I am posting this to stimulate discussion.  The author has good reason to maintain anonymity and I have good reason to publish his/her opinion.  The following should make you think:

==============

I have heard Democrats say it many times before, and Obama said it again tonight: “a right to affordable health care.”

Do we really have this right? If so, how come nobody’s ever enforced it before?

To begin with, I am not enthusiastic about either candidate’s health plans. I do think Obama’s health plan is better than McCain’s. I think the deregulatory aspects of McCain’s plan could potentially worsen our broken system. Although I am a moderate, I think Obama’s plan is not liberal and big-government enough.  I am no expert, but I do know more about health care than the average person. So here’s my chump opinion:

What is government for? It taxes the citizenry, and uses the money to provide services for that citizenry. How much? Ask a hard-core libertarian and ask a Great Society liberal, and you will get two different answers. There are many services like military protection and legal judgment that only a government can provide. In general, I don’t think the government should provide services that can be provided by private industry. Such competition squelches economic growth. That being said, there are some things that private industry is bad at. For various times during the 19th century, paper banknotes were issued by private banks. A national currency system (or multinational)  is now necessary for a country’s participation in global markets. Fire brigades used to work for private insurance companies. If your house wasn’t insured, the fire fighters were not obligated to help you. This could result in the entire block burning down. A private company might be able to build a dam, or send a rocket to moon, but the government has some advantages in these fields. Eventually, the national and local governments of the US recognized that some of these services were best provided by governmental agencies.

So, after reviewing that history, what is a right? It has become obvious to me that different people have varying definitions for “rights.” There are some things I consider unalienable human rights. These include things like the right to life, liberty, property, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, a right to voice my opinion through elections, etc. Every human should have these. Countries that do not protect these rights are bad places. There are some other rights that I do not have because I am a human, but because I am an American. These include a right to bear arms, a right to counsel, and a right to eminent domain. I get those rights because America is an awesome country, and we like having extra rights too. Certainly reasonable people can disagree about which rights are are human rights, and which rights are US-specific.

I believe that Americans only posess a very few rights. There are a lot of benefits we receive as Americans, but not all of them are rights. I think there is a danger to constantly increasing the number of rights that we have. Once something is a right, it can’t be taken away. Once something is a right, there is a great pressure for this right to be applied to all people equally. For example, I would consider it unethical for one person to have a greater freedom of religion than another person.

Many people speak of a right to education. This is less controversial than a right to health care, because we already have universal government-funded education. Education is something that is provided by both governments and private concerns. I was educated in public schools, and believe that they should be one of the top priorities of the federal government. I have known some libertarians that think all “government schools” (their term) should be abolished. But do I think a right to education exists? No. Government should fund education because it is hugely beneficial to the citizens. An uneducated populace is bad for the people and bad for the economy. Even if the rich can afford private school, they need educated workers to hire for their businesses. A country that does not educate its children is a bad place to live, so the US government should make sure those kids can go to school.

Similarly, I do not believe in a right to public parks, Fourth-of-July parades, an endangered species list, or an interstate highway system. But I would be damn angry if my government took them away.

That being said, Americans do have a right to equal protection of the laws. If a government (federal, state, local) chooses to fund a school system, children in that system should be treated equally regardless of race, religion, etc. I believe this equal protection also applies to services like police protection and the court system. Sadly, there are plenty of instances where some kids in a local school system go to a good school, and some go to a bad school. This is a problem, and hopefully all levels of government will continue to work on this.

So, do we have a right to affordable health care? The Democratic leaders would say yes. I would say no. But I think it’s a good idea for the federal government to make sure all US citizens have access to affordable health care. I think it will avoid a crisis that could bankrupt the country. It will reduce economic insecurity for our workers, allowing them to be more productive.  The US has the highest cost of health care in the world, with a mediocre life expectancy and infant mortality rate. So in real terms, a sensible health care system can cost much less.

Earlier, I said that the government should not compete with private industry unless necessary. I claim that it is now necessary. The free market has horribly failed in this case. Costs are spiraling out of control. There is no real connection between the prices charged and the services delivered. The financial incentives reward mildly beneficial heroic care over prevention. Insurance companies, doctors, hospitals and drug companies work in a vicious cycle to raise costs for their own benefit.  I see no sign that the market will save the health care industry from untenable cost spirals.

How should government go about this universal health care? In the UK, they see it as a vital government service, like a fire department. Everybody has equal access and the doctors work for the government. Obama’s plan reminds me more of our school system. If you can afford private insurance services, you are free to pay for them. If you can’t afford them, you can choose to use the government insurance system. The challenge will be to make the government system REALLY good. If it is better than the private companies, they will have to compete to keep from losing customers. Everyone could benefit. Obama also says he will do away with pre-existing condition exceptions and I wholeheartedly embrace this. This is a morally right move that a government can mandate but a free market would avoid.

McCain’s plan baffles me. He grossly underestimates the annual cost of health insurance. Unless it is lost in the fine print, I don’t see how it will contain costs. It will allow more people to sign up for coverage, which will be good in the short term. But McCain is a financial conservative, and this is not a problem conservative philosophy can fix. He wants to deregulate the insurance industry in the belief that this will spur competition. Instead, all the companies will relocate to states with lax laws (like Arizona) and sell their customers crappier products. This has already happened to the credit card industry.

In conclusion, given the three options of the status quo, the Obama plan, and the McCain plan, I choose the Obama plan. But I choose it not because I think we have a right to affordable health care. Still, affordable health care is can only be assured by the federal government, and it will be a great boon to the nation.

==============

As I wrote earlier today I reject all three options.  I will try to address this post coherently in the near future.