The Moral Imperative: Health Care as an American Right

In recent days, pundits have turned to discussing health care as an American right. After all, we see this in other countries. When asked by Bill Maher on his show the other day, Bill Moyers said, "We're all in the same boat", and said how could he be provided an operation in a hospital, yet floors away someone else less fortunate could not have the same procedure because he couldn't pay for it. During the celebration of life on the passing of Teddy Kennedy at the Kennedy Library on August 28, we heard John Kerry state that health care is a right and that true health care reform will be passed this year. On the campaign trail against Senator McCain in Nashville, Tennessee last fall, President Obama said the same thing (they were both asked whether health care was a right, privilege, or responsibility and Obama said without hesitation, a right). Even Teddy Kennedy himself bellowed out at the August, 2008 Democratic convention when introducing then candidate Obama that health care is a right of all Americans. And a month earlier, this writer said in a column, "All Americans should be provided health care as a matter of a new social policy" ("Is It Time for Universal Health Coverage", Clinical Endocrinology News(p.38). A month later, I said in a published article, "Everyone has a right to healthcare".

We are rounding the bend and coming full circle as the Congress is to return from its August recess and once more tackles the debate for real health care reform. Many have asked whether Kennedy's passing will have an impact on resolving the impasse. I doubt it. His oratory was powerful; make no mistake about it. But his real skill was in the art of compromise; he would sooner negotiate 75% of what he wanted rather than lose everything. It seems those days are long since passed. From outside the beltway as I am, the landscape is much more partisan, and the fight over major legislation is not merit-based, but predicated on what it takes to win the next election. We put President Obama in office to make a change -- a change in our lives -- what more of a change can there be but to ensure that every American, including those seeking citizenship in earnest, can afford and access health care.

So, is health care a right? Certainly, not in a constitutional sense, though Thomas Jefferson spoke of in(un)alienable rights inclusive of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But there are a lot of rights that have been created over the decades of our history not found in the precise documents crafted by our Founding Fathers. Others of my colleagues have said health care should be viewed like a service, you know, like the state or municipally-generated electricity or gas that lights and heats our homes, or the publicly financed transportation systems that take us to work each day. There is no moral decision that need be taken with any such service. But however we look at health care, one thing is certain: health care is universal to each and every human being in this country, regardless of power, position, gender, race or ethnicity. That means those we voted into office to do the people's business have no more access to it than those who are at the poverty level. That also means those of our elected officials who will vote on health care reform should not be able to afford and access it any more than anyone else. Health care is the common equalizer (without our health we cannot do anything) among us all -- just like the most powerful and wealthy have no advantage over anyone else when going into a voting booth to vote: we all get just one vote. Similarly, the patient Bill Moyers referred to with Bill Maher should not be deprived of his surgery for a life full of health any more than, well, Bill Moyers . . . or, for that matter, each and every Member of Congress. When it comes to health care, elected officials are entitled to nothing more than that to which the ordinary American would be entitled.

Maybe Kennedy's legacy will not be shaped by his absence from the legislative process (he will be sorely missed certainly), or his style and presence in the well of the Senate and in the halls of Congress he walked so often, but in his being the symbol of achieving once and for all the moral imperative - - - that health care is a right for us all, and without its reform now, it will cease to exist.

Comments

[cmbdoc]

Let’s make this simple. If we took as poor care of our cars as most of us do our bodies, we could not afford or even be able to buy auto insurance at any price. If you choose to live in New Orleans, good luck in getting flood insurance. Same is true in South Florida and the Bahamas for hurricane insurance. Insurance for pre-existing conditions is a non-starter. Could you get a new homeowners policy if your kitchen was in flames and the fire engines on the way?
By celebrating your 65th birthday you’re covered by Medicare, even if you need dialysis and open heart surgery. But Medicare is not “insurance”, it’s an entitlement. As the Baby Boomers become eligible, the skyrocketing costs will bankrupt the country according to David M. Walker, the head of the GAO. That’s because by the time Americans are 65, nearly all are taking several meds, have several specialists + their Primary Care doc and likely have been in the hospital (for a completely preventable problem) at least once. Worst example, Bill Clinton, who despite excellent doctors, ended up in the hospital with a heart attack needing heart surgery. Millions of Baby Boomers are following in his footsteps. Our only hope is we all have to take better care of ourselves. At 40 I got health religion and saved my life. Now 75 I still walk the talk. Visit nomoremedicines.com for information on how you can save your own life.

[milesz]

Let's get serious here. Americans are simply not motivated to do what is necessary to lead a healthy lifestyle - - - no matter how much prodding. The ONLY motivation for Americans to stay healthy is to provide a real incentive, like some sort of tax break, a free membership to a health club; an employer providing an extra benefit if certain goals are met, etc.

[nana4g]

How you take care of your car is one thing. That is a commodity and is expendable.
How you take care of your body and your health should not determine if you have a Right to healthcare access, care, and treatment. No one would, no one, if it was predicated on that.
Bodies fail, sometimes for no other reason than that they are, basically, a finely tuned, running machine, and the tiniest part, through no fault of anyone, can fail or misfire. Per your argument, those who take the absolute best care of their health and their bodies should have no need for healthcare.

The very humaneness determines the Right.

[Luxvonborn]

Thank you for this reasoned article, which attempts to transcend the "health care as a right" debate. I for one, am a supporter of health reform, and all that good liberal stuff, but I am opposed to health care as a right. You nailed it, in no uncertain terms, that health care is necessary, can be considered a service, but not a constitutional right. Sticking to the constitution has done us very well, and not sticking to it (previous administration) has not done very well for us. Thank you for injecting some sanity into this hot button issue. Again, beyond whether or not the constitution says anything about health care, the very definition of health care- others taking action to intervene in your circumstances- is diametrically opposed to the bill of rights, which keeps others from interfering in your circumstances. Health care should pass, and it can be considered a human right, just as education might be, but not a constitutional one.

[milesz]

Thank you for your comments. You hit the nail on the head.

[nana4g]

When you use your healthcare access to seek treatment, others act on your behalf. This is unconstitutional, according to you. No one is asking for someone else to pay for our healthcare. We are asking for access to quality, affordable healthcare that is reasonably priced, cost effective, and cannot be terminated or denied when we get sick. Any country with so much affluence that some can pay their own way and believe if others cannot they do not deserve it, or that provides entitlement programs for its elected leaders but cannot offer the basic right to the people, is suffering a terminal illness itself, as a country.

[milesz]

While you make interesting observations concerning the ICCPR, health care for US citizens would be considered internal to this country, and one would argue that this country does "make available" health care to our citizens. After all, anyone who goes to an E.R. must by federal (EMTALA) law receive treatment. Those who can afford health care get it. There are also programs for those eligible but who cannot get it (like SCHP). So, I am not so certain any argument that includes an international treaty into the discussion of health care for all in our country would be persuasive. But thanks for your comments.

[tompoe]

I wonder who would argue "that this country does 'make available' health care to our citizens."? Would they point to http://www.ramusa.org/ as an example? Would they point to the signing of the Declaration of Human Rights as an example? Would they, as poster Humphrey made clear, point to the concerns over the ICESCR treaty the U.S. refuses to ratify?

Those that equate some of our rights with socialism are highly suspect, but maybe you are referring to others?

[milesz]

The concept of socialism does not enter into the dialogue. A public option, as proposed, for example, does not suggest in any fashion a takeover by the government of the health care system. It would be just an option - - - that is all.

[tompoe]

The U.S. is a signatory to the ICCPR, which is binding on our country to abide by the Declaration of Human Rights. I suspect we have a legal, constitutional, requirement to stop the discussion, come into compliance with what the rest of the world knows, that healthcare must be provided, irrespective of what the insurance industry or the Party of Corporate Welfare thinks. Single Payer is the solution arrived at by every other nation in the world. What is it, about international laws, and human rights, we collectively don't get? Are our elected representatives really just Bush/Cheney clones, or what?

[Terry Humphrey - Huffpost Blogger]

The ICCPR has nothing to do with medical care. You are thinking of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which has never been ratified by the Senate.

I've been reading quite a few posts where people are arguing whether health care is a right or not. I have a better question. Does it matter if it's a right or not? Can't we decide to socialize medicine without it being a right? We socialized roads and as far as I know ease of travel is not a right.

[milesz]

We are NOT socializing medicine! But as I said in my post, there are lots of things that are not in the constitution that have become rights. But if we take the morality out of what is a right and what is not a right, then we are left with health care being a service, just like traveling safely on paved roadways in out country, as you mention. Regardless of the nomenclature used, every American should have easy access and to be able to afford health care. Period.