![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Health Care as a Government Service
Aug. 25th, 2009 09:10 amSo, in yesterday's entry, I compared government provided health care to other government services, like fire and police. The more I think about it, the more I like the analogy. The idea of health care as a right, something I don't believe I ever advocated, becomes even less appealing. Here's why.
First, let's consider the practical aspects. In the US system, rights are enforced by a court. If health care is a right, you will end up with unelected judges looking at cases in isolation and driving public spending. This occasionally happens now, but I see no reason to open a gigantic can of worms by expanding rights to include health care.
Second, let's look at the more theoretical aspects. Police and fire protection are services. You are expected to pay for them, and more importantly, cooperate with the service provider. Now, no analogy is perfect, which is the definition of an analogy, but consider that "cooperation" idea for a second. Cooperation with the fire service takes various practical forms, from getting out of the way of a fire truck with its siren and lights on, to not playing with matches. Penalties for non-cooperation vary. Play with matches and burn your house down, well, sorry, Charlie, you're out of luck. Call in a false
alarm or otherwise abuse the system, more stringent penalties can apply.
Lastly, in the health care as a service model, it's very clear that people can always buy more service on their own. If you want, you can install a sprinkler system or high-end alarm in your house. Most people don't, because the default service is adequate. But the option is there.
Here's what's really important - we the taxpayers, via our elected process, get to make the decisions about our health care service. If health care is a right, then a judge gets the final call. So in the health care as a service model, if we decide, for example, non-smokers pay lower insurance rates, we can do that.
Don't get me wrong - I support the idea of health care reform. I just don't think it's a right, at least as we define "rights" in the US.
First, let's consider the practical aspects. In the US system, rights are enforced by a court. If health care is a right, you will end up with unelected judges looking at cases in isolation and driving public spending. This occasionally happens now, but I see no reason to open a gigantic can of worms by expanding rights to include health care.
Second, let's look at the more theoretical aspects. Police and fire protection are services. You are expected to pay for them, and more importantly, cooperate with the service provider. Now, no analogy is perfect, which is the definition of an analogy, but consider that "cooperation" idea for a second. Cooperation with the fire service takes various practical forms, from getting out of the way of a fire truck with its siren and lights on, to not playing with matches. Penalties for non-cooperation vary. Play with matches and burn your house down, well, sorry, Charlie, you're out of luck. Call in a false
alarm or otherwise abuse the system, more stringent penalties can apply.
Lastly, in the health care as a service model, it's very clear that people can always buy more service on their own. If you want, you can install a sprinkler system or high-end alarm in your house. Most people don't, because the default service is adequate. But the option is there.
Here's what's really important - we the taxpayers, via our elected process, get to make the decisions about our health care service. If health care is a right, then a judge gets the final call. So in the health care as a service model, if we decide, for example, non-smokers pay lower insurance rates, we can do that.
Don't get me wrong - I support the idea of health care reform. I just don't think it's a right, at least as we define "rights" in the US.
