In an video to Organizing for Action supporters — the nonprofit spun from President Obama’s re-election campaign — President Obama addressed the issues surrounding the Affordable Care Act and asked his loyal patrons to continue supporting his quest to make affordable healthcare more than just a privilege.
Though the President’s three minute address was fairly tame, it’s what he said in the last 30 seconds that raises eyebrows.
“Remember, nobody ever expected this would be easy. Change never is. It takes time and effort and dedication,” Obama said in his address. “But if we all keep doing what we can to make a difference in our communities, I’m absolutely confident that we will finish the job of making healthcare in this country not just a privilege for a fortunate few, but a right for all Americans to enjoy.”
According to the President, his goal is to make health care more than just a privilege — he wants it to be a right for all.
The U.S. Constitution outlines three inalienable rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And the Bill of Rights grants 10 more, including the First Amendment right to free speech; and then the Constitution goes on to the Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection.
Some could argue that the right to an abortion is not explicitly outlined in the Constitution, but the right to privacy — a penumbral right — grants that freedom.
But the right to health care opens up Pandora’s box in terms of what the government does and does not need to provide to its citizens.
According to the most recent data from the U.S. Census Bureau, only 15 percent of Americans are uninsured, and one may not view healthcare as an essential right.
What about the right to food? Or shelter? Or employment? Is the government obligated to provide those things to Americans?
The government already provides people with food and shelter through programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — food stamps — and the Department of Housing and Urban Development — affordable housing.
But while people receive these benefits, they also have the right to deny them. One who qualifies for food stamps may choose not to receive them, just as someone eligible for affordable housing may exercise their right to rent on their own accord.
Such an option is not afforded in the realm of health care. For those who choose not to enter into the federal health care marketplaces, a fine is enforced — $95 or 1 percent of one’s income in 2014. And while that may not seem like much of a financial loss now, the penalty only increases as time goes on, effectively forcing people to choose — pay a hefty fee or purchase health care.
While President Obama views his goal of making affordable health care a right as opposed to a privilege as progress, he forgets institutions that operate based on their religious beliefs, such as Hobby Lobby or Liberty University. Both are in litigation after refusing to provide abortion-inducing drugs covered under the employer mandate of the Affordable Care Act because it goes against their religious values.
Though these institutions have the right to freedom of religion granted by the First Amendment, that right is being infringed upon by the President’s health care law.
One right is being squandered to ensure another is granted.
Fox News host Bill O’Reilly discussed the fundamental problem with making health care a right and as opposed to a privilege on his show, “The O’Reilly Factor,” on Tuesday night.
“If health care is a constitutional right, then everything associated with good health would fall into the civil rights category. So your entire environment, house, food, clothing, transportation, mental health would all have to be paid for by the state if you could not afford it,” O’Reilly said during his “Talking Points Memo” segment. “That’s a form of communism because no country could afford those payments without seizing the assets of everybody else. It’s impossible.”
America is a long way from communism, but O’Reilly raises an important point. If health care becomes a fundamental right granted by the U.S. government, what’s next?
