Dr. Leonard Peikoff gave this excellent address regarding the philosophical debate against public healthcare. His statement is in direct reference to Clinton's healthcare plan of the 90s, but it applies perfectly in principle to our predicament today. I agree with this statement--I think that should go without saying. But carefully digest the author's argument. It is quite simple. Let us all know what you think.
Here is my response. Following it is a quoted section of Dr. Peikoff's statement.
Is healthcare a "right"? Absolutely not. However, I have the right to pursue good health through my hard work and diligence. The idea that I have the right to healthcare at the involuntary expense of another is, at very best, asinine. I frankly agree with Dr. Peikoff that such an idea is morally wrong, and certainly disharmonious with the inspired principles of self-government on which our country was founded. As Dr. Peikoff argues, our rights represent the capacity to act, as long as our actions do not impinge on others' capacity to act.
"Now our only rights, the American viewpoint continues, are the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. That's all. According to the Founding Fathers, we are not born with a right to a trip to Disneyland, or a meal at Mcdonald's, or a kidney dialysis (nor with the 18th-century equivalent of these things). We have certain specific rights -- and only these.
"Why only these? Observe that all legitimate rights have one thing in common: they are rights to action, not to rewards from other people. The American rights impose no obligations on other people, merely the negative obligation to leave you alone. The system guarantees you the chance to work for what you want -- not to be given it without effort by somebody else.
"The right to life, e.g., does not mean that your neighbors have to feed and clothe you; it means you have the right to earn your food and clothes yourself, if necessary by a hard struggle, and that no one can forcibly stop your struggle for these things or steal them from you if and when you have achieved them. In other words: you have the right to act, and to keep the results of your actions, the products you make, to keep them or to trade them with others, if you wish. But you have no right to the actions or products of others, except on terms to which they voluntarily agree."
I was most struck by Dr. Peikoff's comment that" some people can't afford medical care in the U.S. But they are necessarily a small minority...As to this small minority, in a free country they have to rely solely of private, voluntary charity. Yes, charity, the kindness of the doctors or of the better off". In 2008 15.4 percent of Americans(46.3 million) did not have insurance. Of the 84.6 that did have insurance 14.1% had Medicaid and 14.3 had Medicare(a). That is a rather large "small minority" that should rely on "voluntary charity." One could argue that part of that 46 million can afford insurance and simply don't buy it. Or, they could work harder in order to purchase it. What happens if a person is sick and cannot work? But there are also people who have insurance that does not adequately cover medical expenses, or stops giving after a certain amount.
ReplyDeleteOf more concern to me are the under insured. In 2007 62.1 percent of all bankruptcies had a medical cause(b). Less than one quarter of those filing bankruptcy in 2007 were uninsured(both medical and non medical bankruptcies). Even people who have health insurance are filing for bankruptcy. Would Dr. Peikoff say these people need to work harder?
I disagree with the statement that our only rights are"life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness". The 6th amendment gives me the right to an attorney, and modern jurisprudence dictates that if I cannot afford an attorney one will be provided. I don't have to work hard for that attorney, nor do I have to rely on the charitable actions of attorneys. It is a right.
I believe that having access to affordable health insurance is included in the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Not having insurance kills an estimated 45,000 Americans a year(c). Not being able to fully participate in society because of an illness, and no insurance, puts a damper on liberty and happiness.
The constitution was established "in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty". The health care law helps do that. The healthcare law is not an amendment to the constitution that provides the right to health insurance. It is a law enacted to promote the general welfare of Americans.
a
http://healthcare.procon.org/sourcefiles/CensusBureau_IncomePovertyHealthInsuranceCov2008.pdf
b
http://healthcare.procon.org/sourcefiles/HimmelsteinMedicalBankruptcy2007.pdf
c
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-09-18/health/deaths.health.insurance_1_health-insurance-david-himmelstein-debate-over-health-care?_s=PM:HEALTH
A right is the capacity to ACT--it's the ability to DO something. Healthcare is not a RIGHT. It is a privilege. It is a privilege for us who live in an age of technological and medical advances that exceed those of any era in the history of the world--just as our doctors and hospitals and treatments would have been a privilege to our ancestors hundreds of years ago who did not have access to such resources. It is as foolish today to classify our modern healthcare as a right as it would have been to say that my third-great grandfather had the right to a heart transplant in 1850. Saying that I have the right to a commodity provided by an entity other than myself is like saying I have the right to your jacket and your car and your house. That doesn't sound quite as appealing, does it?
ReplyDeleteHealthcare is not included in the right to life. Right to life means the right not to be killed by my government or fellow citizens. (And don't even think of saying that I "kill" you by not stealing a defibrillator from the hospital to shock your heart back into action when you are in cardiac arrest!) The right to life is not the right to RECEIVE an action--it is the right to PERFORM an action.
Healthcare is also not included in the right to liberty. Liberty is the right to be an agent unto myself in my life. It is the ability to act on what is mine, inasmuch as it does not take away the same right of another. But again, it is an action that we give--NOT receive.
And now, the pursuit of happiness. Look closely at that essential word--PURSUIT. I don't have the right to happiness, just like I don't have the right to good health. But I can certainly PURSUE happiness, as can I pursue good health. How wise I am when I through my efforts work for and successfully achieve good health. And how truly fortunate I am when miraculously, I acquire good healthcare when sickness finds me.
Again, healthcare is NOT a RIGHT--it is a privilege. Let us not take it for granted and suppose that we are entitled to it. Thank your lucky stars if you are the fortunate one who has the means to acquire good healthcare, just like you thanked your lucky stars that you got to go to Disney World as a child. I had neither good fortune as a child, and miraculously, believe it or not, I still am alive today and even keep a nearly perpetual smile on my face.
It really is sad that people die because they lack healthcare. It breaks my heart. And with adequate means, I would be the first in line to help someone in need of healthcare. But you know what? It must have also been really sad when no one knew how the bubonic plague spread. Or what cancer even was. Or that brains could actually be operated on and saved. How fortunate we are today that we have even a one in a million chance at survival with some of the crazy diseases and conditions that exist in our world! Again--a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT.
ReplyDeleteBut let's look at a completely different perspective on things. You know what is more sad than even death? The millions who lose their lives (in LIFE, not in death) to alcoholism; the millions of drug addicts who create havoc in their own lives and in our slums; the millions of kids whose daddies left them; the millions who feel worthless because of parents who don't care; the millions who are slaves to pornography; the millions of babies who are born to parents who neither wanted nor are committed to children, but who instead just wanted to gratify their senses one night; the millions of wives and children who are abused, forsaken, and neglected--and we could go on and on. Which is more sad?--never to truly live, or simply to die prematurely? Why do we focus so passionately on the drop, when the whole bucket is right in front of our faces? So many dead people were far better off in life and in death than the countless hosts of individuals in our country who never truly live. Why are we so quick to neglect THAT war?
One more thing. To PROMOTE the general welfare does not mean to PROVIDE the general welfare. The government cannot exceed its creator. The government can PROMOTE our welfare by ensuring our protection against foreign enemies, fostering economic growth by withdrawing as much as possible from a free market system, and establishing and executing inspired and PRACTICAL laws of our Judeo-Christian moral tradition. We, on the other hand, can PROVIDE for our own general welfare through our freedom to act and our initiative and ability. Then, those of us who are kind also give to those in need--WILLINGLY. Forcing acts of charity negates the charity. Such becomes, simply, theft. And that's not good.
Now, before we tragically misinterpret the document under investigation, let's go to the author's own words of interpretation. James Madison said, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions" (Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792 in Madison 1865, I, page 546).
Does that make sense? Madison is saying that if the government has the capacity to do whatever it chooses under the guise of "promoting the general welfare," then it is NOT the government established under the Constitution of the United States.
Ten minutes of thoughtful investigation can persuade even the least knowledgeable student of the Constitution that public healthcare is philosophically and morally WRONG and that it is NOT IN HARMONY with the United States Constitution and the powers granted to Congress. My ancestors and yours gave their lives to provide a foundation for a limited government. Never forget the blood that they lost for you--no matter how appealing and heartwarming and sweet a little temporary security might seem.
Mark and Aaron have both provided insightful arguments. Years ago, I might have sided more on the argument that Mark is providing...that health care should be an option, not a right. But now that I have increasing health problems (and no amount of "work" I put towards good health with take care of the problem; I need medical intervention), I would side more with the argument that health insurance be provided for all. I understand what Mark is arguing for...the American Dream of working for one's welfare and not having to rely on the system. But what happens when the dream is crushed because of an illness that requires extreme monetary support? Does that mean that I'm a bad person because I can't afford the health care I need?
ReplyDeleteMark provided support by saying that his great-great grandpa didn't have a right to a heart surgery. Of course that wasn't an option hundreds of years ago. I think that if we don't offer affordable health care to all, it's like scoffing at all the modern miracles that are now available. There have been some incredible advances in health care, but because of the lack of affordability, many are not able to acquire the needed medical advances.
Now, don't get me wrong, I don't know if the current health bill is the way to go. I would like it if it could be governed at a state level than at the national level (like what Mass. is trying to do). I just don't know if that would be as feasible as at the national level at this point. But I do agree that there should be available (and good) health care to all.
Our ancestors gave their lives to make themselves independent of an intrusive and corrupt government. They gave their lives in favor of your freedom and mine. Why did they give their lives for us, their posterity? They understood a fundamental and essential truth: freedom is more precious than life itself. William Wallace spoke truth when he declared, "They may take our lives, but they will never take our freedom!"
ReplyDeleteIt is very unfortunate when one lacks the means to secure quality healthcare, especially when the individual suffers from some extraordinary illness that necessitates expensive treatment. When this life becomes the summum bonum of our existence—when comfort and security become the ultimate objective of our lives, then the drive to acquire quality healthcare knows no bounds. That is the problem! We have engaged in such a tremendous degree of self-worship and have become so myopic in our perspective of our existence that we have forsaken the principles that will keep future generations free—all in favor of our own painless, comfortable existence. Our selfishness today will enslave generations of our posterity tomorrow.
Poor health is so unfortunate. So is a lack of transportation when the need is so desperate. So is homelessness. So is a one- or two-item diet, or better yet, starvation. But the absence of these travesties is a convenience, and to most of the world, it would be a luxury.
I say, give me pain. Give me incurable disease. Give me even (I know you're gasping now!) a shortened life. But, in the name of our ancestors who gave their lives for our sake, give me freedom.
A measure of our integrity is the degree to which we adhere to correct principles, notwithstanding our difficult and changing circumstances. Most of those reading this blog understand and believe that One in the world's history willingly suffered incomprehensible pain—in favor of true principles.
Those who have been inspired, have possessed foresight and a timeless perspective, and have remembered the bondage of their ancestors understood the responsibility to endure pain and even lose their lives prematurely in order to secure for their posterity essential liberty—liberty that increases the potential to obtain sufficient means to provide for oneself adequate healthcare.
Let us be people of integrity. Let us look beyond ourselves and willingly sacrifice our well-being in order to secure essential, God-given rights for our posterity. A right is the capacity to perform an action—it is not the capacity to demand an action upon oneself. If, today, we confuse rights for privileges and demand to be acted upon and given commodities provided by others, tomorrow our children will not even have the option. They will be a society of slaves to their government. And because of the lack of personal responsibility that socialized healthcare promotes, their health will likely be no better than ours is today.
Health care is a huge issue and being one of the millions of Americans who works hard, pays into the system and has been fortunate to be able to pay for health insurance, I am also one of the millions that is under insured, puts off going to a doctor because it costs to much and fears for the day I have a child and have to try to cover the cost of their health insurance.
ReplyDeleteWhat is often forgotten in the health care debate is that we already pay for the uninsured. If an uninsured individual walks into an emergency room that emergency room is obligated to treat that individual. This cost is passed on to those with insurance to help the hospital stay afloat. So in many ways we already are paying for health insurance for everyone, the difference is . . . most of us see very little in return. Do I think this current health care bill is necessarily the right one? To be honest I don't know enough about it. Do I think it is suspicious that the people against this bill are drug and insurance companies? Yes. Afterall they would have the most to loose.
We have talked a great deal about the factor of individiualism in American society and I think that the battle over health care is going to be a major defining moment for deciding if we as a nation have become too individualistic. If we are willing to see people die, children go unimmunized, and women not recieve prenatal care because we feel that it might be infringing on our rights are we also not contributing to the decline of the family because we cannot take care of each other and our children? As everyone has highlighted . . . there are no simple answers. I for one though would not complain if I did not have to worry about what I would do if I got sick.
Drug and insurance companies are not the only ones concerned about this law. Nearly two-thirds of Americans are in favor of repealing "Obamacare," according to most recent polls.
ReplyDeleteThose who hope for the repeal of the law are also not only "individualistic." Most of those who dislike the law are likely simple, hard-working people who understand to some degree the unconstitutionality of the law. They also hope to secure essential freedom from their government for themselves and their posterity.
Some of the most selfless people I know have great disdain for the healthcare law. They have always been the first to arrive at community service projects, the first to donate voluntarily to a worthy cause, the first to do everything possible to succor those in need. These people include close friends, my parents, my grandparents, and other heroes of mine--the kindest people I know. To label those who oppose the healthcare law as selfish or overly individualistic is not only foolish, but it is also irresponsible and unreasonable.
Americans by far have been the most charitable people on earth for many years. As the government becomes more intrusive (through policies such as guaranteed healthcare), you will find greater numbers of people in poverty and significantly smaller numbers of people willingly giving to charitable causes.
Pushing for the repeal of the healthcare law is one of the most selfless actions we could take on behalf of our fellow Americans and our posterity.
"Governments should have only limited powers. The important thing to keep in mind is that the people who have created their government can give to that government only such powers as they, themselves, have in the first place. Obviously, they cannot give that which they do not possess.
"By deriving its just powers from the governed, government becomes primarily a mechanism for defense against bodily harm, theft, and involuntary servitude. It cannot claim the power to redistribute money or property nor to force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against their will. Government is created by the people. No individual possesses the power to take another's wealth or to force others to do good, so no government has the right to do such things either. The creature cannot exceed the creator."
-Ezra Taft Benson, Constitutional scholar and Secretary of Agriculture to President Eisenhower
...Continued
ReplyDeleteLike we ALL have established, not having healthcare is REALLY SAD. But not having freedom is EVEN WORSE. The more power we relinquish to our government, the less potential we have to make something of ourselves, the less capacity we have to serve our fellowmen, and the less responsibility our people take for their own behavior.
The healthcare law is unconstitutional. It is unwise. It is the fruit of a great quest for power. It will impoverish us monetarily. It will impoverish us in dignity and personal responsibility. It is fundamentally wrong and will lead to our demise if it remains.
You want solutions to the healthcare crisis? The solution is just what you suggest: becoming less individualistic. Did you know that 90% of healthcare costs in America are attributable to preventable disease? And that eight of the nine leading causes of death in America are due to diseases that result from unhealthy, gluttonous, irresponsible lifestyles? Doctors have made a gazillion dollars for a long time. Per capita healthcare costs (insurance premiums) didn't go up because doctors suddenly became more selfish. They have gone up because Americans have become more INDIVIDUALISTIC and have given up their SELF-CONTROL in order to achieve SELF-GRATIFICATION.
Imagine! 90% of the illnesses that require professional healthcare all of a sudden cease. Or even just 50%. Or even just 30%! All of a sudden, we're in no crisis at all, and insurance premiums are at a level that allows the self-employed to acquire coverage and the business owner to give employees adequate coverage.
Do you see? The problem does not lie in public policy! The problem lies in PERSONAL policy. If we really want to solve the healthcare crisis, what we REALLY need to do is to encourage our lazy, gluttonous, indulgent, smoking, drinking, slovenly friends to change their lifestyles! Unless we change our lifestyles, the cost of healthcare will continue to rise endlessly, regardless of how desperately we attempt to distribute the cost more evenly.
Let's review. Public healthcare is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It breeds irresponsibility, and its costs will rise indefinitely. On the other hand, by becoming less individualistic and changing our filthy lifestyles, we can reduce insurance premiums by up to 90%. Finally, never in the history of the world has a big and intrusive government made its people generally wealthy and healthy. Never. Any questions?
The battle for public healthcare is one of the most selfish battles ever waged in the history of American public policy. Among the politicians, it is a battle to make the people dependent upon them so that they can acquire power. Among the commoners it is, with few ignorant exceptions, a battle to relinquish accountability for irresponsible behavior and gluttonous lifestyles.
Again, publicizing healthcare is unwise, dishonest, irresponsible, and immoral. Those who cherish the freedom won by the spilling of our ancestors' blood and who love fellow Americans and future generations more than self will combat the villainous policy at all costs.
Period.
Wow! I can go so many different directions in this debate. I haven’t officially decided what side of the fence I sit when it comes to health care. When it comes to paying more and losing some of my rights, I am completely against it. When I see people abuse the system and have operations they don’t need, I am against it. When I know that people are going to the emergency room rather than the doctor for a cold, thereby making my insurance rates go up, I am against it.
ReplyDeleteHowever, when I hear about people that can’t afford to get the treatment they need, I am for it. When I hear about mothers not getting prenatal care they need, I am for it. If I know it will lower the costs of things because it puts more regulations on the drug and insurance companies, I am for it. If in the long run, my costs go down because I am no longer paying for people that were too cheap or too lazy to get health insurance and then all of a sudden need surgery or expensive treatments, I am for it.
If regulated and controlled, overall I think I might be for it. If it ONLY included things that will make people’s lives better and not have a lot of earmarks or side costs, then why shouldn’t we want to help others? As it is, I think there are a lot of things that don’t benefit everyone. Try to limit those – the insurance already does that to a degree, tighten things up a little.
Add in extra costs for those that have diseases or problems because of choices they have made. Right now because I want insurance, I am paying for those people. They have no added cost because of the choices they made, but I do. Odds are they do have insurance and they are already making my rates go up. The only way I can stop paying for those people is to not have insurance. For me, I am lucky and my work provides good insurance, but even when it didn’t, I didn’t want to take the risk of something happening and me not being able to get health. Insurance companies and the government can promote healthy living and good choices and give back to those that are living right. I love the fact that my car insurance pays me back for every year I go without filing a claim. Reward those that aren’t abusing the system, punish those that do, and help those that need the system.
Just like with welfare – there are plenty that abuse the system. But there are others that need the system temporarily for circumstances beyond their control. I have no problem helping those people, while I really struggle seeing people get into a really nice car that I just saw in the store paying for their groceries with food stamps. I think for me it all comes down to controls, punishments, and rewards. If done right, it can be a beneficial and good system. It can be a way for us to help those that need help. To me, I feel like I’m already paying for those that live unhealthy lifestyles – the health care law won’t change that. Those people that are going to go to the doctor for every little thing, are probably already going. The only thing that I really see changing is that the cost will be a little more evenly distributed, some people may actually have to pay for the treatment they are now receiving at my expense, and those that can’t afford it will get the help they need.
Maybe I shouldn't join this brawl but I feel compelled to voice my agreement with Mark.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that government should enact a national healthcare plan because it is unconstitutional to force me to pay for the medical costs of others. I do understand the arguments for socialized medicine and also concede to Meagan that to a limited degree we already pay for medical coverage. However Medicare and Medicaid are very flawed system and in many cases promote expensive health care habits, such as only using the emergency room because unlike regular doctor appointments the emergency room doesn't charge co-pays. The fact of the matter is, the government is not good at operating businesses. This is because the government does not operate businesses by the self regulating rules of the market economy.
The government’s role in the economy is to promote fair competition. If the government was serious about addressing the availability and rising costs of healthcare they would start by reviewing the McCarran-Ferguson Act which exempts insurance companies from federal antitrust laws. This Act permits price fixing and joint ratemaking legal if permissible under state law. The problem is many states have limited regulation of the insurance industry because of the costs of those regulations.
Wiki or Google McCarran-Ferguson Act for more info.
Likewise, the government should reevaluate current policies that protect the medical industry from competition. For example, hospitals can block new medical facilities from doing business in some market areas.
“producers have been the driving force behind or have subsequently captured most health care regulations, and have used them to protect themselves from market competition at the expense of consumers…Hospitals use government regulation to block competition from other, often innovative, medical facilities. Pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers rely on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to erect high barriers to entry into those markets.”
Cato Handbook for Policymakers, 7th ed. pp 152-153 Retrieved from http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb111/hb111-15.pdf
There are many other ways that the government can help consumers obtain affordable healthcare and medical innovation. A socialized medical plan is nothing more than another way to privatize the revenue of the health industry while forcing society to pay for losses.
Thoughtful comments, all. By your arguments, Mark, Medicare is unconstitutional, yet it has persisted since 1965 and few are crying for its repeal. I invite you to consider what the costs to American families would be if they were required to assume part or all of the health care costs of their elderly family members. And Medicare rarely pays all of the costs of a procedure or hospital stay; most older adults have a secondary insurance policy to cover costs that Medicare won't cover.
ReplyDeleteDo not think that current and future elders can rely on their former employers for secondary insurance in their retirement; those types of benefits are going away and do not exist for most elders now. Many conservatives have decried "death panels for Grandma," but if we eliminate Medicare, that is what will occur for many older adults, especially those with few financial resources.
Then perhaps we as a people will finally realize that we are responsible for our own health. Without the anticipation that healthcare costs would ultimately be more evenly distributed, I doubt that America would have ever become such a gluttonous and unhealthy people.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, Medicare is unconstitutional. We have been provided so many crutches that we have chosen to break our own legs at an unsustainable rate. Our people would hold themselves more accountable for their health if they didn't have the government (and the ER, etc.) to rely on. In turn, if we lived more healthy lifestyles, insurance premiums would be significantly lower, insurance benefits would be part of more elderly people's retirements, and among those who did not have such benefits provided through retirement, most would be able to select and pay for a policy of their choice. We have brought this problem upon ourselves through our own poor decision-making.
It would be quite irresponsible--and foolish--to maintain that we ought to be able to persist in unhealthy, self-injurious habits and anticipate that our fellow-citizens should be obliged to pay for our indiscretion through their tax dollars. When the vast majority of health care costs (90%) and eight of the nine most frequent causes of death are preventable, our great problem is not monetary--it is a cultural problem, a problem of values. Our people ought to be ashamed--I'm certain our ancestors are.
One more thing--even when our people change their filthy lifestyles, occasionally, someone will still simply be unable to afford health insurance. Nevertheless, because such occasions will be the significantly less frequent exception, more churches, neighborhoods, doctors, and extended families will be able and willing to pitch in. Many families, churches, and neighborhoods still seek to function in that manner, but doing so obviously is becoming more and more difficult as taxes and healthcare costs rise.
ReplyDeleteWe are witnessing a culture crisis of self-indulgence, immorality, and secularism. If we focus our attack on these three ills, we will witness miraculous results.
I know this is talked about quite a bit but I just want to point out that although a majority, I'll go for two thirds of Americans do want to repeal the health care law. Half of those who want a repeal want it because they think the current law does not go far enough. The other half think that it goes too far.
ReplyDelete