|
|
|
|
|
"A MINORITY VIEW
BY WALTER WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 2010
Is Health Care a Right?
Most politicians, and probably most Americans, see health care as a right. Thus, whether a person has the means to pay for medical services or not, he is nonetheless entitled to them. Let's ask ourselves a few questions about this vision.
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. Does Harry have a right to XYZ lab's and Dr. Jones' services and a prescription from a pharmacist? 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?
You say, "Williams, that would come very close to slavery if one person had the right to force someone to serve him without pay." You're right. 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. Would there be any difference in principle, namely forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another? There would be one important strategic difference, that of concealment. Most Americans, I would hope, would be offended by the notion of directly and visibly forcing one person to serve the purposes of another. Congress' use of the tax system to invisibly accomplish the same end is more palatable to the average American.
True rights, such as those in our Constitution, or those considered to be natural or human rights, exist simultaneously among people. That means exercise of a right by one person does not diminish those held by another. In other words, my rights to speech or travel impose no obligations on another except those of non-interference. 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. My right to travel freely would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with airfare and hotel accommodations.
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. The reason is that Congress has no resources of its very own. Moreover, there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy giving them those resources. 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. 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.
To argue that people have a right that imposes obligations on another is an absurd concept. A better term for new-fangled rights to health care, decent housing and food is wishes. 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. However, if we called them human wishes, instead of human rights, there would be confusion and cognitive dissonance. 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.
None of my argument is to argue against charity. Reaching into one's own pockets to assist his fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else's pockets to do so is despicable and deserves condemnation.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com."
Precisely!
dandy
“The problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money” ~Margaret Thatcher (paraphrased)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the government taxes it's citizens to provide public education
what's the difference between public education and public healthcare?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
None.
dandy
“The problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money” ~Margaret Thatcher (paraphrased)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, so we've established you believe that only those who can afford it have a right to an education (nevermind that having a well-educated populace benefits all of us and keeps our country competitive with other countries)
So let's carry that logic to highways...rest areas...bridges...courthouses...libraries...our nation's capital...water...electricity...sewer service....fire protection...police protection...
Should only the wealthy have access to these?
Are you advocating the abolishment of ALL government services?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. I advocate the abolishment of most federal government services, because most federal government services are not the business of the federal government. It appears you believe government to be the answer to most everything. How sad for you. It also appears you are quite willing to assume/assign motives for those who disagree with you. How elitist of you. I'm pretty sure Mr. Williams spelled out my motivations for disagreeing with you, but it appears you are unable to assimilate the argument. That speaks for itself.
Higways - only to the extent it facilitates military movement of personnel and equipment (even that is debatable)
Rest Areas - no federal government
Bridges - see "Highways"
Courthouses - federal courthouses only
Libraries - federal libraries only
Our Nations Capitol - Yes. We must maintain our capital government buildings
Water - no federal government
Electricity - no federal government
Sewer Service - no federal government
Fire Protection - no federal government
Police Protection - no federal government
For the most part, my answer is no or very limited. Although, with liberals, very limited always seems to be a slippery slope towards a whole lot, so I would shy away from even the very limited. And your comments about the rich; "If the government doesn't do it for us, only the rich people will have access?" Wow. Just, wow.
dandy
“The problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money” ~Margaret Thatcher (paraphrased)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All of those things you mentioned were at one time or another subsidized by government funding - particularly when they are being built and when/if they are damaged by a natural disaster.
Paying taxes is part of the cost of being a US citizen and living in the country.
If you don't like paying for services we all use, feel free to go somewhere else - AFTER you pay the government back all the money it wasted on YOUR education.
And BTW, if you can't discuss the issue respectfully and without flaming and making stuff up, you might want to move your posts to NHB.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
one right we know for sure of is LIBERTY.......
explain how your possible right to healthcare doesn't interfere with my established right to liberty...
I dont exist on this planet to serve you or to provide you the things you want...
you simply being alive cannot impose some kind of burden on me.....not if my right to liberty is being upheld...
liberty demands I be free from you...not enslaved to provide you with something you want...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
to define liberty as each person living as an individual is counter productive in the long run and will be the end of any country which tries to make it reality. Liberty in Barry's world, kills everyone working together as a TEAM. All for one and one for all, is the only way life works right. Yes, I know, some goon will come up with stupid remarks about that.
If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true, is really true, there would be little hope of advance......
Orville Wright
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
all for one and one for all.....
what is that supposed to mean....?
that citizen A has the responsibility to provide for himself and citizen B....but citizen B has no responsibility to provide anything to anyone, not even himself...
how exactly is that equal treatment under the law...?
if you demand equal healthcare for every citizen, then you need to demand that every citizen pay an equal share of the total healthcare bill....
start a single payer system and take the total amount spent and divide it by the total number of citizens...and each person pays that amount whatever it is...no rebates, no tax credits, no offsets, no subsidy, no freeloaders...
an equal right to healthcare includes an equal responsibility for paying for it........and that doesnt mean forcing someone else to pay your share of the collective bill for you....that is you, working and taking the money you earned and paying 1/300 millionth of the total bill out of your own pocket....
do the folks demanding universal coverage actually believe in shared responsibility and are they willing to pay that equal share of the bill...?
or are they simply freeloaders wanting someone else to buy something for them....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reality, that is where we are at Barry. Your ideal situation is never going to happen, ours will. Society must endeavor to care for society as a whole. Nothing else will work. Greed has gotten this world where it is, not a very nice place to be.
If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true, is really true, there would be little hope of advance......
Orville Wright
|
|
|
|