Is health care an entitlement, or a right?
Well, first we have to determine what we mean by “health care.” Most proponents of the ACA (or some equivalent legislation) assume it to mean “affordable health insurance,” and further assume “health insurance” means “a helping hand paying medical bills for accessing mainstream medicine.”
If that’s your definition of “heath care,” then absolutely, unequivocally, “NOT A RIGHT.”
I have a very simple test to decide if something is a “right” or an “entitlement.” Suppose we were blasted into the Stone Age tomorrow. Would it still be there? 2nd Amendment: So you’re toting stone-head spears instead of firearms; it’s still the RIGHT to bear arms. Can I still preach the Gospel of Heiki-Lunta? Yep, 1rst Amendment checks. Can I go get a CT scan? Nope, because the CT scanner doesn’t exist.
So no, being provided with high-tech diagnostics, pharmaceuticals, surgeons, or any of the trapping we associate with mainstream medicine is not a “right.”
Furthermore, “HEALTH INSURANCE” IS NOT “HEALTH CARE.” I cannot emphasize this enough. Health insurance is a ticket into a heavily-monopolized, endorsed-by-insurance subsection of of the infinitely-large body of health care knowledge that has been developed and employed by thousands of cultures through the ages. And what health care has been endorsed by insurance? Surgery, high-tech diagnostics, and pharmaceuticals. Many lower-cost, more-effective, earlier-dectection-and-treatment cures of medical conditions are COMPLETELY SHUT OUT of the “mainstream medicine” simply because they are an economic threat to Big Pharma, medical device manufacturers, and the AMA.
Did you know Ronald Reagan developed, and was cured of cancer, while President? He wasn’t treated in America. He went to Germany for a treatment that is outlawed in the United States. “Why?” do you ask? Ostensibly, such procedures haven’t passed the rigorous tests the FDA requires to prove they aren’t harmful. In truth, either no one has “championed” them for FDA testing (because they are unpatentable, and therefore, there’s no incentive to foot the cost of putting them through all the FDA’s hoops), or they’ve been subjected to a standard many times that of “conventional” (i.e. Big Pharma and friends) treatments.
Many of the arguments of advocates for “health insurance for all” trot out a sob-story about a disease progressing to a far more expensive-to-treat (or even untreatable) phase because they didn’t have the insurance to detect and treat it in early phases. It is literally inconceivable to them that they could have detected and treated it outside of mainstream medicine for what might have been less than the cost of their insurance premiums.
Meanwhile, families that have had one insurer after another drop them as the Big Pharma/Big Insurance/Government triangle continuously push each other into eliminating more and more insurance plans are barely mentioned. Low-cost, high-effective treatments are attacked by industry-paid “experts,” which in turn are dropped (or never picked up in the first place) by insurers, which in turn force consumers to choose from those treatments that are profitable to the industry. Cancer is never going to be cured by mainstream medicine because it is not profitable to do so. Nor is it profitable to cure diabetes, Crohn’s disease, or dozens of other chronic ailments affecting America. Not while BigPharma can get rich selling patent-medicine treatments to a captive audience, which is what happens when there is anything approaching government-defined health insurance.
If there is a “right” to health care, it’s a right to consult the practitioner of one’s choice, using whatever method of health care is acceptable to the patient. Advocates of “health insurance for all” are, in truth, advocating against health care rights, by forcing people to spend so much money subsidizing monopolistic mainstream medicine when it may not be the best course for an individual, that they have no money left for treatments that actually work.