The "right" of health care

Woman finds husband licking
another woman’s face, punches
him and drags him out by his hair.

I do not believe health care is a fundamental “right,” but I do firmly believe in universal health care. Arguing over whether health care is a right is misleading at best and useless at worst. If it were a fundamental right, where would such a right come from?

Certainly it would not be a “God-given” right. God, if such a being or thing even exists, has made it crystal clear for as long as man has existed, that he/she/it is completely unconcerned with human health and well-being, striking down rich and poor alike, old and young, individuals of all races, religions, ethnic groups, all genders, sexual orientations, good and bad, as well as believers and atheists alike.

Similarly, it cannot be a “natural” right. Obviously there is nothing in nature that gives humans a right to not become stricken, fall ill, and die, and there is certainly no right to health care. In the case of humans, I cannot see there are any natural rights at all other than perhaps the right to life, and even that may be questionable. Once you’re alive in nature, you’re on your own. This seems to me to be the general Republican position.

“Human” rights refer to those things that all humans are supposedly entitled to by virtue of being humans. But who says humans are entitled to any rights at all? Humans, of course, But the problem here is that not everyone agrees on what rights humans are really entitled to have. Nowhere in discussions of human rights do you see health care listed (at least in any such discussions I have heard or read).

The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights does not specify any particular right to health care, although it tends to come close:
Article 25.
· (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Notice that this does not specify health care, only a “standard of living adequate…” And even the right to “security” does not necessarily guarantee health care as such.

Neither the Constitution of the United States or The Bill of Rights stipulate anything about the right to health care. This is doubtless because health care was not really an issue at the time of their creation.

Health care is also not necessarily a “civil”right, although it could be so declared, as it more or less has been in all so-called “industrialized,” “advanced,” or more “civilized” societies, other than the United States. It is here that most of the arguments against health care as a right appear. Opponents tend to argue that at best individuals only have a right to access. That is, it should be available and if you can afford it, you can get it. This, of course, leaves out huge numbers of people who cannot afford it. Why, opponents argue, should we be responsible for others who cannot afford health care? Why should we have to pay more in taxes just to pay for someone else’s health care? Health care is a privilege, not a right. There are perfectly cogent arguments for why universal health care would be beneficial for societies even if couched in purely economic or social terms, but such arguments are for another time and place.

And indeed, it is precisely correct that health care is a privilege. It is a privilege you acquire by virtue of living in an advanced society, the members of which, being serious-minded, moral, upstanding, and enlightened people, blessed with unusual riches, and with a highly developed sense of empathy for those less well-off than themselves, recognize that no one should have to suffer unnecessarily the ravages of illness or the unfortunate accidents of life without proper health care. Such people also hold greed to a minimum and recognize that some things are far too important to be left to a profit-based, private enterprise system. Unhappily, this description does not apply to the more “primitive” world view apparently widely held by some members of the contemporary United States. These individuals, mostly Republicans but not exclusively so, cling desperately to older, more “uncivilized” views, like Social Darwinism or the Law of the Jungle, views that were rejected and given up by more enlightened populations some time ago.

LKBIQ:
Let us understand Darwinism so we can walk in the opposite direction when it comes to setting up society.
Richard Dawkins

TILT:
I read on Wikepedia that homo erectus supposedly dined on mammoth meat 1.8 million years ago (I do not believe this).