Health care most assuredly is NOT a human right.
L.O. FUCKING L.
While arguing whether or not Health care is a right is pointless, due to it being a question of idealogy... The argument for universal healthcare is actually quite strong.
There is an argument, actually quite popular on these forums, that life is unfair and that government has no business meddling in private affairs, etc.
While this is a coherent argument against universal healthcare, it is not one shared by most Americans. While many Americans scoff when they hear the term "Obamacare", facts are when asked about specific provisions of HC reform - Things like whether or not one should be denied insurance based on pre-existing conditions, or whether or not all people should have access to affordable healthcare... The people overwhelmingly support the idea of a universal healthcare system. They may not realize it(the partisan eye sees only what it wants to see after all), but it's true. So the argument that it's not governments business is a minority view.
As I've made clear in several threads I believe that a responsible society can set aside idealogy and balance authoritarian and libertarian views for the better of the nation as a whole... This is a case that most Americans believe that government should take action, just as I've argued that most Americans believe that government prohibition of crack/cocaine is necessary despite the undeniable fact that it denies liberty, not necessarily
essential liberty... but liberty nonetheless. But my argument is not only a moral or populist one, there are economic incentives as well...
Consider this, we're as bad as
37th in the world in terms of overall healthcare quality. Nations with socialized insurance systems(the UK is the only nation with a socialized healthcare system, in which doctors are public employees) consistently deliver as good or better healthcare than America - and they do it cheaper
and the bill is payed more equitably.
Overall, 20% of the population will account for 80% of medical costs. The sickest 1% needed, on average, more than $150,000 worth of medical care in 2010. Also, a large fraction (last I saw the number it was 15%) of the country has no insurance at all(and remember, when these people go to the emergency room YOU pay for it anyway). This creates an environment where the pool of insured are higher risk patients overall, because many people without insurance are young, etc. This obviously drives up costs, but less obvious is that life expectancy in the U.S. lags behind that of countries with universal care due to the lack of preventative care. In 2004, spending per person on healthcare per year was $6102... In Canada it was $3165, France was $3150, Germany at $3043 and Britain at $2508. Life expectancy in that same year in the U.S. was 77.5 years while life expectancy among the other four nations was 80.2, 79.6, 78.9 and 78.5 respectively.
So, nations with universal care have better coverage and they do it for a minimum savings of half the costs per person.
But that's not all! The original plan for Democrats was to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire (remember, there was a surplus when they were signed into law) and use that money to pay for HC subsidies for the individual mandate. Individuals would see no extra taxes than they would've under Clinton. So this wouldn't be costing the people much of anything overall and over time reduces the cost per person for healthcare anyway.
So you see, there is not only a strong moral argument for universal healthcare but a strong economic argument as well.
Besides, when compared to the rest of the world our new healthcare system is the most conservative of them all - everyone would still be buying health insurance from private companies (no public option). This is about as market freindly of an approach that's possible to achieve universal care - the only reason to be against it is if you dont believe in universal care... In which case, you are in the minority. Have fun spinning your wheels on the issue.
