Gain health care, lose freedom?

As part of the discussion about health care reform I have heard people state that "health care should be a right." I am very unclear as to what that statement means. Why would you use the word "should?" It seems to me that something either is a right, or it is not. If you feel that it "should" be a right, who will grant that right? For example, I have a right to free speech, free exercise of religion and the right to keep and bear arms, but the founders considered these rights that are endowed by our creator. So I ask again, who would grant me the "right" to health care?

Health care is a service produced by doctors and nurses. Do I have a right to these services, and who would force these doctors and nurses to provide me with service? Put another way, I have a right to free speech, but I cannot force the newspaper to publish my letter, nor can I force you, the reader, to read my words. I have a right to bear arms, but I cannot demand free guns from the government. I need to eat, but I cannot force the grocery store to give me an apple when I am hungry.

I see the confusion over "rights" here as a fundamental misunderstanding of some of the basic principles of our American liberty. The founders understood the power in private property, and considered controlling and profiting from ones own property as the means to creating prosperity for all. This principle is enshrined in our Constitution. We have come to understand property as not only physical goods, but also the fruits of our labor or intellect. This is why we consider slavery to be a great evil, since it does not allow an individual to profit from his own labor, but that profit is confiscated by another. This is also why I cannot go in the grocery store and demand an apple without offering to pay the grocer.

In a free society, we choose to PAY for what we consume. We do not take things by force, although the government can. In the discussion of health care as a "right" the discussion seems to get away from our founding principle of compensation for goods and services to one of confiscation. In the United States we have used a system of free enterprise where free people (the market) decide on the level of compensation. We have seen other countries experiment with government confiscation to decide how to allocate goods and services, and they are not free countries

As a free society, we can also decide how to treat people who can truly not afford any health care that does not involve a massive government confiscation of our private property. But we cannot say that just because I don't WANT to pay for something means you HAVE to pay for me. I'd rather drive a Mercedes-Benz, but I can only afford my Ford. Do you want to pay the difference for me? Any discussion of health care reform must include respect for the property rights of all of us.

Diane Zitkus

Mundelein