Posted on 09/28/2004 1:19:47 PM PDT by johnnyb325
One of the greatest dreams of American liberals is a nationalized health care system similar to the one in Canada. They argue in favor of such a system because they believe health care is a basic "right," and because they believe the current system is flawed beyond repair. As with most problems, they advocate government solutions, not private enterprise solutions. Unfortunately, the government has an abysmal record of correcting problems, and American health care would be no exception.
First, let's examine the "right to health care" claim. Obviously, there is no right to health care established in the U.S. Constitution. However, we do have a moral right to health care, some will argue. Unfortunately, those who make this argument do not understand what a "right" is.
A "right" is the ability and autonomy to perform a sovereign action. In a free society founded on the ideal of liberty, an individual has an absolute ability to perform such an action - so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of another individual. Health care is not speech: In order for you to exercise a theoretical "right" to health care, you must infringe on someone else's rights. If you have a "right" to health care, then it means you must also have the right to coerce doctors into treating you, to coerce drug companies into producing medicine and to coerce other citizens into footing your medical bill. This is Orwellian. "Freedom" for you cannot result in slavery for others. Thus the concept of a "right" to health care is an oxymoron: It involves taking away the rights of other individuals.
Surely, though, we can agree that doctors, the pharmaceutical industry and insurance companies earn excessive profits, you say. Well, that depends on what your definition of "excessive" is. Doctors literally hold the lives of their patients in their hands. How much is someone who saves lives everyday worth? The same is true of pharmaceutical companies. While it has become fashionable to condemn their profits, the fact is that these profits fund medical research, which leads to more medicines being produced, and, consequently, more lives saved. Insurance companies spread the cost of health care among many people who might not otherwise be able to afford it, and thus make health care readily available for many.
While on the topic of profits, we should examine them. The word "profit" is considered to be a dirty word by many on the political left, but why? What makes a profit bad? Nothing. On the contrary, profits are very positive. When you come to class in the morning, there is a good chance you either drive a car or ride a bus. Do you think the bus driver and the workers who built your car or the bus did so that you could get to school on time? Of course not, they did because they wanted to make money. Yet their pursuit of a profit benefited them as well as you.
Adam Smith once said, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest." As we have seen, profits and self-interest are not bad things.
Let's pretend, for a moment, that the left gets its way, and the United States adopts a universal health care system. This profit motive will effectively be removed. Doctors will then be government employees, and, as such, have far less accountability, as well as lower pay. Could we still expect the best and brightest to strive to be doctors? Probably not. More than likely, they will pursue other careers where they can make more money.
Some love to bemoan the fact that the United States is one of the few industrialized nations without a government health care system. Yet they rarely note that the United States produces disproportional amounts of the new, life-saving drugs, largely because of the profits drug companies make. Will we continue to produce these drugs if we abolish the profit motive? Not likely. Chances are, they will not be produced at all, and more people will needlessly suffer and die as a result.
When we examine countries that have embraced socialized medicine, we find long waiting lists, expansive red tape and little concern for the individual. Do you really want to be told which doctor to go to? Do you want to wait years to have necessary medical procedures performed? If so, then socialized medicine is for you.
But if you believe in individual rights, competent healthcare and sound economic policies, we must get the government out of the doctor's office.
- John Brown is a senior in political science. He can be contacted at jbrown44@utk.edu.
Ha ha. What is DU?
Do you get food and water for free and on demand?
"Because his need now comes second to the people who dont pay taxes"
Huh? Why is that? Here in socialized Spain, I, a full time worker, get the exact same medical service as a pensioner.
What do you mean?
No, but nobody gets health care for free, either. We all pay for it sooner or later.
OK, so you can argue that there are slackers who get a free ride on the nationalized system, but they're the tiny exception.
its for Dumb@$$ Underachievers. You have about as much chance of converting anyone here as a snowballs chance in Iraq, so just 'shove it' on back to loserville where you belong.
Socialized medicine CANNOT be a "right" because nobody has the right to someone else's time. Doctors cannot be forced to treat any patient in a free society, and that is exactly what the socialized medicine crowd thinks is legit. Sort of an extension of the "right to counsel".
Not to mention, when there are no profits to be made by being a doctor, what are we going to be left with in the operating rooms?
As I'm sure even Kerry knows, though he'll never admit it, the biggest problem facing our medical system is the frivolous lawsuits, like the ones exploited by John (there are two Americas, and I've been in both) Edwards.
If you don't know what I mean then you are out of your league and dont understand the US or its policies. If you're in spain you are terrorist appeasers and you have problems of your own...you should fix yours before you come and give your socialist bull$h!t opinions here. buh bye!
We really should be able to have intelligent debates without name-calling.
You're right of course, I'm getting carried away by the posts of this person whose country has capitulated to terrorsits, which is proven to be the worst way to possibly deal with them. I have no repect for that and I don't care for thier views either, which are not realistic to our situation, but which they seem to think we should adopt. I dont care to debate or discuss with terrorist appeasers but if you do then thats your call.
Churches have been taking care of those in need for 2,000 years. Maybe it's time the left did the same? Or are they incapable of doing anything without the government holding their hand?
What's wrong with you? I'm here to DEBATE with people who have different opinions to my own. I want to understand the other side, while providing my own opinions. Leave the insults out of it, or leave me alone if you can't be civil.
Overall, I find everyone here to be thoughtful and courteous. Shame about you so far, libs_kma.
And everyone: pardon my sarcastic username. It would have been much more appropriate on a knee-jerk, reactionary site than on a rational, welcoming one like this has been so far.
And that's a problem, because...? (Obviously, the completely pure form of any economic or political system is impossible to achieve and is probably undesirable.)
Cute screen name, btw. ;)
And when there are no profits to be made by being a teacher, what are we going to be left with in the classroom?
In Spain, people study to be a doctor because they *want* to be a doctor. The pay is decent, but nothing like it is in the US.
Totally false. Way back when I was in school, I used to work part-time in an ER on the NYC border and the number of people who either came in to the ER with no insurance, as well as those with Medicaid who go to the ER with every fever, sore throat and fart, was staggering.
That not only affected the hospital's survival (they were eventually "absorbed" by a large corporation -- just like that 80s classic TV show St. Elsewhere), but also the doctors who stopped accepting new patients via the ER, as they were getting stiffed left and right.
The point is that if you make health care a free ride for everyone, it'll be a *lot* more than the slackers who'll take advantage.
Liberal scum has contributed more to the discussion here than you have.
Under what scenario would there be no profit in teaching? As long as education is important, people will be willing to pay for it.
The terrorist discussion doesn't belong here. If you like, I'll be happy to take it up with you in another thread.
An old story that used o make the rounds about socialised medicine in the U.S.S.R. was that there were no abortions; a wag quipped, "That's because there's a 10-month wait."
Ok liberal scum. I'll stop the name calling, but surely, liberal scum, you dont mind that I call you liberal scum do you? :) Well liberal scum, its been intersting. have a nice day liberal scum. I'll probably not discuss anything with you again liberal scum. I just don't wish to make it a habit to talk to liberal scum. Nothing personal you understand :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.