Over the last year or so, the issue concerning Healthcare has been debated from the perspective that every American has a right to it. Thought the word right means different thing to different people, we all agree that everyone has a right to healthcare.

The differing connotation of ‘having a right to healthcare’ has been the cause of many fierce debates. As I listen, one thing is very clear; the two sides are debating dissimilar perspectives. When those on the political right say people do not have a right to healthcare they mean, people do not have a Constitutional right. A constitutional right is one where the onus is on the government to provide. When those on the left say people have a right, they mean everyone is deserving of healthcare. This kind of deserving suggests that the Government has a duty to provide it—hence the argument for a Public Option.

I happen to believe and know that healthcare is a right for every American and if possible every human being. I wrote a blog previously making the argument that a right is a privilege; but none of that matters. We all have a right to healthcare.

Notwithstanding, I submit to you that whether or not people have a right to healthcare is not what the debate is about. While it is important that we understand that healthcare is a right it is utterly important that we also know how irrelevant that knowledge is. The real issue here is duty.

The concept of duty is inconspicuously implied in our debate. We tend to remove it from the debate over right, when it needs to be the centerpiece of the debate. Only in understanding this concept, can anyone grasp this very important issue.

Those on the left argue that the duty—meaning the one who pays—for healthcare should not be on the individual but on the Government, whereas those on the right believe that the duty rest on the individual. It is important for me to add; establishing whose duty it is– if you are on the right– does not mean that at certain times the government cannot help. A good example is a teenager whose parents say, we will buy you a car but it is your duty to pay for the insurance. The fact that it is the child’s duty to pay for his/her car insurance does not mean that mommy and daddy cannot help. This is what knowing whose duty it is means. I had to insert that caveat because the extremes tend to say to those on the right that limited government means absolutely no government. Those on the right are not saying absolutely no government; what they are saying is that individuals must view the duty of providing for their right –healthcare—as theirs.

When we concur that certain things are rights, it is important that we understand what we are actually saying from the perspective of law. “To assert a right is to also establish duty.  In legal terms, a right is the capacity of a person with the aid of law to require another person or persons to perform or refrain from performing a certain act.  Whereas a duty is the obligation, the law imposes on a person to perform or refrain from performing a certain act.” One can have a right to many things.  However, unless we define who is obligated to ensure that right, we are not achieving anything.  We do not need to discuss whether people have a right to healthcare.  Everyone does.  We need to discuss whose duty it is to provide us with these rights. As you continue to read I will explain why I believe that the duty of healthcare lies on the individual.

The shell game over the last nine-months is really about whose duty it is to provide healthcare.  Liberals believe that the onus to provide healthcare is on the government whereas conservatives believe that the onus is on the individual.

Before I go any further, let me add; to say that people do not have a right to healthcare is ridiculous, not to mention it sounds heartless.  This is simply because when conservatives say you do not have a right to healthcare, they mean it in terms of a constitutional provision while the hearers perceived what is said from the perspective that rich conservatives don’t believe poor people deserve access to healthcare. That is why the Florida Democrat can stand up and say that the Republican’s plan is for people not to get sick and if they do get sick, they must die quickly.

More importantly, healthcare is one of those issues where the different camps simply don’t understand each other.  Even though I have taken sides, I completely understand the regular voter’s concern. The concern of liberals is for those who cannot provide healthcare for themselves, due to their income, coupled with pre-existing conditions and sky rocketing premiums to receive coverage.

I will not bore you with the different ways in which we can accomplish this because I know most of you are well aware of the options and have made up your minds on what you believe must be done.

However, I would like to lay out the philosophies and logic that led me to my conclusion.  For some of you, upon hearing them, you may deem them an overreaction, unnecessary, pessimistic, et cetera.

Nevertheless, it is important for you, whoever you are, to understand why I oppose you.  In the end, you will at least understand that I do not oppose your ideal, which is an ideal we both share– an ideal that all Americans should have access to healthcare–but your approach in accomplishing the ideal.

The primary reason why I believe the individual is responsible for his or her healthcare is because I believe in freedom.  I know that freedom has a trite connotation but I mean it in the truest sense of the word.

In most respects, I’m libertarian.  I believe that people should live their lives the way they want to, as long as they understand the consequences of their actions.  Therefore, if people want to live their lives the way they want to, then they ought to be responsible for their own healthcare. The arguments that I layout hold the premise of lifestyle being the main contributor of health conditions. I am aware that there are many for whom it is hereditary or genetic. As such, I share in the belief that no one should ever be denied health insurance for preconditions.

It’s preposterous to think that there are individuals who salivate over becoming 18, so they can legally live their lives the way they want to, engage in whatever activities they want to engage in, eat the kinds of food they want to, refuse to exercise, promote sexual promiscuity, et cetera, et cetera.  But then they want the onus of their healthcare to be someone else’s.  That is the most absurd narcissistic thing I have ever encountered.  When the individual is not responsible for their healthcare, there is no incentive on the part of the individual to change their behavior.

The irresponsibility of the ‘60s generation is impalatable.  They ran around during their free spirit heydays, smoking as much as they wanted to, drinking as much as they wanted to, and all of the things that made the ‘60s the ’60s, while calling for freedom. Now that the chickens are coming home to roost, they don’t want to endure the consequences of their stupid actions.  They are the ones that made cigarettes cool and now many are dying from lung cancer as a result.  This is the very reason why the hippies of the past are now huge supporters of democrats.

I had to get that off my chest.

Now, let’s go back to the issue at hand.  If the government becomes responsible for our healthcare then they will have to tell us what we can and cannot do. Our health will become their obligation. Are you in doubt?

The federal government funds the roads on which we drive.  As a result, they have decided that cars must have seatbelts, that the side of the cars must have airbag, they have decided how fast we can drive, they have decided whether we can drink while driving, they have decided the mileage for manufacturers, and they’re currently working on banning texting while driving.

The reason they have given, and will continue to give if they are ever responsible for our healthcare is that those things needed to be done for the benefit and safety of the public.  Whatever it is that government becomes responsible for, they then have a duty to tell us how we must comply.

The simple truth that I have learned is, businesses seek to profit from our behaviors whereas government seek to impose on us behaviors that they deem right for us. If people are okay with government controlling their lives and telling them what they can and can’t do, then I accept if they demand that government provide them with healthcare.

However, what I find on more cases than not are people who want to live their lives the way they want to.  People who object to their parents telling them what to do, people who object to their churches telling them what to do, and in many cases, people who object to their spouses telling them what to do.  Logically, we cannot agree with two antithetical positions at the same time. The fact is, we cannot object to people telling us how to live our lives and politically argue that people should tell us how to live our lives.

More recently; the collapse of our financial system and the subsequent infusion of government funds to stabilize companies has led to an unprecedented situation. The pay czar of the Obama administration now has the authority to dictate CEO pay. I would have been the first in line to oppose such action, except that they took government money. None of us would tolerate such action under normal circumstances but because they took government money, we expect that government decide how the company is run. That is the same principle we must apply to healthcare. Eventually we will all expect that government officials tell us how to live, who gets to live and as a result we would secure tyranny for our children.

Tyranny comes gradually. It doesn’t happen overnight. For most people, the only thing that concerns them is getting a healthcare bill passed because they believe it will be in their best interest—at least that’s the way it is promoted. They are not considering the diminished freedom they will secure for their children and grandchildren.

In conclusion, if you believe as I do that you should live your life the way you want to live your life, then the only logical responsible conclusion is to provide your own healthcare.  Americans have come a far way from the generation who prided itself on being independent to a generation who promote dependence. On the other hand, if you believe the government has a right to tell you how to live your life, then I suggest you start first with letting those close to you tell you how to live your life then go ahead and have government provide for your lively-hood.

I also don’t want to disregard the fact that there are many people who are so poor that they cannot afford healthcare.  Too often, the deceivers merge the two.  They argue for one, using the example for the other.  What I mean is those who want single payer healthcare would argue for single payer healthcare, using the excuse that there are people who cannot afford healthcare.

If you believe that this healthcare debate is about providing the poor with healthcare, you’re right where they want you to be.  The healthcare debate is not about the poor.  The healthcare debate is an ideology that has been longstanding that says that if the government steps in and make people dependent on the government, the political party that is always promoting these different government intervention will benefit because people will continue to vote for them so that they can provide more and more benefits.

What we see going on with many different “government intervention” is a means to undermine our democracy. In a democracy where politicians need people to vote for them, the easiest way to create that façade of free and fair elections while having tyranny is to make the populous dependent on the politician or the party.  And healthcare, social security, all these different programs are making the American people more and more dependent on the democrat party for their well being. More dependence on government and less and less dependent on the individual is something we cannot permit as a part of our society and as a part of who we are as Americans.

Tags: Congress, Democrats, duties, health, Healthcare, Obama, Public Option, Republicans, rights

One Response to “Healthcare:Battle over Rights and Duties”

Leave a Reply