RH Reality Check
Font Size: A |  A |  A

Health Care - Right or Responsibility?

Eesha Pandit's picture

"Quick discussion: Is health care in America a privilege, a right, or a responsibility?"

Posing that question during the second Presidential debate, NBC's Tom Brokaw asked the two candidates to reveal their basic views about health care reform in America.

"I think it's a responsibility," responded John McCain. An unsurprising answer from the Senator from Arizona, given that his approach places the burden on individuals to purchase their own health insurance coverage in the open market, albeit with the assistance of a proposed $5,000 tax credit.

He continued, claiming,

"I think it's a responsibility, in this respect, in that we should have available and affordable health care to every American citizen, to every family member. And with the plan that -- that I have, that will do that. But government mandates I -- I'm always a little nervous about. But it is certainly my responsibility. It is certainly small-business people and others, and they understand that responsibility. American citizens understand that. Employers understand that."

Brokaw then turned to Barack Obama, who replied,

"Well, I think it should be a right for every American. In a country as wealthy as ours, for us to have people who are going bankrupt because they can't pay their medical bills -- for my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they're saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don't have to pay her treatment, there's something fundamentally wrong about that."

Viewers who were participating in a live CNN debate poll responded with an overwhelmingly positive response to Obama's declaration of health as a right. Why?

Today, about 46 million people are without health care, and tens of millions are woefully under-insured. Today, people stay in dead-end jobs just so they and their families can retain health coverage. Today, women are still being denied health care if they've got breast cancer and many others must fight to control their own pregnancies and births.

In this environment, the difference between a candidate who says that health care is "a right" versus one who says that it is "a responsibility" is extremely significant. McCain's attempt to tie the Obama health plan to socialism, in the vein of the "Harry and Louise" attack ads that helped sink health care reform in 1992, isn't garnering the support that he hopes. Instead, the Obama campaign is apparently succeeding in communicating that their plan does not turn health care into a government program, but instead strives to insure that all children are covered and that all adults get quality, affordable coverage.

Both senators noted the "fundamental difference" between them on health care. Undecided voters in Ohio, women in particular, noticed the difference as well and turned their dials toward Obama.

But what does it really mean for Americans, for patients and health care consumers, if health care is a right? If it's a responsibility?

If a responsibility, it could be a personal responsibility or a political one.

A look back at McCain's earlier comments suggests that for him, health care is a matter of personal responsibility. In fact, his campaign has said as much. Back in April, CNN reported:

McCain's policy director, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, told reporters Monday night that as president, McCain would fund public education programs and use "the bully pulpit" to encourage health attitudes among children and adults.

He said a major plank of McCain's health care plan is simply "a focus on personal responsibility, and the kinds of things that can help you get better outcomes just by taking care of yourself.

Apparently, for McCain, health care as a "responsibility" means taking care of yourself. And if health care is instead a right? Let's look at some examples of well-established rights.

Because we determine that everyone deserves the right to a fair trial, we ensure that everyone accused of a crime has access to a lawyer, regardless of whether or not they can afford one. We hold a national system of public defenders and judges responsible for this.

Because we determine that everyone has the right to speak their mind, we ensure that there are public places and spaces for them to do so without threat of harm. We enlist public safety officials and open spaces like our houses of Congress to foster civic participation.

If health care is also a right, then our government has a responsibility to ensure that we can exercise that right -- just the same as the right to a fair trial or free speech. In this way, the right to health care implies a political responsibility, not simply a personal one.

McCain's argument that health care is a personal responsibility offers a complicated type of moralism. In his view, good employers should not be required to provide health care to their employees. They should want to. From a sense of duty and the kindness in their hearts, they will provide health care to their employees. Government's role in all this, per McCain, is to encourage their charity by offering tax incentives.

McCain asserted, "[What] is at stake here in this health care issue is the fundamental difference between myself and Senator Obama. As you notice, he starts talking about government. He starts saying, government will do this and government will do that, and then government will, and he'll impose mandates."

To McCain's accusation, Obama replied, "[The] reason that it's a problem to go shopping state by state -- you know what insurance companies will do, they will find a state -- maybe Arizona, maybe another state, where there are no requirements for you to get cancer screenings, where there are no requirements for you to have to get pre-existing conditions, and they will all set up shop there."

Then Obama pinned McCain's approach to health care onto his approach to the economy, his belief in deregulation and the increasingly evident myth of the trickle down.

"That's how in banking it works," said Obama. "Everybody goes to Delaware, because they've got... pretty loose laws when it comes to things like credit cards. And in that situation...the protections you have, the consumer protections that you need, you're not going to have available to you."

"That," he concluded, "is a fundamental difference that I have with Senator McCain. He believes in deregulation in every circumstance. That's what we've been going through for the last eight years. It hasn't worked, and we need fundamental change."

If Obama's belief that health care is a right wins him increased support from Americans, especially from swing voters, this could herald a major shift in American politics. A shift from thinking of health care as personal responsibility to recognizing it as a right is, indeed, a fundamental change. The fact that viewers responded so positively to Obama's assertion that health care should be a right suggest that the country might just be ready for this change. That is perhaps the most remarkable development of this election.

Women all around the country tell the group I work with, Raising Women's Voices for the Health Care We Need, that health care is a right. They say that they need help in securing this right for themselves and their families. They tell us it is not a mere matter of insurance policies and coverage concerns. Access to health care affects their children, their partners, their parents, their ability to work, to thrive, to take care of their families and themselves. Their very well-being depends on it. If that doesn't sound like the basis of a human right, I don't know what does.


. . . . .
4 comments
Please login or register to post comments...

Health Care should be a privilege that every citizen should avail. This is our responsibility that we ensure future generation doesn’t starve for health care services. This is not the responsibility of single government, or some may say it's for votes. Reason may be any but the cause it better health facilities for all of us and coming generations.
Regards
sdei
www.smartdatainc.net

Submitted by smartData Enterprises on October 10, 2008 - 2:45am.

we have tried the free market approach under the responsibility principle and we now have a system that maybe worse off then when it that approach started..how do we expect the system to improve by following the same course?..once we accept health care as a right, we can get pass this debate and move forward to adopt universal coverage..the issue of costs then becomes a discussion of our decision as a nation what our priorities are..how much do we spend on military,education and health care?..

I have a problem seeing all our colleges and universities expanding while hospitals are closing..

Submitted by SHAMUS on October 10, 2008 - 10:09am.

I actually have a problem with the whole premise of the comparison in the first place: I see “privilege” as being the thematic opposite of “right” with both of them needing a “responsibility” component.

I find it odd that our 6th amendment guarantees the right to counsel when a US citizen faces criminal proceedings, to the point where we have pro bono appointments of attorneys, but there is nothing similar that deals with medical issues. Isn’t a medical matter as serious as a legal one when it comes down to one’s well being?

In our most ancient times, everyone in the village had a right to the shaman's healing skills, and the shaman attended to this as a sacred duty.

Just a thought...

Submitted by David from DC on October 10, 2008 - 4:36pm.

..."the people don't realize they can vote themselves money from the coffers", or so I shall paraphrase. For the sake of devil's advocacy, which is (by the look of the earlier comments) sorely needed in this corner, I will portray the Objectivist point of view.

For starters, health care is not a right. The rights you do have are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Every other "right" is simply an extension of these. Further, these are not rights to anything other then the ability to act. The right to the pursuit of happiness, for example, doesn't mean you have a right to a haircut, a trip to Disneyland, a new house, a video game, etc. It means you can pursue such things; you can work towards them, to obtain them. Similarly, the right to life isn't the right to live in a Las Vegas penthouse; it's the right to work to continue living.

Next, your rights end where another's begin. The only thing that the aforementioned rights guarantee is that no one will be able to rob you of your pursuit, to continue the example.

To say that health care is a right is wrong, and I daresay evil, in it's most literal definition. Health care is a good, just like any other, to be traded on the open market. If you were to say it's a right, and everyone is entitled to it, the end result is you make slaves out of the producers, in this case, doctors.

One can try to make the claim that the right to life implies health care, but this is untrue. To try and claim this as a "right" is merely to mandate charity, forcing people to give money in the form of taxes, and doctors in the form of their time, effort, schooling, intelligence (etc.). This violates the rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness of doctors and taxpayers alike.

It is robbery disguised by sweet words, and nothing more. It is socialism, proven not to work by history, and immoral by reality. It is forced charity. It is meaningless.

And if allowed to fester, it will cause the decay of the medical profession as doctors go elsewhere and deny care, followed soon by the "A" students who would have been doctors becoming something that pays better, and has better hours (like a lawyer; we need more of those, right?).

As a quick closing, this is (of course) simply one perspective; who knows? All prior history of such things, all indication to the contrary, the very nature of our rights up to this point; it could all be wrong. Perhaps this perspective I'm advocating is incorrect, despite all odds. Watch the rats though; they'll leave the ship as soon as it starts sinking (~via Atlas Shrugged).

--Whew, that was more then intended. Ah well; it was fun. I hope whomever reads this can at least consider such things; group think is a terrible thing when allowed too long. As the standard disclaimer, this is merely playing the devil's advocate, not my real opinion, etc. And, as a proper debater, here's a source: http://www.bdt.com/pages/Peikoff.html Enjoy; it's a fun read, very spirited.

Submitted by Anon E. Mouse on October 28, 2008 - 11:23pm.