The opposition to the "Right to Health Care" seems to fall into
one of a few categories. Each of these (and each webpage linked below) will repeat most if not all of the objections we have listed.
LIBERTARIAN - These websites and viewpoints are the most
prolific of any on the topic of a "Right to Health Care". Libertarians do not acknowledge
any rights of this sort (not primary school education, not public libraries, nor
even firehouses and police in its pure form). Their
objections are against "entitlements", restrictions of their own
freedom. "Not to pay tax" is their key
freedom.
None of the libertarian pages or editorials mention the right to
education (its unpopular to say you are against primary school education for all
children in this country). So, they just talk about "welfare entitlements" READ
THESE OPPONENTS
MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS - These websites and viewpoints mainly focus on
"restrictions of physicians freedoms" which they say must result from
granting the "Right to Health Care" to all Americans. Somehow
they assume that granting this right will mean that any person can walk into any
clinic and demand any procedure - which is ridiculous. We have commented
in detail on this position. READ
THESE OPPONENTS
ITS A FINE IDEA BUT UNAFFORDABLE - No, these are not proponents
(although they might like people to think they are). These folks assume
that the wasteful administration, egregious profits of top executives and
general chaos of the current system cannot be replaced with a rational plan, so that the current public
expenditures will cover everyone's care. Even though per capita cost of
care for nations with UHC is covered by exactly
that much (what we spend out of taxes today).
Instead of arguing directly against the "Right to Health Care"
these opponents, attempt to circumvent arguing against the right by taking
on the financial argument against universal health care. Of course, they
have to ignore the preponderance of data to the contrary (that we are already
paying enough to have UHC). READ
THESE OPPONENTS
ITS A FINE IDEA BUT UNATTAINABLE - These folks are often very keen on
portraying themselves as "advocates of health care access" but
they don't think it can be done in the USA which is "just too individualistic" for
that. They would like you to believe that rather than attaining
universal access to care by right, we should continue fighting with our state
and federal officials public program by public program and with insurance
companies over each treatment rollback and exclusion until we attain universal
care. These are the "advocates" who preach the
"realistic road" of continuing incremental health reforms towards UHC
and being satisfied with "near Universal
Health Care".
Is it really compatible with endorsing the "Right to Health
Care" to argue that we should remain content struggling through additional decades of cutbacks and coverage
restrictions? If these "advocates" believe in this right, how
could they endorse any approach that doesn't demand everyone get covered for all
their medical needs now? What kind of right would that be if any one of us
who gets hit by enough misfortune is thrown aside to fend for themselves without
available treatment? While almost
everyone else remains covered? READ
THESE OPPONENTS
Other people argue that UHC and the "Right to Health Care" are
unattainable because the insurance lobby and other opponents wield
too much political power in Washington. While we agree about the
"too much power" the suffering working people of this country have
only two choices: 1) accept that there is no democracy and that anything not
currently favored by big moneyed interests will remain unattainable, 2) work at
challenging powerful opponents where they are weak and where popular outrage is
strong and broad. You choose for yourself and your children. READ
THESE OPPONENTS
By the way the "Right to Education" was no less strongly
opposed by influential business and aristocratic landed interests in its
day. READ
MORE about the history of the struggle for universal education
(primary/secondary) in this country.
UHCAN (the Universal Health Care Action Network) poses as the major proponent of UHC in the country, however what they actually support is continuing work on incremental health care reform. They claim that only through additional years (decades?) of "solid incremental reforms" will UHC be attained.
Project EINO and many others (including several of their own supporters) have criticized the UHCAN position, but they have persisted for years in refusing to discuss this topic (they claim that their work history alone absolves them of any responsibility to discuss strategic principles).
Dr. Donald Light argued in October of 2000 that "near-Universal health
care" was a worthy enough goal and more feasible.
