Is Health Care a Right?

How about health insurance? A "Right" is not absolute, but it does provide a starting point, a minimum level of protection. The 1st Amendment, for example, guarantees us freedom of speech, but there are limits (shouting "movie!" in a crowded firehouse, for example); the 2nd guarantees us the right to own firearms, but again there are limits [ed: what, no bazookas?!].

But where is it enumerated that we have a right to either health care, or the means to pay for it (insurance)? We've come to expect access to both, and complain bitterly when either are not available or affordable. And various mechanisms have been developed to guarantee some access to both (EMTALA and HIPAA, for example). But just how far are we willing to go?

Here's why I ask:

"Patients will be able to escape NHS queues by demanding treatment anywhere in the European Union without the prior approval of a doctor, under proposals to guarantee health rights unveiled today in Brussels."

"Guaranteed health rights." Sounds good, right?

Not so fast:

"However, if unpredictable cross-border healthcare becomes a problem, the system could put into place a system of prior authorisation to safeguard the system."

Cross-border health care? Like this?

The Law of Unintended Consequences© (thus far not repealed by our congress) governs these transactions. "Rights" carry with them "responsibility," and we should be very careful what we wish for. When we give up certain rights in favor of others (say, freedom of choice in health care?) there are indeed consequences. We saw this in Massachusetts, and we've seen it in Canada and Britain, and we'll likely see it as it envelops the entire EU.

And what is "it," you ask?

Simply this: when a third party provides a service, you're pretty much stuck with that service, good or bad, until you switch. Take our current system, for example (and yes, I know that we have plenty of readers that would love to give it away). If I don't like XYZ Mutual's service, or network or rates, I can shop around to find one that fits me better. Or if I find that Dr Smith no longer suits me, I'm free to go to Dr Jones. But under a gummint-run system, which guarantees me access to both health care and the means to finance it, certain rules will apply, and I'm no longer free to make those kinds of choices.

So let's go back to the original question: is health care a "Right?"

My people have a (well-deserved) reputation of answering a question with another question, and I won't disappoint: Do we really want to make health care (and/or its financing) a "Right?" Rights, as we've seen, are regulated and rationed, and often lack for alternatives when we don't like the result. And then where do we go?

[Hat Tip: RWN]