When all else fails, claim discrimination!

The idea of health care as a constitutional right has already been debunked. But if you thought that was a stretch, you might be shocked, or perhaps offended, by the newest distracting, exploitive position of some on the left – health care as a civil right. Some, like Jonathan Alter of Newsweek, believe that the left is losing the fight over health care not because the President fudges facts every time he speaks, not because town hall protesters know more about the legislation than their representatives and not because Americans don’t want the government involved in their medical decisions, but because the left has failed to frame the debate in terms of their fallback position – discrimination.

According to Alter:

“The core principle behind health-care reform is-or should be-a combination of Social Security insurance and civil rights. Passage would end the shameful era in our nation’s history when we discriminated against people for no other reason than that they were sick. A decade from now, we will look back in wonder that we once lived in a country where half of all personal bankruptcies were caused by illness, where Americans lacked the basic security of knowing that if they lost their jobs they wouldn’t have to sell the house to pay for the medical treatments to keep them alive. We’ll look back in wonder-that is, if we pass the bill.”

House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) agrees wholeheartedly with Alter, observing of the town hall protestors, “This is all about activity trying to deny the establishment of a civil right.”

Ending discrimination against the sick? A civil right? Are proponents of this argument really equating decisions made by private insurance companies operating within a framework that imposes a string of government regulations on them, that in turn limit access to would-be consumers, with civil rights violations?

First of all, this position confuses discrimination with disparity. Civil rights protect individuals from being singled out on the basis of any number of federally-protected characteristics including race, gender and disability to name a few. But not every disparity rises to the occasion of discrimination. Some instances of discrimination, or distinguishing one person or group of people from another, are perfectly legal, particularly in private settings.

Secondly, if you take the left’s argument that failing to provide a good to people who need it amounts to a  denial of their civil right to that good, where do you draw the line? As I wrote last week, health insurance is a good, a contractual obligation by which the insurer promises to pay out on the insured’s behalf should a certain agreed-upon event occur. In exchange, the insured promises to pay the insurance company in order to maintain coverage. The insured doesn’t receive a tangible good, but a reassurance, a warranty, from the insurance company.

As a private business, like other companies, insurance companies are under no obligation to do business with anyone. When you apply for a loan for example, the creditor has every right to reject your application based on a number of factors that might signal to them that the level of risk you present to them as an investment is unacceptable. As long as their reasons are legitimate and are not based on any of the aforementioned federally-protected characteristics, they have every right to ‘discriminate’ against you. In our society, we’ve come to equate discrimination with immoral behavior, when in reality to discriminate means to treat one differently based on a number of reasons, the majority of which are legitimate.

The inability to pay for a good or service based on disparities in individuals’ economic status is the most common reason for distinguishing between consumers. I realize liberals scoff at those motivated by profits, but private industry, including insurance companies, exists solely to turn profits. The same people on the left who are believers in big-government policies that strangle insurance companies with regulations that drive up costs and limit access to insurance, then, with a straight face, turn around and argue that the system in which they’ve set the ground rules, is denying people’s civil rights. Perhaps Alter is right, that this exploitive argument could have gained the left some traction by virtue of appealing to people’s emotions. After all, that seems to be the left’s motto these days, rallying around fairness whatever the cost.

Alter’s overstretched argument confuses the cause and effect of the situation here. The cause is not discrimination, although it is the effect in some cases. The cause is that government regulations on insurance companies have deprived them of any freedom to maneuver and get creative with insurance packages that could potentially bring down costs and therefore extend insurance benefits to a greater number of people.

If liberals are serious about ending this so-called discrimination against those unable to obtain coverage, either because they’re unable to pay or because of pre-existing conditions, then why don’t they concentrate solely on a plan that zeroes in on those problems rather than transforming the entire health care system as we know it? It seems that liberals are quick to claim discrimination but will stop short of fixing it if it requires that they let go of their larger goals of centralizing power within the federal government. Indeed, this explains why House Democrats have expressed their unwillingness to vote for any bill that does not include a public option. They aren’t concerned about civil rights, but about doing anything they can to change the subject, to distract from the facts at the center of this debate because the facts aren’t on their side. This is just politics as usual from the left, quick to point the finger at those who disagree with them, as un-American, racist and now, discriminating.

*Originally published August 25, 2009 on The American Issues Project Blog, here.

Tags: capitalism, civil rights, health care debate, regulation