If government-supplied health insurance is a "moral obligation" rather than a "right," does that make the wait any more pleasant when the rationing comes?

Maggie Mahar, writing on the left-wing site AlterNet.org, argues her agreement and disagreement with an ER doctor who blogs under the name "Shadowfox." The doctor admits that rights are limits on government power—good—but then he calls it an entitlement. I suppose that’s an improvement, though it’s a distinction without a difference if the new term implies government spending.

Maher prefers that health care be not a "civil right" but a "human right," and even more than that, a "moral obligation," since in health care we have moved to the "do unto others" sphere. Fine and good, I suppose, but is that simply so much word play if the end game is still a government requirement that we pay taxes for health care?

The fact that something is a moral obligation does not, however, mean that it is or ought to be the province of government. According to the Ten Commandments, each of us must "honor they father and thy mother." That's a moral obligation. Does it translate into a government program? Not exactly. When it comes to ethics, the best guide is a theologian or philosopher--not the politician or bureaucrat.

So what is government's obligation? To not impose itself unnecessarily or unequally on us all--the civil rights that Mahar admits (at least in this context) to--and clear away obstacles that it has imposed which make health care more expensive.