The historical basis. CLICK
The legal precedent in the US. CLICK
A central and compelling reason. CLICK
Support among practitioners. CLICK
Human rights and civil rights in the USA are evolving. CLICK
Health care providers' right to select patients. CLICK
Basis for comparison to "Right to Education" CLICK
There is a "Right to Education". CLICK
Essential for effective democracy. CLICK
A moral argument appealing across the board. CLICK
Awareness of the "Right to Health Care". CLICK
The "Right to Health Care" would already have become law if it made any sense. CLICK
"Right to Health Care" is more than a remote possibility. CLICK
The relevance of included documents. CLICK
The "Right to Health Care" and UHC. CLICK

There is a historical basis for demanding the "Right to Health Care". At the present time it is recognized that every family in our country (all residents) have the right to have their children attend primary and secondary school. This right like that of the "Right to Health Care" did not originate with the founding of our republic, nor during the first decades of constitutional development. A "Right to Education" is not in the Bill of Rights.

Universal education was won state by state with the first attempts at state enactment in the 1770's. The first limited success for achieving "common education" was in Massachusetts in the late 1830's. Eventually, there came a time in our history (after most states had already enacted such legislation) when it was federally mandated that every state should provide for universal education.

Like the right to vote, the right to education was gradually recognized and legislated throughout the states. Generally, civil rights slowly evolve in the public consciousness and eventually get put into law when the populace overwhelmingly supports them. At first, they seem like radical ideas to many people and are met with vigorous resistance. However, even at our nation's founding some (Thomas Jefferson) argued vigorously as to the necessity of this right being recognized in a functioning democracy. Opposing

There is a legal precedent for considering health care a right in the US. The U.S. is a signed supporter of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. Article 25 of that document states that:

"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family,
including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."

Also the US signed the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in October 1977. This covenant recognizes "the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. Implementation of this covenat includes the creation of conditions which would assure to all medical service and medical attention in the event of sickness.

For examples of domestic US law and recognition of the "Right to Health Care" see also these answers 1 and 2. Opposing.

The core argument for the "Right to Health Care" is actually the value of human life and what it means to live together in a civilized society. It is difficult to rationally argue this core value to non-believers, but such belief is central to many of our democratic institutions. In this way appreciation for what it means to be human has been extended dozens of time in our nation's history (abolition of slavery, 40 hour work week, child labor laws etc.). Eventually it will be possible to convince the citizens of this nation also with regard to health care. Then, the necessary political decision will be taken, even if against wealthy opposition.

Few opponents of the "Right to Health Care" actually make the argument that citizens should be left to die like "dogs on the street" when sick, debilitated or elderly, solely because they lack the good fortune of having been able to save adequately for health care. Admittedly, some of our opponents do make this argument even face to face (notably strict "libertarians"). These same people would rapidly abandon this belief should their spouse or child become the unfortunate one and have no other recourse for saving a love one's life. Usually they seem to be operating under the false belief that no one gets sick who does not bring it on themself and no one is caught between jobs (insurance policies) who has taken the responsibility for a well-directed career. This is either dumb or ignorant given the facts of the case (look at who the uninsured are). Opposing

Many if not most health care professionals agree that everyone in the United States should have access to regular and appropriate health care. This is borne out by the lists of endorsing professional organizations listed at the websites of the 20 or so state UHC organizations. Note that by numbers nursing associations typically have the largest memberships and represent the health care workers most directly and constantly involved with patients.

Furthermore, even the most conservative of health professional organizations, namely the AMA, has recently passed the resolution recognizing that " A physician shall support access to medical care for all" This was adopted by the AMA House of Delegates June 17, 2001. Admittedly, the AMA has continually backtracked on their professed commitment.

The main objection of the more conservative health professional organizations has been to the word "right".   These organizations like to claim that they are "the advocates for patients" and for the idea that "all people should have access". At the same time the AMA and many of the state Medical Societies adamantly resist the idea that health care is a "right". How is this to be understood?

The AMA and state medical societies have argued that they don't want health care to be a "right" - something any patient can demand when they show up at a clinic. In fact, any right of refusal physicians may have now is extremely limited by individual state law (especially in the context of historical segregation and current racial disparities in care). Acknowledging the right to primary and secondary education did not result in private schools having to accept every applicant, regardless of ability to pay or academic preparation.     Opposing

Most current political figures both in the USA and throughout the world had adopted the position by the late 20th century that human rights are becoming increasingly recognized, well-defined. And that the list of internationally accepted (including by the US) have been expanding. It was actually just after World War II, in response to multiple horrors that "human rights" was given a definition and mandate for action by the USA and its allies in the United Nations.

See our "Philosophy" section about the history of the concept and also its implementation and evolution in recent history. The steady evolution in internationally accepted human rights (with national recognition and acceptance as civil rights domestically in the US and other civilized nations) is a historical fact. The Rights Americans have did not end at the "Bill of Rights", nor at the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1965. See also recent documents. Opposing

Apparently for many physicians the question of the "Right to Health Care" involves fear of imagined loss of their privelege to choose patients of their liking. However, the "Right to Health Care" must be recognized so that patients can make the demand of their state governments that an avenue of access to high quality health care be allotted to them (at some clinic), no matter their annual income, or ethnic background. Patients need this right so they can defend it when it is denied or abridged.

It is illegal to refuse medical treatment, or to make treatment dependent on proving medical coverage, to any individual who presents themselves for emergency medical care at any Emergency Room, public or private, in the US. This is part of the reason why so often uninsured and underinsured show up at ERs after they are in critical condition, rather than getting timely treatment for the same ailments (at a fraction of the cost to society as a whole). Furthermore, the same charge of a "radical new idea" was leveled against primary education during the struggle for acceptance of that right. See next question. Opposing

There is a very strong basis for comparison between the "Right to Education" and the "Right to Health Care".^*1 And it is incorrect to think that the "Right to Education" was to any extent more easily accepted, or less contended than the "Right to Health Care" is today. The debate was long and hard fought in each of the 30+ states which passed such legislation prior to the involvement of the federal government.

The Democratic opposition mustered 43% of the votes in the Massachusetts legislature to oust Horace Mann and abolish his position. Two years later a similar challenge in Connecticut succeeded, costing Henry Barnard his job. The lynchpin of the movement was laws requiring property tax support for free schools, exactly as today the discussion of the "Right to Health Care" often centers around discussions of costs and taxes. [Yet how obvious is it now that our country would be far poorer without universal education?]

With regard to taxes, note that currently a full 2/3 of health spending in the USA is out of public funds (tax-based) and that those taxes are being paid by all residents -whether or not they can receive regular and medically appropriate health care. Nothing is less American than taxation without representation, that's the original battle cry of our independence. Opposing

It's true that the "Right to Education" is not in our Constitution, or Bill of Rights, but it is official federal policy to distribute funding to the states based on whether they provide primary and secondary education to all their children. And federal troops were sent into Mississippi in 1965 to protect the rights of African American children to attend quality (and desegregated) schools. There is nothing fictional about that.

If you put 100 American parents in a large room and ask them which of them believes that their children DO NOT have a right to go to primary school, you are unlikely to find a single parent who will say that there is no such right for their child. Much less would you find any parent volunteering that their state had the option of saving state funds by cutting out the third grade (declare it a rest year), or cutting out just their own child because of overcrowding. Thus the right to education is broadly accepted. How it comes into official policy, or where the law will be inscribed is not so very important. Opposing

It's correct that universal education and voting rights were argued largely on the basis of being necessary to effective democracy. Access to appropriate medical attention, mental and other health services are no less necessary to having a responsible citizenry - a citizenry that pays attention to and understands the crucial arguments of the day. How else could one hope that the people will be able to cast responsible meaningful votes.

If certain sectors of the U.S. population are allowed to suffer with an illness that is treatable or curable (for lack of appropriate insurance), how could they be considered to have the same opportunities to participate actively in the society (voting, attending public meetings, speaking to their neighbors, handing out leaflets)? Indeed they will have a difficult time thinking about anything other than how to get their needed medical treatments and provide the basic essentials to their families.

Dr. Martin Luther King, probably are nation's leading voice in civil rights generally, said that "Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and the most inhuman".^*2 So maybe its not so unlike other civil rights he dedicated his life to fighting for?

DAVID TYACK (Concluding his introduction to "School") and we quote:

Is education primarily a consumer good or common good? This book provides a context for answering that question. If Thomas Jefferson, Horace Mann and John Dewey were now to enter policy discussions on public education, they might well ask if Americans have lost their way. Democracy is about making wise collective choices, not individual consumer choices. They have never been more essential to wise self-rule than they are today.

Read more Opposing

Unfortunately, for many Americans a convincing moral argument is one which moves them based on how their own lives (or their immediate family members) are affected. Those who suffer tremendous hardship under the present system are a small easily avoided minority. And it will always be the case that those who need the most use of health care resources will be a small number within our society. However, any of us might join their ranks in a year or two - we cannot know.

Even though there are many examples of how the lack of UHC and underinsurance affect all working Americans detrimentally many people are comforted by the thought that their families are safe and beyond peril (even if the thought is based on faulty logic and pure myth). While many Americans still complain of not being convinced morally or philosophically, these same individuals don't seem to be complaining about the moral standards imposed on us presently, namely where we have insurance administrators, who are motivated purely by company profits, deciding who is to receive what kind of care, when and from whom.

The editor knows more than one physician who dedicated a lifetime to caring for patients at a major medical center and though they continue to enjoy relatively secure stable health insurance for themselves and spouse their adult children now face life hoping that they will not need care and threatened by ruin should they become seriously ill. Point is that among those of us working for our living (almost all of us) we cannot secure our futures (against lacke of access to care) unless this threat is eliminated for all of us. Opposing

The change in consciousness necessary for acknowledging the "Right to Education" was both due to insightful and persuasive leadership organizing among the workers and a convergence of circumstance. In the late 1840's many rural Americans were flocking to the new industries in the cities. The industries in the cities came to realize that they would benefit much more from workers who they could train more easily and who could organize their affairs more efficiently in the city environment. And this meant, at least, basic reading and arithmetic abilities for the common worker.

At the same time Horace Mann (notably him, but obviously many insightful leaders in various states like W.Penn and H. Barnard) were arguing that a democracy needed educated citizens, who were capable of learning about issues and electing their own representatives effectively. Mann was one of the first to argue for mandatory education for all children, which was the only way that working children from working families could be shepherded into classrooms.

Circumstances will also come together at some point for establishing the "Right to Health Care" when there is enough outcry from the general public (probably based on widespread suffering under the current system), a clear sense of unnecessary financial loss by business and the required political leadership. Opposing

This idea that all sensible work on civil rights has taken place is a position of people who do not know the history of any of our civil rights (how long the struggles continued). In 1905! the San Francisco school board decreed that school attendance of "japanese or mongolian with white children was baneful and demoralizing in the extreme". Disabled children were still being sent to schools like the "Massachusetts School for the Idiotic and Feeble-minded". By 1918 every U.S. state had compulsory primary education (some sort for all races, even though segregated). At that time 3/4 of schoolage children were actually attending school and averaging 90 days in school per year.

Even this step (compulsory primary education in all states, after federal encouragement) can be considered largely an outcome of economic conditions, resulting from U.S. involvement in and world leadership at the conclusion of World War I. This modern war had demonstrated the need for basic education among soldiers and had also accelerated the pace of industrialization and pressure for an educated workforce at home. In 1954 segregated education was struck down.

It would not be surprising at all if the struggle for universal access to health care also continues for decades before it is effectively implemented and enforced. That is all the greater argument for recognizing the "Right to Health Care" so that Americans have a basis in law for demanding that access to health care be provided for all. Opposing

It is a legitimate interpretation of the history, that it took some 200 years for the "Right to Education" to be fully recognized. With a more educated citizenry and advanced communication technologies, however, there is no reason to believe that achieving other basic rights will take equally long. There is every reason to hope based on current citizen mobilization that we will see great progress during the first decade of the 21st century.

The history of the "Right to Education" teaches us that economic and social conditions play a huge role in bringing about such change. It is easy to see that every day even the mainstream newspapers of the country carry articles about the threatened closure of our public hospitals, seniors unable to purchase needed medications, ER's diverting patients, so-called "nursing shortages" and other situations which threaten the health care of every resident in this country whether they have insurance or not. We judge that things are already pretty bad for even the middle-class, but (excepting those unfortunately ill) they haven't realized the danger in which they and their families currently live. Opposing

The documents we cite at this website do have relevance. As it happens they are all relatively modern documents, so it is unreasonable to argue that they were signed long ago and were never intended to be taken seriously. This would be especially wierd as an official government position. It does not seem at all reasonable to claim that some of the treaties and conventions, which our government signs, are signed insincerely. What would be international consequence of it being admitted that we don't really intend to stand behind every convention we sign? Why should any country take us seriously in the future? And why should any other countries feel committed to following through with their agreements to us, or to each other? Opposing

Read also our complete discussion about the legal standing of our "human rights law", its application to domestic and state law and the specific applications specifically of health and other "social and economic rights". Legal Standing

We are not certain how many countries with universal health care, have explicitly acknowldged their citizens have a "Right to Health Care". However, many of the rights enjoyed and broadly acknowledged by virtually all Americans as rights are technically matters of policy on the federal level and given various forms of legislative enactment on state levels (as the Right to Education, see answer to "comparison to Right to Education this page).

In the USA with its variation in budget stress from year to year it is necessary that the "Right to Health Care" be recognized. States must be held accountable to provide access to high quality care, as they can be and have frequently been held accountable for the provision of education to all their children. Even with this acknowledged "Right to Education" there are continuing struggles against racial disparities and inadequate funding of public schools (particularly in poorer neighborhoods). Without the right low-income families would just have to put up with whatever second-class education they were offered (without the option of struggling for its improvement). Opposing

*1 To learn more about the history of education, read the first 60 page section of "School".

*2 National Convention of the Medical Committee for Human Rights, Chicago, March 25, 1966.

Back to Discussion Central ** Browse the Opponent Responses

Proponents of the "Right to Health Care".

The historical basis. CLICK

The legal precedent in the US. CLICK

A central and compelling reason. CLICK

Support among practitioners. CLICK

Human rights and civil rights in the USA are evolving. CLICK

Health care providers' right to select patients. CLICK

Basis for comparison to "Right to Education" CLICK

There is a "Right to Education". CLICK

Essential for effective democracy. CLICK

A moral argument appealing across the board. CLICK

Awareness of the "Right to Health Care". CLICK

The "Right to Health Care" would already have become law if it made any sense. CLICK

"Right to Health Care" is more than a remote possibility. CLICK

The relevance of included documents. CLICK

The "Right to Health Care" and UHC. CLICK