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.
I certainly don’t have a solution. All I said was perhaps we should start looking at it as something the govt should be providing. I would imagine there would have to be some major changes in how people look at all aspects of the medical business world, to start with. Unfortunately, I don’t see that happening in my lifetime.
If the government provides health care, rest assured, it will be rationed, and also, it would become an open door for government to be involved in EVERY aspect of our lives.
You can kiss our “Free Republic” good-bye.
I’m sure the future holds lots of change.
For a conservative, what you're advocating ISN'T AN OPTION.
Who do you mean by "we?" No conservative would even begin to entertain the NOTION of government-provided health care.
I'll enlighten you right now: Your views on this one issue brand you as a socialist. You need to find a like-minded group of on-line communists with which you can plot to take over the world.
You've been a member here for ten years. There's no way you're so stupid that you don't know the difference between conservative and socialist viewpoints on major political issues. Who do you think you're kidding?
The solution is to cut out the middleman.
Doctors should be free to contract with people on a retainer basis directly without intermediary insurance, and consumers should be free to choose any firm they wish.
For a set price, you could contract the firm to provide a certain level of service, i.e., priority, level of care provided. You could pay for bare bones level, or for bigger care, depending on what you want to pay for.
You could even finance the fees, pay in monthly installments, etc.
Firms would compete with each other for business, so that would keep prices down. It won’t be tied to employment, so that’s another big plus, it’s just a simple transaction between a producer and a consumer.
That’s the way it should be.
Perhaps not in the immediate future, but I think eventually it will be.
Times and thinking change.
I have no desire to either plot, or take over anything, much less the world.
Maybe, I just don’t feel like listing a bunch of things, just to have you pick them apart. If you want answers, give me a list, and I’ll tell you how I think on the issue.
And the exorbitant prices charged by hospital and medical equipment providers, should be reduced drastically.
“Doctors should be free to contract with people...”
.
And then those people would have a right to health care to the extent of whatever they contracted for. It would be a contract right, not a natural or unalienable or fundamental right.
If you depend on someone else to give it to you, it's not a right.
This is asinine. At no point in the future will any true conservative believe it's a good idea for the government to run health care. No conservative will ever believe money that could be spent in the private sector by citizens free to choose private health care options would be better spent by the government. No conservative wants to grow government. No conservative wants to give government more power. No conservative ever will.
It's difficult to imagine anyone thinks the way you do, stuartcr. Your viewpoint is extremely bizarre.
Times and thinking change.
Conservatives don't change the way they think about government. They want as little of it as possible. Liberals are the ones consistently pushing the envelope for change. They will not rest until the government is involved in every aspect of our lives and we have no freedoms left.
Maybe, I just don’t feel like listing a bunch of things, just to have you pick them apart. If you want answers, give me a list, and I’ll tell you how I think on the issue.
NO. You claimed to be conservative on some issues, moderate on some, liberal on others...people don't have to be one or the other, you suggested.
You're the one who made the claim to be conservative on some issues. It's up to you to show where and how you're a conservative...because so far you've merely shown yourself to be a communist.
I repeat my question: On what issues are you conservative?
Predicting the future is a valuable ability, kudos on yours.
We all have read things over the years that we remember when something jogs that memory. You must realise that this happens to many people. Be realistic, how could you expect anyone to remember the day and time, and then go back and sift through those threads. This is a tired ploy that makes you look foolish with nothing left to say.
That being said, even if I had the time to do that, this doesn’t mean enough to me to make it worth the effort. If it is so necessary for you to know where I stand on issues, let me know what they are, and I will answer.
Sorry, my bold key doesn’t appear to be working, so I can’t yell back...
that about sums it up.
“Perhaps now, when medical service costs exceed what the average person can pay, and so many people have gone into debt from medical and hospital costs, it should be considered a right.”
Pay your own way in this world or lay down in the street and die!
Don’t forget the other part of my comment...’After all, it is 2009, and what’s the use of having time pass, without things getting better?’
Stealing from workers to give health care to someone isn’t making things better.
i despise charity!!!
OK
What about a "nice to have."
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.