"The Founding Fathers believed that rights...were God-given, that we were endowed by our Creator with…unalienable rights.' Rights, as the Framers described them, could not be bestowed upon you by government, but only by government infringed. They wrote extensively about this understanding that rights were innate and natural; rights did not require legislation. It is your right to speak your mind or own a firearm or worship as you please- those are rights; if the government (meaning taxpayers) subsidizes your speech or worship, or purchases your firearm for you, that’s an entitlement.
So, if providing one person with health care requires the sacrifice of someone else- if it must be compelled by government redistribution of resources from one person to another- it isn’t a right in the sense that the Framers of our Constitution meant it, which is the only appropriate context here. You may feel 'entitled' to it, and you may argue that you deserve health care (even when it must be provided by someone else’s labor), but let’s get away from this Constitutional 'right to health care' nonsense."
Of course, a Constitutional argument will hardly deter the most ardent, far-left supporters of government-run health care. They don't stop at the Constitution- they deem health care to be a human right. The American people need to consider the broader implications of "health care as a right" (of any kind) beyond whatever makes it into the final bill.
The final version of this bill will be revealed at the end of this week and rushed to a vote the following week, before legislators break for Easter recess and return to their home districts to face their constituents. The House bill will contain some concessions aimed at getting so-called moderate Democrats on-board, especially Bart Stupak and his "gang of twelve" who are holding out to keep federal funding for abortion out of the bill. If the bill passes the House it will be rammed through the Senate using reconciliation.
But don't expect the "health care is a right" crowd to be satisfied with that. Consider the words of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi last week (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/01/pelosi-new-health-care-ready-days/) concerning her expectations of the re-worked bill. "It will be a much smaller proposal than we had in the House bill because that's where we can gain consensus. But it will be big enough to put us on a path of affordable, quality health care for all Americans..."
"Put us on a path," she says. Translation: "We ain't done yet."
After all, if health care is a right, and if "quality health care for all Americans" is the end-game, where exactly will this "path" ultimately lead us? Here's a glimpse into the future of health care.
First, coverage must be universal. If health care is a human right, this means coverage for illegal aliens. Of course, that isn't in the bill; however, it isn't a coincidence that the week after the House passed its original health care reform bill, Democratic Representative Luis Gutierrez introduced an immigration bill that would "that would open a path to legal status for millions of illegal immigrants." (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/us/politics/16immig.html?_r=1). Gutierrez represents Illinois' 4th District- guess where that is?
Illegal immigrants won't be included in the final health care reform bill, but if the goal is to cover "all Americans" and then provide a "path (there's that word, again) to citizenship" for illegal immigrants, isn't that the same thing? And if the Left wants to do this, fine, but let's be honest about what providing care to millions of newly-minted citizens will do to access and costs- because this isn't in the bill the Congressional Budget Office scored.
Furthermore, "coverage for all" will eventually be mandated. This means the young and healthy will see their costs rise the most. Universal health care will not work otherwise; the care of the old, the sick, and the poor must be subsidized by the young, the healthy, and the wealthy. Although most current proposals for funding reform have focused on the wealthy, such as taxes on those with so-called "Cadillac" health plans, medical device manufacturers, and evil insurance companies, the proposal to require health insurance or force those who elect not to carry health insurance to pay a penalty is a sign of things to come.
Any health insurance program, public or private, which requires coverage of pre-existing conditions and regulates price increases will necessarily increase premiums on younger, healthier persons in its risk pool to subsidize the loss leaders in the pool. Fines for uninsured individuals and employers who do not provide coverage to their employees are not enough because such a program adversely selects against itself; the young and healthy need to be in the pool to prevent a "death spiral." Politicians aren't being honest about this aspect of reform, but former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich had this to say about the hard truths of health care reform they would tell you if they were honest.
Did you get that? Reich, a liberal Democrat and a supporter of government-run health care, says these are the outcomes we can look forward to- 'higher costs for the young and healthy, less care for the elderly, and less innovation.' Makes you wonder what the American people are so worried about, doesn't it? Perhaps that's why Democrats are pushing one enormous bill rather than a measured, incremental, bi-partisan approach.
Another class of people who won't be permitted to opt-out of the current system will be the providers of health care themselves. There's been a lot of talk about the possibility that more and more physicians will refuse to treat Medicare patients if their reimbursement rates are cut (as has been proposed) to cover the cost of the health care overhaul. The so-called "doctor fix" may not happen immediately, but look for reimbursement rates for physicians treating any government health care recipient to gradually decline. And, since health care is a right, physicians can't be allowed to refuse treatment for anyone.
And what does that mean for the best specialists and facilities such as Cancer Treatment Centers of America, the Mayo Clinic, M.D. Anderson, etc., which boast better outcomes and higher survival rates? Health care is a right, isn't it? Do we allow one class of people more speech than others? More second amendment rights? If we have equal rights, shouldn't that mean equality of access and outcomes?
Perhaps health care facilities and providers will function much like our schools- all are required to contribute to public schools whether they send their children there or not. Would some be allowed, to purchase supplemental coverage or go outside the plan with their own dollars to be treated at a private hospital? Would the best facilites cater primarily to the wealthy and to federal employees who will not be subject to the strictures of the new health care reforms?
Lastly, since health care is a right, if anyone cannot afford care, it must be provided to them free of charge. This means those who can afford care will be forced to pay even more than they already do subsidizing those who can't.
Does all of this sound implausible? This is the Left's so-called "path." A right to health care means tax-payer subsidized access for all that no person can opt out of and no provider can decline, which will raise premiums for the young and healthy, increase taxes, reduce access to care for the elderly, drive up costs, discourage medical innovation, and increase the control the federal government has over our lives.
Let's put that to a vote and see who supports it. This bill may not get us there, but it's "big enough to put us on a path..."
