Most politicians, and probably most Americans, see health care as a right. Thus, whether a person has the means to pay for medical services or not, he is nonetheless entitled to them. Let's ask ourselves a few questions about this vision.

Say a person, let's call him Harry, suffers from diabetes and he has no means to pay a laboratory for blood work, a doctor for treatment and a pharmacy for medication. Does Harry have a right to XYZ lab's and Dr. Jones' services and a prescription from a pharmacist? And, if those services are not provided without charge, should Harry be able to call for criminal sanctions against those persons for violating his rights to health care?

You say, "Williams, that would come very close to slavery if one person had the right to force someone to serve him without pay." You're right. Suppose instead of Harry being able to force a lab, doctor and pharmacy to provide services without pay, Congress uses its taxing power to take a couple of hundred dollars out of the paycheck of some American to give to Harry so that he could pay the lab, doctor and pharmacist. Would there be any difference in principle, namely forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another? There would be one important strategic difference, that of concealment. Most Americans, I would hope, would be offended by the notion of directly and visibly forcing one person to serve the purposes of another. Congress' use of the tax system to invisibly accomplish the same end is more palatable to the average American.

True rights, such as those in our Constitution, or those considered to be natural or human rights, exist simultaneously among people. That means exercise of a right by one person does not diminish those held by another. In other words, my rights to speech or travel impose no obligations on another except those of non-interference. If we apply ideas behind rights to health care to my rights to speech or travel, my free speech rights would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with an auditorium, television studio or radio station. My right to travel freely would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with airfare and hotel accommodations.

For Congress to guarantee a right to health care, or any other good or service, whether a person can afford it or not, it must diminish someone else's rights, namely their rights to their earnings. The reason is that Congress has no resources of its very own. Moreover, there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy giving them those resources. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces one to recognize that in order for government to give one American citizen a dollar, it must first, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. If one person has a right to something he did not earn, of necessity it requires that another person not have a right to something that he did earn.

To argue that people have a right that imposes obligations on another is an absurd concept. A better term for new-fangled rights to health care, decent housing and food is wishes. If we called them wishes, I would be in agreement with most other Americans for I, too, wish that everyone had adequate health care, decent housing and nutritious meals. However, if we called them human wishes, instead of human rights, there would be confusion and cognitive dissonance. The average American would cringe at the thought of government punishing one person because he refused to be pressed into making someone else's wish come true.

None of my argument is to argue against charity. Reaching into one's own pockets to assist his fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else's pockets to do so is despicable and deserves condemnation.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM
Please contact your local newspaper editor if you want to see the Walter Williams column in your hometown paper.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (3)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Bryce said:

Mr. Very good article. If the power is derived from the people, then the people can't give to the government power that they as a people don't have. If we as the people don't have the right to take from one person (stealing) and give it to another, then we can't give that power to the government. The only way the government gains that power is by ursuption and we allow them to do it. We must do all we can to bring the government back within the bounds set by the Constitution

March 10, 2010

Jack Mariano said:

response to Is Health Care a Right? Mr.Williams makes an excellent point, but he failed to address in print(I am confident that he knows this)the fact that the final solution to this problem is the human heart. In order to inject"charity" in to this equation, the good people of this country would have to be willing to shore up the cost of health care and voluntarily and willingly dig deep into their pockets and make health care a reality for those who need it. Let's pray that the spirit of the Lord will touch the hearts of his elect and make the argument of health care fall into the hands of His people. Can it happen? Maybe not in my lifetime.

March 11, 2010 | url

Catherine said:

Charity Theft by any other name is still theft, it is wrong no matter how it is sugar coated. We can encourage others to do charitable acts, when force is used it is no longer charity! Thanks Mr. Williams you always make sense!

March 27, 2010