Universal Health Care

Grandpa, what do people mean when they say they want Universal health care?

Grandpa just chuckled as he said;

"Universal health care, like a lot of issues, is very controversial issue debated heavily and heatedly in the country now days. Some have even proposed that it is a right that every person should possess therefore it is the responsibility of government to pay for it. Yet, when I hear that I never hear a reason as to why it should be considered as a right. I hear a lot of emotional pleas but none based on reason.

Rights are possessions. Rights recognized, also recognize that there are responsibilities on the part of the entity that possesses that right. Rights do not free the possessor of any responsibility. With responsibility come obligations to fulfill all that the responsibility entails. The Constitution recognizes that all rights belong to one of three entities, the federal government, the state government, and the people.

Rights are not determinable by affordability. Rights cannot be bought nor can they be sold. They can only be recognized as already existing and possessed or denied by law. While all rights may be considered as universally possessed, it does not require that the ability to exercise those rights must exist also. Reasons as to why a right is not or cannot be exercised can vary from person to person but each would still possess the right itself. Personal principles in regards to that right may be one reason that a person will not exercise a right but even that does not deny the fact of the possession of that right. Physical abilities may be another reason.

The big problem in the debate over health care is who possesses the rights in regards to it. Does the federal government have the right to provide Universal health care to its citizens? By my understanding of it the only answer I can give is no it does not have that right. Does the federal government have the right to enact laws requiring universal health care by some other means? I would still say that the answer is no. For the federal government to possess that right would require that the states amend the Constitution giving the federal government that right.

In recognition that the states could amend the Constitution giving the federal government that right it can be declared that the states do have the right to provide universal health care, for they cannot give up or transfer a right that they do not possess themselves. The only thing that would prevent them from that right is if the state Constitutions forbids that right to the state governments. Therefore, we can see that universal health care is not a right of the people.

The basis of this is the Constitution itself. All of the powers granted to the federal government were rights that belonged to each of the individual states in the first place. None of the powers granted were rights that belonged to the people.

What can be declared though is that the people of the medical profession have the right to provide their services within the expertise they possess and provide those services to those persons they choose to treat. We can also declare that the people have the right of choice of who they allow to treat them. We can also declare that in the provision of those services the cost of services is a cost as agreed upon by both, the provider and receiver. We can also declare that the receiver of those services has accepted the obligation of payment for those services.

The medical profession is a business just like any other business. It is not a profession of charity. Furthermore, this profession can and does provide charity just as any other profession does. The fact that it deals in the service of health does not mean it should be treated as anything less than a business. When it is not treated as a business, it will have lost its value and declare society's value on its practitioners. We see this now in those countries that already provide universal health care.

The cost we willingly pay determines the value we place on health care and its practitioners. Furthermore, it is the value that we place on health care which determines its price. This is true of any service or commodity offered. As a profession it deserves the same respect as any other business, if not more. We should not degrade or demean the profession by looking at it from a point of view of cost alone. we should respect it enough to look at from a point of view of its value to the individual and to the community. When we learn to do that Universal health care will no longer be an issue. For it is only by looking at the issue from a point of view of cost to the consumer does it appear to be a viable solution.

Now, before I finish, I might declare that I acknowledge that, as a citizen, I do not have the right of interpretation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court possesses that right. Furthermore, as a citizen, I know that I may declare disagreement with any decisions but cannot dissent and must abide by any decisions made by that Court. Thus, if anything written is contrary to the decisions of the Court it is not a contradiction to the Constitution but a disagreement to the decision made.

Does what I say make sense to you, boy?"

I just chuckled as I replied; "Most of it, yes, grandpa. The rest will come in time as I have learned already when you have tried to explain something."