Health Care Insurance: A Human Right?

It has become politically popular to equate human desires and wants with human rights. This is, in fact, the battle cry of some factions in the fight for a government-run health care system. But is health care a human right? Let’s examine this premise.

The human rights of Americans are defined by our two founding documents: the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Thomas Jefferson, primary author of the Declaration, stated it thus:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . .”

The Constitution of the United States codified this philosophy by instituting a federal government limited in scope and function. The first ten amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights, specifically mention certain unalienable rights with which the government is forbidden to interfere. Among these are our rights to speak freely, both in written and spoken form; to worship according to the dictates of our consciences; and to bear arms for self-defense as well as protection from foreign enemies and domestic tyranny.

The founder’s understanding of what constituted a human right was informed by the writings of political philosophers from throughout history, from Plato and Cicero to Locke and Blackstone. When they wrote of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” they expressed their belief in the importance of the individual, his freedom to use his time and talents to pursue opportunities - though with no guaranteed outcomes - and his right to accumulate property in order to provide for himself and his loved ones security and prosperity.

A confusion of the term “right” has led to the current misunderstanding that anything deemed necessary or even desirable must be a right. But a right is something that, by definition, should not involve the usurpation of a fellow citizen’s rights.

Associate justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. once said “The right to sing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.” In the case of health care, once the proponents of universal health care begin swinging their fists they are going to be hitting a whole lot of noses. Unfortunately, the kind of damage inflicted won’t be so easily taken care of in the local hospital emergency room, with or without insurance.

Though it is not in vogue to speak of financial rights these days, they are, in fact, supposed to be protected. They include the right to keep the fruits of one’s labor – these days that’s usually money – and the right to use those fruits as one sees fit. By expecting others to pay for healthcare, the “healthcare is a human right” crowd explicitly violates these rights. To put it bluntly, something cannot be a right when it forces others to sacrifice their own rights.

Another important argument against the concept of health care as a human right is the lack of a clear definition of what health care is. While in its most basic form one would expect it to include preventative care (for example, immunization), and medical and surgical treatment of established illness, does it also include organ transplantation, cosmetic surgery, infertility treatment and the most expensive medicines? For something to be considered a human right the minimum requirement should be that the right in question is capable of definition.

Slogans such as “Health care is a human right” sound reasonable and make great rally signs but, when examined, they do not bear up. Is health care a human right? No, it is a personal responsibility.

Audrey Pietrucha is Interim Coordinator of the Bennington County Campaign for Liberty and founder of the Southern Vermont Liberty Council.

Health Care Is a Human Right?

Tuesday evening I attended a Healthcare is a Human Right forum in Montpelier. I wasn’t expecting much, really—a few heartstring pulling stories, empty rhetoric and/or fanatical support for a healthcare overhaul from attending legislators and a manipulated question and answer session. I think I must be a prophet because that’s exactly how it played out. I wanted to go because legislators from Washington County would be on the panel. I also wanted to learn a thing or two about organizing. I was happy to meet up with a few Tea Party folks and altogether the “opposition” camp amounted to 5 people.

Upon entering we came to a long table jam packed with information and paraphernalia from the Vermont Workers’ Center, the group which has made “Healthcare is a Human Right” (HHR) a slogan known in practically every household in VT and beyond. They have adapted an iconic symbol of Rosie the Riveter into a nurse who I would not want to look at the wrong way in a bar. The VWC has impeccable branding. The red shirts and signs are everywhere. This was the second HHR event I’ve attended. They are well organized and seem to have infinite funding. They even had free bottles of water and all the Ben & Jerry’s you could eat.

The turnout was lower than I had expected. The Montpelier High School auditorium holds 600 people. I’d estimate the room was about ¼ full. I’m not sure if this is considered good for this type of event but seeing as there was little to no public advertising (and I found out through the Tea Party list) I would give it a thumbs up in that area. I have a feeling the opposition turnout would have been slightly higher had the forum not been scheduled for what was GOP caucus night in most towns around the state.

A long line of tables was set up on the stage for the legislators. There was also a podium with a microphone and a desk next to it with a mike. The organizers provided interpretive services for the hard of hearing which I thought was a great touch. However, after the initial introduction I don’t recall seeing the interpreter signing.

Above the legislator table on the back curtain were 5 placards with the words “Universality”, “Equity”, “Accountability”, “Transparency” and “Participation” printed on them. All of the legislators from Washington County were invited but some did not attend (most notably Republicans). Seated at the table were Senators Bill Doyle and Ann Cummings, and Representatives Paul Poirier, Mary Hooper, Janet Ancel, Tony Klein and Topper McFaun. The meeting began at 7pm, Rep. Tess Taylor arrived at the table at 8:10.

The introduction consisted of a short welcome followed by a summary of Article 25 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. For those unfamiliar with this Article, here it is:

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.
• (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

On the surface, who could argue with these noble assertions? That is until you follow the slippery slope that these folks are treading down the paths to universal provision of food, clothing and the very broad “social services”. Many of us would not consider the labor of one to be the right of another but I digress.

Following this we heard from 4 speakers. One gentleman had had a life threatening kidney problem which forced him to make the unconscionable decision between his money and his life. He went on to discuss how he had ended up negotiating with the doctors and hospital because he was uninsured. He ended up making a deal on the price of his surgery. He was even granted the option to pay as he could afford after the services were rendered. That’s something that a lot of these HHR people seem to forget—when you need services you get them, regardless of your ability to pay at the time.

The next speaker was a self-employed carpenter who has been uninsured most of his adult life. Health insurance that he could afford came along with a $10,000 deductible. And you know, I could kind of sympathize with the guy. I’ve been uninsured before, too. But I bet he wasn’t going to the doctor for a sniffle as many people with “good” insurance do, just because they have it and want to get their money’s worth. But again I digress.

What I found most shocking about his testimony was his assertion that the United States lacks creativity, innovation and ingenuity because people don’t have health insurance. Really, that came as quite a surprise to me. I had never drawn a parallel between the two before. That must explain the dip in my collage-production during the time I was uninsured. Apparently, using his logic, the fact that I haven’t created a really good collage in the last few years is directly related to my lapse in health insurance coverage.

After this revelation we heard from a woman who was diagnosed with lupus and given just a short time to live. Her testimony was very heartfelt. She’s a single mom and had to make the hard choice that so many have to make—medication or sustenance and shelter. I genuinely sympathized with this woman. I’m not cold and greedy, I think the health insurance situation in this state needs to be reformed. But I still don’t agree that the labor of a health care provider is a human right.

The fellow who came after her gave a brief, somewhat inarticulate description of what the principles on the placards above the legislators meant. I don’t fault him for not being able to move beyond the talking points, though. There is an overwhelming lack of detail in these arguments.

The legislators were then asked if they felt that health care is a human right. Bill Doyle was emphatic in answering in the affirmative and also stated that health care must be transparent. I somehow missed what Ann Cummings, Mary Hooper and Tony Klein had to say about this specifically. Poirier said that it is a "basic right" and that people ought to have equal opportunity and access. He also let us know that H.100, the House version of the single-payer healthcare bill is “going nowhere.” Mary Hooper stated that health insurance needs to be discussed more and that it should not be tied to employment.

Janet Ancel said that health care is a "basic human right" and recited talking points that left me a little glazed over. So it was a good thing Tony Klein was next. He was a fireball, ranting about how the problem is money and that “we” need to get people out of the way who are making the money. As you can imagine this got the crowd going and he got the biggest applause of the night on this one. Later in the conversation he assured the crowd that he would threaten Shap Smith with revolution if this issue didn’t get a fair shake in the legislature. And they call US radicals!

Topper McFaun, who has often bucked his party over health care reform stated that health care is "not a right but a public good" which should be handled similarly to the Police or Fire Departments. He said health care should be a non-profit industry and the government should ensure that everyone is covered. But his party affiliation did come through to some extent when he asserted that Vermont ought to have waivers which would allow the state to do what we want to do rather than what Washington wants.

Following this a Q & A session commenced. Written questions were to be submitted and then a moderator posed the questions to a designated legislator or the legislator of her choice. One question was what the roadblocks are to meaningful reform. An overarching theme (or just the natural result of having politicians speak one after the other) was the lack of political will. (This was when Tony Klein threatened revolution.) Bill Doyle kindly let the crowd know that they should be targeting the Health and Welfare and Government Operations Committees. One of the gals that I sat with had submitted a question asking the panel how they expected for these VT bills (H. 100 and S. 88) to work when universal coverage was passed in Massachusetts and is failing. The Q & A was conveniently wrapped up right after her question (the last, I believe) was submitted and disregarded .

We did, however, get a chance to speak with the legislators after the event—which was respectful and (mostly) intelligent and overall was much more satisfying than the forum itself. For the most part the legislators were approachable. McFaun and Poirier seemed to be the only 2 that really had their heads wrapped around the issue and were more than willing to engage now and in the future. Others, notably Mary Hooper, seemed to have a much looser grasp on the big picture and was caught contradicting herself a few times.

After all was said and done I left impressed by the organization of the event. The tone was very civil though that could be due to the fact that the “opposition” was very much in the minority. There are more of these going on around the state. I doubt the events will be any different wherever they are but I would encourage you to attend, if for nothing else than to observe the organization and talk to your legislators after the forum.

However there were an awful lot of unanswered questions—how would this undertaking be financed (McFaun offered up a sales tax, otherwise the only mention was on the flyer in a summary of the bills: “system of broad-based taxes”)? Would the “principle” of participation force compliance? The bills want every resident of Vermont to be covered. Would someone who moved to the state uninsured instantly be covered? Findings which support the creation of this bill mention the lack of sustainability in the current health care model. How would these bills fix that? How exactly would health care quality improve with a universal system?

This makes a lot more sense to me: