Introduction

Q. Is healthcare a human right? A. No. Reasonable access to healthcare is a human right.

Q. What about housing, food, clothing, employment and income, and so on? A. Same answer.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute blog/podcast.

Continuing

America is a unique and exceptional nation. Part of the  equally unique and exceptional role we need to play in it is to understand the right and wrong--and the cost--of the political arguments swirling around us..

“Human right” vs. “Reasonable access” is at the very core of what we are talking about here. If these things are indeed human rights, then everyone, all 7.5 billion of us humans in the world would be entitled to them. And even the most extravagant spender of US taxpayer money would admit that we cannot afford to supply those benefits to all of those around the world who are not now receiving them. So I suppose the “human right” phrase is more virtue signalling than a real position. It looks like we are talking about those who manage to be here in the US, with or without documents, legally or illegally.

Pause for a key definition: Illegal vs. Undocumented. If I am a qualified driver and am driving without my paperwork with me, I am undocumented. If I am not a qualified driver and am driving anyway, I am illegal. Being pulled over and asked for my paperwork does not have any effect on my status; it merely exposes it.

The unalienable rights, granted to us by our creator, are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Healthcare is not an unalienable right, to be granted to everyone regardless of effort level on their part. 

Let’s suppose that certain political types get their way over time and things like healthcare, food, housing, etc. are made free after being declared to be human rights. Why would anyone work? What would the motivation be? Can anyone make the case that the people voting for more and more free things--including a universal basic income--would be in any way motivated to work? If people are voting for free things and they are getting them, there would be little motivation to do anything but vote for more free things. 

Separately, does anyone believe that the politicians supporting making more and more things free would in any way motivate their supporters to work for their money, rather than simpy vote for them for their money? Let’s hear from three justifiably famous and wise voices:

“A democracy can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.” -Alexis de Tocqueville

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end." -Alexander Hamilton

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” Benjamin Franklin

This wisdom is as old as the world’s oldest democracy, America. Yes, America is the world’s oldest democracy. How much longer will we be able to make that claim?

Returning specifically to healthcare, the goal should be to come up with a way to allow reasonable access to affordable, quality healthcare. Note the podcast title question is not, “Should everyone have access to healthcare?” The answer to that question is a loud and hearty “Yes. Absolutely!”. For those who feel that healthcare is a right, remember that in most cases people can live longer without healthcare than without food. And lack of housing and clothing can easily lead to health problems, as well as a poor quality lifestyle and an unsuccessful life overall. The “healthcare is a human right” argument can quickly lead to the conclusion that food, clothing and shelter are also rights.

Okay, Will, what does “reasonable access” mean. Let’s start by returning to a chart I created and have referenced before,