What I found most interesting about this table talk was that framing the discussion surrounding health in terms of whether or not health care is a right forces the dialogue about this highly controversial topic to focus on aspects of the issue that are perhaps too often ignored in policy debate. In one sense, this debate really could be seen as boiling down to one question: Are individuals who earn more or have higher standing in the labor market more deserving of high quality health care, or should all those residing in the U.S., no matter what their economic standing, be entitled to quality health care even if it could lead to, say, longer wait times to see a doctor? I do not mean to simplify a complex issue by posing this question, but I think that this question is far too often totally ignored in political rhetoric surrounding health care in the U.S. Sometimes it can be really easy to get wrapped up in political agendas and the intricacies of different policy solutions and ultimately forget where these agendas and solutions fall along a spectrum defined by answers to the aforementioned question. Also, the fact that this question is often brushed over in policy debate may offer some insight as to why health care is such a highly debated and divisive topic. I think that the fact that certain members of the population are not able to get the healthcare they need because of their socioeconomic background really plainly challenges notions of American self-help. While it may be easier to dismiss other social policy provisions by claiming that people need to help themselves and secure a quality of life they wish to have based on their own efforts or merits, individuals cannot heal or save themselves from chronic illness; access to healthcare is directly tied to individuals’ right to life in a way that really cannot be denied or ignored.

Also, the fact that what people believe constitutes a right, or what should be defined as a right, will ultimately impact whether or not they believe healthcare is a right was something I had not considered before. Reflecting back on this discussion, I think that the discussion we had reveals the power or genius of the U.S. Constitution, and its intentional vagueness that allows it to be applied to new circumstances. While the Constitution does not guarantee a right to healthcare, it does guarantee the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Thus, when healthcare is being denied in a way that denies individuals life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness, it could certainty be said that an individual’s rights are being denied.