http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052970203517304574306170677645070.html

By THEODORE DALRYMPLE

If there is a right to health care, someone has the duty to provide it. Inevitably, that “someone” is the government. Concrete benefits in pursuance of abstract rights, however, can be provided by the government only by constant coercion.

People sometimes argue in favor of a universal human right to health care by saying that health care is different from all other human goods or products. It is supposedly an important precondition of life itself. This is wrong: There are several other, much more important preconditions of human existence, such as food, shelter and clothing.

Everyone agrees that hunger is a bad thing (as is overeating), but few suppose there is a right to a healthy, balanced diet, or that if there was, the federal government would be the best at providing and distributing it to each and every American.

Where does the right to health care come from? Did it exist in, say, 250 B.C., or in A.D. 1750? If it did, how was it that our ancestors, who were no less intelligent than we, failed completely to notice it?

If, on the other hand, the right to health care did not exist in those benighted days, how did it come into existence, and how did we come to recognize it once it did?

When the supposed right to health care is widely recognized, as in the United Kingdom, it tends to reduce moral imagination. Whenever I deny the existence of a right to health care to a Briton who asserts it, he replies, “So you think it is all right for people to be left to die in the street?”

When I then ask my interlocutor whether he can think of any reason why people should not be left to die in the street, other than that they have a right to health care, he is generally reduced to silence. He cannot think of one.

Moreover, the right to grant is also the right to deny. And in times of economic stringency, when the first call on public expenditure is the payment of the salaries and pensions of health-care staff, we can rely with absolute confidence on the capacity of government sophists to find good reasons for doing bad things.

The question of health care is not one of rights but of how best in practice to organize it. America is certainly not a perfect model in this regard. But neither is Britain, where a universal right to health care has been recognized longest in the Western world.

Not coincidentally, the U.K. is by far the most unpleasant country in which to be ill in the Western world. Even Greeks living in Britain return home for medical treatment if they are physically able to do so.

The government-run health-care system—which in the U.K. is believed to be the necessary institutional corollary to an inalienable right to health care—has pauperized the entire population. This is not to say that in every last case the treatment is bad: A pauper may be well or badly treated, according to the inclination, temperament and abilities of those providing the treatment. But a pauper must accept what he is given.

Universality is closely allied as an ideal, ideologically, to that of equality. But equality is not desirable in itself. To provide everyone with the same bad quality of care would satisfy the demand for equality. (Not coincidentally, British survival rates for cancer and heart disease are much below those of other European countries, where patients need to make at least some payment for their care.)

In any case, the universality of government health care in pursuance of the abstract right to it in Britain has not ensured equality. After 60 years of universal health care, free at the point of usage and funded by taxation, inequalities between the richest and poorest sections of the population have not been reduced. But Britain does have the dirtiest, most broken-down hospitals in Europe.

There is no right to health care—any more than there is a right to chicken Kiev every second Thursday of the month.

—Theodore Dalrymple is the pen name of Anthony Daniels, a British physician. He is a contributing editor to the City Journal.

Personally I wouldn't take anything from a souless human being like —Theodore Dalrymple

Even if he was forced by law to treat me, I would prefer to die than accept anything from him. His words make my skin crawl.

You are very young, heavenly. It's going to blow your mind how fast the next 30 years goes. You better hope all that excercise keeps you healthy, and you never have anything unforseen happen to you. Your buddy in that article would rather flip you off then help you...

I have to wonder if you would want that for lets say a family member. Would you tell them sorry my buddy Dalrymple says tuff? Sorry can't help you mom, healing you is not a right.. ugh just makes me kinda sick...

Why is it better for the government to do the same thing? They just do it less effectively than the free market. If you know about Canada's experience with socialized medicine, you'd know that the citizens often come here for emergencies and certain treatments because socialization caused scarcity of medical resources. (p.s. Since your entire case rests on an appeal to irrational emotion, I cannot accept it as a reasonable argument.)

"Free Care Leaves Doctor Shortages and Waiting Lists

full article with references at end is here-http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1567310/socialized_medicine_in_canada.html?cat=5

Nobody wants their neighbors to go without health care, and socialized medicine promises health care for all, regardless of financial situation. Unfortunately, socialized medicine has many problems. Previously, I have written about
-Waiting Times for Treatment
-PET Scans Not Covered for Cancer Patients
-Doctor Shortage Results in Physician Turning Away Patient for Being Over 55
-Canadians Have a Higher Risk of Death After Heart Attack

My relatives on my mother's side are all from Canada, and 'they' don't come here for medical services. Yes socialized medicine has it's problem just like any other institution. That's not a good enough reason to ignore it.

Sorry I am not going over the other side on this, so you would be wasting your efforts on me. I'm so not impressed by how the free market has handled things up to now.

If you're not impressed, then why do you want the government to seize control of the market-based system? Why not tell the government to build its own hospitals, medicines, etc, and let the private system be laissez-faire? People who actually WANT this could then donate to government tax collection voluntarily. Your logic doesn't add up.

What? We don't like eachothers logic? I want what the public option would do and that is to force competition. There is no way that private insurers will comepete with out force and eventually they will be come such huge pigs that few will be able to afford them.

But I have to say I am completely weary of the conversation at this point. The Baucus bill was a massive joke on the people, and an boon to insurers. Maybe they are hoping people get so sick of the oppositions bull spit consessions that we all will just give up and go home.

This issue had taught me a lot about human nature and just how ugly it can be. I am hoping it's not rampant.

I have to agree. The newest option seems just that , AN OPTION. Those who wish to continue paying ridiculous prices for insurance and questionable health care can continue to. My husband and his family all lived their whole lives in the UK and they have not once had to worry about being in debt because they become ill. I think there is something to be learned from the system instead of just outright ignoring the good that comes from it or how it is implemented.

Like I said before. If the middle class and rich don't mind gettin' the bill and paying for us po' folks and Illegals to have insurance, tell 'em to spare no cost. We want the best.
It'd be kinda' nice to see them bent over instead of us for a change.
Bent over rich folks is a Change I can Believe in.
Ride 'em hard and put 'em up wet!

The free market hasn't been allowed to handle it for many years now. If you read up on American history pre-1800, you'll find that the market handled health care just fine. I'm not sure what makes you think that we've been under free market conditions for the last 100 years or so, but we haven't. By definition, a free market is unregulated, and we have had regulations up the wazoo for generations. (the FED, the FDA, the AMA, etc.)

And neither does yours, for one simple reason: at 29, with no job and probably no insurance, you have yet to experience what some philosophers call 'The Shadow'. You have zero experience expounding on the topic because you've never been in a life or death situation-- for you, this is just a thought experiment that you're so cocksure you know all the answers to.

It might happen like this-- you get up and start your day. All of sudden, unbeknownst to you, a blood vessel in your brain starts to leak blood into your cranial cavity. You notice you feel a little nauseous and then suddenly BLAM! You have a headache that's a 15 on a scale of 1 to 10. You find you have tunnel vision or that parts of your visual field 'wink out'. Then you might go into convulsions and can't stop throwing up, even though your stomach is empty. Everything turns gray and everything starts to hurt as the blood gets into your spinal fluid and your sense of time enters a nightmare realm that seems to completely lack reference points.

If you're lucky enough not to have been alone when this happens, you might just survive this. But what you WON'T be able to do is hold this conversation about rights, et al, with the neurosurgeon that's treating you. You'll just be glad the Reglan and the morphine are making the vomiting stop and the pain to become barely tolerable so you won't be throwing up any more blood. Being able to talk intelligently and maybe even being able to decode what is being spoken to you-- that won't happen for another couple of days if you're lucky, and maybe never if you waited too long to get to the ER.

Until you've experienced something like this and gambled and lost on the risky proposition of not having insurance in your thought experimental world because you think it violates some kind of moral code you've picked up from other people who also think they're immortal, I'm going to tend to not put too much stock in what you post in this regard.

You just don't know, and you haven't hit the turf hard enough to have gained any insight. You talk a good game, but may find you'll be singing a totally different tune if this were to happen to you. Until then...

-Kerry O.

Nice post Kerry

I wonder if any posters knows what is the absolute, most important thing in your life is.
Do ya'?

HeavenlyBoy, why is it that almost everything you post has some reference to the past? You are always posting or (cut and paste) with references to 1770's or 1860's?? From what you have stated in other posts, it seems that you feel the wrong side won the Civil War. Now, how twisted is that?

It is obvious that you are having a hard time accepting the fact that America has progressed beyond those days. Our society has evolved and sadly, you are being left behind because you choose to live in the past.

I wouldn't be surprised to find out that you probably pay no taxes into the system and if you do work, it is on a cash only basis.

As I see it so far:

You have people that don't understand that they are being screwed right now and have been for quite some time. Then you have those that already feel quite secure have what they want and don't care.

Then you have those that hate this administration so bad they would knowingly side with the Opposition and the corporations just to screw this President, even if they ultimately only screw themselves and give the already wealthy insurers more opportunity to take them for their very last dime and give them even less in return.

A win win for the opposition that never had any real intention to reform anything but Obama.

Then you have folks that honestly think their economics model is the only model that's the right one, so there for this administration must be run by 2 year olds that have no advanced education at all and couldn't possibly be right.

Then you have a segment of racists, that People like Steele the Rnc chairman, want you to believe has no part of the clammer out there, just because he himself is black so it just couldn't be true, right? Wrong, and he knows it.

That's is a cute little slight of hand though, and they now pretend they are with Obama, whom they know full well can't address racism with out detracting from Health care. Republicans can't very well admit their supporters might be racist as well as have a problem with Obama's policies, or are racists and resist anything this president might want to do. Get the picture?

Lies are one thing that seems to be working FOR the opposition on the Right, because ultimately the know the public well, they know they are so divided their lies won't affect their supporters because their supporters will never hear evidence against them becauese they only watch the news that tells them what the republicans want them to know... denial as well works in their favor too.

Of course People opposed to Obama can be made up of many different reasons and combination of reasons, but one huge advantage for the Republicans is that these groups are all out 'together', making for very large crowds that they can swear are ALL on their side even if the groups themselves can't stand eachother.

Republicans never intended to let Obama govern, only to limit his ability to govern until they could figure out how to regain the majoity and the white house.

You now have the perfect oportunity to either get a bill that isn't worth the paper it's written on or a bill that still leaves out millions of people makes this administration look inept.

This is the Divided States of America. Welcome.. Crazy? I'm not alone in this observation, but I might be as helpless to turn around what the Right has manage to manipulate so well, by luck or by design.

Hemoglobin and adenosine triphosphate.

-Kerry O.

Boy that tend to put things in to perspective. I do remember being young an invinsible and a bit self centered myself. Age tends to widen one's view. Things can change on a dime.

OK.
That and your next breath.

Rock on Kerry O, 1956 and boo!

Actually, you are mistaken. I HAVE been in a life or death situation. (I've even been very, very close to death on an operating table)

You also seem to misunderstand how Constitutional government works. The president has a very minimal and specific role, according to the constitution. If he alone could do it all, he would be a dictator. The framers of the constitution, according to the document itself and the writings of the founders, intended for things like healthcare to be handled at the local and individual level. There weren't even national regulations of "hard" drugs and alcohol. Of course there are other options, which have been laid out by free market advocates such as Ron Paul.

When you say something like "You now have the perfect oportunity to either get a bill that isn't worth the paper it's written on or a bill that still leaves out millions of people makes this administration look inept.", you are using dialectical thinking, and misleading both yourself and your audience. There still plenty of things people can do all by themselves (such as negotiate cheaper prices with their doctors, homeopathy, etc). You also have great difficulty adequately answering opponents. You should do more opposition research.

For your education, here are the Federalist Papers-http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/poldocs/fed-papers.pdf

and the Anti-Federalist papers-http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/D/1776-1800/federalist/antixx.htm

and the original debates about the Constitution in New York-http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_ny.htm

Not even that sometimes. Ever watch someone die by inches of cancer? I'm not even sure what I've been through compares-- I do know there are things that to me are worse than death itself.

How about someone who keeps trying to commit suicide because they saw or experienced something they can't live with?

-Kerry O.