In my view, healthcare is neither a right nor a privilege. A right to health care implies that the force of law can justifiably be used to force health care providers to deliver services regardless of cost and regardless of the opinions and circumstances of those who provide the service. In addition this usually means that taxpayers are also forced to provide the funds to pay for services provided - whether or not they would do so voluntarily or not. A privilege implies that a person seeking health care does so by permission, or at least as a less than equal partner in the relationship between patient and care giver. It is reasonable however to state that everyone has the right to SEEK health care from providers and every health care provider has the right to OFFER services. It is also reasonable to state that both sides of the relationship between provider …show more content…
There is no right to violate a right. Thus a right to health care would require that heath care providers' freedom of action in a social context is at least partially violated. There is no right to a product or service, only the right to freely seek the product or service and the right to freely offer a service or product to others in the absence of duress or coercion. The original American concept of rights - to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is authentic. It embodied the idea that individuals have the right to their own lives, the freedom to act in support of it, and to pursue happiness as each construes that idea. It was not a guarantee that you will live and be happy, only that you are free to act in support of these things, The old European concept of rights was corrupt - such as the "Divine right of kings". This concept implies that the kings does not have to act in any way, only to be born as king, and property, the services of subjects and the lives of subjects are his to use and dispose of has he see