Posted on 06/23/2009 5:14:32 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The advocates of socialized medicine have insisted for decades that health care is a right. They now feel emboldened enough to proffer the absurdity that health insurance is a right, and they do not bother to make a distinction between the two. "Health care is a right, not a privilege," proclaims Sen. Bernie Sanders in a Huffington Post op-ed calling for the nationalization of medicine. Medicine has become "a business" instead of a higher calling of selfless service, President Obama ruefully tells the American Medical Association.
A right is a political principle defining and sanctioning freedom of action in a social context. It imposes a negative obligation-the obligation to refrain from violating the rights of others-not a positive entitlement. Since government produces nothing, for the government to provide goods and services to some, it must first take them by force from others, which is a violation of their rights.
A privilege connotes a benefit conferred upon individuals or classes by virtue of some factor such as birth or social position, as opposed to merit. The criterion by which people receive medical care is payment. Medicine can only exist because its suppliers earn profits that justify their initial substantial investments of money, energy, and time. That makes medicine a business, whether anyone finds this distasteful or not.
Patients must pay for their medical care somehow. Money is obtained through effort; people receive money in exchange for productive work. Sen. Sanders' objection, then, is to people obtaining medical care because they have earned it. By advocating the redistribution of medical resources, he is seeking to elevate the needy to a privileged class. For health care to be a "right," it must be a privilege.
The economics of socialized medicine are well-known. When free medical care becomes available, hypochondriacs and system-gamers line up at the socialized medicine trough, along with genuinely sick people who seek more services than are justified for their condition. Demand overwhelms supply, and costs go up. Government then imposes price caps on medical goods and services and limits payments to providers to control the escalating costs. This attempted end run around the law of supply and demand forces the suppliers to cut back on the availability, quality, and quantity of medical care. Again, governments produce nothing. They can decree coverage or insurance for everyone, but they have no power to turn this coverage into adequate medical care. Only those who produce medical goods and services can provide them.
Knowing that Americans do not tolerate the impractical, the proponents of socialized medicine have engaged in all manner of contorted exercises lately to make the unworkable appear workable. They back up their calculations with a secret weapon: The citizen's feelings of guilt. "It's a moral issue," assert the advocates of socialized medicine. It certainly is, but not in the way they think. It is immoral to steal and coerce. Doctors are not chattel, and taxpayers are not piggy banks to be broken and raided for the next claimant in line.
The advocates of socialized medicine argue that people should not have to go into bankruptcy just because they are burdened with medical bills they cannot pay. Yes, they should. Bankruptcy does not mean death in this country. It means officially recognized insolvency, which merely puts conditions on the defaulter's financial activity for a specified amount of time into the future. Bankruptcy is a consequence of the defaulter's failure to meet legal financial obligations. The principle at work is justice, the application of cause-and-effect to human affairs.
Those who wish to insure their health have a number of proper choices: They can live safely and healthily, they can accumulate wealth or credit to pay for medical expenses, they can purchase private health insurance, they can seek employment that provides health coverage, they can seek a doctor who is willing to provide payment terms or free services, or they can rely on the charity of others. If a person fails to take any of these measures for any reason and he incurs medical expenses he cannot meet, he must enter into bankruptcy. What he may not properly do is claim that health care and health insurance are "rights" to which he is entitled at the expense of others.
Consider the full meaning of such a claim. Millions of working poor will see a portion of their meager earnings confiscated. New drugs and medical technologies will not be created when they otherwise would, because there is no economic incentive to develop or produce them. Doctors and other health care professionals will work under increasingly primitive and coercive conditions, potentially facing de-licensing, fines, and even jail time for making decisions the government deems too costly or politically out-of-favor.
Patients will see the quality, quantity, and availability of medical care evaporate. The gravely sick will be denied care and forced to face the end of their existence, because saving their lives is too costly under a system of socialized medicine. For what noble purpose will millions of people be effectively enslaved or burdened to the point of suffering or death? To preserve the FICO score, credit lines, and self-esteem of parasites.
The next time a socialized medicine advocate prattles about compassion for those who need medical care, wonder aloud where his compassion is for those whose lives would be destroyed by his scheme.
Correct, things change with time. No one would have ever expected to have a need for health insurance, now we do, and it’s accepted. In 50yrs, other things will be accepted, that we do not think possible today.
If we had a real medical free market, prices for most things would be MUCH lower. Then health "insurance" could be more like homeowners or car insurance, left to cover the costs of catastrophic healthcare needs.
Of course, many libertarians have been saying as much for a long time, but my thoughts are this, can we EVER get back to such a state? I seriously doubt it. Without the will do go back, and without the will to go fully socialist, our healthcare will continue to be a mish-mash between the two. Luckily, our healthcare is pretty damned good as it is.
#1, birth control nor “male sexual problems” are NOT real health problems. They should NEVER fall under “health insurance”.
That is part of the problem.
It’s arguable too, that “ADD” is real at all or a real “health” problem.
Prices (that “you” - the patient - we won’t get into what the workers in the industry pay) are high for many reasons:
a) Do you know how expensive it is to be in medical school? For years and years and years before you really get to make any money? They are paying off debts. Never mind the lesser prices of nursing school or chemical engineering schools.
b) Frivolous lawsuits. Doctors can be sued for just about anything now - they’ve been victimized by this tort stuff before McDonald’s and all the other “rich” places. Insurance for THAT is expensive.
c) Working to develop medicines and devices takes time, effort, ingenuity - and that is MONEY. It’s done here in the US mostly, and has been for ages. We bear the brunt of that cost, naturally.
People seem to forget not just that this is no “right” (rights DO NOT CHANGE WITH TIME; as in the old “the Founders didn’t foresee....”), but there are people WORKING and having to support themselves and others on the other side. Which is why it’s not a right. It’s not just patients who are people.
Well, good luck with that one, because this is exactly how most people do feel.
In talking with friends and neighbors about the health care, the number one theme has been: my health care is just too expensive, so other people must pay for it.
Then they generally (with a perfectly straight face) accuse the pharmaceutical companies of being greedy !
What an odd statement this is. As if, somehow, if things did not get better, we could have a stoppage of time ?
If that’s how you put it together, ok...but that makes no sense at all.
It's unnecessary to proclaim the year of your post...it's right there on the time stamp.
Understand that in 1730 progressives were saying "we must raise our awareness and be modern...this is the 18th Century."
While unnecessary, it obviously added emphasis.
If I might add:
d) Surgical procedures and techniques exist now that didn’t exist in the past and are quite expensive.
e) Technological advances have produced diagnostic equipment that have to be paid for.
Yes, it’s 2009 and plenty of things have gotten better, but those improvements aren’t free.
It didn't. It's trite.
Early socialized medicine can be traced back to 450 B.C...the progressive Athenians calling for it were arguing "these are modern times...we just signed a five-year treaty with Sparta!"
Every prominent progressive known to man has always trumpeted the late date of his wonderful "new" idea, insisting that conservatives are behind the times.
You claim to be conservative on some issues. What are they?
Must have, or you wouldn’t have responded as you did.
Since I don’t think about this, it would be easier if you would list the issues you are interested in and consider to be conservative, and I will respond accordingly as to whether I’m for or against them.
If you don't think about the areas in which you consider yourself to be conservative, how can you honestly claim to be conservative about anything?
If you don't know what conservatism is, how do you know that any of your views correspond with its tenets?
That is basically what I meant in my c) ;-)
Easily, by my actions on certain issues. I just don’t go around thinking...’am I conservative on this...am I liberal on this, etc’.
I’ve always thought I knew, perhaps I don’t. Please enlighten me.
Go back to DU you communist!
“someone will come up with a solution that works for all.”
Either pay for it or die, don’t look to me for one cent to pay for someone elses health care!
OK, sounds great!
If people can’t pay for it, then how can we as taxpayers afford it?
There have been technological advancements in many industries and the prices have come down for computers, digital cameras, etc.
The only reason the price does not come down in health care is because of government intervention and “insurance”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.