In respose to dialogue over Universal Healthcare, Libertarian / Conservative Neal Boortz made the case that to take from one and provide to another in the form of taxes is "stealing." This form of redistribution (a phrase which implies a legitimate distribution to begin with) is, to Boortz, an unfair, unjust, and immoral practice.
Most libertarians and classical liberals think so. Their view of what makes one "Free" is entirely reliant upon a physical freedom which is rooted in basic economics. Money comes from work, work is a physical activity, and for our work we get stuff. That's freedom. If you take my stuff from me, you take my work; you take (most literally) my life away. It's a system that rewards laziness and punishes success, they say.
I wonder, how free is the man suffering from black lung who worked in the coal mines out of dire necessity? How free are the people for whom treatment in this country is available (but not affordable) when they cannot work? How free are people so impoverished by their birth, location, or circumstances that they most literally do not have the opportunity to escape it? Freedom is a fluid concept which is regulated by circumstances all the time. Although we'll never have an egalitarian society, we should guarantee some freedom from in addition to the freedom to. After all, isn't that the objective of the state, to provide freedom? Freedom from illness and poverty are just as necessary as freedom to pursue certain activities; in fact, they pre-empt them.
Healthcare is a right. It is a right because it enables our society to be more productive. I am not, and presume that I will never argue that a portion of our society should be able to sit around and reap the benefits of another's labor. Marx said one of the primary tenets of communism is that everyone must contribute, and I'm not even advocating communism.
Healthcare is the agenda item which will decide the 2008 election; not war. We've lost the war and the Republicans insist we stay there until they can say we didn't. The cost of the war is currently running about 3.5 Billion per day, but we can't afford Universal Healthcare? It's a good thing we aren't a bunch of socialists who have socialist medicine provided by the hardworking capitalists for those lowly, lazy commies on the bottom... else we might find that people would be trying to sneak into our country for healthcare instead of trying to bomb us!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Ahh Eric how I have missed talking to you...
Hmmm, you have definitely made the topic of Universal Health care sound wonderful, however of the countries that practice this already, why are many of their citizens coming here to get treatment? Because it doesn't work. Of the people you listed, who of them cannot walk into an emergency room and get help. Further, say we adopted Universal Healthcare you make it sound as if they will all the sudden have high quality help as soon as they pick up the phone. They won't. I definitely think our health care system has problems, but it sure is better than Universal Healthcare.
Anyway good to hear from you my friend, I love your well thought out opinions.
Rob:
I share your concern and by no means do I want the system to get worse. Your point is one that I've heard conservatives claim and one I've considered, but one I'm not convinced is true. I'd say a couple of things in response...
First, somehow I don't believe that Canada, England, France, Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, Germany, and every other western nation is prospering (even as the dollar loses value against the euro) while they stand in long lines dying... waiting for healthcare. It may have problems, but the problems are ones shared by all and thus the incentive for improvements is shared by all. I think we're being fed a line on this point.
This leads me to my second thought: I have insurance and I can't "pick up a phone and get high quality help." Now, I definitely do not support a health system with Doctors who work for the govt and get paid by the govt administering care in the same way the post office or drivers license office works (or doesn't work). However I do think a single payer plan, where the beuracracy is eliminated and the Doctors run it privately is superior to either the completely private healthcare or the completely gov't healthare.
Hey guys - not to mention the often cited statistics, which go along the lines of "our health care costs more (as represented as a per patient figure), and our people don't live as long." I agree with Eric along ethical lines - I think health care is something a society should guarantee its citizens, but there are market reasons why it's illogical to continue pumping money into the current system as well.
Rob - are there really Canadians coming down here for coverage? If so, ironically enough, I bet they go to the emergency room, sans health insurance, and end up costing the system just a little more.
Anyhoo - good to hear from you guys.
Post a Comment