Argue the opposite side of the health care debate...Health care IS NOT a right, it is a privilege.

In my last blog post I argued that everyone should have a right to health care. In this post, I will be arguing the opposing view, the viewpoint that health care is not a right that should be given to everyone, but rather that it is a privilege for those that can afford it.

Health care should not be given to anyone, unless they can afford it. It is not fair for everyone else to have to pay for somebody else’s wellbeing. Especially if that somebody is too lazy to get a job, or even worse, spend their money on material things that are “wants” and not on health insurance, which, is a “need”. Furthermore, according to the Founding Fathers, the only inalienable rights that we do have are that of life, liberty, property, and the pursuant of happiness. Leonard Peikoff further proves this point when he says, “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…Why only these? Observe that all legitimate rights have one thing in common: they are rights to action, not to rewards from other people.” In other words, everyone is born with these same rights and has an equal opportunity to go out into the world and make something of it. If they fail to do so, it is not the job of the American taxpayers to cover them.

He later states, “You have the right to act, and keep the results of your actions, the products you make, to keep them or 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 couldn’t agree more. Increasing taxes to the middle class, the biggest group of people in our county, the group that keeps our economy flowing, to give a minority health insurance could cripple our economy. Moreover, the government would be taking away the freedom of the people by making them pay for something that has no real benefit for them.

Another concern I have with free health care (i.e. socialized medicine) is that a line has to be drawn that dictates what would be covered by the free insurance and what wouldn’t be. There is no way to do this that would be fair. Who’s right is it to say what operations/procedures are entitled to everyone? Should an 80-year-old man be covered for an operation that has a 50 percent chance of success? Should a 25-year-old woman be covered for an operation that has a 25 percent chance of success? These are decisions that no one has the right to decide except the patient and the patient’s family.

My final reason against free health care is that it would clog the health care system. Donald Bourdreaux states it perfectly when he says, “This situation leads to a monstrously inefficient consumption of healthcare. Some people consume too much, while many others with more pressing needs do without…The taxpayers must pay more and more to fund Medicare and Medicaid, while private insurers must continually raise premiums. The sad and perverse result is that increasing numbers of people go without health insurance.” It is simply not practical economically to implement such a system.

In conclusion, healthcare is not a right it is a privilege for those that can afford to have it. Free healthcare inhibits the freedoms of the majority of the people in order to help the minority. Nowhere in our rights does it mention anything about a right to healthcare, rather, it says we have the right to take action and make a living in order to provide things, such as healthcare, to ourselves and to our families. Why should I have to pay for someone else’s problems? If someone wants to help others out they can donate to charity. It is their right to donate, however, it is not fair to force others to do the same against their will.