Freedom and health
My first exposure to the idea of universal healthcare came from a Canadian friend I had in college. As an excuse, I will point out that my father was an executive for hospitals and later a senior care company, so he was not about to promote any socialist notions at home and that I am talking about the early 1990s, a time when the Internet was only just then emerging into general public use. This friend explained to me that in his country, healthcare was guaranteed, funded by taxes, with no fees at point of service.
Sounds great, right? To Americans on the right wing—among whom I include much of the Democratic Party—making sure that everyone is covered in that way is either too hard or, in the case of Republicans and libertarians, outright communism. Even the tepid attempts of Clinton and Obama to organize things so as to reduce inflation in healthcare spending have been treated as if Stalin or Mao were here to force us all into labor camps. And as if tens of thousands dying every year even with Obamacare were not enough, the COVID emergency made some basic quarantine protocols and other medical guidelines necessary, to the shrieks of rage from people who equated wearing a mask or getting a vaccine with the Holocaust.
Yes, universal healthcare would be paid for by taxes, and though it would cost much less than our current system, some people would rather pay more to get less. Yes, having to wear a mask, to limit gatherings, and to get a shot are a narrowing of one’s freedoms, though how free anyone is while dead or disabled is a worthy question, especially given how minor the medical guidelines have been. But there are two points that I see repeated over and over—namely the idea that there is an unlimited right to spread viruses and that universal healthcare would be a form of slavery—that I will address here.
I am informed by opponents of masking and vaccinations that I should be free to stay in my home, while others ought to be allowed to go out in public while taking no precautions against spreading the SARS-CoV-2 virus. As a general rule, I agree that travel is a basic right—and I am consistent with that claim, even when it comes to migrants—but said right does not, for example, include entry into private homes, nor does it imply that we may engage in any whim in every location.
To those who say that going out without a mask or a vaccination is a right, I propose a similar case: Is it my right to go about stabbing or slashing such people as I may encounter?
To avoid accusations of a faulty analogy, allow me to draw the parallels. A stabbing or slashing can be fatal, or it can cause a disabling wound, even while the victim continues to live. Or it might be merely a scratch. In any of those examples, it would be an assault with a deadly weapon, and under the laws related to self-defense throughout the United States, replying with lethal force would be generally seen as justified.
I am told that most people survive COVID infections. Very well. Surviving penetration or cutting is also something that victims can do if they receive immediate medical care. But the use of a knife is a deliberate act, while spreading viruses is natural. Also true, as far as it goes, though in this age in which the germ theory of disease is supposed to be common knowledge, it is reasonable to expect that people will understand the implications of breathing in a public space.
As I said above, I am also told that guaranteeing healthcare for all would imply the slavery of healthcare workers. How, exactly, that would be the case is not altogether clear, though part of it from time to time involves the idea that a pharmacist might have to sell a medication while having a religious objection to its existence, but the usual notion seems to be that if everyone were guaranteed healthcare, providers would be obliged to work, possibly at the jobs that they were doing ordinarily or perhaps in labor camps.
All right, let us take something else that is broadly seen as a right by the same people: gun ownership. Does the Second Amendment turn the employees of gun makers into slaves? After all, that is an enumerated right, not just something that might be the subject of a federal entitlement.
Of course it does not. What the amendment protects are the rights to own and carry personal weapons. And the likely outcome of various cases working their way up to the Supreme Court is that implied in this is the right to make or to buy such arms. There is no suggestion that we can compel anyone to become an armorer. Nor would those who enter said occupation be obliged to work without pay. Customers with the money simply have the right to acquire such personal weapons as are on the market. By the same logic, people seeking medical care would be able to receive such services as are offered by providers, and if the federal government guaranteed payment, that would not be the same thing as enslaving those professionals.
What is needed here is clarity on the concept of rights. We each have the right to do as we please within our own boundaries, but have to take into account the rights of others when we emerge into the public sphere. Just as having a gun on one’s person is not inherently a harm, while waving one around and firing rounds at random would be, spreading a pandemic virus is an attack on others. Just as exercising the right to be armed does not force anyone to become a manufacturer of arms, universal healthcare would not mean the slavery of doctors and nurses.
Consistency may be a hobgoblin, but that can be a useful pet to adopt, especially in matters of principle.