Healthcare: A Moral Right or a Violation of Individual Freedom?
TL/DR –
The article, written by economics professor Brian P. Simpson, discusses a belief in healthcare as a human right and its implications on societal attitudes, including the tragic murder of the United Healthcare CEO. Simpson argues that such a belief can lead to a sense of entitlement and the notion of injustice when healthcare is denied, potentially justifying extreme actions to some. He suggests the solution to the healthcare problem isn’t violating personal rights and freedoms through socialized medicine or acts of violence, but rather a greater protection of individual rights, freedoms and a profit-driven approach.
Understanding the Health Care Debate Following Tragic Murder of United Healthcare CEO
The recent murder of the United Healthcare CEO has left many in shock, with considerable public condemnation for both the killer and his supporters. This tragic event has shed light on a deep-seated controversy: the belief in health care as a fundamental human right.
Many argue that if health care is a right, society has a moral obligation to provide it, making any denial by an insurance company a gross injustice. This belief fuels the idea that such ‘injustices’ need severe punishment, an opinion that erroneously led some to justify the CEO’s murder.
Ayn Rand eloquently explains that a right is a moral principle that defines and safeguards a person’s freedom of action within a societal framework. If healthcare is considered a right, this could implicate forcing health professionals or taxpayers to provide and fund it, reducing their rights and freedom.
Every individual has the right to their life, free from the obligation to provide what others desire or require. Rights and freedom, crucial for human survival and happiness, allow us to use our intellect and freedom to improve our lives. Without such rights, society risks becoming enslaved to the needs and wants of others.
Frustration with health insurance companies is understandable, as many have had claims denied. Still, these companies operate through voluntary exchange, respecting the rights of others. Those dissatisfied with an insurer’s actions can negotiate claim approvals, advocate policy changes, file a lawsuit for policy violation or switch providers.
The health care industry needs to respect rights more to deliver better and less expensive care. Existing rights violations created the current healthcare crisis. For instance, maximum wage controls during World War II led to employer-provided health care as an alternative to pay raises. Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare also infringe on rights, contributing to high health care demand and skyrocketing prices.
Eliminating such rights violations could lead to improved health care provision, driven by profit motives. The cosmetic surgery industry, characterized by minimal government interference, offers insight into this potential, with significant quality improvements and price reduction.
However, many demand further rights violations in health care by advocating government-provided health care, despite lower service quality and longer wait times in countries like Canada and Britain. These nations would struggle without the innovation made possible by the freest health care market—the U.S.
Health care under socialist regimes, such as Cuba or North Korea, offers a stark example of the limitations of this approach.
How would the financially disadvantaged receive health care in a free market system? Through voluntary charity. While everyone has the right to aid the poor, no one can be compelled to do so.
The solution to health care issues lies not in violating rights through socialized medicine or violence, but in protecting individual rights and freedom—a fundamental requirement for a peaceful and prosperous society.
Published:
—
Read More Health & Wellness News ; US News