This amount of arrogance, the sheer impardonable pretension, is bound to be popular.
Health care is not a right
Rights are things you already have which the government cannot take.
The government cannot take away your life, liberty, or property without due process*.
They can't shut you up, keep you from writing about it, or keep you from getting together with others of like mind.
You are free to print or blog all day long, but the government doesn't owe you a printing press, computer, or even a pencil.
You are free to own a firearm, but the government doesn't owe you one.
They cannot force you through their legal system without the advice of someone competent in its workings. Note that you only get the lawyer when the government has a case against you, not the other way around.
You are free to travel, but you don't get a free car.
All of these things are rights.
Health care is not a right. A fortioi, health insurance certainly is not.
But you do not have the right to the free use of someone else's labor. And lest you object that you are willing to compensate the health industry for its labor, whence cometh this compensation? From my labor. And that, you can be assured, is not yours to give away.
-----
* Unless you carelessly live in the only location where a vital strip mall can be built
Sphere: Related Content
2 comments:
Universal health care is not a right, in that you are correct, it is a responsibility society has towards itself for the well-being of all. It is no different than universal police protection or education.
You do not want to pay for my health care. I understand that. But, you will pay nonetheless for the case of drug-resistant tuberculosis you caught from eating at the restaurant where I was busing tables. The real question is how best to pay?
Loren, one of the reasons I like reading you is you make me think. Your arguments are clear and cogent. Wrong but cogent. If you are interested, this is my lengthy response.
"But, you will pay nonetheless for the case of drug-resistant tuberculosis you caught from eating at the restaurant where I was busing tables."
Indeed he will. And then Loren will sue both you and your restaurant since you are the primary cause of his misfortune. And you will end up paying Loren. And that is the way our case law has worked for 2000 years.
knightterrant, your argument is arbitrary and very easy to dismiss from multiple angles. Jimmy
Post a Comment