Does Free Health Care Follow From The Right To Life?
I saw “Bowling for Columbine” a long time ago. I bought it at Wal-Mart because it was on sale for like three bucks. I had purchased it during the time in my life where I had already left behind communism, but wasn’t completely a conservative. I was free-market on most of the fiscal policy issues, and only partially in line with the republicans on the social issues (I supported the death penalty, “torturing”, our presence in the middle east [I believed a war with militant Muslims was attractive for an atheist] and was pro-gun [basically all the violent stuff lol!], but was for abortion and same-sex marriage). And so while I thought the documentary was crap, an off the cuff comment, or slogan, about health care had me thinking.
There is a part in the movie where Michael Moore is in Canada glorifying the Canadian heath-care system (surprise!) and this teenager comments on the American health-care system and says something to the effect of, “I don’t understand why health-care isn’t free in America. You, like, have a right to life, ya know?” And that sort of struck me. Is one entitled to health-care from the idea that we have a right to life? I’m not sure we do. It might be more appropriate to say that there is a difference between the right to life and the right to health (if that’s even a right at all, depending on how you view positive rights and negative rights. For example, my philosophy professor believes negative rights don’t exist). The right to life is a negative right. That means, I have the right to maintain my life, and no one else has the right to take it away from me, save punishment for capital crimes. So that’s a negative right. I have a right FROM your murderous actions. I am to do you no harm. But health care is not a negative. It’s a positive. What you are forcing me to do is give you something, which is health care. I have to give up my money which has to go to the government to insure you. In this case, it can be said that you have a right TO my money, or TO health-care. That’s a positive right. Now, whether or not you have the right to health-care is not what I aim to argue for or against. All I am saying is, you cannot derive the right to health care from the principle that you have a right to life. It doesn’t follow. The two are not the same.
There is a part in the movie where Michael Moore is in Canada glorifying the Canadian heath-care system (surprise!) and this teenager comments on the American health-care system and says something to the effect of, “I don’t understand why health-care isn’t free in America. You, like, have a right to life, ya know?” And that sort of struck me. Is one entitled to health-care from the idea that we have a right to life? I’m not sure we do. It might be more appropriate to say that there is a difference between the right to life and the right to health (if that’s even a right at all, depending on how you view positive rights and negative rights. For example, my philosophy professor believes negative rights don’t exist). The right to life is a negative right. That means, I have the right to maintain my life, and no one else has the right to take it away from me, save punishment for capital crimes. So that’s a negative right. I have a right FROM your murderous actions. I am to do you no harm. But health care is not a negative. It’s a positive. What you are forcing me to do is give you something, which is health care. I have to give up my money which has to go to the government to insure you. In this case, it can be said that you have a right TO my money, or TO health-care. That’s a positive right. Now, whether or not you have the right to health-care is not what I aim to argue for or against. All I am saying is, you cannot derive the right to health care from the principle that you have a right to life. It doesn’t follow. The two are not the same.
Comments
Post a Comment