The Truth About Health Care: Philosophy And Rhetoric

Since World War II, employers have increasingly provided health insurance coverage to their employees. Since 1965, many citizens have had their insurance provided by the federal government through Medicare and Medicaid. And since 1997, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) has provided insurance for millions of children. Each of these policies and programs have contributed to the notion that health care and insurance are services to be provided to individuals at no cost and with little interest or participation by those receiving the benefits when it comes to choosing the details of the plans.

Or, to put it in another way: Too many people believe that health care and insurance are entitlements, that they should not be bothered with the particulars of their coverage, and that they should not have to cover the costs of the procedures or medicines they want or need.

The entitlement aspect is very troubling. Perhaps the most disturbing argument made by proponents of government-funded insurance programs is that health care or insurance coverage is a right protected by the Constitution of the United States. These advocates cite phrases such as the one found in the preamble, where it is written that the purpose of the Constitution is to “promote the general welfare” of the Union. Their convoluted position requires a blanket denial of every principle upon which this nation was founded – and is in fact a contradiction of the English language. To them, “promoting the general welfare” means bestowing specific benefits to specific individuals at the expense of other, specific fellow citizens.

We know that the Constitution was written in order to grant explicit authority to a new federal government, but it was also meant to limit the power and scope of that government to essential functions required to carry out its defined responsibilities. The phrase most often overlooked by those who argue otherwise is found in the preamble – just like the one previously mentioned. Indeed, the Constitution was created in order to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

How do we reconcile individual liberty with government intrusion into an industry that is essential to our individual well-being? This is a conundrum that has yet to be rationally explained by the promoters of statist policies – because there is no rational explanation for denying liberty.

Each of us has the capacity to make decisions that will shape our lives. We are free to act on those decisions as long as they do not infringe on the rights to life, liberty, and property held by other individuals. The choices we make regarding our health, our health care, and whether or not we purchase insurance, are not exempt from that process. Every choice we make has a consequence and every consequence leads to a new range of choices. If the results lead us to a condition in which we cannot care for ourselves or purchase the services needed to improve or maintain our health, then we have nobody to blame but ourselves.

Of course, there will always be extenuating circumstances that provide an exception to these rules. Certainly, catastrophic events may occur in one’s life, and nobody expects a child to make health care decisions from the time they’re born. In these situations, it is likely that a third party may need to step in and help out. But the question remains whether or not the federal government ought to be that entity. If we are to maintain the principles of individual liberty and non-intrusive government, guided by constitutional law, then the only conclusion reached should be that private individuals or organizations ought to handle the private medical affairs of individuals.

Compelling one segment of the population to pay for another is neither a right of a People or their government, nor is it grounded in principles of morality and liberty.

If the federal government decides that health care and insurance are constitutional rights, then they are ones that have been created by the government, not protected by it. Unlike the rights already protected by the Constitution, health care and insurance would be something of monetary value granted upon the citizenry – at the expense of the citizenry. They cannot be inherent rights held by all because they would not exist without the initiative of individual private persons.

In other words, if it requires the ingenuity and labor of one individual to create a product or service that would not otherwise exist, then that specific product or service cannot be a right claimed by a different individual. The individual claiming such a right would be nothing more than a looter. We must look no further than the protections guaranteed by our Constitution to understand this concept.

We have the right to free speech, but we cannot force another individual to provide us with a platform from which to speak.

We have the right to own and carry a firearm, but we cannot force another individual to provide us with a rifle and ammunition.

We have the right to live, but we cannot force another individual to risk their life saving ours. Nor do we have a right to force another individual to perform surgeries, prescribe medications, or create personal diets and treatment plans.

There is a difference between a right and robbery. The advocates of an industry takeover do not make that distinction. They seem perfectly content with forcing certain individuals, like doctors and business owners, to give up some of their freedoms – such as earning a profit and keeping the fruits of their labor. To them, such government actions are benevolent, and it is earned income that is in fact theft.

These advocates also frame the argument as a general health care crisis and immediately transition into the need for universal insurance coverage – run by the government and funded by the “rich” – in order to allegedly solve the problem. Care and insurance appear to be interchangeable terms to them, but their differences transform the entire debate and lead to vastly different solutions. Many of our politicians continue to sell their agenda as a reform of health care in general, but any rational person can clearly see that the United States does not have a crisis of care. However, the politicians running our federal government are anything but rational.

When these men and women encounter a problem, however small it may be, their default position is to involve the federal government, to exaggerate the difficulties, and to portray themselves to the public as superior legislators with unbridled compassion for the downtrodden plebs. Nevertheless, the programs and policies these politicians adopt seldom resolve the original troubles. Most often, their actions prolong or inflate the problems, create new ones, or simply fail under the massive weight of bureaucratic inefficiency and inevitable bankruptcy. One ought to wonder why our citizenry continues to reward such incompetence.

If we truly comprehend the philosophies and goals of the left-wing of our political class, then the rhetoric used to advance their agenda for “health care reform” is quite easily understood. Selling their reform to the People under the profoundly false claim that the government knows best how to treat and insure each individual is utterly insulting. Selling their reform as a means to cut costs, expand quality coverage, and reduce deficits is equally disgusting. The current group of “reformers” can only devise one plausible argument for their agenda: The government will gladly take away the decision-making responsibility from individuals and place it in the hands of bureaucrats.

None of Congress’ current plans will realistically make care more accessible or improve its quality. So, why are politicians selling their bankrupt ideas as health care reform? Because they know that the public is either too ignorant to understand the game being played, or that too many people are simply apathetic.

We do not have a health care crisis in this country, despite the relentless efforts to depict our problems as such. The United States has some of the world’s best doctors, the best technology, and the best treatment facilities. People from all over the planet come to our country to be cared for in our system. Nobody is refused emergency medical treatment and if anyone needs to see a doctor for any reason, there are plenty of clinics and programs available that can make it happen, even if the patient has no money whatsoever.

People are not in dire need of care – they just want it to be cheaper or free. The real crisis we face today is a systematic rejection of individual responsibility.

Adults in this country need to make better life decisions rather than expect others to pay for their mistakes. Our politicians need to cut government spending, reverse our national debts, and lessen the tax burdens on all citizens – especially business owners. Those in the media need to stop reporting statistics that are known to be inaccurate or misleading and properly inform their viewers or readers. Everyone ought to educate themselves on how to get the things we need, how to prioritize our needs, and how to acquire them efficiently and without accumulating unsustainable personal debt.

If we all started acting more responsibly, stopped being so dependent on others, and were able to realize the aims listed above, being healthy and having the means to seek and receive the care we need would never be a serious problem…and certainly not one that the federal government would feel necessary to resolve.

Embracing individuality and the responsibilities that come with it, as well as defending our natural liberties, will be the only meaningful resistance to the largest transfer of control from private citizens to our federal government. Denying our inherent rights and removing the restrictions that ought to remain in place on our government will lead to further infringements on individual liberty and eventually, utter societal ruin.

*See also, The Truth About Health Care: Statistics

Copyright © 2009 by RationalLiberty.com

All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means without written permission by the author.

____________________________________________________________________________________