Response to Dan's post about healthcare being a right

Your question about whether health care is a right reminds me of two separate stories, neither of which directly applies. But here goes.

First is my friend Brigid's feelings about the risks that people have the right to take. Her opinion of drinking raw milk is that people should be allowed to do it, but that then they should pay for their own treatment if they contract listeria (I think this is what it is called...) She also says that if you don't vaccinate your child and someone else's (vaccinated) child contracts measles or some other such disease, then you should be held responsible.

Of course, this leads to the question about whether people who pickle their own livers through years of drinking should be paid for by society. Or people who are 100 lbs overweight, or people who eat fast food, or who don't eat organic... In writing this, I think it comes down to the philosophy, "let those who are without sin cast the first stone."

The second is from the only sensible story about health care reform I read during the entire debate: a Dr. wrote that there are two truths we must acknowledge: first, the healthy must pay to take care of the sick, and second, we all die.

From this I get that it is not OK for anyone to say, "I don't want to pay into this health insurance," whatever it ends up being. If you are well, you have an obligation to the sick and should be grateful that you can pay. If you are well, you can rest assured that you, or your parents, or your children, or your brother will need care at some point. Finally, if you somehow got away with selfishly not contributing and then did get sick, it would be inhumane for us to not take care of you, so we will. Since society really has no choice about treating you, you really have no choice about participating in health insurance.

OK, one more story about what health care is a right: For my last two children, the bill for their births was 4,000 and 7,000. The first we paid for, the second was paid for by insurance, but I'd say it was worth it. A friend had preeclampsia for two pregnancies: the first baby was delivered and taken care of for 50,000 and the second cost 250,000. Then I have another friend whose baby was severely disabled and was in and out of the hospital, didn't ever smile or interact with the world past the first few months, and died just before her 3rd birthday. I can't even imagine someone adding the bills up, or deciding the little girl's worth. What I am getting at is that if some health care is a right, some must not be. Your piece says that it is impossible to get this all down in a short article, but I think it might be just plain impossible. If the government recommends that some mammograms are not covered, then it is (basically) deciding that some people will die---the equivalent of at "death panel". If the government says all mammograms are covered, then theoretically someone could get one every month, if she could find a Dr. to do that. We cannot say yes to everything, and what we say no to could make a life-changing difference, or even prevent death. I can't cut that knot, and no one I know of has the moral authority to do that, especially the government.

Finally, when you say that "the people who are most against the individual mandate are most in favor of socialized medicine in the form of medicare," I don't know that I agree. I've seen a few signs, and I certainly haven't read much by Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck, but in all the articles on WSJ and National Review and other conservative sites, I've never seen anyone who opposes the individual mandate have anything positive to say about medicare, other than "it's not bankrupt yet." Not a ringing endorsement. So either you mean "a few people who oppose the individual mandate are in favor of keeping medicare the way it is," or maybe there are more articles out there which show this kind of sloppy thinking and I just haven't read them yet.