不管今天节目的标题是什么，约翰和肯都不相信医疗保健是宪法保障的权利。然而，肯认为，这个标题有助于阐明权利的问题:鉴于我们的社会富裕，医疗保健是广泛可得的，我们的税收已经在很多方面支持了，难道每个人不应该至少得到基本的医疗保障吗?目前摆在国会面前的医疗法案并不是革命性的改变，而是对现行制度的修正。主要的变化是，虽然每个人都可以在不付现金的情况下得到治疗，但我们也都有义务购买保险。但是，正如约翰所指出的，这种义务导致了我们的权利——因为如果一个人负担不起医疗保险，这将是一种不道德的强迫。因此，政府必须在承担这一责任的同时提供负担得起的保险。但这场辩论远非直截了当地，因为，即使我们有权享受某种“基本”医疗保健，那应该是什么水平的医疗保健呢?

Laurence Baker joins the conversation, pointing out that our current system has great strengths in addition to great weaknesses. Our system has been incredibly innovative, providing very advanced healthcare to a large swath of our population. But, at the same time, many are left without insurance, unable to pay for even basic care. He also points out that the inherent quirkiness of our system is largely due to historical accidents. For example, the current employer-employee mode of insurance was stumbled onto during World War II, in which economic policies were introduced to encourage employment during the war.

Ken points out that the healthcare debate brings up some genuine issues about the nature of class in this nation. Most Americans would agree that richer peopleoughtto have more privileges than poorer, such as larger houses, more cars, etc. Yet healthcare feels somewhat different from these luxury goods. Laurence comments that one way to think about the debate is that healthcare can be similarly divided into certain categories, basic goods that everyone deserves access to and luxury goods that one ought to have to elect to pay for. Some treatments may be easy to put in one category or the other. Antibiotics seem pretty basic, whereas Botox is clearly a luxury good. But certain expensive, exploratory treatments can be difficult to deny individuals in practice, although the economics of care might dictate that they cannot be offered to everyone in the system.

• Roving Philosophical Reporter (seek to 5:40):佐伊·科内利采访了一个既没有医疗保健权利也没有特权的人。迈克尔总是觉得健康保险很重要，但是，作为波特兰的一个兼职工人，他根本负担不起私人保险。作为一个收入低于9000美元的俄勒冈居民，迈克能够通过俄勒冈州的健康计划获得保险。但是，当他的兼职工作的薪水开始稍微增加时，迈克觉得他被迫谎报收入，以便继续参加这个计划。
• Philosophical Conundrum (seek to 42:25):Brian is a well-meaning neighbor of an elderly lady, and (through a benign accident) he has come into possession of a very personal page of her diary, one in which she expresses some deeply emotional feelings about the death of her mother. What should he do? John feels that he should avoid the possibly traumatic confrontation by discreetly returning it without her knowledge. Ken disagrees, exhorting Brian to show some moral courage by returning the letter to his neighbor’s face.