I am confused by the notion that any person or people could have a "right" to healthcare.
Healthcare, by it's nature, is a service provided by individuals to other individuals. Is there another situation in which the citizenry has an intrinsic claim to the labor of other citizens?
The nearest comparison I could envision would be law enforcement. Since the government has, as it's primary function, the duty to uphold the law, one could be said to have a "right" to law enforcement. As such, the government employs police officers. Theoretically, if a critical shortage of police officers occurred, resulting in the denial of the "right" to law enforcement, then the national guard could be deployed. If there was a lack of national guardsmen, then a draft could be instituted, and able-bodied men could be legally compelled to take up the uniform and weaponry required (presumably with some exceptions for "consciensious objectors").
So, if a right to healthcare is accepted as a responsibility of government, could areas with a shortage of doctors and nurses be subjected to a medical draft?
Police are generally forbidden from holding a strike to protest for better wages and benefits. A police strike would, of course, place the public in serious danger.
How, then would proper compensation for medical workers be determined? Theoretically, doctors and nurses could remain private citizens and bill the government whatever amount they saw fit, but such a system would fall apart quickly. Now, if medical workers become unionized government employees, they would presumably be limited in their bargaining power, since a strike of doctors would place the public, again, in serious danger.
Speaking of compensation... A move towards nationalizing health care is generally based on the assumption that health care is too expensive. Presumably, doctors and nurses would face a pay cut once they became employees of the taxpayers who felt they were overcharging for their services. Logically, the government cannot sustainably pay medical professionals as much as, or more than, they were making in the private sector if they were initially charging more than the majority of taxpayers could afford. With the profit motive reduced, logically the number of people looking to become doctors will decline. With patients split among fewer medical professionals, quality of care declines. How does the government remedy this?
How shall the government address or determine "abuse" of a government health care system? In the private sector, a hypochondriac who goes to the doctor every time he sneezes is only costing himself money. In a public system, he's a drain on the public treasury. If we limit doctor exams to "legitimate visits," don't we need a doctor exam to determine if the visit is legitimate?
It would seem that personal freedoms would rapidly come under assault. Healthy and fit taxpayers will quickly protest seeing their tax dollars spent on smokers, drinkers, drug-users, the obese, and the promiscuous. But, short of intense government surveillance, how can you be sure who doing what to harm their health?
Speaking of health in general, doesn't a right to healthcare imply a right to all basic needs? It certainly doesn't help you to have a cardiac bypass available to you if have no food or are dying of exposure. If it is to be a right, does it not also have to be a condition of citizenship, rather than employment? Or is it a right for all "workers?" If the right is available exclusively to workers, then what about the temporarily unemployed? If it covers you during periods of unemployment, why go back to work? What about the disabled? If it includes the disabled, what if someone deliberately cripples themself?
It simply seems to me that an intrinsic right to someone else's labor presents an impossible obligation unless society is reorganized into a system where everyone is compelled into a certain role and all aspects of civil life are controlled to predict and meet the needs of the citizens therein.
