Dr. X sent an email politely asking to be taken off the listserve for the Alliance to Defend Health Care. This resulted from Dr. X receiving an email Action Alert from the Alliance today “Act Now For Human Rights — MA ConCon vote 6/14/07” about the upcoming anti-Marriage Equality ConCon vote where we urged our members to take action to support marriage equality, as it is a human right.
I spent a long time thinking about how to communicate back to this person, and I think it might be worth sharing more widely, so here it is:
Thank you for taking the time to write; I regret that you feel that way but appreciate your communication. There is actually a very thoughtful process that was undertaken leading to the Alliance being a part of the widening social movement for equal marriage rights. Our recent four year history working passionately for passage of the healthcare constitutional amendment had a two year overlap with the anti-marriage equality amendment effort. This led to an understanding of each of these issues being matters of fundamental human rights.
Marriage can be a very central and important part of a person fulfilling their full potential for human expression and for having consistent support over the course of one’s life. These things have a direct impact on one’s mental health and in turn on physical health, as the two are interconnected. Mental health is indeed a central element of health and healthcare, as is having your human rights recognized and protected.
It is a result of this understanding that it was deemed appropriate for the Alliance to inform our health justice allies about the upcoming ConCon vote and to provide a timely opportunity to take positive action to support marriage equality.
By the way, the Alliance is maturing as an organization — we are now in our 10th year! — and will be explicitly expanding our stated mission to link the work for healthcare system reform to the work for social justice. Health and healthcare, and healthcare reform for that matter, certainly do not occur in a vacuum (much as some might like to pretend they do). Calling attention to the social interconnections of health, health system organization, finance, and service delivery, as well as the relationship of health and healthcare to human rights, social justice, and our very broken political system at present, seems a very reasonable course to take under our present circumstances. Actually, it is not doing so that would be irresponsible and would likely doom us to having minimal impact on making the health system changes that are so urgently needed.
Thank you again for your reply. Sincerely and in health, Ann E Malone, RN, MSN, Director, Alliance to Defend Health Care
Please share widely!
It is not at all clear to me why health care should be considered a “right” in the same sense as free speech, free and fair elections, and due process of law– all of which are legitimate political rights.
<
p>
Health care may indeed be a necessity, but what on earth can be gained by calling it a “right”? If my property is seized by the government, or if I am detained by my government, there is a clear remedy and a means to seek it.
<
p>
What if I am denied my “right” to health care? What is the remedy, and who should provide it? Never mind the absurd lengths that such a right will be taken by the litigious– $1M per day life support? It’s my human right.
<
p>
It makes sense as a “right” only if the government is the ONLY entity that is capable of delivering, or is entitled to deliver, health care.
<
p>
The more I read your posts– and you have dented my skepticism on single payer, at least slightly–, the more I conclude that your constitutional amendment is a dreadful idea.
What if I am denied my “right” to health care?
<
p>
Your question is one reason why I would have opposed the proposed health care amendment. It was too nebulous to make much sense. On the other hand…
<
p>
Health care may indeed be a necessity, but what on earth can be gained by calling it a “right”?
<
p>
…whether or not it should be a right, health care for at least some problems should be considered at least prudent from a public health standpoint.
<
p>
Where to draw the line? I sincerely don’t know. I have gone on record here as preferring the German health care financing model to the US health care cost-shifting model.
Establishing a legal protection for such an essential safeguard of human life and dignity as access to healthcare, a shared public service that we all should pay into in a fair way, defies soundbites and one or two word definitions such as “Healthcare is a Right” to do justice to the issue.
<
p>
It is for these reasons that the drafting of the language went thru many revisions and had a team of health policy experts and constitutional lawyers along with clinicians and activists working together to create the final product which you can find below. Extensive footnotes explaining the rationale behind this approach and the chosen language can be found on the Healthcare For Massachusetts website
<
p>
And I’ll clarify for you, this approach does not argue for a “Give Everything to Everyone” model or “right”. In fact, most people don’t even a lot of the end of life care that clinicians are too often programmed to initiate or that family members push for out of guilt.
<
p>
There are many established rights within our legal system that government is not the “only entity capable of delivering or entitled to deliver”, as you say, CentralMassDad. A woman’s right to choose the course of her pregnancy and the right to an abortion is one example that comes to mind. Government certainly is not the only entity that provides that service. There is an established right to education K-12 but gov’t is clearly not the only entity that provides that service. I hope this discussion is useful.
<
p>
Because the health reform issue in the U.S. is now enjoined as a battle of epic proportions (due to the amounts of money at stake: over $2Tril in annual spending nationally and $62Bil in Massachusetts!!!), we’ve got to have a tool to help advance system reforms that put ordinary people’s needs above corporate profiteering and corporate control of our political processes. A well defined and carefully crafted constitutional amendment for on helathcare does just that.
<
p>
The amendment would provide us a way to catch up with the rest of the civilized industrialized world and to guarantee healthcare for our people, and to do it in such a way that we could finally stop spending twice as much per person as all of these other industrialized countries (we spend far more but rank 37th in health status outcomes and quality).
<
p>
<
blockquote>The Health Care Amendment
<
p>
PETITION FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT RELATIVE
TO THE PROVISION OF HEALTH INSURANCE
Official Language with Footnotes
<
p>
SECTION 1: The People of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts hereby declare it necessary and expedient to alter the Constitution by the adoption of the following Article of Amendment:
<
p>
Upon ratification of this amendment and thereafter, it shall be the obligation and duty(1) of the Legislature and executive officials, on behalf of the Commonwealth, to enact and implement such laws, subject to approval by the voters at a statewide election(2), as will ensure that no Massachusetts resident lacks(3) comprehensive(4), affordable(5) and equitably financed(6) health insurance(7) coverage for all medically necessary(8) preventive, acute and chronic health care and mental health care services, prescription drugs and devices(9).