In Health Care, Democrats Pursue Socialist Redefinition of Rights
By Giles Howard on Feb 24, 2010 in Featured
Ending the Democrat’s legislative dominance last month, Massachusetts voters elected Scott Brown the 41st Republican Senator of the 111th Congress and simultaneously killed Democratic hopes for statist health care reform.
But like Lazarus from the grave, Democratic health care reform reappeared Monday as a new proposal, drafted by the White House, that combines elements of both the Senate and House bills. Although repackaged, the White House’s proposal is simply a patchwork imitation of the bills that were consistently rejected by the American people in elections and polls around the country.
Indeed, the latest data from Newsweek shows that, as of Feb. 18th, only 40 percent of registered voters support Barack Obama’s health care reform plan whereas 49 oppose it. Furthermore, an aggregation of polling data from Jan. 20th to Feb. 18th compiled by RealClearPolitics shows that, on average, Americans oppose the President’s plan by a margin of 14.3 percent.
Clearly, the Democrats’ dogged pursuit of health care reform is not about representing the will of the American people but instead it is about pursuing a radically divergent conception of rights and imposing this conception on our nation.
The proof is in how Leftists – both nationally and on our campus – dogmatically describe health care as a human right. Traditionally, American rights are individual rights to action or freedom from government intrusion: the First Amendment’s right to free speech, the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms, the Fourth Amendment’s right to privacy, etc.
But where America’s Founding rights guarantee individuals the freedom to say and do things free from onerous government intervention, the vision of rights enshrined in Democratic health care reform is a socialist construct that elevates the government above the individual and places it in charge of private industry.
For instance, in a major expansion of government power over the individual, the President’s proposal mandates that individuals purchase health insurance or pay a significant fine. In a similar expansion of government authority over private corporations, Obama proposed that the secretary of health and human services be given new authority to either approve or void insurance premium increases.
The President’s proposal to expand government power is crafted in a way to make opposition difficult; after all, it is almost impossible to defend before the American people the ability of insurance companies to raise premiums by 39 percent.
But Obama’s attempt to pass health care reform on a tidal wave of populist regulation demonstrates the inability of Democrats to pass this reform through an honest debate on its merits rather than on the perceived evils of one insurance company. Remember, as the market stands today, consumers unhappy with a premium increase can at least drop their insurance and purchase a new one or not purchase one at all whereas Obama’s proposal would create a less flexible market.
And while these instances of expanded regulations and individual mandates do demonstrate the Democrats’ socialist conception of rights, by far its most threatening conclusion is that health care is a right.
Unlike the First, Second or Fourth Amendments mentioned above, the right to health care is an imposition on other Americans because the health care has to come from somewhere. It is an assertion that Americans have the right to another individual’s labor – in this case the labor of doctors, nurses, hospital administrators etc. – regardless of whether or not they can pay for that service.
In this way, what is construed as one person’s right is in actuality another individual’s burden and not necessarily just the burden of Americans in the health care industry but the burden of every taxpayer.
Indeed, as we debate this shift in rights in this country from the rights of the individual to act to the rights of the many to receive, we would do well to consider the nation’s founding and the opinions of its Founders. Thomas Jefferson, for instance, described a good government as one “which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned….”
The fact that Obama’s proposal and the reorientation of rights at its foundation violates both of Jefferson’s requirements for good government should give us pause as we travel down this road to serfdom.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
To start I’ll say that I’m in favor of health reform but I’ll admit, you made a few good points in your article (such as your mention of health care rights forcing burdens onto doctors, etc). One thing that bothered me in particular is that it seems an argument against reform is that in the current system, young and healthy people can opt out of health care and save the money. While this is true and I’m sure is practiced to a fair degree, I don’t think anyone is glad to be off health insurance. Even a young healthy student such as myself is better off having a safety net in case of an accident. It’s more like the ones who are uninsured are the ones who can’t afford it.
To be fair, the health care issue is a huge problem that goes beyond government reform. Doctors are overworked and don’t give patients the time they deserve, then the angry patients turn around and sue the doctors at the drop of a hat. Lawyers get settlements for their clients and insurance costs go up. But adding more employees to take the burden off of doctors doesn’t necessarily mean less of a chance of mistakes.
Steve Pansino | Feb 24, 2010 | Reply
I just read this piece in the issue of the Pitt News in which it was published, and I feel compelled to comment, even though I expect my comments to be ignored or dismissed.
One might ask why I expect to be ignored – and the answer is simple: “ad hominem.” This piece is filled with sly attempts to frame your liberal compatriots as “socialists,” “Leftists,” and “radicals.” The tenor of this piece makes it quite clear that Mr. Howard does not care for the ideas or ideals of those who do not think as he does, and that he is most definitely not open to discussing the issues at hand.
Perhaps Mr. Howard did not intend to write in such an insulting manner. Perhaps he is open to discussing the issues. But if the rest of Mr. Howard’s writing contains similar subtle and not-so-subtle attacks on his political opponents, I have little hope.
If Mr. Howard genuinely wishes to engage in productive political discussion, I would encourage him to take more care in his writing – i.e. avoiding ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies. Otherwise, liberal readers will simply shrug our shoulders, forget what Mr. Howard wrote, and move on with our day.
Spekkio | Feb 27, 2010 | Reply
Calling individuals who seek to expand the government’s control over the economy “socialists” is not an ad hominem attack but a factual statement. Such people are also by definition “Leftists” and, since their ideas are well outside of American public opinion, I think it is also appropriate to call them “radicals.”
These are not slurs on their character but accurate political labels. I understand that most politicians don’t want to be called socialists because socialism failed almost everywhere it was tried over the last hundred years. Whether it is a desirable label or not, it is accurate just as it is accurate for someone to call me a “radical for capitalism.”
So I what I want to know is what would you have preferred I call people who seek to extend government control over the economy and what logical fallacies did my column include?
Giles Howard | Feb 27, 2010 | Reply
Mr. Howard, I am disappointed at the tenor of your response. Instead of accepting my constructive criticism of your writing style, you elected to assume a defensive posture.
You and I both know that the word “socialism” holds negative and largely inaccurate connotations in American politics, i.e. that socialism is antithetical to democracy, evil, wrong, etc. You and I also know that socialism is all too often conflated with extreme ideologies, which is just as unfair as conflating capitalism with fascism. The success of democratic socialist programs in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Japan – programs like unemployment insurance, disability insurance, retirement benefits, universal health care, etc, establish that socialism is not wholly without merit.
You surely also know that “Left” and “Right” are overly simplistic descriptions of political ideology – the work of the good folks at political-compass.org does the best job of expanding upon this point. And likewise, the word “radical” holds a distinctively negative connotation – as you acknowledge when you suggested that you yourself might be called a radical by some people’s standards.
I would suggest that you consider referring to your friends on the left as liberals or progressives in the future. I would also suggest that you take more care in expressing your disagreements with liberal / progressive policies and ideas to avoid alienating people.
Spekkio | Feb 27, 2010 | Reply
Socialism is an extreme ideology. It is an ideology whose adherents believe in central economic planning wherein the free market is set aside in favor of state control. It is in no way antithetical to democracy but it is absolutely antithetical to the American republic — a form of government founded on the right of free men and women to order their economic lives as they see fit.
I agree with you that conflating capitalism with fascism would be unfair simply because totalitarian political systems like fascism do not arise from free markets but instead from controlled ones. Hayek’s exemplary study “The Road to Serfdom” illustrates this quite thoroughly and demonstrates that totalitarian regimes are the end result of central planning.
I also disagree with you that there is any merit to socialism: socialism is a system that deprives individuals of their liberty. It places governments in control of economic decisions best made by free individuals who are free to succeed or fail.
Similarly, to suggest that I should call socialists either “liberals” or “progressives” is an attempt to hide their true nature from the American people and my readers. It is also a suggestion based on your flawed understanding of what exactly a liberal is. I, for instance, am a liberal because I believe in small government and free markets. This is the term’s true meaning before it was hijacked by big government leftists and I for one refuse to cede a word with such a rich history to a political movement that shares none of its historically great ideology.
Finally, I am unabashedly a radical for capitalism. The word doesn’t bother me because it is accurate.
Giles Howard | Feb 27, 2010 | Reply