Human Rights Missing from Health Care Debate

Though Alyce Driver worked three jobs, none of them provided health insurance. Regular teeth cleaning and yearly physicals for her five children were a luxury she could not afford. One day her twelve-year-old son Deamonte complained of a headache. Seven weeks later, Deamonte was dead.

The diagnosis? An abscessed tooth.

While death from tooth decay may have been common in the middle ages, this was 2007.

And while one certainly still hears of such things in some of the more underserved areas of Africa, Asia and Latin America, this was in the capital of the richest country on earth.

Deamonte's story and those of thousands like him who die every year from preventable disease in the United States underscores what's wrong with the current health care debate. We should be concerned -- appalled -- that this can happen in our country. But instead of asking ourselves how to right this wrong, we seem to have let the health care debate become about anything but health care.

This country's founders believed that every human being was endowed with certain inalienable rights -- the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In the last century, the global community, led by the efforts of the United States and individuals like Eleanor Roosevelt, spelled those rights out. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including... medical care...."

Health care is a human right. Like freedom from torture and ill treatment, equality before the law, and education, health care is something that all of us are entitled to by virtue of being human.

But one would never know that by following the headlines in today's health care debate. We are preoccupied with questions of cost when it comes to universal coverage, but not when it comes to asking critical questions about an industry that maximizes its profits by denying care. Few are asking the most fundamental question: How can our health care system be overhauled so that it fulfills the human right to health care?

Answering this question is a moral imperative, one that requires us to prioritize principles such as universality, equity and accountability. Americans don't argue that our elections or judicial system are un-American or negotiable because these processes require government involvement and investment to ensure that they function properly and are accessible to all. And while those seeking to undermine reform rally around cries of "government-run medicine," our nation's experience shows such slogans to be both inaccurate and misleading. Publicly-financed health care already exists in Medicare; publicly-operated health care is provided through the VA (with some of the highest patient satisfaction ratings among all health care delivered in the United States); and the postal service, schools, police departments, and fire departments are all "government-run" -- and we wouldn't want to do without them.

America needs a health care system that is equitable and fair. Too many of us suffer from disparities in accessibility and quality of care. For example, there is less than one doctor for every one thousand residents in Appalachia, and black women are more than three times more likely to die in pregnancy or childbirth as white women. And even for those who have insurance coverage, studies show that we may be just a medical crisis away from financial ruin. These types of imbalances are contrary to the American ideals of equality and fairness, which demand a health care system that does not discriminate against those who need it most.

The human right to health care requires that government be accountable for fulfilling that right. Health care is a public good, not a commodity and a healthy society benefits all of us. The government has a duty to ensure that the right to health care is being met; it does not have an obligation to provide private sector insurers and middlemen with increasing profits, as the current Wall Street driven model dictates. Through public financing and administration of health care we can minimize the profit incentives to deny care and instead guarantee access to quality care for all.

In his latest weekly address, President Obama recognized that health care is a "core ethical and moral obligation" in a move that may signal a shift in the administration's messaging back to core human rights principles. Unfortunately, even the best of the health care plans on the table in Congress falls short of this lofty rhetoric. Low-income people would still have to pay up to 12% of their income for private insurance premiums, plus deductibles and co-pays. Middle-income families would get no support at all, yet not buying an insurance policy would be against the law. And millions of people would still be uninsured.

We -- and our elected leaders -- can do better. We live in a broken system, one where a fatal toothache serves as a dire reminder of how too many Americans not only lack insurance, but lack comprehensive coverage that provides easily-accessible and quality health care. Regulation and tinkering would no doubt make some marginal improvements to our failed system, but we don't need tinkering. We need a game changer. We need a publicly run, publicly accountable, Medicare-like plan that would put the power back in the hands of those whose human rights and very lives are at stake - people like Deamonte Driver.

Comments

[codycap]

I think socialism is required for things that we absolutely must have, like healthcare, the common defense, police and firefighters, clean air and water, and so forth. Free markets are wonderful for all the crap we can live without.

[JuliaRain]

Legal Arguments Towards Applying Human Rights and Civil Liberties to Health Care
http://www.righttohealthcare.org/Args.htm

Signed Documents Relevant to the Right to Health Care
http://www.righttohealthcare.org/Docs/Docs.htm

Even China is getting universal health care.

China plans universal health care
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/world/asia/22iht-beijing.1.19590543.html

[Pablo Manriquez - Huffpost Blogger]

While I agree with you here, this is the wrong sell to actually have a shot at winning, which it seems we don't anyway. Go quantitative. Hippies sell "universality, equity and accountability" to each other, but in touch economic times, people want a *deal*.

[Mr Art]

As you stated: "This country's founders believed that every human being was endowed with certain inalienable rights -- the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." I do not see health care in the list. If the founding fathers wanted healthcare, don't you think they would have put it into the Constitution (or at least the Bill of Rights)? It becomes a non-sequitur when you attempt to slide that statement into "healthcare is a human right". Attempting to then create a moral responsibility argument completely violates the intention of the Constitution. Morality is based on a belief system, which has its roots in religion. Now you are mixing religion and government. I thought that was a no-no.

[Philclock]

I totally agree, health care is my own responsibility, I can take care of it better myself IF I have the money. Subsidize me if I'm poor or need the deductible; just let me take care of it myself and pay for it. Keep insurance companies and government monopolies out of the middle; doctors and health care providers will listen to ME, if I'm the one paying the bill. And why in the world didn't Alyce Driver's mother instinct take her son to a hospital emergency room, or ANY local medical facility in her area, regardless of the obstacles?

[Marla Hill]

Phil, she did. Please read the article at this link. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR2007022702116.html

[winchestereast]

selling health care reform as a human right will fuel the fire of the Republican anti-Obama machine - they simply do not believe health care is a right - many of them would not have given women or slaves status as free persons eligible to vote - they are stoking the fires of 'income redistribution' fears, often among those who have the most to gain from increased access to health care - progressives know it must be done - but the sell has to be to the self-interest of the opponents - the same people who don't see any need to protect the environment don't see the need to protect their fellow citizens - small-minded, cold-hearted, short-sighted -

[tompoe]

Those who would argue that health care is not a human right have to explain why it was wrong for the United States to sign on to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and to refuse to sign the related treaties operating under the Declaration. When you get ready to vote in the next election, you might want to ask the candidate of choice to do just that. You might find the truth leaking out as to just what a nincompoop your favorite candidate really is. Obama may think he can weasel out of his campaign promise to bring health care for everyone, but he'll be dead wrong on that. We want our Single Payer health care. He, and every elected official knows that. I'm looking forward to a lot of Democrats and Republicans losing their seats over this issue.