Health care is a human right. This is not just a plank in the Democratic party platform, it is an affirmed statement by the United States of America in their ratification of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.
Article 25
1. 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.
2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
End of story, right?
Well, no. It depends on how you define 'rights'.
And that's where conservatives have made a pre-emptive strike.
First, a little background.
Obviously, the first attack against my statement above is whether or not the UDHR is legitimate. I mean, doesn't the US Constitution list the human rights we possess? In a word, no.
Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
So, just because a right is not named in the constitution, like the right to medical care, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
But does this international document mean anything to us as citizens? I mean, how can this international agreement affect us domestically? That's where article VI of the constitution comes into play:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
So, in effect, yes the United States has affirmed medical care as a basic human right. So why don't we have guaranteed health care in the US?
There is a little semantic trick that conservatives and libertarians like to play with the definition of the word "right"
right 1) n. an entitlement to something, whether to concepts like justice and due process, or to ownership of property or some interest in property, real or personal. These rights include various freedoms, protection against interference with enjoyment of life and property, civil rights enjoyed by citizens such as voting and access to the courts, natural rights accepted by civilized societies, human rights to protect people throughout the world from terror, torture, barbaric practices and deprivation of civil rights and profit from their labor, and such American constitutional guarantees as the right to freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition. 2) adj. just, fair, correct. (See: civil rights, marital rights)
If you dig into this definition, you can see that the word 'right' covers different senses. There are rights that indicate freedoms, and there are rights that represent claims to certain things of value.
In dealing with rights in view of a citizen's relationship with government, this distinction can be summarized by rights which are defined by limitations on government power, and rights that are defined by obligations by the government to the people. Or, "negative" and "positive" rights, respectively.
Conservatives and libertarians have a neat rhetorical trick that they like to play with these categories. They call negative rights "rights" and they call positive rights "entitlements". Clever, huh? They've framed the argument into one between "rights" and "entitlements", not rights and rights!
RESPONSIBILITY
I think, however, there is a powerful rhetorical argument against this: The concept of 'responsibility'. Because, not only does our constitution bestow powers and limitations upon the government, it also bestows responsibilities.
Take, for example, the 5th and 6th amendments:
Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Both of these amendments (nominally defining 'rights') provide for positive rights of the citizenry--the government is compelled to provide courts of law, counsel, and Grand Juries for the accused. Besides destroying the notion that constitutional rights are somehow solely defined by the limitation of governmental power, this shows that we the people demand certain responsibilities from our government when it enacts its powers on the people.
In discussions with conservatives and libertarians, it is apparent that many of them view the constitution simply as a document that limits the power of government--that it defines mostly what government cannot do in order to preserve the liberty of its citizens. But its true purpose is made clear in the preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Securing the blessings of Liberty is just one of 6 major purposes of the document. And, other than 'forming a more perfect union' all of the other purposes set out responsibilities of the government.
When you assert to your conservative friend that health care is a right, they will, if they concur, suggest that this right is embodied in a prohibition against laws that limit the healthcare available to citizens. They will say that a right is not granted by endowing the government with more powers. But this is a specious argument. First of all, as shown above our foundation documents definitely do not define rights merely as limitations of powers. But more importantly, your friend is confusing 'powers' for responsibilities.
When the government brings its legal powers against a citizen, it has a responsibility to provide an impartial system to try the citizen. Likewise, when the government brings its powers of taxation against its citizens, the citizens have a right to demand certain responsibilities be met.
The government is responsible for ensuring justice, promoting domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and providing for the human rights it has affirmed.
Like the right to medical care.
***Disclaimer: The above is not meant to be a legal investigation of these matters--it is meant to be an exercise in 'framing' the argument. If it is sound legally, great.***