government. Those representative have the authority and public trust in making appropriations. Though history may show pork barrel projects and funding for the abuses of power, we don't have a better system in place at this time. So, wish away. The article is a good venting of frustration, nothing more.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. And he wrote an editorial called "Is Health Care a Right." It was so weakly argued and idiotic that it enraged me to the point of needed to (re)dress the piece line-for-line.


“Is Health Care a Right?”
A line-by-line argument between Walter E. Williams and Ali Young

(1) Most politicians, and probably most Americans, see health care as a right.

This is because included in the “Bill of Rights” is the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This political idea is commonly attributed to John Locke's philosophy about “the state of Nature” which is discussed in Second Treatise on Civil Government

(The following is taken from Wikipedia) “For Locke, "The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it", and that law is Reason. Locke believes that reason teaches that "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions"; and that transgressions of this may be punished. This view of the state of nature is partly deduced from Christian belief (unlike Hobbes, whose philosophy is not dependent upon any prior theology): the reason we may not harm another is that we are all the possessions of God and do not own ourselves.”

If you'd like to associate a biblical passage to this “Christian belief,” then I recommend Saint Matthew Chapter 24 and specifically verses 39 and 45.

(2)Thus, whether a person has the means to pay for medical services or not, he is nonetheless entitled to them.

Just as when a person's house is on fire, whether or not he has the means, we send the fire department. If his house is burning then it affects us all – it endangers the community and causes economic blight.

The same is true for health. If somebody has typhoid fever, it is in the interest of the common good that they get treated. If someone is dying of cancer, it is in the interest of the common good that this curable disease be cured because this “someone” might be a teacher, pharmacist, attorney, grocer, check-out girl… All of our lives are valuable. We all have a place in this world.

(3) Let's ask ourselves a few questions about this vision.

“Yes, let us do just that.” I respond with a snarl.

(4) Say a person, let's call him Harry, suffers from diabetes and he has no means to pay a laboratory for blood work, a doctor for treatment and a pharmacy for medication.

Interesting, because if Harry is British, then this sounds like a premise to the argument, but if Harry is American, then it's more like an axiom.

And, also, why not call “this guy” Walter E. Williams? Suppose, sir, that YOU have diabetes and YOUR life must be saved? I wonder if your attitude would be so “tough noogies."

(5) Does Harry have a right to XYZ lab's and Dr. Jones' services and a prescription from a pharmacist?

If he lives in Canada, England, Paris, Costa Rica… Any developed nation, yes he does have the right because it is law.

(6) And, if those services are not provided without charge, should Harry be able to call for criminal sanctions against those persons for violating his rights to health care?

"If" Harry is calling for criminal sanctions, then let's now assume within the constructs of this argument that there is Law in place requiring Harry to be covered. So, the answer is "yes." If there is a law in place that offers public health services and the service is not provided, then there would be some sort of legally enforceable liability. The law would determine the level of “criminality”. Is it criminal to the level of unpaid parking tickets? Or to raping a baby? I don't know because you haven't presented a "supposed" law for this "supposed" argument.

Further, try this scenario: Harry walks into a hospital about to slip into a diabetic coma. The code of ethics requires that Harry receive the services required to sustain his life – labs, Doctor services, and prescription. But Harry doesn't have any money! What actually happens right now – in the real world - and not in the world of your philosophical argument, is that we are already paying for Harry. And, paying for it in the least efficient and efficacious manner possible.

(7) You say, "Williams, that would come very close to slavery if one person had the right to force someone to serve him without pay."

It is true that our Doctors are currently “slaves” to this Health care system. Every day, they have to write-off BILLIONs of dollars (it's called Balance Billing) because insurance companies refuse to pay the claims of people who actually have insurance coverage.

Why are you using the term "force"? As far as I know, Harry hasn't walked into the doctor's office and said “Cure my fucking diabetes or I'm'a bash you in the head with a sledge hammer!” Or did he? Is there something about Harry that you are not telling me?? No.... I jest. "force" is a baiting word. Very Limbaugh of you.

Also, if you are arguing the actual proposed policy of health care reform and NOT what you "suppose" to be true, then “without pay” is just incorrect. This portion of your argument is invalidated because nobody is proposing that services are not monetized. Nobody is taking away a doctor's right to bill for services.

(8) You're right.

Yes. Right. Very, very far fringe-y “Right” to be equating slavery with health care. It is tasteless.

(9) Suppose instead of Harry being able to force a lab, doctor and pharmacy to provide services without pay, Congress uses its taxing power to take a couple of hundred dollars out of the paycheck of some American to give to Harry so that he could pay the lab, doctor and pharmacist.

You mean like the way they do that to pay for firemen, roads, your mother's Medicare and your children's teachers and Halliburton? Sure, why not?! I'll pay to cover Harry! Next week Harry could have a communicable disease that he's going to transmit to you or me on an airplane. And, also, please cover those people stocking vegetables at the grocery stores because they cough on what I eat. And, also, please cover Danny Edmunds in Baltimore because he has a brain tumor and doesn't want to make is family broke, so he's not getting treated. Wait. Too late. He chose to die rather than make his family go poor.

(10) Would there be any difference in principle, namely forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another?

Isn't the purpose of a Doctor to serve others? Are Doctors only supposed to doctor themselves? Hmmmm…

I think you mean to say that when one person is forced to serve the purposes of another then it is, in principle, slavery. I think you are further trying to say that taxation is like slavery. Which means you are probably one of those "zero" tax ideologues. But the writing is a little confused here...

In this scenario that you have constructed, it is supposed that the Doctor is forced to provide services because he doesn't want to work for free.
Under a nationalized, socialized, health care system, everyone is covered and the Doctors are paid. So, if we have laws in place that provide the “force” (Police State enforcement) requiring Doctors to provide services; then, one should assume that the government also implemented laws providing for a system of compensation to the Doctors. If the Doctors are being compensated then they don't have a right to deny service as a matter of civil rights.

But, for the sake of this argument, we should also recognize that in the realm of “public service” people are always required by “force” or “the law” to do things to serve the purposes of another. Cops do it. Teachers do it. Public defenders do it. I'd like to see the author of this “piece of work” go call a cop a slave. Please. DO IT!

As for Big Pharma and “forcing” Big Pharma to give drugs. I guess we can thank the Supreme Court because now, legally, Big Pharma is also seen as a “PERSON” who would be “forced” by the (boogie-man) law to provide medicine. Again, if the laws of health care reform are in place, then they are going to get paid - or be given more tax write-offs…

(11) There would be one important strategic difference, that of concealment.

I have no idea where this is going…

(12) Most Americans, I would hope, would be offended by the notion of directly and visibly forcing one person to serve the purposes of another.

I know you are trying to create a false equivalence with slavery. Slavery is offensive. But a racist teacher forced to teach Asian children at a public school is an example of our laws directly and visibly forcing one person (a racist teacher) to serve the purposes of another (a child's education). I've got to say, that doesn't offend me.

(13) Congress' use of the tax system to invisibly accomplish the same end is more palatable to the average American.

Congress is currently talking about expanding Medicare. I have to say that Medicare is pretty “invisible” to me. As is paying for Haliburton to rape men and women in Afghanistan… But, I do get to see on my tax returns how much I pay into Medicare. And, I do get to see what my Medicare benefit will be when I retire. I look forward to that coverage.

If I didn't actually read my tax paperwork, maybe the Congress' use of the tax system to provide health care benefits would be “invisible” to me. But, really, more correctly, I would be ignorant.

Plus, the benefits of our tax system are not invisible. Citizens see it every day. It's just that some citizens are ignorant of the benefits of our system of taxation. This ignorance is crippling our society and jettisoning us right into the dark ages of our Republic.

(14) True rights, such as those in our Constitution, or those considered to be natural or human rights, exist simultaneously among people.

So… “rights” ascribed outside of the Constitution are “false” rights? Well, I agree with this statement for the most part.

(15) That means exercise of a right by one person does not diminish those held by another.

Yes.

(16) In other words, my rights to speech or travel impose no obligations on another except those of non-interference.

Actually… We pay surcharges and fees and taxes to ensure that travel is safe. The FAA is funded by people who fly and, also, by people who never have and never will fly. This is because without the FAA, there is nobody to en”FORCE” the laws and guidelines in place that require care and maintenance of aircraft. And, this way, an aircraft is less likely to fall out of the air and kill 50 helpless and innocent people who never took a plane in their lives.

(17) If we apply ideas behind rights to health care to my rights to speech or travel, my free speech rights would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with an auditorium, television studio or radio station.

Close. But, now the author is throwing-in the kitchen sink. I'm going to allow the derailment of the health care argument and take a quick peek into how our speech rights have been violated as it pertains to television and radio.

The government used to provide for “LO” stations. “Local Operating” stations which were for the local communities and regular folks – like you! – with something to say, to have a platform to transmit their free speech and ideas. The federal government under Republicans dismantled all of those laws. All of that bandwith was sold to private corporations. Republican law took the ability – pray, the LIBERTY – of one free person's right to transmit their speech and ideas and gave it to a couple of private corporation. Actually, it's more like “one free person's right” times three billion…

(18) My right to travel freely would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with airfare and hotel accommodations.

This right to “travel freely” is actually already given to Corporations when you consider how much they get to write-off of their taxes as business expenditures. So… yeah, if it is vital to the health of a business that a person goes to Salt Lake city; then, why can't I write-off my trip to Santa Fe? It is vital to my health! Further, now that Corporations have “personhood,” the tax codes should be changed! We should be entitled to the same tax write-offs and shelters as Corporations.

Some countries in Europe do have laws that subsidize vacations because they do recognize that for the mental health of their communities it is beneficial. It increases worker productivity – it's scientifically proven. Europe ROCKS!

(19) For Congress to guarantee a right to health care, or any other good or service, whether a person can afford it or not, it must diminish someone else's rights, namely their rights to their earnings.

“Rights to their earning.” Chuckles. Death and Taxes. Get over it!

(20) The reason is that Congress has no resources of its very own.

Yes.

(21) Moreover, there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy giving them those resources.

Finally, we are in agreement! Or “agreeance” as I imagine you say…

(22) The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces one to recognize that in order for government to give one American citizen a dollar, it must first, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American.

The IRS. Yes. They can be bastards! But if your paperwork is right, then it's just a waste of time, right?

(23) If one person has a right to something he did not earn, of necessity it requires that another person not have a right to something that he did earn.

And here is one of those thinly veiled Ayn Randian ideas that some people are more valuable than others… Emboldening racists and fascists everywhere…

(24) To argue that people have a right that imposes obligations on another is an absurd concept.

And yet, we practice it all of the time. Because of free speech rights, I was FORCED to endure a Nazi parade in a neighboring community where I lived as a child. As a law abiding citizen, I was obligated to allow those swine to march through the Jewish community of Skokie. Yeah… sometimes the laws seem to allow vile atrocities. It is true.

(25) A better term for new-fangled rights to health care, decent housing and food is wishes.

Go on… This is going to be good…

(26) If we called them wishes, I would be in agreement with most other Americans for I, too, wish that everyone had adequate health care, decent housing and nutritious meals.

Then don't just “wish!” Do something about it! Christian ethics pre-date the development of the Modern Democracy! (Magna Carta 12??) Now that we have democracy, we have a way to create a system by which we might care for one another. Again, check out Saint Matthew.

(27) However, if we called them human wishes, instead of human rights, there would be confusion and cognitive dissonance.

I'll play this game! If “human wishes” = “human rights” then the following statement is true: I have a human wish to carry a gun and use it on war criminals.

Sadly, the reality is that the government has endowed me with the “human right” to carry a gun, but I can only wish to use it on a war criminal…

The cognitive dissonance arises from my view of justice or “right” and “wrong.”

(28) The average American would cringe at the thought of government punishing one person because he refused to be pressed into making someone else's wish come true.

ROTFL – the “wish” police!

(29) None of my argument is to argue against charity.

Good to know.

(30) Reaching into one's own pockets to assist his fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable.

Yes.

(31) Reaching into someone else's pockets to do so is despicable and deserves condemnation.

I know how you feel. It is despicable. Because I often wish that I could take all of my money back that was given to Haliburton and Goldman Sachs. Just that money. And I would reallocate it to teachers and health care.

Sadly, the government isn't just about how you think it should be run, or how I think it should be run. We all live in America: doctors, racists, Nazis, and professors not-deserving-of-their-credential, alike. And in this past Presidential election, a man running on Health care Reform won by an overwhelming majority. It's time to let our Democracy work and vote on reform.

Dear Walter Williams. Excellent Article! POLITICIANS HAVE BANKRUPTED AMERICA WITH THEIR SOCIAL AND WELFARE GIVE-A-WAYS, THUS STEALING FROM TAXPAYERS SO THEY CAN GET ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE OFF THESE PROGRAMS. TAXPAYERS SHOULDN'T BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING FOR ANYONE BUT THEMSELVES! IF YOU DON'T WORK, DON'T PAY TAXES, HAVE ILLEGITIMATES BY DOZENS, WHY SHOULD TAXPAYERS BE HELD RESPONSIBLE! THESE "INCOMPETENT, CORRUPT, GREEDY, BLOOD-SUCKING TICKS" SOLD OUR JOBS TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER, FORCED DRUG AND INSURANCE COMPANIES TO 'GIVE THEM TRILLIONS ,WHICH OF COURSE, IS THE 'REASON' OUR INSURANCE AND DRUGS ARE SO HIGH THAT THE WORKING PERSON, PAYING TAXES, CAN'T AFFORD ANYMORE ON THEIR PLATES DUE TO THESE 'TAX & SPEND' IDIOTS! TAXPAYERS KNOW THIS IS COMMITTING TREASON AGAINST AMERICAN PEOPLE!
AVERAGE JOE ON THE STREET WOULD BE IN STATE PRISON, NOT THE 'LUXURIOUS
FEDERAL COUNTRY CLUB PRISONS' - TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE TO PADLOCK ALL POLITI
CIANS FROM THEIR OFFICES! THESE 'LAWS & PROGRAMS' THEY'VE 'PLAYED' WITH
(THEIR JOB SECURITY-AMERICA'S DOWNFALL & BANKRUPT) FOR DECADES, COSTING
TAXPAYERS TRILLIONS! IT'S TIME TO SELL THEM ALL A 'ONE-WAY TICKET TO GITMO',
take all their assets (that really belongs to Taxpayers), pay off the
trillions, plus, and send along all local, state, federal prisoners, all
social and welfare recipients, drug, insurance, and other companies that
have taken money that belongs to taxpayers - not the politicians!
TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE TO TAKE AMERICA BACK! WHAT ARE WE WAITING FOR?
=====================================================================================

"Insurance Outrage!" This brought me back to writing about
incompetent, corrupt and greedy politicians, instead of working on my
novels. I've written several articles about how to 'Stop the Trillions from
flowing into politicians' pockets from insurance and drug companies!'
Doesn't
take a rocket scientist to figure this out how these 'donations' created
such deterioration to America.

What happened to honesty, integrity, principles and respect when people had
to pay their own way, their own doctors and hospitals? Let's see, this was
before decades of the incompetent, corrupt, and greedy blood-sucking ticks
and their very deep pockets!

Taxpayers do you remember the 'Heartbeat of America' - American textile and
furniture manufacturing businesses making and selling their goods;
therefore, being able to buy homes, cars, and food for their families.
Politicians took this away from hard-working Taxpayers with their 'Free
Trade', stating America would become a service country. Really, the only
servicing being done now is unemployment, social and welfare offices! Fair
Tax' must be put into law, making everyone a paying participant!

When are Taxpayers going to hear the words "We, the politicians, are going
to stop taking donations from insurance, drug companies or any company,
bank
or person. We intend to cut our salaries and retirements to $12,000.00
yearly, in order to reduce the trillion dollars we've borrowed without
Taxpayers consent!"

I'm quoting from latest articles "AIG reports losses as insurance business
lags - the insurer reports a drop in new premiums as it struggles to repay
government aid! Fannie Mae seeks $15 billion in aid, which would bring total
to more than $75 billion (plus) and the Tax and Spend incompetent, corrupt,
blood-sucking ticks continue to spend America into an oblivion. Taxpayers
knew when the 'bailouts' (handouts) started there would be no end to these
endless money pits created by politicians. While I'm on a roll, for over
five (5) decades Taxpayers have heard politicians talking about government
reform, ethics, housing, education, healthcare, crime, drugs, insurance and
the list goes on. Point is, all they've done is create bigger government,
more spending, and absolutely has been done nor will be done. Can't think of
a better paying career with no thinking or labor involved, can you?

America is now an enslaved nation with trillions of dollars in debt, and
counting, and all
because of incompetent, corrupt, and greedy politicians. I'm quoting John
Adams - "There are two ways to
conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword, the other is by debt."
Surely, you remember history and the Dictator that said "We'll destroy
America and never lift a finger!" If this doesn't wake you up, nothing will!

To daliface... if Europe rocks, then perhaps you should live there.

Amen!

Dear Mr. Williams, I started reading your column when I was visiting my sister in Milton, Florida. You have the most exquisite way of writing the truth. I love your articles. Thank you for spreading the truth!

Mr. Williams is taking a salary from a public university. The largest source of its revenue is from the
taxpayers of Virginia. Following his logic, he is involved in slavery.

Would he voice the same argument if the word education was subsituted for health care?

If a person is found unconsious on the on the side of the road should the EMT's check to see if he/she can pay before that person is transport to the hospital? Oh that's right there would be no EMT's as most are paid for by tax dollars.

Does Mr. Williams really think that his travel imposes no obligqtion on others? The minute he leaves his drive way he is using tax funded roadways. Does he really think what he pays for an airline ticket covers the cost of airports and air traffic control?

JR

Re: Ken Adamson. you obviously are not employed in the health care field. Mr. Williams is right on the mark. Educate yourself- talk to your doctors and nurses.

Re: Daliface most americans think healthcare is a right because most americans are not employed in the healthcare field. No one worries about someone else working for free. Mr. Williams is right on. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness does not involve a hospital, doctor, nurse, or nursing home. Get educated- talk to your doctors and nurses- ask them if their school debt is payed off, how many hours they work a week, how much uncompensated time they send with patients who are totally inconsiderate of their personal time or lives. Why should I schlep out of bed at 3am to operate on some individual who has waited way too long to attend to his.her problem- so suddenly it is an emergency. And, oh by the way, he is not a contributing member of society or chooses not to have insurance, and I will not get paid. How many of you would get out of bed in an instant to go operate, mess up your entire next day, lose more time with your kids, and risk getting sued(losing your house, Honda,etc) oh, and not get paid a dime- rarely a thank-you. I am not a public or civil servant. I am not in the military or clergy. I am in private practice, just like your lawyer and accountant. Can you imagine the accountant of lawyer would do any work without getting paid? Can you go to the gropcery store or Target and take something off the shelf without paying for it? Just say,"oh, I can't afford it" and walk out. Please get educated or we physicians will all quit, and you will have to operate on yourselves.

Kudos to Mr Williams. He is right on. As a general surgeon, who often has to operate emergently at all hours upon individuals with no insurance, I am quite fed up. I am not rolling in the dough, as most believe. As a small business owner my expenses are high, malpractice is astronomical, and reimbursement a fraction of what I charge. Don't forget the risk of being sued on a daily basis. The sacrifice made in my youth with all the hours of training and expense, the sacrifice I make now with time away from family and the unpredictability of emergencies should be compensated properly. Remember, I am not a missionary, priest, or public servant- I am in private practice. If my practice is disrespected and compromised any further, I and many of my colleagues will simply quit and take on other occupations. This trend will surely lead to a decrease in life expectancy, which is at an all time high because of people like me.