.
Vince offered a different point of view on national health care the other day. Since the original post was so long ago June 11, 2010, I thought that I would just put Vince's comment up here as a new post.
There is a central point that is generally ignored by those who favor National Heath Care. Here, a maxim from the philosophy of Libertarianism is needed.
There can never be a right to health care. Any so-called right whose implementation is dependent on the seizure of money or property from one man to another can never be right. It is nothing less that inflicting slavery and tyranny upon one man from another.
To put it simply, if you come to my house carrying near lifeless, sick child in your arms, I will do my best to give what I can and seek to raise the rest from the voluntary charity of others.
But if you come with the determination to take by force, if necessary, what is needed to save that child, you are no better than a common thief and robber and should be treated accordingly.
Despite the slow poison of government interference, (i.e. Medicare and Medicaid), what is left of the free market in medicine in this country has produced the highest quality medical care in all human memory.
Problems of access can only be solved by the slow elimination of all price distortions of government granted health care and a return to the original principles of the free market.
If you scoff at what you might say as simplistic solutions, go to the Cato Institute. There you will find detail plans, showing what a true free market in medical care would look like.
Vince, March 16, 2011
Medal of Honor Tuesday: Army Sgt. Joe Hayashi
3 hours ago
I want to respond to the most basic part of this post.
ReplyDelete"There can never be a right to health care. Any so-called right whose implementation is dependent on the seizure of money or property from one man to another can never be right. It is nothing less that inflicting slavery and tyranny upon one man from another. "
It seems that this argument applies to any right that involves any cost whatsoever to the government for its enforcement. The right to a trial by jury depends upon the government maintaining a court system. That requires that the government obtain some money from somewhere. That means the government has to tax (seizure of money or property) somebody for benefit of the defendant.
The part about slavery and tyranny is the kind of hyperbole that makes discussion in the modern world very difficult.
Taxation is sometimes painful, but it is not inherently slavery and tyranny (certainly not at US levels). To call taxation slavery is to trivialize the plight of those who really are oppressed in this world. Not only that, if you throw these words around for this situation then what words will you use to describe real slavery and tyranny? You run the risk of being the little boy who cried wolf.
On the other hand, if you were to argue that government programs, like SS, that provide substantial benefits to the average citizen ought not be (and aren't) called rights, but rather entitlements, then I would agree with you.
Entitlements come from the government. Rights come from the universe or god or what have you.
Wayne, I agree with everything you have said in response to the libertarianism of Vince. I would only add that my alternative to the libertarian society would be one in which we accept responsibility for those among us who truly cannot take care of themselves (not speaking of the "entitlement-focused" middle class but of the truly poor). We do this out of Justice and, for some of us who are religious, out of love for that higher power that tells us to "love your neighbor as yourself." It would seem that the libertarians--whatever they say--tend to take care of themselves and let the "free market" take care of the neighbors.
ReplyDelete