Is healthcare a privilege or a right? FB conversation

I posted this on FB:

Healthcare in Britain: "A National Health Service (NHS) trust has announced that it will withdraw treatment from patients it deems to be racist or sexist.

"The policy would cover not just 'Threatening and offensive language' but also 'Racist or sexist language, gestures or behaviour' more generally, as well as 'malicious allegations...'”

Comments

• Evan: I can’t say i’ve made up my mind on how I feel about this, but I’m curious as to your perspective on if health care is a right or a privilege?

  1

  • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 4h
  • Me: It is neither, in my opinion. This is an interesting explanation I read recently of why healthcare is not a right: https://thefederalist.com/.../why-you-have-no-right-to.../
    
    In addition, Since acquiring healthcare is a transaction that requires the exchange of value (money for services), this cannot be an exercise of a right. Someone else is compelled to participate, and/or give up value. Rights cannot involve extracting value from others.

    

    THEFEDERALIST.COM

    Why You Have No Right To Marriage, Health Care, Or An…

    Why You Have No Right To Marriage, Health Care, Or An Education

    • Like
    •  · Reply
    •  · Remove Preview
    •  · 4h
  • Evan: if you express/support that it is not a right, do you not, then, believe it is relegated to being a privilege?

    • Like
    •  · Reply
    •  · 3h
    •  · Edited
  • Me: No. It is a transaction that exchanges value between parties.

    • Like
    •  · Reply
    •  · 1h
  • Evan: ie: privilege? It’s a privilege to purchase goods and services, no? I guess it’s semantics, but just wondering how you’d classify it. It’s pretty much one or the other...? We’re privileged to live in a country where we can go to a grocery store and have a huge variety of produce. Do you feel the same with health care?
    
    Secondary item to ponder: I’m wondering where the balance is when privatized medicine and insurance becomes so expensive that most people can no longer afford it, like medical procedures that cost hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars. You nor I would be able to pay that out of pocket, correct? So where does that leave ya when a privilege becomes a necessity? Or do we just die then, if we can’t afford it?

    • Like
    •  · Reply
    •  · 26m
  • Me: Neither. A privilege is an ability granted by a power structure. A right is an intrinsic feature of natural human existence.
    
    Both are outside the realm of free exchange. A person who agrees with someone else to exchange value is not exercising a privilege.
    
    In fact, we would better define the "right to healthcare" as a privilege, created by law. This, then, is a legal right that could be amended or rescinded by government.
    
    Any "right" created by government is subject to government's future whims. However, unalienable rights, that is, the rights a free people possess, are not granted by government, because they possess them by being endowed with them. Government can only secure them (safeguard them) or infringe upon them.
  • • • Like
      •  · Reply
      •  · 46m
    • Evan: Rich,difference in defining “privilege” and difference in defining “right” I guess.
      
      What are your thoughts on “right” to things like clean drinking water (Flint, Michigan), etc? Where do we draw the line on what we expect to be provided in our governmental structure; what is right and what is privilege? Where do things like security, clean water, etc, fall into those categories? Do you want to basically place everything into the “privilege created by law” category then? I’m not asking questions to argue, I really do just want to know how you categorize such things. I think it helps me understand others’ political bent, when I understand their values, beliefs, and how they categorize the type of things mentioned above.

      • Like
      •  · Reply
      •  · 37m
    • Me: Your secondary issue is certainly a concern. In my view, we would first need to examine the reasons that health insurance is so expensive before we implement legislative agendas to attempt to solve the problem.
      
      When I first began selling insurance, an entire family could be insured for less than $100/per month with a $100 deductible. The increase in cost over subsequent years far outstrips inflation.
      
      Why?
      
      1) Health insurance separates the payer of services from the receiver of services. So there is no incentive to shop around.
      2) Litigation. The tendency to sue, and the lure of big awards adds to the cost of practicing medicine, which we all then pay for. This leads to
      3) defensive medicine. Doctors tend to run every conceivable test and prescribe all sorts of medicines and courses of treatment to minimize malpractice claims.
      4) Expectations. People now expect every sort of treatment, technological advance, and course of action to be performed, regardless of cost.
      5) Government intervention. Mandated coverages, litigation, and reinterpretation of policy language has expanded the nature of insurance beyond what is known as indemnity to the point of being health maintenance. That means that things are covered by health insurance that are not insurable, in the indemnity sense.
      6) Government competition. Before ACA, the government spent $.49 of every dollar spent on healthcare. If government controls half the market, market forces cannot come to bear on cost vs. availability.

      
      

      • Like
      •  · Reply
      •  · 18m
    • Me: Actually, the real difference is between rights created by law, which are not really rights since they can be changed or removed by government action; vs. rights that are endowed by our Creator. You want to use the words "privilege" vs. "rights," which I think are less precise and can actually be the same thing. That's why I want to re-frame the discussion.
      
      Thus, we do have a legal right to clean drinking water. Or more accurately, those who supply drinking water have a legal obligation to provide a usable product. Every entity or business that supplies services or products has this legal obligation.
      
      The presumption that seems to permeate your presentation is that government action is required on a wide range of matters to ensure that people are guaranteed things they want or need. I do not operate under that presumption.
      
      I cannot recollect a societal problem ever solved by government. Maybe you can think of one, but I can't. However, I can think of many problems solved by clever people working privately to meet a need they recognize and then work toward a solution.

      • Edit or delete this

      
      

      • • • Like
          •  · Reply
          •  · 58m
        • Evan: I’m good with reframing the discussion.
          
          Regarding rights and privileges, there are very few rights that we have endowed by the creator. Most are human invention. (If you’d like to specify which you feel are endowed by the creator, I’m not opposed to it, I just don’t think that is necessary). I think what interests me more pertaining to this discussion, is rights that are provided in our country, by our government.
          
          You asked what societal problems has been solved by the government. Can you specify 2 things:
          
          1) what you consider societal problems?
          
          2) do you mean federal government, state government, local government, or any form of government?
          
          Because my immediate response would be things like clean drinking water, security (police force, fire Dept, border security from militant invasion, etc). I look at FDR’s new deal, a chicken in every pot, creating public works projects like roads, sidewalks, bridges and dams. Those jobs helped get us out of the Great Depression. I think without government intervention with programs like that, it would have taken much longer for our economy to come back from the Depression. Increased jobs meant increased spending. And at that time, everything was mostly made in the USA, and not many imports. That was a government solution to a societal problem. I look st what our military does. Joining the Allies and ridding the world of Hitler was a global societal problem that our government helped solve. (So again, depends on what you consider societal problems).
          
          But when we talk about clean water, then I wonder about food provision/quality/inspection, etc. what came with the factory system was also horrible meat packing plant and slaughter house practices. Government stepped in and said “here are the standards we demand for basic decency and public safety).
          
          If we have a legal right to clean water, why not food, why not health care? Why is it neither privilege nor right?

          • Like
          •  · Reply
          •  · 39m
      • Me: I appreciate your thoughtful analysis. My answers are interspersed.
        
        1) what you consider societal problems? (Poverty, racism, hunger, homelessness, drug addiction, crime, income inequality, healthcare, etc., etc..)
        
        2) do you mean federal government, state government, local government, or any form of government? (I'm restricting my comments to federal government, since those other entities operate under different rules and functions.)
        
        Because my immediate response would be things like clean drinking water, (Wait. You mentioned Flint. Obviously government has not provided clean drinking water to everyone. That problem remains to be solved.)
        
        security (police force, fire Dept, border security from militant invasion, etc). (None of these things have solved the problem for which they were created. It seems you are arguing for things that are necessary, not for what these entities have solved..)
        
        I look at FDR’s new deal, a chicken in every pot, (Hunger is not solved.)
        creating public works projects like roads, sidewalks, bridges and dams. (What societal problem do these solve?)
        
        Those jobs helped get us out of the Great Depression. (This is not true. In fact, the Great Depression was exacerbated by FDR. It lasted well into WWII, an entire decade!)
        
        I think without government intervention with programs like that, it would have taken much longer for our economy to come back from the Depression. (I completely disagree. The economy doesn't need government's help. It always recovers on its own. Historically, economic downturns last 18-24 months. Government made the problem much worse. Plus we are now saddled with those horrible programs to this day, draining the economy and increasing the national debt by trillions.)
        
        Increased jobs meant increased spending. (Government does not get the credit for this. Employers hire people when work is needed.)
        And at that time, everything was mostly made in the USA, and not many imports. That was a government solution to a societal problem. (Which societal problem?)
        
        I look at what our military does. Joining the Allies and ridding the world of Hitler was a global societal problem that our government helped solve. (So again, depends on what you consider societal problems). (The military is a constitutionally-provided entity. It does not solve societal problems, it puts down aggressors. That's its sole function. In fact, no one has ever said we need a military to solve societal problems.)
        
        But when we talk about clean water, then I wonder about food provision/quality/inspection, etc. what came with the factory system was also horrible meat packing plant and slaughter house practices. Government stepped in and said “here are the standards we demand for basic decency and public safety. (Again it seems you are arguing for what is necessary rather than what problem has been solved. It is clear that unsafe food is still a big problem. A problem that hasn't been solved.)
        
        If we have a legal right to clean water, why not food, why not health care? Why is it neither privilege nor right? (Indeed, this is the crux of the problem. Since legal rights are created by laws, where does it stop? Should we have a legal right to a car? How nice of a car? Who pays? What about entertainment? Vacations? Eating out? Bowling alleys within walking distance? A job at $50/hr? A BBQ in every back yard? Guaranteed investments that return 10%? Free beer? Free steak? Free personal cook? What exactly is everyone entitled to, in your view? And who decides what is good for you? And who pays?)

        • Like
        •  · Reply
        •  · 3m