What a horribly dishonest presentation.
If I don’t wish to pay for another’s health care I’m “leaving him to die?”. So his existence gives him a lien on my life?
If I don’t pay for your car am I “leaving you to walk?”
Either we believe relationships between individuals should be voluntary and mutually consensual or we don’t. By adopting the leftist view that refusal to compel one man to care for another is cruelty, you accept the
justice of single payer whether you believe it or not.
I’m willing to look at changes. How about this for a change: you pay for your own goddamned healthcare and I’ll pay for mine.
Deal?
Hank
Fine with me.
However, I think it is reasonable to point out that the American people will not stand for leaving people to suffer and die on the street because they don’t have the funds to pay for their treatment.
Ayn Rand and you obviously think it’s fine to do so, and I might even agree with you. But politically, even in a GOP primary, it’s not going to fly.
So do we recognize the fact of public unwillingness to accept such a policy, and do what we can to help develop a policy acceptable to the voters that minimizes negative side effects?
Or do we just abandon the field to those who want to minimize human freedom? Cause I can tell you right now that if we give the voters a choice only between locking people out of the ER unless they pay in advance or having a single-payer system, the SP system will be voted in.
BTW, I’d appreciate it if you’d point out what in my post was dishonest. You may disagree with it, but that doesn’t make it dishonest.