•7:11 PM
Is health care a fundamental right? Isn't this the question that is at the root of the current debate?What is a right? We often hear of civil rights, economic rights, social rights. etc. For me, all rights falls within two categories:
1. Natural Rights
2. Legal Rights
Natural Rights
When I personally speak of rights, and when I read the words of our founders, these are the kinds of Rights that I usually refer to and that resonate in my soul. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, and affirmed by the unanimous vote of Congress assembled,
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
These unalienable rights are those that cannot be conferred by any other person, priest, potentate, king or magistrate. These are rights that our Creator himself has conferred and endowed upon all mankind. Examples of these rights are:
1. The Right to worship God how, where, or what we may
2. The Right to free speech
3. The Right to Life
4. The Right to choose for one's self
5. The Right to pursue happiness
This list is certainly not all inclusive. The keys to determining a natural right from a legal right, privilege or entitlement are these:
1. It cannot be purchased or sold
2. It cannot be conferred by anyone or anything
3. It is something that is universal for all - in whatever country, climb or continent
These are the rights I fight for. These are the rights you and I would die for. These are the rights for which men and women of our country have pledged their most sacred honor.
Legal Rights
Now that I have defined Natural Rights, I will now address legal rights. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defined legal rights as follows: "Legal rights are, clearly, rights which exist under the rules of legal systems."
Often times these rights codify into law natural rights such as in our own Bill of Rights. However, legal rights may include rights not conferred by the Creator. Some examples of legal rights are:
1. Under law, I have a right to draw on Social Security when I retire.
2. Under law, I have the right to drive a car on public roads if I have the proper license.
3. Under law, I have the right to be able to purchase toys that have passed the government's safety screening practices.
4. Under law, I have the right to draw on unemployment insurance if I am terminated from my employer.
5. Under law, I have the right to COBRA insurance.
6. Under law, Corporations have rights including tax advantages and protection for shareholders & directors.
All of these are excellent laws and I am grateful for the rights they confer upon me. However, legal rights can also be unjust. Some examples of that are:
1. The right to hold slaves
2. The right to segregate schools
3. The right to discriminate based on race & gender
4. The right to force whole peoples off of their land
Thankfully, these laws have been repealed. Nevertheless, legal rights may at times infringe on the natural rights of others and may be unjust.
The keys to determining a legal right from a Natural one are as follows:
1. A legal right is conferred by the legislature
2. A legal right can be taken away by the legislature
3. Because these rights are conferred by man, they may at times be unjust.
4. A legal right can often be divided up into two sub parts: entitlement or qualified.
I will briefly define an entitlement and qualified legal right. A qualified legal right is one that a person may have to qualify for and often requires money (i.e., I have the right to Social Security retirement if I pay into the system, I have a right to a drivers license when I pass the test and purchase it, etc.).
An entitlement legal right is one that a person is legally entitled to regardless of their abilities to pass a test, work or purchase something. Some legally authorized entitlements that law confers upon our citizens are as follows:
1. Medical care for the poor and needy
2. Food & housing for the poor and needy
3. Educational assistance for the poor and needy
4. Social Security Disability
In summary, a legal right is one that is conferred by a legislature that did not exist prior to its being conferred and may take the form of a qualified legal right or an entitlement.
The key differences between Natural & Legal Rights
Now that we have defined Natural & legal rights we can conduct our analysis. However, before that analysis, we must quickly summarize the differences between these two kinds of rights. The key differences between these two kinds of rights are that Natural Rights cannot be bought or sold. They also always Existed, Are now, and Ever will be without regard to government. They are independent of anything or anyone. Legal rights are rights that were not, might be now, but might go away based on circumstances, economics, politicians, court decisions, and aims of government. Legal rights can be taken away. Natural rights are eternal. Legal rights may, or may not, infringe on the rights of others.
Analysis
So, is health care a Natural or legal right? Let's apply the keys.
Can it be purchased or sold?
Health care is its own industry. However, whole industries exist around natural rights. For example, the Right to Free Speech is one that supports the press. Is the right of Health Care a similar right where an industry has grown up out of a right?
The key difference between Freedom of Speech and Health Care is that one can still speak freely - even when deprived of all material goods and wealth. In that entirely destitute state, a person can still voice their thoughts and opinions, their purposes and desires. Health Care on the other hand is one that can only be purchased. Why? Because it has to be provided by another Human Being. For them to provide their services, they must be somehow compensated.
Now, there is a certain level of health care that a person will gladly perform without remuneration. It is that service which, when pressed upon in an emergency and where they are free from material harm to themselves, they are moved by compassion upon their fellow man to save them from their plight. This is motivated out of a love for their fellow man and a desire to serve. It is a Natural Responsibility to confer that aid & support but not a Natural Right that requires it.
Can it be conferred by anyone or anything?
As already mentioned, Freedom of Religion is a Natural right. It is one that cannot be conferred. Kings and Priests may seek to oppress this Right, but mankind will always endeavor to exercise it. Whether it sends them to the furnaces in Babylon, the Cross in Rome, or to Plymouth Rock, mankind will endeavor to worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience or choose to not worship at all.
Health Care is something that must be conferred on an individual. They must receive it at the hands of another Human Being.
Is it something that is universal for all - in whatever country, climb or continent?
All mankind are endowed equally with life, their agency, and ability to worship or not worship. However, individuals are born into many different countries, homes and families where health care standards and practices vary.
Is it a legal right conferred by the legislature?
Health Care entitlement rights have been conferred upon the citizens of our country by the Federal & State governments at different times. There was not a legal right to health care before these laws were passed. Even the President stated that because the country was now so wealthy, it was now something that the Government could/should confer. That is, we can now afford this right and because of that we ought to confer it. Natural rights are free. Legal rights often time have some kind of precondition that has to be met for it to be conferred.
Is it a legal right that can be taken away by the legislature?
In the event that funding becomes scarce, this is a right that can be taken away by the federal & state legislatures.
Is Universal Health Care Unjust?
This can be argued either way. Those who declare that health care is a right say it is unjust to not provide it to all. Those who say it is unjust, do so on three principles:
1. It takes away the Right to Choose one's own care
2. It will lead to a rationing of care by the State
3. To force individuals to pay for the health care of others is an infringement on their Right to the fruits of their labors
Can it be classified into one of two sub parts: entitlement or qualified?
At the moment, it is only an entitlement legal right.
Before we make a final conclusion about whether or not health care is a Natural or Legal right, it is important to briefly discuss two additional points: Privileges and Government Power.
Difference Between Natural Rights & Privileges
Privileges are the benefits one receives by the worthy exercise of Natural Rights. Some of these benefits are:
1. Happiness
2. Peace
3. Health (inasmuch as it is in ones control)
4. Freedom
5. Prosperity
As my mother often said, "Privileges are earned." The opportunity for those privileges is the Natural Right - conferred without distinction. These rights might be conferred without distinction but our world and society is one full of distinction: children are born into families that are high & low, rich and poor, in lands of war & lands of peace. It is the duty of thinking men and women everywhere to bring an end to these distinctions. Many people look to their governments for this leveling.
Government's Power
This is a topic of which entire books and philosophies discuss. I will simply quote our own Declaration of Independence: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Governments are a social contract. We contract with each other through it and delegate to it certain powers we Naturally possess. Now there are both just and unjust governments. In my estimation, an unjust government is one whose powers infringe on the Natural Rights of its citizens. A just government is one that secures those Natural Rights.
You cannot give to anyone something that you do not have. Follow that logic through and you will see that it is a universal truth. In the sense of government, a citizen cannot give, endow, or bestow upon its government any Power that the citizen alone does not possess.
Governments at times exercise powers that their citizens do not have (the power to oppress, steal, plunder, murder, lie, etc.). In these situations, whether by consent or otherwise, the Government is unjust because it has usurped and exercised powers that it had no Right to possess. Consent alone does not qualify a government as Just. A Government that exercises unjust powers by consent is none other than mob rule of varying degrees.
If I don't have the Natural Right to require health care, then I cannot give to the government the right to confer it. If I have it, then I can confer that Right upon the government. Any other way is an infringement upon the Natural Rights of man - conferred by Creation. Infringing on the Natural Rights of others is essentially stealing from the Creator those rights He bestowed upon His creations.
Finally, whereas I don't have the right to force my neighbor to level themselves in Fraternal love for their fellowman, I cannot give to the government the power to level the high & low, the rich and the poor. This leveling is one that must come from within and never has, and never will, come from Government. People cannot be leveled by force. To be brought together as one is a choice each individual must make. This is something we must work to attain. They can urge it and persuade but they cannot force.
Conclusion
This argument is based on the premise that there are natural and legal rights. We have seen that health care is something that can be bought and sold. It is something that can be conferred and denied by legislatures. It is something that is not universal and is contingent upon other pre-conditions. Forcing others, even if by the consent of the majority, to pay for the health care of others is an infringement on another human being's Natural Rights. Because of this, we can see that Health Care is not a Natural Right but rather it has the makings of being a Legal Right.
Does that end the debate? As far as determining the Government's role it shows where its role is not. But it hardly ends the debate over the inequity and costs of health care. To continue that debate, we must recognize that Natural Rights are not the only thing conferred upon man by their Creator. Our Creator also conferred upon us Natural Responsibilities.
You might call these Natural Responsibilities under the names of Obligations, Duties or Ethics. These Natural Responsibilities include the responsibility to aid, support and protect one another. These are responsibilities that you and I cannot neglect without consequence. And although, as I have shown, we are not entitled to Health Care by Right, by the obligation of Natural Responsibilities laid upon us by our Creator, we should endeavor, no, we must endeavor, as far as our means allow us, to faithfully discharge these Responsibilities. As far as health care is concerned, that includes citizens everywhere working together to improve health care access and find solutions to ease the cost burden on our brothers and sisters by the willful donations of our money, time, energy and efforts. We furthermore should seek out the poor and needy and treat them as we ourselves would like to be treated.
America is about the opportunity to obtain the privileges. America is not about the entitlement to those privileges.
In sum, by the discharge of our Natural Responsibilities and the worthy exercise of Natural Rights - especially that of agency, we might earn and enjoy the Privilege of a Healthy, Happy, Secure and Peaceful society. This society would be one that had chosen, of their own free will and accord, to level themselves to each other and work for each others welfare and gain and not their own selfish endeavors. This society is something that cannot be conferred. This is something we are not entitled to. This is something that must be earned. Creating an entitlement society will only work against the ends that you and I seek to gain. Earning this society is what we must live for. Earning this society is what millions have fought & died for. Let us endeavor once again to take up our responsibility and earn that society.
I know that by respecting the Natural Rights of each other and by faithfully discharging our Natural Responsibilities to our fellowman we can create an America that truly does enjoy the privileges of Liberty and Justice for all.
11 comments:
I really enjoy reading your political and social views. It gives me an opportunity to think and see things from a different perspective about topics that I normally don't normally think about. I appreciate your logic and viewpoints and love that we can debate the issues and seek mutual understanding.
I enjoyed your post. You brought up a lot of interesting points about the fundamental beliefs on health care and its system. I can see why it would be important to discuss the right of health care and if that right indeed exists and how that right compares to other inalienable rights. Government in this country, is instituted to protect and preserve rights, not privileges.
As you mentioned in your post, one of the biggest differences healthcare has with other rights, is that it require the service from an outside source. Services and goods that are given by others are almost always compensated in some form. Services are almost always considered privileges, not as a right. Which makes sense. I can make choices, speak my mind, and worship all on my own, with no help or expectation from others. Healthcare is a service that can only be given if there are means to do so. If there are no means, then it's simple, no care can be given. Kind of hard to build a fundamental right on something that assumes there are means to do so.
Healthcare is however different than other services. That is something the logic in your post does not take into consideration. Privileges are not necessary, they are nice. I enjoy traveling for instance. Flying in an airplane is not a right. I can't stand at the airport counter and shout and demand that I get on a flight, because have a right to fly. I don't. It is a service. The service is available and I pay to use the service. If I cannot afford the service, then I am not allowed to participate. A lot of people will never fly in an airplane there entire life, and that's ok. There are also alternatives to flying if someone still wanted to travel. Cars, trains, ships, bicycles, or even walking can be an alternative to travel.
Healthcare has no real alternative and in many circumstances it is not a choice. That's what makes the healthcare system so hard to fit into the typical free-market system. We've tried to make it fit, but it doesn't.
If you or someone you love become ill or have an accident, that you can't remedy on your own, you have to seek medical help or you risk prolonged, permanent injury, or perhaps death. Now what kind of monetary value do we place on that kind of service? Say your wife or child has an illness or accident that would cause significant long-term injury or possibly death but there is a service that could solve the problem. How much is that worth to you? A thousand dollars? $10,000? a million dollars? It's worth all of that right? Free-market principles would say that is fair, fine, and how it is supposed to work. After all how much is that life worth to you? If you would mortgage everything you own and everything you will work for in the future for the life of a loved one or yourself, then the deal is fair.
As an opportunist would view the situation, it appears that there is a lot of money to be made there. Everyone has accidents and illnesses sometime in their lifetime, they will pay anything to keep someone they love alive, and they have no alternative. What would it cost to you to get into the medical profession? If that really is the circumstance and the worth of being a doctor or healthcare professional is so great, then naturally it should cost also significantly to become a doctor. Now if you want to become a medical professional you have to go in debt yourself, but those costs will be covered by your patients down the road.
What happens if you cannot afford medical care under such a system? Easy stay the same, get better, get worse, or die. If you recover, then it's ok, nothing lost. If you stay the same or get worse, you could take care of yourself, but typically that burden then falls on friends and family. Which also means you are no longer a contributing member of the society. If you die, then well that's the end of the story. So your level of health is determined on whether you can pay for the services. The medical services that the medical field has determined they can charge anything for, because their services are worth any amount of monetary value.
A system like that cannot last long. Just as free-market principles would dictate that such a price for services is fair, it also would say that eventually people will not be able to afford such services and either create an alternative or the price for services need to fall or the industry in question will eventually loose its customers and support. Which would in turn would make the industry less profitable, and less people would pursue the career until the industry itself dies. That's free-market. It balances itself out over time.
There are problems with letting a system like that balance itself. In fact as a society, we have gone to great lengths to try and avoid those problems. You risk the industry collapsing completely. You risk possibly allowing hundreds of thousands of people to die from neglect or lack of services. Which is fine in theory for long-term balance in the system, but it gets more complicated when one of those is someone you know and love.
Another issue with that is that even after it's all done, you still have a system where the value of life is determined by a monetary amount. Which means someone who is rich has more of a privilege to life than someone who is poor. Class and wealth don't change rights, just privileges, correct? Well now that life and healthcare is a privilege and not a right, then it falls into such a system.
So what have we done? We did our best to pay the piper and still make healthcare available, insurance. The insurance industry is based on the principle that yes these services cost obscene amounts of money that the average person would never be able to afford. But collectively we could afford them. After all we are not all sick or injured at the same time. As a society or organization we could pool our money together. We all pay a little bit regularly to keep money in the pot. You pay although you don't need it now, with the expectation that you will probably use it in the future and we more or less share the risk. There are some people that will use it more, others will never use it, but the idea is that we minimize that risk or cost over a broad amount of people. Perfect balance right? A handy solution to fulfill free-market needs without accepting the free-market consequences.
There are problems with this sort of system as well, and that's where we are finding ourselves. What about those who cannot to or do not participate in insurance programs? They still need and receive services that comes at a cost of the healthcare system. Just as shoplifting and theft increases the prices for goods, as that cost is factored in and passed on to the consumer, healthcare costs are also rising partly to cover those costs of others who cannot or do not pay and because they can. I would argue there is also a greed factor that pushes healthcare costs to rise. That cost gets pushed to the whole in insurance, mixed with a greed factor, costs, and other things in the insurance industry premiums and cost to join the group goes up.
Again free-market principles here, what happens when the cost of joining insurance gets so high people cannot afford it? Same thing happens, balance, but that comes at a cost. Which means insurance companies can't pay their/your bills either which causes either collapse or change.
That's why almost every other advanced nation in the entire world have government based healthcare systems. The government is the only body in the country that can ensure that each individual is participating in the program. It diversifies and spreads out the risk to more people and regulations can guard against unfair price increases. The value of state-sponsored healthcare is a whole different debate. Governments were created to maintain rights and the right to life, which includes protection from outside forces that threaten life. Life is not a privilege earned if you make a certain salary figure. Spiritually and socially do we not have a responsibility to care for our fellow men? If we have the technology, the knowledge, and the means, why on earth would we deny someone the opportunity to live and be healthy?
I guess in the end I'm still unsure where I sit on the side of healthcare. I've seen first-hand some of the effects of state-sponsored healthcare as well as the “private” system of our nation. I can certainly see that it is not a black and white choice and there are benefits and reasons of either system.
Thank you for the subject. It's important to be informed and participate in such decisions as it does make a difference in the quality and routine of our lives.
Well thought out post Ken. Nice try Bryan! I have to admit I didn't read your whole post. Even so, I gleened enough to know what points you are putting forth. I want to correct you in that we do not truly have a "free market" or "private" healthcare system in the US. That right there is one of the major problems with healthcare costs, government intervention and regulation. Anywhere where the government feels it's necessary to jump into a market and upset the natural forces at work, you have problems. Look at almost any industry where this has occurred and you can see it for yourself. More importantly, your larger point seems to be that it's really unfair that life is not fair. The end result being that it now falls on government to help make it fair. Remember, as Ken pointed out so eloquently, SOMEONE has to pay. This is why liberalism annoys me so much. They feel like it's perfectly fine to affect the liberties of one group to satisfy the needs of another. Ultimately, the solution to healthcare is to simplify the system, allow competition, limit ridiculous damage awards and eliminate bureacracy. It is not wealth redistribution and government control over individual liberty which thankfully is still only in its infancy in THIS country. That will change practically overnight with a single payer system for healthcare. Not just every medical procedure or condition, but every act you consider, every thing you eat, and every product you want to sell or buy will be under the direct control and whim of those in power. Heaven help us.
Thanks for your comment Ben. To begin, I don't exactly know what you meant by "Nice try". The issues that I raised in my comments weren't a "try" at anything. Nobody is "trying" to do anything here but discuss the philosophical and logical circumstance surrounding health care and the way in which it is administered. It was a logical analysis/explanation of why health care does not fit into the typical free-market model.
I agree with you 100% that the system that we have in place now is not a free market system. Neither is it a completely socialized system. It is a hybrid. If you read the last few paragraphs of my posts, I've explained (how I see it) why we've come to such a model.
To be honest I don't think our country should move towards more socialization of health care. I lived in Germany for 2 years and have seen first-hand many of the negative's that comes from such a system. I do think however it is ignorant to believe that a total free market health care system is without its dangers. I have outlined those risks in my posts above.
I think you guys need to talk about the monopoly of insurance companies. That is the problem in the first place, isn't it? We can talk all we want about how nice it would be to have a better system, but we can't until we break the monopoly.
Bryan,
Thank you very much for your comments. They have been very thought provoking. It has brought me to a new place in my thinking & I am grateful for that. I haven’t addressed all of your points but I have addressed most of them. Here is what I have come up with.
Health Care Is a Different Kind of Service
You mentioned that the absence of an alternative makes health care unique. This is a valid point. As I followed that through, however, I discovered that there are other critical goods & services for which no viable alternative exists. There is no acceptable alternative to food, shelter, clothing or water. However, an absence of alternatives does not necessarily render it worthy of government intervention. It renders it worthy of the aid of our fellow man but not necessarily the intervention of uncle Sam. Government intervention has a place generally when there is no market, the market is corrupt (either in its products or tactics), or there are no individual property rights. I will explain some of these.
You are right that health care is a different kind of service. However, it is not different from all kinds of services. As you mentioned, health care is a service that, at times, cannot have a price too high. How much would one pay to keep their loved ones alive if they had the opportunity? Many countless people have asked that same question and wished they had the means to do so. I do not in any way diminish their pain, suffering or agony. I will perhaps find myself in a similar situation some day and would never wish for something that could not be applied universally without distinction. This question is not unlike food. How much would one pay for food to keep them alive? When food is scarce, people will kill to obtain it. The same goes for water. A person never knows how much the well is worth until it runs dry. Man will go to many extremes to keep themselves alive. There is a truly fine veneer on society. It doesn't take much to scratch through it.
Health care is not unlike food & water. There is no alternative to it. However, food is not something that the government has entirely nationalized. In some countries, it has been and we have seen the disaster that it is. Health care is also not unlike shelter. On a smaller scale, we have seen what the nationalization of housing has done also – not pretty. Our current housing crisis can actually be traced to government intervention in the housing market (Friedman in the World is Flat makes this case). Water on the other hand is something that is generally publicly owned by counties or municipalities and operates best this way. Since we have publicized water, I asked myself, “Could that mean that we also could publicize medicine?” I determined that health care is a different kind of service – but different from water & roads. Water & roads are infrastructure. Health care is not. The skills that are needed to build roads & maintain water lines, in today's society, are very common and more easily acquired than those of a Doctor. Health care is much more complicated & diverse. It is much harder to perform a triple bypass surgery than it is to pave a road. It is much harder to produce a drug than it is to build a waterline. These complexities make it a very different kind of service.
Also, water is something that no one person can have rights for. Air is the same. Water moves. It sinks. It evaporates. It flows. It is fluid. Its being a fluid is what makes it a resource that cannot be owned by a single individual. Furthermore, like what you mentioned with health care, the single ownership over something that all depend on, could create a slave & master relationship that is unjust. Such relationships exist with private water companies all over the world. Water & air are not like real estate or fixed assets. Real estate is fixed. It does not move. A fluid is just that – fluid. Therefore, the rights of water should be owned by the whole. Air & water are the common wealth of the People. The only water I own is the water in my cup – and that is about it. I might own the space around my home. But I don't own the air around it. The People own it and therefore the People collectively have the right to pass laws regulating its use.
Health care however is not fluid. It is not a commodity like water. It is a service rendered by another human being.
Because health care is extremely complicated, very specialized, not fluid and is a service, it cannot be classified in the same category as those few commodities which, by design, are owned by the People. Health care can simply not be justly owned by the People. They have no right to it.
Privileges v. Services
You stated that services are almost always considered privileges. I agree – they are almost always considered that way. However, when I referred to “Privileges” I did not have health care or any other service in mind. For me, health care is neither a right nor a privilege. Health care, as you stated, is a service. All services are services only. All goods are goods only. Privileges are the benefits one receives by the worthy exercise of Natural Rights. Also, as there are privileges attached with all Natural Rights, there are also consequences to the misuse of our Natural Rights.
One Natural Right is the right to choose what to do with one's time given them by their Creator. The violation of this right is known as Oppression. The privileges one receives from the worthy exercise of this right would be the opportunity of gaining knowledge by learning, the opportunity of exercising to build muscles, the laboring for fruits by one's own labors, or the strengthening of love as they share their love with another individual. The consequences to the misuse of this right are innumerable. Some of the obvious ones though are ignorance, weakness, no fruits, and selfish vanity.
Another Natural Right is the Right to choose, other than when Nature chooses for us, when one will die. We often call this the right to Life. The violation of this right is known as Murder. The right to life is not to have a life unimpeded by outside forces because those forces are many and may be parts of other rights. The key to this right is that we have the right to choose what to do with our life – whether to keep it safe, whether to endanger it, whether to preserve it or whether to no longer preserve it. The consequences of the misuse of this Right include, but are not limited to, a premature death, unhealthiness, unhappiness, disease and weakness.
If we have the technology and the means like you said, why not use them to make sure everyone is healthy and to prolong life? Because the fundamental element of our very existence is to choose for ourselves. When we take that choice away we are actually reducing an individual when we choose for them. We have to let people be – and encourage them to be more than they are. This is something our society has almost entirely neglected and abandoned. We are the “Have it your way” society. We should be the “We are our Brother's keeper” society.
It is probably safe to say that the blessings or misuse of all of these rights transfer to other people. I believe that the more a person investigates both the privileges and consequences of Natural Rights they will see that they affect more than just the individual – but rather their privileges and consequences affect those around them, and even those not around them. They may even stretch around the globe endless times and throughout countless generations.
Now, at the end of these rights are the desired outcomes. A person studies to gain knowledge. A person works to be able to buy things. A person exercises to be strong. A person worships God to build a relationship with Him. Because of these desired ends we exercise our right, enjoy the privilege and receive the outcome. There is a difference between rights, privileges and outcomes.
For example. I have the Right to worship God. If I choose to do so, I enjoy the privilege of doing so. By truly worshiping Him, I obtain the outcome I seek: a deeper relationship with Him.
I have the Right to use my time as I choose. If I choose to use my time to work, I have the privilege of doing so. As I work, I obtain the wages I desired.
You can see better the demarcation between privileges and outcomes when looking at the consequences.
For example. I have the Right to worship God. If I choose not to do so, I enjoy no privileges of doing so. By not worshiping Him, I receive the consequence of that: a weaker relationship with Him. The absence of worshiping is not a privilege. It is a state.
I have the Right to use my time as I choose. If I choose not to use my time to work, I enjoy no privilege of doing so. As I idle away my time, I receive the consequences that are due to me. Idleness is not a privilege. It is a state.
As far as health care is concerned, I have the right to use my time as best I choose. If I choose to labor, I enjoy the privilege of doing so and obtain the desired compensation. I then have the right to the fruits of my labors – to do with them as I please. This is my privilege. I choose to purchase health insurance. This is the desired end. If I need health care, I can use that insurance to purchase the service I desire.
Choice as a Force for Transformation
Privileges are earned. The outcomes are also earned. Class and wealth don’t change rights or privileges – they change the level of outcomes. What those outcomes are will vary based on the individual's choices as to what to do with the opportunities afforded to them. For those who more opportunities, they have a greater Natural Responsibility to aid those who have fewer opportunities. Truly, to those who much is given, much is required. Outcomes also can be deceiving. One may desire money thinking that the end is happiness. One may desire power thinking that they will be satisfied. One may desire knowledge thinking the desired end is Wisdom. All those who seek riches for the sake of riches find their deceit. All those who seek power find that they need to seek more and more power in a never ending quest for satisfaction. All who have gained knowledge have found that it does not naturally bring with it wisdom.
The natural tendencies of man deceive us. The Divine within us is the only part that will gain true satisfaction. And if we are to be satisfied, like the Beneficent Author of Life, we too must spend our time, energies, talents and means employed in behalf of the welfare of others. Throughout our lives we are provided with opportunities to learn to exercise our Natural Rights with other's welfare in mind. Only when we take those opportunities will we learn that only through those ends will we find true happiness. These choices: to give rather than to keep; to give selfless service rather than to always seek something in return; to give relief rather than to seek endless entertainment; to share knowledge & wisdom rather than only obtaining it; to give love rather than only seeking it are the choices that create a transformation inside an individual from an inert influence at the very least, or a destructive influence at the very worst, to a force for good, edification & leadership towards a better world.
Life is intended for mankind to make that choice – the choice of transformation. Life is about elevating mankind from their base tendencies to their more Divine nature. Life's purpose is to have joy. Because of that purpose, life is about feeding the good and starving off the bad. If people do not have the opportunities to make those choices, society will NEVER transform. Not only will it never make this transformation, but, as with all things, entropy and chaos will work their destructive, natural powers and bring about a sad end to such a society.
You stated, “So your level of health is determined on whether you can pay for the services… A system like that cannot last long.” I 100% agree that a system like that cannot last long – and it won’t. However, your comment about a level of health being determined based on your income is probably based on a two alternative plan: Free Market or Government Intervention.
There is a third alternative. It is the transformed society I mentioned above.
The “Great Society” brought on by government is an excellent example of this very entropy at work. By the assumption of caring for the poor and the needy by the government we have actually seen more poverty and more need. More tax dollars are spent on welfare than on any other thing – including defense spending and interest on the national debt. This is evidence that people turn to WIC, Social Security Disability, Medicaid, Welfare and other government sources for help before turning to their families, friends, churches and community organizations. Even though this makes it easier on us to have the government to turn to, people are denied the opportunities to sacrifice for their neighbor.
Because mankind no longer has to choose to make that transformation through the sacrifice of self for their neighbor – and this because government has taken care of the problem for them, or so it seems - society is actually falling backwards in its evolutionary course. Policies thought to be “progressive” are actually causing a de-evolution of mankind and our people. We are becoming a “progressively” more and more selfish people – full of idleness, self indulgence, and vanity. The intentions of the voters to support such welfare policies are noble. Its outcome, however, is exactly the opposite of its desired ends. That is the deception. It is real and the consequences are detrimental.
If the purpose of life is to be happy, and if we truly only gain happiness by sacrificing our natural base tendencies in favor of nurturing the divine, then we ought, at all costs, to seek to preserve the Natural Rights of mankind and to teach, encourage and promote those types of transformational choices that will bring about the change from the natural to the Divine - from the base to the elevated.
The government has no right to nationalize health care because the people have no Natural Right to it and it is not a public resource such as air & water. Its very specialized nature requires that it stay private and that the Human who provides the service be truly allowed to keep his Natural Right both to his labor and the desired fruits thereof. The great necessity for that service requires three things in its reform:
1. Truly make health care into a free market industry (Not only does this include the elimination of the anti-trust exemption on Insurance companies, but it also means that individual, uninsured people should be able to pay close to the same amount for the services as the insurance provider.)
2. Increase the regulation over the industry to eliminate price fixing, monopolies, gouging & opportunists that are unjustly taking advantage of individuals.
3. A force for transformation from the base to the elevated.
Is such a transformed society possible? YES it is! We have undergone several such phases in our evolution: the Revolution, the ending of Slavery, Women’s Rights, and the Civil Rights movement of the 60’s are some to name just a few. We have done it before and we can do it again. However, we are heading down the opposite direction. To change that direction we need to have leaders who understand these principles. We need to have a populace who wants to take that risk or suffer the undeniable powers of social entropy (which we see occurring all around us today). We must make it an expectation that our duty is to our neighbor and to teach that by our pledge of allegiance we must work for Liberty and Justice for all. It is not an entitlement. It is earned. We must make sacrifice a part of our culture again. We must make America truly a land of values. We must earn that society.
Will it be painful? Yes, freedom brings risk. Freedom brings chances for failure as well. But Freedom also brings with it the most powerful forces in the universe. And Freedom is the only way to bring about Happiness – the purpose of our existence. That is what you and I must promote and live for.