An excellent question that touches on both philosophy and current politics in our nation. In the context of the rights enumerated in the U.S constitution and the natural rights of man historically there is no right to health insurance. In the grand sweep of human history health insurance is a late arrival on the world stage and mankind existed without it for millennia.
As health insurance is only a financial mechanism designed to transfer risk by spreading it out over a larger pool of payers it is difficult for me to construe this as an inherent right. By that argument we should all have the right to car or homeowners or pet insurance. This is where I think many people make the mistake of confusing health care with health insurance. Health care, however primitive, has been around for thousands of years and yet I believe most objective thinking people would agree that there has never been an intrinsic right to health care itself.
Health insurance, in my opinion, should be viewed as, at best, a social obligation that an individual owes to their society to eliminate or at least minimize the burdens they might place on their fellow citizens and at least what a person should do in their own self interest to protect themselves against serious illness or injury. But whether it is a social obligation or an act of self interest it clearly does not fall into the same category as freedom of speech, religion, to peaceably assemble or petition the government for redress of grievances.
To me, it seems that the argument that health insurance is a right is merely an attempt by some (however well intentioned) to construct a system that by its very nature centralizes control over the individual and may actually impinge upon their true rights by taking from some to give to others. An ever expanding social contract leads to ever expanding expense which serves to distort the functioning of a society built upon a premise of self reliance first and charity second.
.JPG){kind=avatar}
As health insurance is only a financial mechanism designed to transfer risk by spreading it out over a larger pool of payers it is difficult for me to construe this as an inherent right. By that argument we should all have the right to car or homeowners or pet insurance. This is where I think many people make the mistake of confusing health care with health insurance. Health care, however primitive, has been around for thousands of years and yet I believe most objective thinking people would agree that there has never been an intrinsic right to health care itself.
Health insurance, in my opinion, should be viewed as, at best, a social obligation that an individual owes to their society to eliminate or at least minimize the burdens they might place on their fellow citizens and at least what a person should do in their own self interest to protect themselves against serious illness or injury. But whether it is a social obligation or an act of self interest it clearly does not fall into the same category as freedom of speech, religion, to peaceably assemble or petition the government for redress of grievances.
To me, it seems that the argument that health insurance is a right is merely an attempt by some (however well intentioned) to construct a system that by its very nature centralizes control over the individual and may actually impinge upon their true rights by taking from some to give to others. An ever expanding social contract leads to ever expanding expense which serves to distort the functioning of a society built upon a premise of self reliance first and charity second.