Hacker News Reader

Comment by cpursley | Hacker News Reader

> the right to health care is a basic human right

Calling healthcare a human right is implying that we have the right to take from others what we need, even if indirectly via the police-power of the state (i.e., threat of violence or actual violence if necessary). To take this further, it means we have the right to a portion of another citizens labor.

Now, don't get me wrong. Talking about what governments should provide their citizens as part of their benefits package is important, but calling healthcare a right is a stretch. None of the rights on the UN or US Bill of Rights involve coercion towards other citizens to provide said rights.

View on HN

Whenever someone says that some rivalrous resource is a 'basic human right', I have a hard time taking them seriously.

As I get older, I have mellowed a great deal, and I understand how smart people can reasonably disagree about a large number of things...but I honestly can't fathom how intelligent people can fail to grasp that you can't possibly have a 'right' to a finite, tangible resource which you yourself don't produce.

Healthcare is not a finite or tangible resource, it is a service provided by medical professionals. It isn't possible to run out of healthcare. It is possible to have a healthcare shortage, but as long as there is money to pay for running hospitals and training doctors, that won't happen. You might think that the amount of money it would take is impossibly large, but other nations provide free healthcare to 100% of their population for less money per person than we spend in the US already. If you disagree with the fundamental idea of taking money (taxes) from some people to pay for services used by others, than you may actually disagree with the entire concept of government.

> Healthcare is not a finite or tangible resource, it is a service provided by medical professionals.

Medical professionals and equipment are finite, tangible resources. No matter how capitalist or socialist your health care system, you are subject to limits on how much time, energy, and money you devote to health care.

Medical professionals and hospital rooms are absolutely finite resources. You can certainly build more, either by incentivizing their construction (capitalism) or have the state build them as part of some 5 year plan. Medical professionals are somewhat harder...we get them now by paying them handsomely...you could continue to do that, or conscript people into service. I'm not sure I'd want my heart surgeon to be a draftee..but ok.

How about donor organs? is there some infinite source of hearts and livers out there I'm unaware of?

Once you accept the fact that a given resource is rivalrous, you have to come up with some way to distribute it. Currently, that mechanism is money. If you get rid of that, then you have to replace it with _something_..whether it be algorithms, favor-economies, or central planning.

Now if you want to argue that insurance companies distort the market, then I probably agree with you (though I think there is room for interesting discussion here...). Certainly I think a single-payer solution is preferable to the current status quo, which mandates that individuals purchase insurance from private companies.

> Medical professionals are somewhat harder...we get them now by paying them handsomely...you could continue to do that, or conscript people into service. I'm not sure I'd want my heart surgeon to be a draftee..but ok.

You can also increase the supply by opening up medical schools and giving more students the chance to attempt to become doctors without needing 10s of thousands of dollars.

Article 25 of the universal declaration of human rights.

Huh, I stand corrected.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com