We have posted numerous times on this topic. The notion of HC as a right, similar to basic human rights, or even rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. At the end of the debate, much of the disagreement about how much the government needs to augment health care supply comes down to the views one holds on this very, very important topic. We posted a very detailed discussion about this a few months back and this article is worthy of a re-read, or a first time read as the case may be.

As the debate in the Senate snaked its way towards a vote this holiday season, a number of institutions and writers began to once again take up this question. Our favorite is from Reason.com by Jacob Sullum and is titled: There Ain’t No Such Thing As a Free Lumpectomy. In our opinion, regardless of where one sits on this question, the fundamental point that both sides must recognize is this (as Mr. Sullum notes):

A right to health care thus requires the government to infringe on people’s liberty rights by commandeering their talents, labor, and earnings.

This is fundamental, this is important. This makes the discussion about rights and healthcare very different from rights like those of liberty (freedom from something) and ability (freedom to do something). If HC is a right, it requires that the State intervene and mandate that someone else provide a thing or a service for another. Ponder this. Carefully. The HCR debate is far from over.