In the second presidential debate in October in Nashville, President-Elect Obama was asked whether health care was a right, a privilege or a responsibility. Without hesitation, he said it was a right. He never said why he felt that way, but he has been clear that his administration is making health care reform a top priority -- that is, if there is any money left over in the government after filling the tin cups of Wall Street, the big three automakers, schools, municipalities, etc. But, regardless, should health care be a right? And shouldn't it (health care being a right) be clearly articulated by the electorate and those on both sides of the aisle before our elected officials cogitate over all the bills to reform the health care system once the inauguration is over? The answer to both these questions is clearly, yes.
First, why should health care be a right? After all, it is not written in our Constitution that it is an inalienable right; it is not contained in the Bill of Rights either. Parenthetically, neither is procreation, how many kids to have, being forced to stop smoking after being diagnosed with lung cancer, the right to be free from second hand smoke in public, or crime, or terrorism; and rejecting the imposition of curfews to protect our safety and welfare. The list here goes on and on. Yes, we do have a recognized right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, so maybe receiving affordable and accessible health care falls under this umbrella?
Is health care a right founded in American history? Sources are few and far between on this one, though in an article I wrote last August ("Universal Coverage: How to Get There", in Clininal Endrocrinology News,Vol. 3, No.8 (Elsevier, Inc.-publ. (August 2008)), I suggested that reviewing the background and development for Medicare that was signed into law in July,1965, would be useful for the current debate on how to achieve real reform in our health care system. A writer on the history of Medicare at the time, Peter Corning, described Medicare as the product of considerable effort -- in many ways the product of plain-old political "wheeling and dealing". But Medicare represented the first social legislation to provide medical care to a segment of our population at the time. This perspective was recently amplified in a piece by Blumenthal and Morone, "The Lessons of Success -- Revisiting the Medicare Story", (359 NEJM 2384-2389 (November 27, 2008). In audio tapes and archival materials recently released by the Johnson library, President Johnson told Hubert Humphrey, "Don't ever argue with me. I'll go a hundred million or a billion on health or education...You got to have health...I'll spend the goddamn money. I may cut back some tanks. But not on health." (recording of tel. conv. between Johnson and Humphrey, March 6, 1965, 11:25 a.m., Citation no. C.7024-7025).
The following year, the preamble to a federal health planning act bill stated, "The fulfillment of our natural purpose depends on promoting and assuring the highest level of health attainable for every person."
But, still nothing about health care being a right.
In 1993-94, then President Clinton tried to champion the Health Security Act; it died a million deaths. Now comes along various proposals and commentary to revise our present system: Sen. Ron Wyden's "Healthy Americans Act"; Sen. Baucus' white paper on the subject; Sen. Kennedy is working on his draft; and even HHS Secretary-Elect Daschle has spoken during a recent conference call. Of course, we can't forget what Obama has proposed; what McCain offered and even what Sen. Clinton put forth on health care during the campaign. And, we have yet to hear what Members of the House will offer. True, among these efforts is defining who should be provided with health care protections, but still a whole lot of chest-beating without knowing why are we doing this?
But where has it been officially said that health care is, or should be, a right?
Webster's dictionary defines a "right" in general terms as what is sound and in accord with justice, fact or reason -- what is suitable and appropriate. There is even a definition inclusive of having sound health! So, is health care what is suitable and appropriate?; is it reasonable that all Americans must be healthy by being provided with a doctor and a place to be treated every time we are sick, injured or require surgery? Or, is health care a right because, as we have read and heard, 45+ million Americans have no health care coverage, or have been forced into bankruptcy because they could not pay their doctor and hospital bills? Not exactly, though this (latter) data and events are reasons enough to certainly suggest a system in crisis and in need of immediate repair.
We have seen other countries provide their citizens with health care. Did the leaders there consider health care to be a right. Maybe; maybe not.
How about trying on for size this reason: without being healthy, we cannot be productive, i.e., we cannot work, earn income, spend on goods and services and promote the economy and welfare of the nation. Likewise, if we are sick, dollars have to be spent to make us better; this places a drain on the economy. Of course, if we are healthy, we can do more things for our family, relatives, our churches and synagogues, and our communities. Putting all this slightly differently, without our health, we have nothing, and we then have nothing to offer! Do these premises just stated make health care a right for all Americans? Absolutely!
We see our President-Elect tout change in health care accessibility and affordability, and we see pundits and elected officials debate the pros and cons for reforming health care; yet, without a clearly articulated statement from the electorate through our elected officials on both sides of the aisle that health care is a right of all Americans, aren't we all just really "dancing on the head of a pin"?
Loading comments… 
I don't know that selling health care as a "right" is the way to go; I see it as simply morally superior given the alternativ
I also see it as fiscally conservati
Also, I doubt that there's one American who would choose to buy retail what they could otherwise buy wholesale, yet the RW fiscal conservati
It's just weird that this same RW bloc insists that they're the party of family values. The party of pro-life.
It is also implied in the Constituti
Assume you have heart disease. Do you need a triple bypass, or do you just want it? Healthcare is a basic need, rather than just a desired benefit. Therefore, it should be construed as a right, rather than a privilege.
Whether healthcare is a right or a privilege is actually only a façade masking a deeper issue concerning the universal healthcare conflict between a one payor (socialize
The problem is that we treat healthcare as a business. In reality, it is only a business to medical providers and insurance companies. Insurance company profits come from reducing claims, and paying less on claims. This means denying coverage, denying treatment, increasing deductible
Socialized medicine is only the paranoid’s road to communism. Are the Canadians, English, French, and many others, communists and socialists
The U.S. already has socialized medicine - Medicare, (and, the healthcare program provided to military personnel and their families). Insurance companies operate within the Medicare system, and make a profit (even with the regulation
If you get that from that little statement . . . any gun laws should be repealed today and people should be able to carry RPGs.
"The U.S. already has socialized medicine - Medicare"
Indeed, little do most people know it has about $40 Trillion with a "T" in unfunded liabilitie
You seem to suggest that the physically and mentally illl, from the very young to the very old----an alarming percent of the middle and underclass
I understand your frustratio
Why would you be jealous of folks you so obviiously disdain?
I'm paying for my own health insurance and the stress of that monthly payment is killing me, stressing me out to the max.....th
Either way, it's about pooling risk.
What do you think your property taxes would be if you slapped health care on that? Your city wouldn't last 6 months before everyone moved.
Re localized. Fine. Pick anything we take for granted as a federal function already. Then ask why it should not be localized. e.g. Why a federal Dept of Education, when such is funded by... your local property tax.
This isn't the US of 1808, or 1908, but now, today. Given the way the economic and social dynamic of the US has been evolved and structured
It is also mandated in the preamble of the constituti
Preamble to the Constituti
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquilit
The underlying problem with healthcare in the U.S. is that it is considered a FOR PROFIT industry with insurance companies running the show. Take the bean counters out and let the doctors do their jobs. If we had as many doctors as we have lawyers in this country, providing affordable healthcare wouldn't be a problem. Free college education would take care of that. Add public universiti
I take exception with your claim that 46 million Americans are "denied" health care because they can't afford it. Based on the 2006 Census Bureau statistics
Which is exactly what health insurance is, a benefit of being part of the company that you work for.
We need to be able to import drugs from Canada also....
Sigh. Let me introduce you to the Ninth Amendment, which reads:
"The enumeratio
you're confused. No one claimed that they wanted to force Doctors to work for free. What we would like is something back for the tax dollars we all pay besides unnecessar
I know it does not matter to republican
I.E., claiming there is "unlimited
Wow, you automatica
A), there ISN'T "unlimited