badgenome said:
It isn't a right. Rights are things that are inherent unless someone takes it away from you. Your right to speak freely, for example. You cannot possibly have the right to something that someone else has to provide for you.
Treating things as rights has a lot to do with why nearly every developed country is trying to contain spiraling health costs. Once the government and other third parties get involved, it turns into chaos with everyone trying to make theirs by screwing everyone else. For instance, my 84-year-old grandmother had a doctor's appointment to go in and be told exactly what she had already been told two weeks prior just so that the doctor could get paid by Medicare for a doctor's visit. But for things like Lasik surgery and breast implants that we don't treat as rights, it's almost shockingly expensive. As soon as they do become a "right", as all things inevitably do, a new set of tits will run about $250k.
"Oh, you just need a better government comprised of TOP MEN!" You might pooh pooh the idea of smaller government, but it's a hell of a lot easier to reform a smaller government (not to mention see exactly what needs reforming to begin with) than it is to reform a slovenly gargantuan like the US government.
|
First of all, no, a "right" is something granted by society to people. You have the right to legal representation in court, for instance, but that's not something that you have "inherently" got. Indeed, the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth amendments of your bill of rights establish rights that have nothing to do with things that a person inherently has. They're protections put into the system in order to make things better. And the right to health care is similarly a protection.
And "nearly every developed country is trying to contain spiraling health costs"? No. America is trying to contain spiraling health costs that are being driven ever upwards at a huge rate by the health insurance industry and by the dominance of the private health system, as well as the sue-happy American culture. Indeed, Australia has universal health care, and health care costs have remained fairly stable at 8% of GNP since it was established. It's so popular and effecitve, our right-wing parties (such as our Liberal party - don't be fooled by the name, they're the equivalent of the Republican party, the "Liberal" refers to their economic position of free market) are strongly in favour of keeping universal health care (which we happen to call Medicare). The best part about our health care system? We have essential health care that is universally covered, and then private health insurance that provides a heap of extra benefits. And the private health system is quite healthy, without costs spiralling out of control (because they have to actually compete for your money - market forces are much more efficient when the product isn't something essential to life).
And I "pooh" the idea of small government, because a close examination of nations reveals that the ones with the best systems, overall, are the ones that have government that isn't particularly small or large, but instead are well-tuned. Norway is a great example. We in Australia have a reasonable one (our government isn't perfect, but it's hugely better than the American government, and larger as a proportion of population/GDP). Reform isn't achieved by shrinking the government. A smaller government isn't easier to reform, it's just less capable of doing its job. You want government reformed? Get together other people who feel the same as you, and start running for government. There are billionaires out there who would be happy to support you, given the right policies, so you needn't worry about being out-spent.
The attitude of "we need to shrink government in order to reform it" is like arguing that, because you're severely overweight, the best way to get started on weight loss is to cut off one of your limbs.
