|
I can think of no time in history when the best medical care was not left to those who could afford it. Accordingly, those who could not afford it, had the worst medical care. Is medical care a native human right? I give a resounding no - it is not. Is medical care a responsibility that must be factored into life's choices? Absolutely.
Proponents of the "right" to health care sometimes resort to various Christian statements on the need to take care of the poor and sick. There is such a need, but it falls short of the "human right" for such care. At no time did Jesus advocate for universal health care as a function of government. Despite their wealth, no Pope ever provided a universal health care program in Papal territories. Christian approaches to health care have been limited to charity and volunteer service. The Sisters of Mercy and others are famous for their charity work in this regard, but all Hospitals which treat the sick have costs and all costs are passed on to their "customers." Even in a Christian Hospital where the poor might have a reasonable expectation of service, the wealthy always got better service because they had the money. No fundamental and equal human right here.
Universal health care has always been and will always be a luxury and, still, an uneven one. The poor may get a level of care, but the wealthy will continue to get the best care. The reasoning for universal health care is that if a nation, as a collective, can afford it and can find a reasonably efficient means of administering it, then, by all means do it. But, at the end of the day, health care is a personal responsibiility.
The need to provide for one's health and the health for those whom one is responsible for is near the top of the pyramid of things we are burdened with. If we choose endeavors in life in which there is little or no prospect of health insurance, it is our risk and to our account should someone fall ill without adequate protection. Does that mean the prospect of health insurance should be a factor in guiding our decisions in life? Absolutely.
Now, if those who need insurance feel the State should pay for it, from whom do the funds come if not from those who already pay for health insurance and do not need a national health care system? In so doing, it becomes their responsibility and not the individual's responsibility to care for their own needs. If one is working hard to pay for health insurance, what is one's incentive to pay for another's? If one drops his insurance to take advantage of the new program, his care will drop and the overall quality of medicine will drop as millions of others for whom the plan was not intended express the "human right" to health care by getting it from still others who pay the bills. Perhaps it would be easier if we thought in terms of everyone collectively paying the bill, but we know that a large percentage of us pay little or no taxes and that a small minority must pay the majority of taxes.
Is it only fair that the wealthy must be called upon to pay for our medical bills? Many believe so. Some believe that an equitable redistribution of the wealth is what is fair - afterall, the wealthy make too much money. If this is so then it seems also true, as I have read, that the disparity between a smart man and a lazy man should be addressed by shaving points off the smart man's gpa and given to the lazy ones so that we might all enjoy an equitable redistribution of gpa's and an equal chance of going to Harvard.
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed