In a recent letter published on November 13, Lois Eisenberg contended that “health care is a right, not a privilege,” highlighting the role of federal programs such as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in establishing this principle. This assertion has sparked debate about the nature of health care entitlement in the United States. Arthur Tom, a resident of Valencia, countered Eisenberg’s view, asserting that the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee medical care as a right. He emphasized that while personal and community responsibilities to care for the less fortunate exist, these do not equate to a federal entitlement.
Tom pointed to the Constitution’s focus on protecting individual freedoms such as speech, religion, and due process, rather than mandating the provision of services. He noted that the notion of the federal government as a primary provider of essential services could lead to significant financial implications. “Our federal government is more than $30 trillion in debt,” he highlighted, indicating that this staggering figure affects budget allocations for critical areas like defense, veteran care, and infrastructure.
The discussion surrounding the ACA has been particularly contentious. Tom referenced the late Senator John McCain and his pivotal vote against the repeal of the ACA, a moment some hailed as heroic. He argued that individuals can hold differing views on the ACA without being labeled as lacking compassion, suggesting that healthy debate is essential for progress.
Health care reform remains a pressing issue in American society, yet Tom insisted that acknowledging the reality of the federal government’s limitations is crucial. He argued that while ensuring access to health care is important, it should not automatically be classified as a constitutional right or federal responsibility.
Tom stressed the significance of community involvement in addressing health care issues. He believes that families, churches, charities, and local organizations can play a vital role in supporting those in need, thus alleviating pressure on federal systems. This approach, he argues, preserves the moral obligation to assist others while respecting the financial constraints faced by the government.
As the debate continues, Tom’s perspective serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in defining health care access in the United States. While advocating for compassion and support for the underprivileged, he maintains a firm stance on the need for fiscal responsibility and constitutional clarity. The conversation surrounding health care as a right or service will likely persist, reflecting the diverse opinions that shape American values and policies.
