I saw this post over at National Review's The Corner, and it rang true with me, largely because I've had this argument dozens of times before.
The idea that we have a right to health care is quite dangerous. All rights we've enshrined heretofore were things that could only be taken away from you; life, liberty, etc. Health care, like any other good or service, is something that can only be given.
If we enshrine a right to something that must be given to us, it creates an ever-dreaded slippery slope. At what point do the rights stop? and who gets to decide?
3 comments:
And now, we have Obama saying that Vets coming back from Iraq with injuries have to pay for treatment themselves. Seriously? combine that with his universal healthcare stuff, and what he's really saying is that our soldiers are the only people in the U.S. that don't deserve free healthcare. No wonder his poll numbers are dropping!
-b.
Something about this stance bothers me, and I'm not quite sure what it is. What is your reaction to someone who dies or lives a consistently lower quality of life because they cannot afford proper health care?
Some friends of our family work at a clinic in Africa that provides free care for people who would not otherwise receive it. Should they not do this and let the market sort these poor people out of the picture? I'm not sure what conclusion I am expected to arrive at after reading this article.
It seems to me that there is some direct correlation between things like rights to life and pursuit of happiness and availability of health care.
You're confusing charity (a very good thing) with government handouts (not necessarily a good thing).
It is a good thing when people freely give their money to help those in need. It is not nearly as good when the government forcibly takes that money in order to help those in need.
Post a Comment