Rights and Benefits

As Monique insisted, last night, healthcare is not an “inalienable right.” Because it requires other people (doctors, et al.) to provide services, it is actually a consumer good. It’s a vital one, to be sure, and one for which people will exchange significant percentages of their resources, but that doesn’t make it a right.
It does, however, make it an attractive target for people who would like to control your life, such as the current collection of Democrats and their armies of government bureaucrats, who believe doing so to be their right. The ideological distortion of the nature of healthcare serves no purpose but to disguise the fact that government cannot provide this “right” at a lower cost than people can procure it for themselves. If the Democrats’ motivation were otherwise, their solution would exclude all of the interference and fluff and provide for the government to grant healthcare to those who want it but can’t afford it, and deliberations would consist of a debate about what aspects of “healthcare” are rights, and which are extra. Instead, the objective of legislation has clearly been to determine who controls the industry and how.
Recasting the structure of healthcare “reform” with the assumption that healthcare is a right shows the notion to be nonsense. What other “right” do we require citizens to purchase? What other right requires that people provide the services and that employers offer access to those services as a benefit? Again, rights aren’t the sort of things subject to determination of cost effectiveness.
Ezra Klein makes a related point when he suggests that “health-care coverage is not a benefit. It’s a wage deduction”:

Cost control is not, in fact, all pain and no gain. It’s some pain in return for a fat raise. A 2006 study, for instance, by Harvard’s Katherine Baicker and Amitabh Chandra used malpractice payments to estimate the effect of premium increases on wages. They found that a 10 percent increase in health-care premiums “results in an offsetting decrease in wages of 2.3 percent” and an increase in unemployment of 1.2 percentage points. Compensation is basically a set sum for employers, and they don’t seem to care much whether it goes into wages or into health-care costs.

Assessments of value exist all along the healthcare service chain. Doctors become doctors because the career presents an opportunity to earn the standard of living that they desire through an occupation in which they have an interest. Employers provide health insurance because it helps them to attract and retain employees more effectively than simple cash remuneration. Heretofore, as with all benefits, workers could presume the exchange to be worthwhile; they were giving up part of their natural pay in order to gain something that would cost them more were they to pay for it individually. If one spouse’s employer provides better value, the couple switches. If the employee is healthy, he or she opts to take the money instead. The legislation on track to become law merely layers on disguises that enable citizens to ignore the fact that healthcare has a cost.
Back to Klein:

When Americans rejected managed care [such as HMOs], in other words, they didn’t know they were ending wage increases, too. But since 1990, wages have tracked changes in premiums more closely than they’ve tracked the growth of GDP. Maybe if more workers knew that, they would be more interested in efforts to control health-care costs.

Anybody who has watched unions negotiate their contracts can appreciate the point. They’ll give up wage increases if their negotiators believe that health insurance benefits will ultimately result in a greater transfer of wealth, and vice versa. What legislators who profess the healthcare-as-a-right doctrine are effectively doing is declaring that somebody must pick up the bill for extensive coverage without reference to the exchange in wages or economic activity or whatever else the burden will land on. And because those ultimately paying the cost won’t know the dollar amount (indeed, they probably won’t realize they are paying it at all), the bill can only increase.
Personally, I see it as more appropriate to insist that we have a right not to pay more for a service than we are willing to pay for it.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
4 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mike Cappelli
Mike Cappelli
11 years ago

Right out of the stupid liberal moron playbook – everybody has rights – nobody has responsibilities.
The stupid liberals love the “healthcare is a right” line. But any sane person knows that is mindless.
Does some fat donut eating sedentary pig have the same right as someone who watches what they eat, and exercises regularly? I say no way.
Healthcare is no right, it is a product where we can control the cost – if we don’t have the entitlement attitude borne of liberal stupidity.

Russ
Russ
11 years ago

I think you guys are confusing liberty rights with claim rights. Note that Harkin limited this right to American citizens vs. liberty rights which typically held to be universal (at least by me).
As to “what other right requires that people provide the services…”? As a former election official at the polls, let me say that the right to vote requires innumerable services provided by others. Note that some employers even provide a benefit to allow their employees to exercise this right.

Matt
Matt
11 years ago

Personally, I see it as more appropriate to insist that we have a right not to pay more for a service than we are willing to pay for it.
Indeed, the real inalienable right assaulted by the Senate’s reform bill is the right to contract, or more exactly the right not to contract. A movement is afoot in Arizona to amend the state constitution to explicitly ensure that no citizen is penalized for privately procuring health care or refusing to procure health insurance or care. George Will, among others, has suggested that passage of similar legislation could touch off a new round of federalism litigation in the event congress and the President are successful in passing the takeover legislation. Sadly, I doubt such a measure could ever get through the general assembly to make it onto a ballot here in Rhode Island.

Show your support for Anchor Rising with a 25-cent-per-day subscription.