Medical care is not a right

In a 2008 presidential debate, Barack Obama declared that medical care is a right which every American deserves.

Well, I think it should be a right for every American. In a country as wealthy as ours, for us to have people who are going bankrupt because they can't pay their medical bills -- for my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they're saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don't have to pay her treatment, there's something fundamentally wrong about that.

In this article, Walter Williams exposes this notion for the nonsense that it is. Rights are traditionally understood to be things which one person is entitled to do which do not impose any obligation on another person, other than non-interference. In other words, my right to free speech does not diminish your rights. My right to assemble with other like-minded people does not diminish your right to do so or impose any other obligations on you.

Now, consider the "right" to medical care. In order to extend this "right" to people who cannot afford it, the federal government must pay the doctors and hospitals for their services. Contrary to popular belief, the government has no money of its own. Therefore, the government must coerce citizens -- through threats of imprisonment -- into paying for the medical care of everyone else through taxes.

Like Obama and other proponents of this bill, I wish that everyone could afford medical care. I wish that everyone could have a Corvette. I wish that everyone's every desire could be fulfilled. However, a wish is not the same as a right. We must deal with reality. People like Obama who insist that health care is a right which everyone deserves sound like insolent little brats who just want a PONY and want it NOW!!!

Now, I will address some other nonsense which politicians (including President Obama) casually toss around with impunity. Many people (including Obama in the above quote) seem to think that there is something wrong with insurance companies denying coverage for or refusing to pay for preexisting conditions. Maybe in Obama's wonderful world of free lunches and unicorns that poop Skittles, insurance companies could pay for this. However, we live in reality.

Insurance companies exist to make a profit. They are paid insurance premiums by their customers, and in exchange, they assume the risk that the customer will need medical care. Sick people are obviously a greater risk to the insurance company than healthy people, and if they are allowed to purchase a policy, they will probably pay higher insurance rates. This is no different from people with a poor driving record paying higher rates for auto insurance. Buying a health insurance policy after you are sick or injured would be like buying an auto insurance policy after you get into an accident. Insurance companies are not charities.

The dangerous idealism of the Nobel Prize

Alfred Nobel, the originator of the Nobel Prize, stated in his will that a portion of his estate should be awarded each year "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses." At first glance, Nobel's hopes for a world with greater "fraternity between nations" and "reduction of standing armies" are reasonable and good. We all look forward to a time without war. Even William Tecumseh Sherman, who made a career out of fighting wars, said that "war is hell". I cannot imagine anyone objecting to greater fraternity or brotherhood, and there can be no war without armies.

If the world were full of good-willed people with concern for their fellow man, there would be no need for civil authorities of any kind. All armies could disband. Police departments could close without risk. There would not even be a need for laws. However, Nobel's lofty rhetoric cannot stand against reality. People are inherently selfish and quarrelsome. Without some kind of civil authority to restrain them, they will impose their will on other people. This truth applies at the international level, as well as the personal level. In the absence of "standing armies", an aspiring dictator can easily take power and impose his will on other nations.

The reality of evil in the world is what makes this kind of idealism so dangerous. The unilateral disarmament promoted by President Obama could severely limit the ability of our country to defend itself from terrorists and other enemies. I am fairly certain that terrorist organizations are not willing to voluntarily disarm. People who kill civilians indiscriminately probably will not listen to moral arguments about fraternity and peace. They understand only force. For this reason, our country and its allies must project an image of strength and a reluctant willingness to fight, if necessary. This is not the message that President Obama sends with his idealistic rhetoric.