Posted On: June 26, 2009, 3:48 pm CDT

Posted By: poster bored

It seems to me that the debate over government (provided/paid/universal or whatever jargon is in current use) health care is based primarily on two things: 1)it is "a right" and 2) "efficiency" (usually measured by "cost") Neither of these arguments seems to justify government mandated health insurance for ALL unless you want Socialism (I know, we already have Medicare and Social Security for our senior citizens, but maybe even that should be overhauled and subject to some sort of means-test or application to prevent struggling wage earners from subsidizing some retired wealthy individuals, and we could debate socialism vs Socialism, but that's for another day) Even if we were to describe health care as a "right", and even if we were to conclude that the government would be more "efficient", are moot points: because something is "a right" does not mean that government (the taxpayers) should, or must, pay for it. I have the right to vote, but that does not mean I can, or should, bill the government (the taxpayers) for my transportation expense to get to the polls! And, making something "more efficient" (for whom?) doesn't necessarily mean "better"(again, for whom?), but even if it did, it doesn't make it right, so it's irrelevant...Hitler and the Nazi regime came up with very "efficient" ways to "deal with" those they viewed as a drain on society and to make society "better": criminals, the mentally challenged, old folks, Jews, political dissenters, and on and on - all became targets. Also, most every totalitarian government got its start by promising benevolence and coming up with very "efficient" and "fair" ways of producing and delivering goods and services, usually under the guise of making things better for everyone (even more dangerous when it starts off well-intentioned...there's a road to somewhere paved with it...)
I think we'd best be careful not to allow the false arguments of rights and efficiency to persuade us to concede long-term freedom and liberty in exchange for short-term personal comfort. Which leads me to another question: could not the term "greedy" also apply to anyone who would demand that money be taken from others to pay their (or someone else's) bills, medical or otherwise? Maybe I'm an exception, but I wouldn't dream of demanding (or the government mandating) that others (the taxpayers) bail me out - whether it be for medical bills, a mortgage, or whatever - even if my plight is "through no fault of my own". Now, I'm sympathetic to the plight of others, and I know there currently exist many programs of assistance available (government and otherwise) to which someone could APPLY. I've been very fortunate thus far, but if I fell on hard times I'd certainly be grateful for any help my family (first), friends (second) and fellow citizens (third) might be willing to offer. But the government mandating that others take from their wallets to put into mine sounds dangerous - that which helps me one day might imprison me the next!!!