.jpg)
While this subject has been discussed on this site previously, in light of the looming Senate vote and my recent announcement to only accept my district's median household income for my congressional salary, and to make a charitable donation to local non-profit hospitals, I'd like to review this subject once more. For more details, please read my health care plank, and to completely debunk the incumbent's claim that health care legislation is constitutional, please read "To Nancy Pelosi on Health Care - Are YOU Serious?"
In the Bill of Rights of the Soviet Union, they were honest about health care – it states that "citizens of the USSR have the right to health protection." This document also stipulated Soviet citizens have the "right to work" not longer than 41 hours in a workweek, the "right to rest and leisure," the "right to education," the "right to enjoy cultural benefits." (Source) To find out how well this worked out for the Soviets, try reading Dr. Yuri Maltsev's article "What Soviet Medicine Teaches Us." Even today, Russia's life expectancy for males is just 59 years, while in the US it is 73 years.
Besides lowering life expectancies under their totalitarian regime, the Soviet Union had it all wrong of course. Health care is not a right. You have a right to breath because air is abundant on our planet - there is no scarcity of it. Although your life is extremely scarce - there is only one of you - you do have a right to your life - to suggest otherwise is slavery.
You have a right to your property - to suggest otherwise is theft.
You have a right to freedom of expression and to believe what you wish - to suggest otherwise is tyranny.
However, people must pay for things like health care or food. Does a starving man have a right to enter a supermarket and eat whatever he wants? Health care providers have bills to pay and families to support, just as you do. If there is a "right" to health care, then you must have the ability to force health care providers to serve you.
Therefore health care is a privilege of society. Health care is a good and a service that everyone pays for. Health care providers generally work to provide the most affordable care with the highest quality to the rest of society. (Most health care insurance companies are excluded from this last sentence.)
All the current health care bill does is use the government as an intermediary to exert force directly on health care providers (and employers) to serve you. The current bill is a TAX and government interventions in labor "laws" will force the poor and needy out of their jobs as Eric Staib predicts here.
To alleviate the pain of the starving and those without adequate medical care, we must turn not to the federal government but instead to ourselves.
To share food and medical care by your own free will is charity. The government is not capable of charity because of the truth contained in these three words: GOVERNMENT HAS NOTHING. Government can only redistribute hand-outs after first taxing and confiscating it from someone else. Neither the President nor Congress can conjure up something from nothing, although politicians are quite good at making miracles seem possible. (Cartoon courtesy Chan Lowe)
The more prosperous America is, the more wealth created, the better off the poor will be. Plus they might even have jobs instead of a 22% unemployment morass that the FED and the government has created by their actions. Voluntary organizations on the local level is by far a better choice, and prosperous individuals are the most charitable. Don't rob others, but instead live by your principles. As mentioned above, once I am elected to Congress, I have promised to take only the district's median household income and donate the remainder to local non-profit hospitals.
However, the irony is my salary is paid by the taxpayer as well. Like I said, government has nothing. Don't forget.
** Please also check out Judge Napolitano on The Glenn Beck Show below. One of his guests, Dr. Salerno taught me a few seminars this past summer at Mises University - an excellent teacher!
30 Comments
Maria Folsom
Jake, this is an excellent explanation, and a very moral stand to take. Health care is NOT a right. The "starving man in the supermarket" is the perfect example. I hope lots of people read this.
The "Philosophy of Liberty" is a gem of a little video. I've had this video for a few years and have shared it with many friends.
Spread the word, Jake, and keep the fires of liberty burning.
Donald Hoffman
I agree fully that there is no right to healthcare, nor to food, clothing, warmth, shelter, education, subsistence, or any material or physical human need. These claimed "rights", created and granted by the "Statist" are simply an illusion and a diversion from the concepts of Liberty that actually are unalienable, "endowed" rights of all humanity that were articulated in the Declaration of Independence--life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (virtue)--and in the Bill of Rights as the first ten amendments to the US Constitution--freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, the right to be secure in your person and your possessions, to be free from unwarranted search, seizure, and arrest, the right not to be compelled to be a witness against one's self, the right to counsel and to be faced with witnesses and accusers, to not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment, the right to a speedy trial, etc., etc.
Healthcare is not a right, but I also disagree that it is a privilege. Healtcare, and all the rest of the things on the list of "securities" is a "responsibility", laid at the feet first of the individual, and then at the feet of the community engaged in free enterprise. With Liberty comes responsibility, and to forfeit Liberty to evade responsibility is to beg for tyranny.
The whole evil scam by political philosophers like Karl Marx and by career politicians in the US Congress and White House is to tempt free people to abandon their God given Liberty in exchange for "rule of man" granted relief from the "responsibility" for providing their own sustenance and the sustenance they owe to their families and the aid and concern they owe to their peers. The aim of the ruling class offering the comfortable relief from responsibility is to make it so that their subjects little by little lose their understanding of the concept of unalienable rights and Liberty, until the memory of Liberty disappears from their consciousness. The aim of the "Statist" is to break the spirit of individual and civic responsibility and replace it with dependence on, and obedience to, a ruling government occupied by an elite ruling class, the kind of government where the subjects do the work and produce goods and provide services and the rulers collect both the fruits of their labor and place burdensome taxes on everything that their subjects consume for themselves. As the paradigm shifts from Liberty to Tyranny, the ruling elite get richer and more powerful while the subjects become more and more burdened by regulation and taxation, and less and less likely to see in themselves the power to regain their Liberty, if they even remember what it Liberty is.
BekaForney
Americans need to know the difference between a right and a privilege. Thank you for this article.
Anonymous
GOVERNMENT HAS NOTHING. That is very important to remember. Whatever welfare program the government runs, that money was originally someone else's.
ChuckAngier
Way to go Jake! I hope PA-15 understands how fortunate it is to have you in the mix.
I believe that health care is not a right simply because NO ONE is entitled to ANYTHING that REQUIRES the talents and resources of others. Your examples clearly illustrate this.
Shannon
If we have a right to life, then health care is required. We obviously pay for goods and services (or food, as you've noted) but when it comes to life and survival, why should the wealthiest get the best care? The definition of privilege suggests it is something beyond rights--granted to those of a certain status. How can we say that life fits that definition?
yazi
I think you're perpetuating a logical fallacy. It is true that healthcare is not currently a right in our society. But rights are defined by the society (in our case by the Constitution and our laws). The argument by some is that healthcare _should be_ a right. Conversely, all your argument is saying is that it _should remain_ simply a privilege. It's not helpful to baselessly equate your position with some kind of natural state of affairs.
Your enumeration of the rights we currently have is illustrative. The reasoning you give behind each of the rights is different. Why? Because they did not magically spring out of nature. Men (mostly) reasoned that this society should have those rights for the reasons you cite. Similarly, one could reason that there _should be_ a right to basic healthcare in our society because sickness can strike anyone, regardless of fault.
You can disagree with that, but you can't (logically) argue that because healthcare isn't currently a right necessarily means that it can't be.
yazi
Also, through the use of food stamps, we, as a society, _have_ decided that basic access to food is also a right. That's different than the anarchy you describe. And it's different than a right to whatever food one wants. But it's very analogous to basic access to healthcare.
Besides, it doesn't matter what you call it. The question is: are you so married to your conception of liberty that we should we perpetuate a system where millions and millions have no access to basic healthcare through no fault of their own? I won't deny that you can certainly answer, "Yes," to that question, but your faux-philosophical discussion of rights and privileges is a smokescreen.
Donald Hoffman
"I still contest that a natural 'right' you would have even when born on a deserted island".
Jake Towne made the above statement in a reply to my previous comment, and I find it "brilliant" for this reason:
If your were born on a deserted island, or if you were marooned on one, or simply chose to live on one, you would without question retain your "natural rights"--life, liberty, pursuit of happiness (virtue), property, self preservation and defense, freedom of speech, expression, religion, etc. These rights are natural to man regardless of whether he is part of a community, in isolation or a recluse, or the last person left on earth.
In contrast, were he alone on a deserted island, or the last person left on earth, how could he claim a "right" to healthcare, or housing, or basic sustenance, or education, etc.? If he were alone, who or what would be compelled to satisfy his right to any of these things? No one, of course. Obviously it would be his responsibility to care for his health, provide his sustenance, shelter, and comfort, and to seek his education. Therefore, there cannot be a "right" to any of the latter, just the same as any of the "rights" in the former list cannot be legitimately denied. It is his "right" to enjoy the facets of Liberty...and his "responsibility" to provide for his needs and wants.
Jonny Muffin
"i just think this kind of pseudo-clever thought experiment is pretty unhelpful when we're talking about healthcare reform in a community of 300 million people in the 21st century."
This is like saying 2+2=4 is pretty unhelpful when we're talking about a complex mathmatical formula. Does it solve the formula? No, but you need to understand the basics if you want to solve the complex formula. When defining Natural Rights I think it is a great illustration. I think the problem you have is you want to equate 'health care' to rights, in which case you will need a very complex formula to cover up the cost of labor and supplies that are required to get you your free health care. It's interesting you would state that "...but in a community your right to act is *necessarily* limited by whether it infringes on others' rights to act." While arguing for health care as a right - which requires someone elses labor and supplies.
Chris Vogel
Jake, this remains one of the very very few places where I will have to disagree with you whole-heartedly.
Healthcare is neither a right nor a privilege. It is a basic necessity. A child cannot be born without some basic form of healthcare involved. Sure it can happen, but chances of survival are slim.
I feel that your argument assumes that healthcare follows the same economic laws as any other consumer good. Food is affordable at any level, and to deprive yourself of food because of basic laziness is inexcusable. If you are physically or mentally unable to provide yourself with food then society will likely provide it for you if the right avenues are taken.
Healthcare is unaffordable at all levels. It is a basic need being treated like a commodity which is the result of the belief that healthcare is a privilege.
To compare healthcare to food is flawed. You cannot walk into a supermarket as a consumer, take $2,000 in food up to the register, pay $50 and walk out with the retailer breathing a sigh of relief that you paid anything at all. This makes your analogy of the starving man in the market ironic, because that is exactly what insurance companies do. The difference is they are far from starving.
I agree with you that government involvement is the problem but the true root of the problem is the coziness with which the gatekeepers of healthcare (insurance companies) are with the government. The fact that the government is allowed to get this cozy with any industry group is absolutely appauling and is the exact reason why I am in full support of your candidacy.
I feel though, Jake, that you should revise your argument on healthcare being a privilege because that suggests that it is purely reserved for the privileged.
I do have to say that it is amazing that we can have such a civilized discussion about such a touchy subject on your board. Thanks for you time, Jake.
John Steinsvold
An Alternative to Capitalism (which will end homelessness and provide health care for all)
The following link takes you to an essay titled: "Home of the Brave?" which I wrote and appeared in the Athenaeum Library of Philosophy: http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/steinsvold.htm
John Steinsvold
JakeTowne
After reading through the above feedback, I editing this piece to clarify a bit from
"Therefore health care is a privilege. Health care is a good and a service that everyone pays for."
to
"Therefore health care is a privilege of society. Health care is a good and a service that everyone pays for. Health care providers generally work to provide the most affordable care with the highest quality to the rest of society. (Most health care insurance companies are excluded from this last sentence.)"
CJ from Btown
After reading your Morning Call article today [1-3-10], I agree that Health Care Givers have families to support and bills to pay. However in concluding you state " we must not turn to government but to ourselves." I did not see where you offer any solutions for families with health care needs that far outstrip the ordinary wage earner's ability to pay. Why do health care providers and insurance providers have to live in McMansions and drive Lexeses and Mersedes? The average person drives a Ford or Honda, and lives in an apartment, or a more modest home. What are your suggestions for the average citizen who goes bankrupt trying to pay extravegant medical bills? You say "we should turn to ourselves" I ask you how does someone earning $50,000 pay these exorbitent fees? Is your solution IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD THE COST------DIE!!!!!! If you have any other solution I would appreciate Hear at least one thing that the average citizen can do [Without the government's help] for themselves when faced with medical bills that are out of sight
JakeTowne
Dear CJ from Btown -
Thanks for visiting and asking some great questions. Let me take my best stabs at them, I reordered them a bit, feel free to reply back if you disagree - I really don't mind disagreements since I usually learn something and I respect your point of view.
Q: "Is your solution IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD THE COST------DIE!!!!!!"
A: No, certainly not.
Q: "What are your suggestions for the average citizen who goes bankrupt trying to pay extravegant medical bills?"
A: I think we can do better but for right now I refer people in this situation to read the EMTALA Act of 1986 and demand the care. However, we can't be silly and not realize that the EMTALA Act is not an acceptable long-term solution - already in the SW there are plenty of closed emergency rooms due to (in a lot of cases, illegal) immigrants taking advantage of this.
Search for "EMTALA" here, see my comments (no, it's not a perfect solution, but most people that show up in the emergency room haven't read EMTALA) http://towneforcongress.com/platform-issues/health-care
Now, as your representative (this is straight from my plank above) If citizens are in favor, I would introduce tax relief legislation to allow individuals and families to reduce their federal income tax nearly dollar-for-dollar by the amounts they spend out-of-pocket on private health care premiums. This would help make private health care a more affordable option for everyone.
I would introduce a bill to reduce federal income taxes dollar-for-dollar by amounts spent out-of-pocket by parents for their children with terminal illnesses, major disabilities or cancer. How silly is it that the government helped finance the housing boom through mortgage credits, but has no mercy when it comes to a truer form of wealth, our children? Parents in such situations would greatly benefit from such a tax relief. (You should also refer to my income tax plank here http://towneforcongress.com/platform-issues/income-tax)
Similarly, I would introduce a bill to suspend the obligation of individuals suffering from terminal illness or cancer to continue paying the Social Security tax on their income. What could be more heartless than forcing a person to continue paying Social Security money they will never see while they are sick and need every dollar to survive?
While I condemn frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits, there are certainly sad cases where individuals are harmed physically, mentally, or economically either by health care providers or insurance companies. However, liability and contract law are the responsibility of the state Congress of Pennsylvania, not DC. Of course, the right of individuals to seek recourse in state courts should not be infringed, but it is the responsibility of the state Congress to determine how best to discard frivolous lawsuits and procedurally balance the rightful reparation for plaintiffs with the need for reason in judgments against defendants.
One of the constitutional responsibilities of Congress is to "regulate Commerce... among the several States." Currently there is no state portability over state lines due in large part to the crippling state mandate system. (21) (22) This means major health care insurers must subdivide into 50 companies to cover each state, which is fairly ridiculous. I am for portability over state lines, although I must remark that using the Commerce Clause as justification for "essentially unlimited power" over health care (from House Speaker Pelosi) is completely false, see my article "To Nancy Pelosi on Health Care - Are You Serious?" (23)
Q: " I ask you how does someone earning $50,000 pay these exorbitent fees?"
A: This is the true problem, you've hit the nail on the head. But this is not something that can be legislated out of. It is impossible to legislate ourselves - on a federal level - to health care freedom. Pay close attention to my plank, we need to attack the cost structure of the current government-sponsored insurance cartel that started under Nixon with the HMO Act of 1973. On a state level, the mandates that the PA House has passed that add up to 15-40% of your premium need to be removed. Again, here's the link to my platform. http://towneforcongress.com/platform-issues/health-care
Q: "Why do health care providers and insurance providers have to live in McMansions and drive Lexeses and Mersedes?"
A: I completely get your question here, though not all members of the industry live lavishly. The executives at insurance providers and their employers, as I referred to above, have unnaturally higher salaries because they are part of a government-sponsored monopoly. Remove gov't support and the insurance providers that provide the most affordable and best quality insurance will flourish and the bureaucratic, overweight ones that screw people over by not paying claims (I have some stories I could share) will be driven out of business as everyone will go to the competitor with the best combo of cheap costs, good reputation, etc.
On the doctors, I do believe there is a serious problem, especially as the baby boomers start to retire. Medical schools and state licensing restrict the supply of new doctors artificially - case in point there are many bright college students that apply to med school, but acceptance (and sky-high tuition) makes this difficult. Restricted supply results in higher pay. In this interview on health care economics, we talk about free market solutions - such as accreditation to replace state licensing.
http://towneforcongress.com/economy/health-care-economics-interview-with-radio-free-market-1
Almost all health care providers begin their careers with large amounts of debt - which again is a problem with its roots in gov't but is probably best left for another day. Also doctors have super-high malpractice insurance costs - another problem with its roots in gov't and solutions in sensible tort and contract legislation at the state level.
PS - a close relative is a PA, but she still drives a Ford and lives in a 1-bedroom apt. :)
Q: "However in concluding you state " we must not turn to government but to ourselves. I did not see where you offer any solutions for families with health care needs that far outstrip the ordinary wage earner's ability to pay... If you have any other solution I would appreciate Hear at least one thing that the average citizen can do [Without the government's help] for themselves when faced with medical bills that are out of sight"
A: The crux of the matter requires economic understanding. The government's leeching away our wealth and purchasing power and every year (as a people) we get poorer and poorer... except for the elite few positioned in the military-industrial complex and other gov't sponsored cartelized industries. We need to be prosperous as a society so to improve our health care. Check out the third graph in the Real Interest Rate and read the article to understand it.
http://towneforcongress.com/economy/unlocking-the-money-matrix-the-real-interest-rate-part-1215
In simple terms, your salary goes up by maybe 2-3% a year, but the true inflation rate recently has been at 6-8% - so even though you earn more dollars, you are getting poorer in terms of purchasing power, which is the only thing that really matters. This has been going on for about 20 years at least.
Now, in terms of what the people can do, check out some of the examples I listed in this article -- the Red Cross, Habitat for Humanity (I spent over a week volunteering on some houses in Bethlehem this summer for fun), Shriners Childrens Hospitals, etc are all great examples of successful charities - in many cases founded and funded by philanthropists who made fortunes providing cheap goods and services to their societies
http://towneforcongress.com/economy/guns-or-health-care-1
JakeTowne
FYI the link CJ is referring to is here http://www.mcall.com/news/opinion/letters/all-towne1222.7124569jan03,0,3241157.story