He says: "A right is something a person inerently possesses, granted by no one... a person's rights are protected by government, not provided by government." I believe this is the concept of rights springing from natural law, or what modernist libertarian people assume is their entitlement as men the equal of other men.
This idea of being the equal of other men, and that law should protect that idea, to guarantee the economically or politically weak a certain equality of social standing which is the earthly equivalent of their equal standing before God, is the central achievement of American thought. Usually, the strong make the laws, but the idea of the dignity of each man limits in America what the strong can do, using the law as an instrument of their own interests.
It has struck a lot of people, me included, that health care is a necessary piece of the dignity package. It's an individual good, which is also a social good. It's hard to be a decent man when you're sick. The rich can buy health (not in all centuries, but today they sure can), and it seems to me as natural as the right of access to a decent public education, to give everybody a fair opportunity to compete and feel well, and have some kind of chance playing against the better-born.
(Incidentally, I think the public schools are lousy, and in big cities like Pittsburgh they are super lousy, and do not give the poor an even chance to show their worth.)
In a rural society, where there is no economic activity except agriculture, a man who digs more beets is richer and justly entitled to more benefits of society than a man who digs fewer beets. Taxing away the fruits of his labor to enrich others who did not work as hard would be a social evil. However, ours is a capitalist society, and as hard as Bill Gates worked, he certainly did not dig eighty billion dollars worth of beets with his two hands. Lots of other people worked for him, and in addition to drawing a salary, they piled up wealth in his name, because he owns the products of their labor. Now, I think this is right and just, because I believe capitalism is the superior system, and is more consistent with liberty and dignity than a government-dictated economy. However, taxing away part of his wealth to benefit the lower orders of society is a whole different moral issue than taxing the superior earnings of the best beet digger. Our society is structured so that poor, working-class, and middle-class people turn their energies into ensuring the prosperity of a few. Society needs to ensure the rights and dignity of the folks near the bottom, or you will have a condition that is sometimes near slavery (except in real slavery, the master always had to feed his valuable property, and bind their wounds.)
Making sure that the people on the bottom get educated and doctored is more than social justice. It builds social capital, reduces disaffection, and holds back the tendency to make revolution.
Having mentioned slavery, it's time to turn back to the idea that rights are not granted by government, only protected by it. At one point, yes, most of our constitutional energies went into protecting the people from the depradations of government, which if not restrained might throw people in jail and seize their property for all sorts of favored political or economic parties. The original constitution did almost nothing to guarantee your freedom from the despicable acts of your fellow man. Today, we take it as our right that our neighbor not be able to pollute the water we drink, or hold people in bonded labor, or employ us in unsafe workplaces, or take advantage of us with tricky financial contracts. All of these rights, new and old, you might say, are granted by government, because without government enforcement, we would not be able to enjoy them. And, without them, there would surely be some class of people enjoying the benefits of the whole social situation, and solemnly proclaiming that this was the natural order, and not some system of "rights."
So, there you go, Max. I think health care is a universal right, because you can afford it, and because it's in your interest to do so. (However, I grant, it is really easy to screw up the delivery of health benefits.)
