Health is a right? (by Jon Shaffer)
by Peter Luckow on October 9, 2008
Jon Shaffer, the President of GlobeMed at Northwestern University, recently posted this fantastic entry on his blog:
Here is a really interesting post on The Health Care Blog by Maggie Mahar who rights on the Health Beat blog. In it she criticizes the use of rights language when talking about health care reform. Money quote:
"I have to admit I often have found the language of healthcare “rights” off-putting. Yet the idea of healthcare as a “right” is usually pitted against the idea of healthcare as a “privilege.” Given that choice, I’ll circle “right” every time. Still, when people claim something as a “right,” they often sound shrill and demanding. Then someone comes along to remind us that people who have “rights” also have “responsibilities,” and the next thing you know, we’re off and running in the debate about healthcare as a “right” vs. healthcare as a matter of “individual responsibility."
I vehemently disagree with her. Her main thesis is that rights language is not specific enough, and tends to polarize the discussion. In my opinion, it is exactly the type of language that we need to get things moving. The language of human rights is very specific. The only body that can guarantee rights to people are sovereign governments - no private entity can ever grant rights. For that simple reason, we must use rights language to describe health. Health care cannot be bought and sold on the open market because, by economic definition, there will be people who cannot afford the price set by the intersection of supply and demand. By casting access to reasonable health care as a human right, we can move beyond the idea that health is something that can be bought and sold, and move toward universal access.
Is this "shrill and demanding"? I certainly hope so. Guaranteeing all people the ability to see a doctor when they are sick is certainly one of the most pressing issues of our time.
Ohio Health Insurance says on November 09, 2008 at 10:06pm:
Your premise is essentially correct, but in theory, it's tough to enforce. It, basically comes down to money. There just is not enough of it to pay for good health coverage for everyone.Jon Shaffer says on November 16, 2008 at 12:52pm:
You are right, cost is a central issue in health care reform. But, I think that the cost argument works in favor of moving towards universal access. The fact is that we have the most inefficient health care system in the world: we pay far more per person than any other nation for far inferior health care. (http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html) I argue that providing equitable access to health care will actually reduce the long term aggregate cost of health care in the United States. This is because the over 45 million uninsured Americans eventually do receive care - often in the emergency room and without the ability to pay - but because they are denied their right to see a physician regularly, these people are generally sicker and require more costly interventions than those who do have access to a physician. By providing health care access to all citizens, we have the potential to improve early diagnoses of treatable diseases and have better management of chronic illnesses. Not only is this morally sound, I think it also has the potential to make fiscal sense. But, it will require a significant initial investment by our society to bring those currently denied health access into a health system. Hopefully, the new administration will seriously work to build a more equitable health care system.Peter Luckow says on November 16, 2008 at 9:39pm:
Top execs at GM (a perfect symbol of american capitalism), along with other major US corporations, advocate for a single-payer universal health care system. They simply cannot afford to compete in the global economy due to the exorbitant costs of health care in the United States. See the rest of the article here: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041115/mintzOhio Health Insurance says on November 16, 2008 at 9:58pm:
Top execs at GM are grossly overpaid. Their employees are provided benefits so rich, they can't compete in the US market. Conversion to an HSA-based medical plan will help solve GM's problems, and quite a few other companies as well.