No one should suffer needlessly or go bankrupt from a medical emergency — I think we all agree on that. The question is whether calling healthcare a 'right' actually helps solve the problem or just makes for a good bumper sticker.

Traditional rights — speech, religion, assembly, bearing arms — are negative rights. They require the government to leave you alone. They don't cost anyone anything. A 'right' to healthcare is a positive right — it requires someone else to provide you a service. That means a right to a doctor's time, a nurse's labor, a pharmaceutical company's product. Taken to its logical conclusion, it means the government can compel people to provide services, which is the opposite of freedom.

Philosophy aside, let's talk about solving the actual problem. The U.S. already spends more on healthcare than any other country — $4.5 trillion in 2022, according to CMS. Federal and state governments already pay for over 50% of all healthcare spending through Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, the VA, and ACA subsidies. About 92% of Americans have health insurance coverage.

For the remaining uninsured, expanding access doesn't require nationalizing one-sixth of the economy. Targeted solutions include: expanding Health Savings Accounts to let people save tax-free for medical expenses, allowing insurance to be sold across state lines to increase competition, implementing price transparency requirements so patients can compare costs, reforming certificate-of-need laws that restrict hospital construction, and expanding Medicaid managed care programs.

When we call something a right, we often stop thinking about trade-offs. The countries that have declared healthcare a right still ration care — they just do it through waiting lists instead of prices. The question is never whether to ration, but how. Market mechanisms, with a safety net for those truly in need, produce better outcomes than government rationing for everyone.