Friday, July 31, 2009
Health care is not a right
Editorial commentary
Recent contributions
- Can we be a two-trolley town?
- Striving for civility
- School funding no fantasy
- Pesticide board's work will continue through merger
- Commentary archive
From the RoundTable blog
Read the latest entries
Sean Dice
Dice, of Lynchburg, is an electrical engineer graduate of Purdue University School of Technology.
Since the first announcement that the federal government wants to provide national health care and/or national health care insurance, I've heard many people say that health insurance and care is a right covered by the "life" portion of the phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Assuming this is a correct statement, which it is not, I want to know by what right you have to compel me by force of law to sacrifice my "pursuit of happiness" for your "life"?
As a matter of correction, our rights are assured by the United States Constitution, and nowhere in the Constitution does it directly say we are entitled to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." What the Constitution does do is ensure our rights as individuals to pursue our own ends by our own means with minimal interference from a limited federal government as long as we do not infringe on the rights of others.
What I find ironic is that people use the phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" from the Declaration of Independence to claim their dependence on my productive capacity.
Independence by definition is "Freedom from the control, influence, support, aid, or the like, of others." Further, taking the personal goods or property of another person is commonly called theft.
Please understand I believe that everyone is entitled to health insurance and health care. They have a right to buy their own insurance and claim it as a fruit of their labor.
This is also not to say that insurance reform does not need to happen. On the contrary, reform is desperately needed, but proper reform.
Perhaps proper reform might be limiting the amount rewarded in a malpractice lawsuit. It is not a secret that one, if not the largest, expense doctors face is malpractice insurance.
As the premium for said malpractice insurance increases (usually directly attributable to the number of malpractice suits the insurance company has to pay out), the doctor then has to pass that increase along as a cost of doing business to his customers.
Perhaps legislation should be proposed at the state level that would entitle the doctor or insurance company to counter-sue any failed attempt at a malpractice claim for defamation.
The even simpler solution would be for everyone, health care providers and consumers, to become more personally responsible and active in their health care needs by asking about the need for various tests and exams.
Perhaps personal responsibility is the fundamental trait being avoided in the entire debate.
If I feel compelled to assist someone less fortunate or just in immediate need and I have the means to help them, I will and have taken personal responsibility to do so.
Giving or helping someone just because it is the "right thing to do" is giving to build your own ego or validate your own guilt for your success. Charity is giving with an open heart and expecting nothing in return.
Giving because you are compelled to by federal mandate is a confiscation of your personal property. If you recognize your personal responsibility and your right to personal or private property, you must then recognize everyone else's personal responsibility and personal property and therefore have no claim upon it.
So I say if you see someone, especially someone in your own family, with a need for health care or insurance, perhaps you should provide it for them out of compassion and charity and stop expecting everyone but you to do it.
