Replies

Your argument would be right, and hold water, if society in general would tolerate stepping over the sick and the dead on the way to work. Are you going to say here that you believe that those who can't afford to be treated for their illnesses should be left on the side of the road to die?

Government has no responsibility to provide for affordable insurance coverage or affordable housing, or affordable food, or anything like that unless society (the voters) say so.

If you agree that the role of government in health care ends at the licensure of doctors and hospitals, that government should never pay for any health related services, and that those who either aren't willing to buy insurance or can't, should be left on the side of the road to die, then say so, and we can go on from there.

Same goes for auto insurance. If you are willing to let your daughter drive without insurance, and she gets in an accident by a driver without insurance (they say it is too expensive because government won't pass a law making it only ten dollars a year) and she is critically injured, will you agree that the hospitals and doctors shouldn't treat her because there is no money from the victim because she has no insurance. If you agree to that, you are an awful person, and not worthy of admittance into any society I would want to live in but you would be true to your argument. That argument is, I will do what I want, society be damned, and do it without government interference, and I will accept all of the consequences of my actions.

" If you agree to that, you are an awful person, and not worthy of admittance into any society I would want to live in but you would be true to your argument. "

Nonsense. That doesn’t make him a horrible person. A kook maybe, or at least someone so far out of touch with the electorate that his influence is nil. But with the public policies you suggest (and suggest are those of Arizona Pard), people would likely be more prone to avoid risky behavior, personally insure, and contribute to charities. There’s no telling if such a policy would actually be more effective, efficient and humane, but it will not be implemented in our democracy or take root in our society.

Until the 1930s, there was almost no Federal and little state and local involvement in the medical field. Most accounts of pre-Depression America would indicate that society was far more orderly than it is now. During the period when laissez faire economics and minimal state intervention were the rule, this nation experienced rapid economic growth and massive immigration from most nations of Europe.

Society is much more than the state. It is, to borrow a phrase from Edmund Burke, numerous small battalions of families, churches, businesses, fraternities, etc. During the heyday of fraternal organizations, before the Depression, many men joined such organizations for the support they provided their families, such as health benefits and burial coverage. For those who did not have the social status to be Masons, there were other, more working class oriented groups like the Odd Fellows and the Woodmen of the World, as well as ethnic oriented ones like the Sons of Norway or the Ancient Order of Hibernians. Many hospitals carry the names of their religious origins. Although the Protestant denomination or Catholic order that founded a particular hospital may no longer manage the institution, the name is reflective of their origin as non-profit, charitable institutions.

The Christian journalist, Marvin Olasky, wrote a book, The Tragedy of American Compassion, which outlines how private charity, church groups, etc., took care of the indigent and the sick with little or no government intervention. Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, we have suffered increased government takeover of this area as the voters learned that organized looting under color of law is more profitable than having to spend their own money for goods and services. It is fortunate that these statists and socialists have not entirely crippled the productivity and ingenuity of Americans. If and when that point is reached, our economy will go into an irreversible decline, as happened with Spain in the 18th Century and England in the 20th Century.

America needs a leader who will start unshackling this nation from the chains of big government and massive state intervention. It needs him sooner, not later.