It's the million dollar question. While it is easy to declare that health care ought to be a right for every American, it is first necessary to explore what qualifications and limitations pertain to inalienable or individual rights.
Just as the right to pursue happiness is limited to that which does not infringe upon the rights of others, so must the promise of health care. By declaring heath care a right, one guarantees that, by some means, care will be provided to anyone who desires it. This begs the question, if health care is a right, what quality of care is guaranteed with that right? How do we maintain that level of care if we don't have the personnel to provide it? If health care is a right, others must be required to provide that care, which is an obvious violation of our right to liberty. For any right to have substantive value it must not encroach upon the rights of others, otherwise how can any right have value?
Rights are intended as a means to limit government power. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not provisions given to us by government, but are natural born rights that are constitutionally protected from government violation.
Just as we are given the right to pursue happiness, and not the right TO happiness, so it must be with health care. We have the right to pursue health care, but cannot provide the right to heath care due to the fact that it is dependant upon the labors of others. Therefore, health care cannot be a right.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have. "
Barry Goldwater
No comments:
Post a Comment