Question

Make the case that healthcare is not a right. Be thorough with your discussion.

Answer 1

When we claim to have a right to something we mean that we have dominion over that something and that others are obligated to respect this dominion. The various versions of the texts leading up to the final draft of the Declaration of Independence reflect this natural rights tradition in America: we are all created free and independent, we have certain inherent natural rights that precede the State and therefore cannot be granted nor taken away by the State, among those rights we have life, liberty, and the means of possessing private property to pursue and obtain happiness and safety. When person A claims that he owns this watch, person B’s obligation is to recognize this watch as A’s property. B is therefore precluded from taking it from A unless (1) A sell’s it to B, (2) A gifts it to B, (3) A lends it to B temporarily. If B steals it from A, B may enjoy it, but B does not have a right over it because in stealing B violated A’s dominion to the watch, therefore A has the right to demand its return, if necessary use violence against B to claim it back, and in addition, exact a punishment against B. When person A claims that he has a right to his life, person B’s obligation is to recognize A’s body and refrain from harming it. A’s right to life does not demand action on the part of B. It demands restraint. If A is drowning, A’s right to life does not force B to save A from death. But A’s right to life does force B to not drown A. Strictly speaking, then, rights place an obligation on others to not act in a way that invades that which is claimed by those rights. A’s right to the watch places an obligation on B to not take away the watch unless conditions 1, 2 or 3 above are met. A’s right to life places an obligation on B to not take A’s life. Rights do not demand action from others to sustain that which is claimed by those rights. A’s right to the watch or to his life does not demand that B support A’s ability to enjoy the watch or his life, for example by requiring that B repair the watch if it were broken or requiring that B financially support A’s lifestyle. Rights demand recognition, respect and restraint on the part of others. Rights do not demand action. It is in this strict negative sense of the definition of rights that we must evaluate whether or not health is a human right. If we state that A has a right to health, this right cannot place an obligation on B to act in any way other than to not act, that is, to recognize A’s right, to respect A’s right and to restrain from causing A to become unhealthy. When supporters of the central coordination of the provision of healthcare by the state say that healthcare is a human right they mean that this right ought to place an obligation on everyone not just to refrain from causing harm, but to act in such as way as to support everyone else’s health needs and to force everyone to relinquish part of their income or wealth to the state so that the state may finance or provide health services to someone else, presumably someone in need. But we have already concluded that rights cannot place a positive obligation on others to act, but only a constraint or a negative obligation to recognize, respect and restrain from causing harm to others; therefore, a right to healthcare cannot exist other than in a negative rights sense. The state’s claim that a positive right to health exists is only justified by the state’s use of violence or threat to use violence to force its subjects to comply with its demand that someone’s health needs be met. Through the state’s use of violence those who receive state sponsored health services may enjoy the fruit of the state’s expropriation, but in no way can these recipients claim they have a right to the state’s largesse. They can enjoy it but they do not have a right over it. Neither can the state argue that it is justified by the healthcare rights of those in need to expropriate the income or wealth of others. Once again, the state can enjoy that privilege due to its threat or actual use of violence, but it cannot have a right to do so. Healthcare services can only be provided and can only be properly justified under arrangements that are voluntary and that do not violate negative human rights. Only two types of arrangements fit this description. One, under a free market in which producers and consumers of health freely buy and sell services. Two, under a charitable arrangement in which organizations financed by voluntary contributions from donors or by their own profitable ventures provide health services to those in need free of charge or at a discount. We conclude, therefore, that the apparatus of compulsion set up by the state to finance and provide healthcare to those in need cannot be morally justified. It may be the “law of the land” and the state’s subjects in all likelihood may have to submit to it under the threat or use of state sponsored violence, but let us be clear, this “law” cannot be derived from any reference to human rights. It is strictly based on violence and coercion and therefore cannot possibly be morally justified.